Anda di halaman 1dari 340

Crown Theological Library

si;9

.'.

v..

CROWN THEOLOGICAL

LIBRARY

HARNACK'S THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

i^eh) ^Testament ^tubies


II

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


THE SECOND SOURCE OF ST. MATTHEW AND ST. LUKE
BY

ADOLF HARNACK
PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN

TRANSLATED BY

THE REV.

J.

R.

WILKINSON, M.A.

LATE SCHOLAR OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD RECTOR OF WINFORD


;

or THE
OF ic--'?^-

UNIVERSITY

NEW YORK

PUTNAM'S SONS LONDON: WILLIAMS & NORGATE


:

G.

P.

1908

y^

'

.'>

T-'

^'

^A

'

'^

Printed by Ballantyne ^r' Co. Limited Tavistock Street, London

PREFACE
In the following pages an attempt is made to determine exactly the second source of St. Matthew and St.

Luke (Q) both


and

in regard to its extent and its contents, to estimate its value both in itself and relatively

I have been moved to to the Gospel of St. Mark. and to these investigations by Wellpublish complete " " Introduction to the First Three hausen's Gospels The attitude of opposition I am driven to (1905).

adopt towards an important result of Wellhausen's researches, does not detract from my high appreciation
of the merit of this work.

supplementary observation which I have made

may serve as an additional proof of the unity of the In St. Matthew are found about 112 words, source Q.
and in
St. Luke (without the Acts) about 261, which occur in these gospels and do not occur elsewhere in Now of these 373 words, the the New Testament.

reconstructed text of
at the most 16

i.e.

Q given on pp. 127 ff. contains 13 (12) from St. Matthew (^/3ia<TTii?f
evvoeiv,

^P^X^y
oiKTLa,

ot^arefj/

[iyKpvTTTeiv^,

iwra,

vocrcrlov,

oiKiaKog,

paiTLCeiv),

and 3
;

TrXarJ?, irapo^lg^ irapo/uLOiateiVf from St. Luke (a.'Tro/uLda-crea-Oai, ^aX-

XdvTioVj Kopa^) yet it is questionable whether three of these really belong to Q. That it is thus possible

to construct the fairly extensive text of Q without making a further demand than of 12 to 16 words upoD

187679

vi

PREFACE

and

the copious and distinctive vocabularies of St. Matthew St. Luke, is a welcome additional proof of the

distinct individuality of Q.

On

the other hand, the

variety of the stylistic, rhetorical, and poetic forms in which the discourses and sayings in Q are thus seen to

be

cast, is

no argument against

its

distinctive

unity,

but even serves to confirm our confidence in the individuality as well as in the genuineness and originality
of this source. the following investigation I have correctly defined the limits and have justly estimated the value
If in

of Q, I have only given fresh utterance to the longestablished judgment of competent scholars, though it

hoped that I have established it upon a more secure foundation than that upon which it has rested No words of mine are needed to explain hitherto. for our knowledge of the history of means this what
is

to be

And yet one can scarcely hope that there our Lord. will be an end of wild hypotheses in regard to that
The temptation to confine one's gaze to history. isolated details, and to view these as reflected in the
distorting

mirror

of

prepossession

and

prejudice,
is

without deep and reverent study of


cease.

tradition,

too

great for us to expect that these strivings will ever


I offer my hearty thanks to my friend Professor von Dobschiitz for the active and kindlv interest which he

has devoted to this undertaking of mine while passing through the press.
Berlin, 8tA December^ 1906.

it

was

A. H.

CONTENTS
Introduction
PAGE ix

CHAPTER

The Analysis and Textual Investigation OF THE NoN-MaRKAN SECTIONS COMMON TO St. Matthew and St. Luke
I.

The

sections almost verbally identical

...
.

II.

The sections where the differences are greater Appendix. The sections where the differences are very great

40
118

........
CHAPTER
II
St.

Linguistic and Historical Investigation OF the non-Markan Sections common to


St.

Matthew and

Luke

(Q)
127

L The
II. (a)

text

Substantives Vocabulary (Verbs p. 147 ff. and Adjectives, lh2 f. Prepositions, Ibl f.)
;
. ;

147
159

(b)
III.

Grammar and

style
.

The formal

characteristics of the subject-matter

163 172

IV.

The order

of the sections

V. Can

we
is

discover any trace of

in the

matter that
182

peculiar to St. Matthew or to St. Luke, or in indirect Evangelic tradition ?


.
.

vii

viii

CONTENTS
PAGE

VI.

The

essential characteristics of the contents of Q.

A
St.

comparison

of

with

the

Gospel

of

Mark

193

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

....
.

246 253

Excursus
St.

I.

St.

Matt.

xi.

25-27

(St.

Luke

x. 21, 22)

and
272

Matt.

xi. 28,

29
at ,the

Excursus II. The Yoice from Heaven (St. Luke iii. 22)

Baptism
310 315

Index to the reconstructed text of Q

INTRODUCTION
The
St.

sections which are common to St. Matthew and Luke, excluding those which they share with St. Mark, are, as is well known, very considerable both

They amount altogether Luke and twoThe researches elevenths of the text of St. Matthew.^ of very many scholars have led them to the unanimous conclusion that neither St. Matthew nor St. Luke have copied the one from the other, and that these sections
in

number and

content.

to about one-sixth of the text of St.

are thus dependent upon either one or several connnon The former alternative is generally preferred, sources.

and rightly so and yet one does not thereby conceal from oneself the possibility that it may well have been otherwise, and that in regard to many points of detail and many passages there is still room for the hypothesis of several written sources and even of depend;

In this connection a great ence upon oral tradition. number of other questions arise which cannot be
passed by.
1.

Is it

The most important are the following: not possible that after the publication of the

1 Here of course difficulties begin at once. It is not always a simple matter to determine the limits of these sections ; different opinions may be held as to the origin of the doublets which are found both in St. Matthew and St. Luke and in regard to a few
;

important sections, it must remain doubtful whether they are not mutually dependent upon a much earlier source, which is thus not identical with the main source.
iz

INTRODUCTION

gospel of St. Luke and St. Matthew the one was so much corrected from the other ^ that the task of
settling the text of the source has
difficult ?

been rendered very


use
it

2.

Did

St.

recension of

Matthew and St. Luke Q ? Or did the former use

the same

in one
?

form

Q ^ &c.) (Q \ existed in Aramaic, did one or both of the evangelists pay attention to this Aramaic original,^ and occasionally make use of it ?
(Q 1),
the latter in another
3. If

Q\

first

4. Since it is a priori probable that neither of the two evangelists quite exhausted the contents of the source, in which of them is it best reproduced both in regard to extent and arrangement? and which of

the passages that are transmitted to us by only one of 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 And is it possible that the answer to "gospel"? this question may afford us a principle by which we may decide whether doubtful sections belong or do not belong to} the source? Or, if this question cannot be answered, is it not hopeless to attempt to determine

the extent of

Q?

These problems, so numerous and of such intense importance, seem to render it so difficult to answer the 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 of (" Evang. sec. Matth. 1901 "). 2 It is quite certain that in general both used one and the same Greek translation.
St.
^

Matthew

INTRODUCTION
himself with
it.

xi

Yet, on the other hand, such scepti-

cism
of

only permissible when there is distinct proof hopelessness of all attempts to solve the But no proof of such a kind has as yet question.
is

the

It is true that Q has been much been produced. written about and investigated by Weiss, Holtzmann,

Wendt, and Wernle, and by other scholars following their lead, last of all by Wellhausen though it is devoted been has more attention much how strange has as no work Mark but St. to yet appeared which Such a work ought takes into account all the details.

in the first place to confine itself with rigorous exclusiveness to the non-Markan passages which are

common

to St. Matthew and St. Luke; to subject these to a thorough investigation from the point of view of grammar, style, and literary criticism in

a firm standgeneral, and after having thus gained If definite results may be deduced. see what to point,
such an investigation fails of its aim that shown that nothing connected or distinctive

is, if it is

from the study of the passages in question then it follows that Q vanishes as a tangible entity, indeed
disappears altogether, and accordingly that the problem of the relationship between St. Matthew and
St.

is

evolved

parts which are not covered by The necessary to be insoluble. declared St. and be discourses of would that the this consequence narratives contained in these portions of the gospels
in those

Luke

Mark

is

(whether in sections of greater or smaller extent) would have to be dealt with each by itself.

Up

settlement

to the present, however, there has been no final in of the preliminary textual question

xii

INTRODUCTION

which of the two gospels do these sections appear in more original form ? If we seek counsel among the critics we only meet with unconvincing statements, that both evangelists allowed themselves to make numerous changes and revisions of the text, while it is usually added that on the whole more trust is to be placed in St. Luke than in St. Matthew.^ One
their

seeks in vain for a proof of this thesis, in so far as its


feeble character at all permits of one, and even the question which at once suggests itself What are then

the points of view and the principles in accordance with which St. Matthew and St. Luke have respecis tively corrected the source ? propounded a single critic. The situation here is the

by scarcely same as in

the case of a dozen other important problems of the men soar away into sublime criticism of the gospels the of " the discussions
:

concerning meaning Kingdom " Son of " of God," the Man," Messiahship," &c., and " occupy themselves with investigations into the history

of religion," and with problems of genuineness, in the " " criticism (as if the critic were inhigher light of
spired with absolute knowledge of historical matters " from some secret source) ; while the " lower problems,

whose treatment involves real scavenger''s labour in which one is almost choked with dust, are passed by on the other side. Or where this is not the case, the
investigation is still never carried far enough; it breaks off prematurely, and the critic rests satisfied

with work only half done.


^

Hence the wretched plight

Wernle forms an exception. This scholar has shown that apart from some instances of severe revision the text appears in a more trustworthy form in St. Matthew. His work on Q is quite excellent
but not detailed enough.

INTRODUCTION
in

xiii

which the criticism of the gospels finds itself in and indeed has always found itself^ with the exception of the work of a few critics, and apart from the Markan problem, which has been treated with
these days,

scientific

thoroughness.

But even in the case of the Markan problem much important work remains to be accomplished by the
This wretched state of affairs is apparent above all in the case who are compelled to take their knowledge of the criticism of the New Testament at second-hand, or have condemned themof those
selves to this unassuming intellectual position. They are like reeds swaying with the blasts of the most extreme and mutually exclusive hypotheses, and find everything in this connection which is offered
*

them " very worthy of consideration." To-day they are ready to was no such person as Jesus, while yesterday they regarded Him as a neurotic visionary, shown to be such with convincing force by His own words, if only these are rightly interpreted, which words by the way have been excellently transmitted by To-morrow He has become for them an Essene, as may tradition. be proved likewise from His own words and yet the day before yesterday none of these words were His own and perhaps on the very same day it was accounted correct to regard Him as belonging to some Greek sect of esoteric Gnostics a sect which still remains to be discovered, and which with its symbols and sacraments represented a religion of a chaotic and retrograde character, nay, exercised
believe that there
; ;

a beneficial influence upon the development of culture. Or rather, He was an anarchist monk like Tolstoi or, still better, a genuine Buddhist, who had, however, come under the influence of ideas originating in ancient Babylon, Persia, Egypt, and Greece or, better still, He was the eponymous hero of the mildly revolutionary and moderately radical fourth estate in the capital of the Roman world. It is evident, forsooth, that he may possibly have been all of
; ;

these things, and may be assumed to have been one of them. If therefore one only keeps hold of all these reins, naturally with a loose hand, one is shielded from the reproach of not being up to
date, and this is more important by far than the knowledge of the facts themselves, which indeed do not so much concern us, seeing that in this twentieth century we must of course wean ourselves

from a contemptible dependence upon history in matters of

religion.

xiv

INTRODUCTION

"lower"" criticism, and remarkably little is to be found in our books on the question of the relation"The problem of the ship of Q to St. Mark. and St. Mark must literary relationship between Q
at

and needs thorough inIt is indeed most extraordinary, to use vestigation. only a mild expression, that such an investigation up to the present has never been set on foot" '' Einleitung in die drei ersten Evan(Wellhausen, The last remark is scarcely correct; s. 73). gelien,"
least

be

propounded

several

scholars

have occupied themselves with the


is

problem.
theless

But Wellhausen's astonishment


justifiable.

never-

quite

If

the

criticism

of

the

gospels had been carried on methodically, so that each scholar stood as it were upon the shoulders of his predecessor, this cardinal problem would neces-

have been thoroughly discussed long ago, the whole material for discussion would have been set in order, and the definite and final conclusion would
sarily

have been drawn. Instead of this everything is still enveloped in a cloud of uncertainty, and amid the dearth of preliminary studies of a connected and scientific character, we can easily understand how it has come to pass that Wellhausen has produced a solution of the problem which has this merit, that by its very paradox it has summoned theologians to descend from the airy heights of their critical
speculations

and to gird themselves for strenuous labour as hewers in the mines of knowledge. In the following treatise I begin by ascertaining the relatively original text of the sections which are
exclusively

common

to St.

Matthew and

St.

Luke, and

INTRODUCTION

xv

by deducing at the same time the points of view and the principles according to which each of the two evangehsts has worked that is, has edited the hypo-

thetical

common

source.

Before coming to a conclusion


I

as

to the most approximately original text of St.


St.

Matthew and

Mark,

have thoroughly worked

through the texts adopted by Blass, Wellhausen, and I others, together with the editions of older scholars.
have convinced myself anew of a fact that I had already learned at the time of my studies on the text of the Acts namely, that Blass has assigned far too great

weight to the testimony of the important Codex D with its satellites, as well as to the isolated readings of other authorities (Chrysostom !). In my opinion, even

Wellhausen goes too

far

in this direction.

Neither

can I recognise that the text of St. Luke has had the subsequent influence upon the text of St. Matthew which Blass supposes indeed, as compared with him, I
;

keep much more closely to the text of Westcott and Hort. As is well known, the sections of St. Matthew and St. Luke which concern us are of such a character
that a very considerable portion of them occurs in in the two gospels, while practically verbal similarity

another (very small) portion shows variations which are so great as to compel us to doubt whether it is
even possible to accept in their case the hypothesis of a common immediate source (vide p. v). In between lies the great mass of the remaining sections, which

show more or

less

numerous and important

variants.

The first group has the great advantage in that from it we are enabled to draw conclusions of the highest

xvi

INTRODUCTION

I have therefore divided the material probability. into three parts, and I shall first consider those sec-

tions in

which the differences between

St.

Matthew
Equipped

and

St.

Luke are comparatively very

slight.

with the results of this investigation, I shall proceed to the examination of the second group, in which I shall then, the differences are more numerous.
only after the fashion of an appendix, deal with those sections in which the difference is so great that one must seriously doubt whether they belong to Q.

They

include only one saying and two parables.

OF-T

V
CHAPTER
I

THE ANALYSIS AND THE TEXTUAL INVESTIGATION OF THE NON-MARK AN SECTIONS COMMON TO ST. MATTHEW AND ST. LUKE (Q).

St.

Matt.

iii.

7^

Vepvr^-

St.

Luke

iii.

7^

8, 9, 17.

fxara
vjuLiv

i'^iovcoi', tl<s

(pvyeiv

vireSei^ev airo rrjg


;

lueWoucrr]^
TTOLYicraTe

opyrj^

(8)

ovv

Kapirov a^iov
(9) KOI
fXYj

KapTTOvg a^LOv<i
iv eavroi'i pro-

Tt]9 /ULCTaVOLag'

S6PrjT Xiyeiv ev kavTol^'


IT are

ap^i]a6e

pa

e^^o/ULev

top 'A/5-

bably wanting
[Svvarog

paajLL'

Xeyco yap vfxiv on Svvarai 6 Oeog k toov XlOccv


TOVTcov
eyeipai rcKva

?]

tw
Se
rj

'AfipadiuL.

(10)

fjSr]

6 S'e

Kai

a^Lvt] Trpo^ TJ]v /o/^ai'

twv
ovv

SevSpcov
oei

KiTaf
fXr]

nrav

VOpOV

irOLOVV

KapiTOV
19

KoXoV^ eKKOTTTeTai Kal


TTvp
^

^dWerai.

(12)

because it is wanting in Syr. Sin., and between " fruitful and unfruitful." But St. Luke has the Syr. Sin. by itself is too weak an authority. word, and logic ought not to have the casting vote. Besides Ka\6)>
Ka\6v,

Wellhausen omits

because the contrast

lies

could easily

fall

out of the text after Kapir6v.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Tf]

OV TO TTTVOV iv
avTOv,
Koi.

X^^P^
-s

dXcopa

SiaKaOapiei rrjv avTOv Kai avva^ei

avTov (tov) SiaKaOapni


Kai crvvayayeiv (?)

TOV

CTLTOV

avTOv
\

19
If

Triv

aTToOyjKijp^

TO Se

'^\

a-)(ypov

avTOv pr. perhaps wanting, avTou sec. certain, cnro6if}Kr]v

KaTaKavcrei irvpi aa-^ea-Tio.

(avTov)

Verse 11
there and
it

= Luke iii. 16) stands also in St. Mark; ( in Q it had essentially the same form in Q

ran as follows:
eyud fxev vjmag

^airTlYw
6

vSaTi ^aiTTuQjt)

vjuLOLi

(with-

v vSaTi

efV

fxeTavoiav

out

Se

oiTLcrco

/ulov

ip-)(^6juLV09

in St.

and efV /uLCTau.), as Mark. The remain-

lar-^upoTepo?

fjiov

ecrTtVf

ou

ovK

eijuu

Uavog Ta
'

viro^rj-

ing variants in St. Luke are likewise due to the influence of the
ayicy
is

/maTa
vjULci^

/BacrTaa-aL

auro?

Markan text,

^aTTTLcreL ev TrvevjuLaTi

very doubtful.

ayi(p KOI TTvpl.

St.

The few variants are easily explained almost always Luke appears as the evangelist who has altered the
;

He has substituted the plural Kapirovg original text. for the not very logical singular ; he has replaced fixtj
favourite phrase of his) S6^t]T by lULr] ap^rjcrOe (a he has improved the construction by the infinitive and instead of the more pregnant ex(SiaKaOapai),^
;

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

Yet this

N.

T.

(in imitation).
'

It is
St,

with
point.

questionable whether St. Luke wrote awayayeiv, or avpd^ei Matthew the authorities are evenly balanced on this
;

At

all events, avpd^ei

stood in Q.

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


pression, "his
in verse

wheat into the barn," he has inserted " the wheat into his barn."" the smoother phrase,
10
is

Km

to give more flexibility to the construction, as in the case of St. Matt, The style is also improved xxiv. 28, and elsewhere. the of vSari (without iv) at the beginning. placing by
St.

added by

Luke

Probably the reading Svyarog is original in St. Luke, but it was substituted for the reading of the source by the evangelist himself. In St. Matthew and St. Mark it is never used of a person see, however, St. Luke i. 49 xiv. 31 xxiv. 19, and four passages in the
;

Acts.

St.
e/?

Luke perhaps wrote


airoOrjKriv.

(Tvva^eL

We
;

Kai top juev airov cannot be certain that


:

eU jULerdvoiav belonged to Q yet it is very probable that it stood in the source, for its absence in St. Luke is not decisive, seeing that St. Luke follows the text

Mark ; and seeing, moreover, that /uLerdvota does not occur in St. Matthew except in this section from Q, it is not probable that that evangelist added it of his own initiative. (On the other hand, in other
of St. passages juLerdi^oia is purposely added by St. Luke; here however it could the more easily fall out of the
text, seeing that it has

no corresponding antithesis in The end of the verse as it the following clause.) stood in Q can no longer be restored with certainty.
In St.

Mark

the text ran iv TrpevjuaTi dyiw;

in

St.

Matthew, dyio) koi Trvpi; in St. ]l.uke, both cases Syr. Sin. gives the v TTvevjuiaTt Kal irvpl (in words in the reverse order). It is therefore most proiv TrvevjuiaTi

bable that
covered

read ev

Trvpi,

by succeeding develop iv irvevfxaTi dyicp.

the

for this phrase only is clauses which do not

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


St.

Matt.
[ecTTfj^]

vi.

21

ottov

= St. Luke
34, 35 31.
vjULcov.
;

xii.

34;
;

xi.

yap
(Tov,

Qj^craupo^

xvi.
(TOV

13

xii.

22-

[euTaij Kai rj (TOV. (22) 6 \v-)(yo^ KapSia TOV (TOOjUaTOg ecTTiv 6 6(pCKcl
uaAjULog.

For

both times
(tov after
^

Probably
r
.

6(p0aXju6^ pr.

eav ovv

fj

o o(p-

OTav o

>

T
f]

aTTAOf?
Kai

OaXjUiog (TOV

aTrXovg,
(TOV

bXov
Se

OAOV
eirav

TO

(TCOJUa

(pCOTClVOV

ecTTai

(23)
<TOv

eav

6
2,

eCTTLV

6(p9a\jULO^

irovtjpos

oXoV TO

(TCOJUia

(TOV (TKOTeL-

vov ecTTai.

ei

ovv to

(pax;

ocpOaXjuLog KaL TO (Tcojixa (TOV (om. 6A.) (tkottcl ovv kcTTai om.
JULrj

(tov

om.

TO

V (TOL (TKOTO<S CaTLVy

TO

to

<pC09

TO (TKOTOg
ovSe]^ oiKeTrj^

(TKOTO'i iTOorov!

(24) ov^e)^
Kvploi'S

TTOcrov

om.

SvvaTai
Xevciv
'

Svcrl
rj

Sov-

yap
tov
kvo<s
^/

tov

eva

juLicrrjarei

Kai

cTepov

ayainqG'eL,

av6e^Tai

Kai

TOV

TpOV
Kot

KUTa-

(ppovrjcreL'

ov ^vvaarOe Oeca
juLajuLcova,
vixlv^iJ.r}

SovXeveiv

(25 )^f a toGto


fiepifj-vaTe
t

Xeyci)

th ^^X^
'

vfjLCOv

VJULCOV

om.

TL (payr]T, jULrjSe Tip (TWfxaTi ^ > \ t n ^ f VfXWV TL VOV(T)](TU OVyj^


t}

vjucov

om.

'^vyji

irXelov ecTTiv t>/?


crcojuLa

Tpo(p^g Koi TO
evSv/uLaTog ;
"vl^are
ef9

tov

(26)

e/x/3Xe-

KaTavoY](TaTe

Ta

TreTeiva

tov

Tovg

KopaKag

ovpavov, OTL ov (Tireipovcriv ovSe ovSe 6t]pi^ov(riv


(Tvvayov<Tiv
e/j

without TOV out ovpavov OVTQ 019 OVK


ecTTiv TajULetov ovSe aTToOijKtj

a7ro^^//ca?,

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


Kai o
iraTrjp
vjulcov

o ovpavio^
ov-^
vjmei^
;

Kai 6

Oeo^ (om.
TTOcrcf)

v. 6.

ovp.)

Toecpei

avra'

avTOvg'
vfjL,

juaWov
;

jmaWov Sia(pepT
<5e

avroov

6ia(p.

TOdv TTCTeivcov

e^ viixwv jmepiiUL(27) t/? vwv ovvaTaL irpoG-deivai eiri


Tvjv

rjkLKiav
;

auTOu
koi
irepl

irrjyyv

va

(28)

evSv-

va om.

In place of verse

fxaTO'i TL iuLpifj.vaT ;

Kara-

28

/maOere
7rftJ9

ra KpLva tov aypov


ov kottiwclv

eXa^^fcrrof ovvaarOe, tl irepl twv Xof/ULepijULvaTe ;

OVV ovSe

av^avovcriv'

TTcov

KaTavorj-

ouSe vrjOouariv (29) Xe-yo) ^e v/iiiv OTi ouoe ZjOAOjULOOI^ V


Tracri]

(TaT
VYjOeL

T Kptva, 7rC09 OUTC ovT vcpaLvei'

rn
L

So^y]
o)?

avrov
eV

irepie-

OTi

om.
v

(BaXero
(SO)

tovtwp,
ayp(f TOV X'^P'

Se TOV

aypov

yOpTOV TOV ovTa Kai dYjiJiepov

TOV ovTa

(j^juepov

avpiov eU KXi/Savov jBaXXofACvov 6 Oeo^ OVTCOg ajUL<plVVVCTLV,


VJULag,
/UitJ

ov

TToWcp jULoXXoV

TTOcrw for ov ttoXX.

oXiyOTTKTTOL ; (31) OVV IUipi/UiV^(Tr]T Xe<paycojuLv ;


\}

Kai

VJUL619 /mrj

yovTS' TL
TTLCOjuLev ;
r}

rt

Kai tl TL ^r]TiT (payr]T 7rii]T, KOI juLt] [JieTewpiCeade


(for verse 31)

tl

Trepi^aXco-

jiieOa ;

(32)
6

iravTa

yap

TavTa yap (iravTo)


T. 'iOvt)

TovTa
olSev

TCI eOv>] eiriCtiTOvcnv'

TOV
oe

KOCrjULOV
o.

yap

a iraTt^p v/ncov

vjUL.

iraT. oioev

TOV' OVpaVLO^ OTi XpiiC^'^^


Tcov airavTbiv.

(33) X^TelTe
jSacriXeLav

(without 6 ovp.) a'TravTwv om. TrXrjv ^*]t.


T.j5acr.auT0i^( without TTjOto-

irpcoTOV Tr]v

Ka\ Tfjv SiKaiocrvvrjv avTOV, Kai

Tov and

k.

t. SiKaLocr.)

TavTa iravTa
vjullv.

irpocr-

iravTa om.

TeOr](7Tai

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


The
variants in St. Luke, in so far as they are of
stylistic character,

wanting in the gospels but occurs several times in St. Paul), also in the three instances where St. Luke removes the rhetorical question for the sake of smoothness (a correction which, as

readings (corrections in style). in the case of a-Koirei {orKoirelv is

appear throughout as secondary This is especially clear

he makes in other places), also in the oiKertjg (wanting in the gospels but occurring in Acts x. 7 ; Rom. xiv. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii. 18), in Karavoware (constantly used by St. Luke)

we

shall see,

pedantic addition of

twice substituted for eya/3Xe\|Aa(7^6 eig and for the unusual word KaraimdOere, in ttoVo) prefixed to /naXXov, in TToVft) for ov ttoXXw, in the koi which is added, as
so often, in verses 22, 23, in oi^ ovk ecrriv rajuL. ovSe airoOijKr] (improvement in style), in the feeble moral
reflection el ovv ovSe Svuaa-Qe (to \a-)(j.(Trov eXd-^^icTTOv is in the New Testament exclusively confined to
St.

Luke, vide

in

17) TL Trepl twv absence of eva with


xix.

addition to this passage xvi. 10; also the Xoittcov juLcpiiavaTe ]

is

7rrj-)Qjv

probably secondary;
v/jOei

likewise the sentence

ttco^

ovre

oure vcpaivei, for

to be unessential; av^avovcri, appeared

and

vdyalvei is

stylistic

verse
\oi7ra,

28,

Matthew Luke has replaced "clothing" by ra while in St. Matthew verse 31, he omits it
improvement upon
St.
kotticoo-iv.

In St.

altogether ; it was evidently a matter of less anxiety In the same to him than to the native of Palestine.

the somewhat feeble jur] the strenuous prohibition by IULpi/uiV)](Tr]T Xeyovre^ Koi vfjLeh (one of the few cases where St. Luke has

passage

he

has

replaced

the pronoun

when

it

is

wanting in

St.

Matthew)

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


/jirj

St.

in

and thus leads up to the ^tjreire of ^r]TiT, Matthew verse 33 (Ctjreiv is much more frequent St. Luke than in St. Matthew) again irXi'iv is inserted
;

by him

(it is

found

five

times in St. Matthew, fifteen


/mrj

times in St. Luke).

The phrase

jULerecopll^cG-Oe

is

singular both in St. Luke and in the New Testament. No certain interpretation can be given of the phrase as found here (it occurs in Philo, Sirach, Plutarch, and " be not the medical authors). It may mean either or "seek not after high things," or high-minded,"

"be not covetous," or "be not driven hither and If the word stood in Q it is not thither (by cares)." without significance for determining the plane of
culture of the first translator of the source
is
;

but

it

much more probable

that St.

Luke

inserted
it
is

it in

place of TL

Trepi/SaXciojuLeOa.

In this case

to be

taken in the same general sense as the phrase prerl irep) twv Xoittcov /ULepijuvare, viously inserted by him On the other hand, the text of St. Luke is, as it seems,
:

to be preferred where the phraseology

is
;

less biblical

and

thus where he reads tov^ 6 Oeo? (for 6 irarrjp v/mcov 6 KOpaKag, ovp.), Ta Kpiva (without tov ay pod) and ev aypw tov yoprov in the omission of 6 (for T. ^. T.
liturgical
St.

than that of

Matthew

aypou), ovpdvio? (with irarijp), in the expression rd iOvrj rod koctjulou (t k6(t/ul. is unnecessary in the language of the Bible), in the omission of Trpwrov and rrjv SiKaioavvtjv.
.

some authorities for the an element in the gospel proclamation of the synoptists is found And yet Ta Trereivd tov ovpavov only in St. Matthew.

Upwrov

indeed

text of St.

is wanting Matthew, and

in

SiKaioavvt] as

is

perhaps to be preferred to

Toh

KopaKa^,

for St.

Luke

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

uses this expression also in the parable of the Mustard Seed {vide infra) and in ix. 58. He may have pre-

more specific word in this passage, because of the specific word {ja Kplm) which follows.
ferred to use a

Tov

KOG-juLov

may

also

have been added by


St.

St.

Luke.

Luke

vi.

St.

Matt.
\va
(b

vii.
jarj

1:

M;;

42;
ev

xi.

9-13;
. .

vi.

37, 38, 41, 31.


/.

Kpivere,

KpiOrjre.

Kai ov stands for


(p
.

Kpi/ULan KpLvere KpSriarecrOe, Kai ev


(h

(2)

yap

Kpidrjarecrde kou

jULerpcp

Oi](TTai

VJULIV.

jULerpeiTe /JLerprj(3) Tl Se

the thought is developed in a quite dif-

wanting

ferent way.

ev

wanting.

/SXeTreig

to Kapcbog to
^e
ev
Tcp

ev

avTijuLeTpr]Oi](TeTai

Tw

ScbOaXjuLw
Ti]V

TOV aSeXcpov
arw
Tt]v

(TOV,

ce ooK.

Tr}V ev

r.

6(p6aXjULO)

SoKov ov KQTaJ/

voeig

(4)

ttco?

epei^

tw

TTO)?

(without

rj)

Svva(Tai

aSeX<pa)

<tov'

a<p(i eK/SaXoo

Xeyeiv
(TOV

aSeXcpe, a(peg

TO Kapcpog
jiiov

TOV o(pOa\r]

orov,

KOI iSov

SoKog

TO Kapcpo^ TO ev r. d0O. avT09 T. ev r. 6(pOaXjuip


(T.

ev TO)

o(pOa\iuL(t)

arov ; (5)

ooKOv ov /BXeTTcov;
T.

VTTOKpiTa, 7c/3aXe irpwTov


K

SoKOV, Kol
cK/BaXeiv

TOV OChOaXjULOV (TOV TrjV TOTe Sia/3X\^ig

SoKOV eK T. (TOV O(p0.


T. T.
e/f/3.

TO

Kap(po<f

eK

tov

Kclpcjyos

TO

ev
arov

ScpOaXjULov
(TOV
. .

TOV
(7)

aSeXcpov
Koi.

0(pO.

T.

aSeXcp.

aiTeiTe,

SoO)](T6TaL

V/ULIV

^TjTeiTe,

Kai evp-^areTC KpoveTe


avoiyrjcreTai
vjuliv.

kqi

(8) 7ra?

avoi^QyjcrcTai ?

ap 6 aiTwv yap

Xa/alSa vei, Kai

INVESTIGATION OF THE
(9)
civIT are

TEXT

KpovovTi avoiyrjarerai.
tj

Ti?

eCTTlV

eh

V/ULCOV

TLva oe e^

f/z.

t.

OV OpCOTTOg,

aiTJ](Tl
Ikf]

O f^O?

pa
/mtj

airijo-ei

vlos

avTOv

apTOV,
avTip
;

XlQov
t]

l^Ovv,

7riS(Jci(Ti

(10)
fxt]

Kai

avTw
crei

eiTLOwareL ;
/mrj

avrl LyQvo<s 6(piv t] Kai aiT)']eTriScocrei

i-vuvv

IxOv

aiT7]crei,

o(hiv
el

wov,

avrip

eTTiowcreL iSwc

avrw

(11)

ovv

(TKOpiTLOV ;

f/xef? TTOvrjpoi

ovreg o'lSare
SiSovai
TTOCCp

lor ovTe^ 01 virapyovTes for

[SojULara]
TOL<S

ayaOa
VJULWV,

TCKVOIS

/jLoXXov
v

irarrip

vjulwv

vjxwv wanting.

TOig

ovpavoh
airovcriv

S-Jocrei

ovpavov
irvevfjia

ay aO a to is
(12)
ol
6e\>] re
ft

avTOV ;
eav
V/ULtV

dyiov for ayaOa


Ka\

iravTa ovv
lua

bcra

TTOLCCXTLV

KaOcos OeXere
ovTcog Kai vjueis

v/iieig avOpcoTTOi, OL/TO)? TTOieire avToig ovTog


'

KQi

om.

yap

perhaps
ovros
.

o/xoicoy after auror?.


.
.

eCTTlV 6 V0JUL09 Kai ol TTjOO(prJTai.

'JTpocprjrai

wanting.
see at once that in matters of style closely by St. Matthew ; this

Here again we

Q
is

is

represented more
e.g.,

very plain,

in the case of Iva

>

Ka\ ov, of iravra

ovv ocra eav

and of ovreg > virapy^ovreg is a favourite word with St. Luke). 'Ev w {v7rap-)(Lv must be judged original yap KpLjuLan Kpivere KpiOi'jcrecrOe the parallelism with what follows was disturbed by St.
Kai KaOcog,
;

>

lAike, because
(viz.

he inserted clauses parallel to


Kai

jut]

Kplvere

Ka\

fjirj

KaraSiKa^ere

ov

/urj

KaraSiKaa-OrJTe'
Kai
SoOtja-erai

aTToXvere,
v/uLiv

Kai

airoXvOijcrecrOe

SlSoTe,

KaXov luirpov

ireiriea- i^evov cea-aXeu/jLcvov

virepeK^vV'

10

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Q
is

vojiievov Soocrovariv etV

from a
vocative

tov koXttov vjulwp, perhaps derived which varied from the Q of St. Matthew).
certainly interpolated

'ASeXche

is

by

St.
St.

Luke; the

wanting in
it is

St.

Matthew and

Mark

on

the other hand

very frequent in the Acts; the vocative singular occurs also in Acts xxi. 20. The Lukan variant to St. Matt. vii. 9, 10 (" egg and " scor""'

pion"

for

"loaf" and "stone," and

in reverse order)

is

problematical. natural sound

is perhaps influenced by a Greek 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 text which Wellhausen prefers is scarcely the right one A serious alteration rig comes from St. Matthew).
;

The text St. Luke

of

St.

Matthew has a more

in the sense

is

effected

by

St.

Luke's substitution of

irvevjj.a dykov for ayaOa, his preference for this conception is well known. The text of St. Matthew is subject to objection in

only two passages.


ovpavov (vide
6 irarrjp with his
vjllwv

He

has replaced 6 irarrjo 6 eP


usual phrase,
in

St.

Luke xi. 16) by his ev roh ovpai/oi^, and


:

accordance
to the

" Golden Rule " the sentence

own purpose and aim he has added


For this
is

the

Law

and the Prophets."


St.

Matt.

viii.

19

koi

St.

Luke
eh
it

ix.

5760.

ttooelTrev

TTpoareXOoop ek eiirev avrw'


aKoXovO/jcro)
airep-)(yi.

ypa/uLjULarevg

creXO.

ypa/ULju.

om.

oiSacTKaXe,

Ti^

po^ avrov

SiSdaKoXe

croi

birov eav
Kai
ai

om,
GLirev

(20)
'Itjo-ov^'

Xiyet
aXoo-

avTcp

INVESTIGATION OF
TTCKeg (pcoXeovg eyov(jLv Kai
TO,

THE TEXT

11

TreTeiva

tov
o

ovpavov
oe
i/io?

KaTa(TKr]vu)(Tig,

TOV avOpCOTTOV OVK ^l TTOV T^r K(pa\r]v KXivrj, (21)


Tpo^
elirev

Se

rcov

iuiaO>]TWP

eLirev Oe oe TT/OOC

^^

rf

'

avTW

Kvpie, eiTLTpk-

XovOei

tt^o? TOOV' cTcpov QKO6 Se elirev juLoi.

fJioi irpo)Tov KOI Od'^ai TOV iraTepa /ulov. (22) 6 Se 'lr](Tovg \eyeL

ylfov

aTTcXOeiv

Kvpie

om.

ctTreX-

avTW' aKoXovOei
acbeg roi'?

jiioi,

Kai

Q6vTi{-Ta) without koi cLirev Se aura) (without o 'I.) KOI om. add. OLKoX.
. .
.

veKpov^

Oay^ai

crv

oe aTreXOcov
iSacriXeiav

oiayyeWe
tov
Oeov

TOU? kavToov vcKpovs.

Tt]v

post VCKpOVg,

The
viii.

Lukan
is

text

(corresponding

to
so

St.

Matt,
better,

2122)
it
is

certainly clearer
original.

and

far

but
St.

scarcely
it

As

the text runs in

would have absolutely compelled a to begin the passage with the comwriter thoughtful mand of Jesus, cLKoXovOei /moi. But the ek ypa/uL/maTev<s of St. Matthew must be omitted (St. Matthew,
Matthew,
verse

21

of
;

itself

shows that

it

is

a thoughtless

interpolation

Blass indeed strikes

it

out of the text,

but on
in verses

insufficient

grounds).

T(jdv iuLaOt]Tcov,

as well as the

We must also omit two vocatives of respect


in verse 22.

19 and 21, and 6

'lijcrovg

The

historic present of St. Matthew is to be retained ; St. Luke has altered it almost everywhere (also irpo^ with accusative in place of the simple dative, as well
as the participle in place of the infinitive or the finite The concluding addition verb belong to his style).

12
in
St.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Luke can
scarcely

SiayyeWeiv occurs again in the


Acts xxi. 26 from the LXX)
in
(also
;

have stood in Q, for (1) New Testament only in Rom. ix. 17 in a quotation

(2) the ciKoXovOei juoi

which

is

antici-

pated

in

St.

Luke

required

substitute,

which

naturally had to be more emphatic than the simple


cLKoXovOeiu,

St.

Matt.

ix.

37

rore

St.

Luke
Se

x. 2.

Xeyei Toig /aaOrjTais avTOv' o juev OepicriuLO^ ttoXu?, ol


Se

eXeyev

irpo^ avrovf

ipydrai
ovv

oXiyoi'

(38)
Kvpiou

Sey^OrjTC

tov

Tov

OepicrjuLod otto)?
cii

eKJSaXu

epyara^ eKJSaXu

epyara^
avTOu,

tov

Oepicr/uiov

The introduction Toh imaOrjraig avrov.


order
k/3.

ipy.

rore
:

Q
in

ran simply

St.

Matthew
is

Xiyei avroig or gives the original


:

often

inserted

by

St.

Matthew.
St.

Matt.

yap

10^ a^iog t?? Tpo(pfJ9 epyaTt]^


X.

St.

Luke

x. 7^.

tov

/ulictOov

avTOv.

The labourer
but also

is

worthy not

so

thinks St.
in
St.

Luke

only of his food, of his hire the


;

Matthew. Seeing, however, original how short the saying is, it must remain questionable whether we are justified in assigning it to the
lies

source.

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


St.
Xe-yo)

13

Matt.
vjULiV

X.

15

ajurjv

St.

Luke

x. 12.

a/z^i/

om.

avcKTorepov

^oS6fxoi<; iv rt] tjfxepa eKeivr]

ecTTai yii ^oSo/uloov koi ev


fjLOppodv

Vo*]

aveKTorepov

ecrrai.

rjfxepa

Kpicrem

The order of the words is changed by St. Luke. The words ev r. ^/jl. ck. are not quite certain either

in

wording or position, yet they must not be struck out, seeing that they correspond to the words of St. Matthew, while they are not interpolated from We cannot determine whether Q had that gospel.
v
ril^pa
Kpla-eod^

(so

four

times in

St.
ev

Matthew,
t^ Vl^^p^

wanting in the other evangelists), or


eKelvu (so, viz. in the sense of the twice in St. Luke, twice in St.

of Judgment, Matthew, once in " in the St. Mark). Perhaps the source read simply between decide 2. k. T. It is difficult to yT] Day." more is the former The or simply HoSo/moig. prob" land," never occurs in St. Luke's gospel, able, as yrj =

Day

and

in the

Acts only in the speech of


X.

St.

Stephen.
8.

St.

Matt.

16*: iSov
vfia<i
o)?

St.

Luke

x.

vTrdyere
iyui)

eyu)

aTToa-reWco

add. ante l^ov^


apva^,

om.

TTpo^ara

ev fMeaw Xvkcov,

virdyere is an addition nect verse 3 with verse 2.

of St. Luke in order to conis often struck out

eyu)

Luke the by is more refined).


St.
;

original

word was Trpofiara


rest,

{apva<s

For the

the remarks

made
It
is

Matt. x. 10^ ^PPty ^^^^ ^Iso. upon questionable whether the saying belongs to Q.
St.

14
St.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Matt.
ecTTiv

X.

26

ovSev

St.

Luke

xii. 2.

Se for

yap
o
Kai

KKa\vjuijuLvov

yap

a-vyKeKoXvjUjuipov

ovK

KpviTTOV

a7roKa\v(pO?j(rTai, o ov yvcocrO}]-

crerai.

St.

them
St.

Luke prefers composite words, for simple words.


Matt.
t\

and

substitutes

xi.
</

(7V

St.

Luke

vii.

20, 22-28;

p-^0JULV09,tJ
;

GTCpOV TTpOO"Kal

xvi. 16.

aXXov
o
-

SoKcojuev

(4)

airoKpi'Irjar.

Oeig 6 'Irjcrovg elirev avTo7<s*

om.
eiirare

TTopeuOevTeg airayyeiXare iooavvrj a aKovere Kai pAeTrere*

10^ere

Kai rjKovaaTe

(5) Tv(p\o] irovdLV Kai ')(0)\ot


Kai

ava^Xi'
TrepiTra-

Kai

om.
Kai

Tovcriv, XeirpoL

rat
Kai

Km )(pol

KaOapl'tovaKOvovciu,
Kai
Kai

veKpoL

eyeipovrai

om.

Kou

om. om.

TTToo-^oi

evayyeXi^ovrai'
ejuLoi,

(6) KOI jmaKapiog ecrriv o?


civ
jULr]

(TKavSaXiG-0^ ev

(7)TOVT0t)V Se TTopevo/ULcvoov fjp^aro 6 'Irjcrovg Xeyeiv T0?9 o-)^oig irepl 'looavvov


TL e^rjXOaTe et? Triv
eptjjuLOv

aireXOoi lOVTOdv oe S'e T.


X(i3v ^Icoavv,
'lijcr.

ayye^
6

fjpP.

om.

Trpog. r. o)(X.

Oeacraa-Oai;
aue/uiou

KuXajuop viro
(8)
iSeip ;
iluLarioi^
I

craXevojuLevov;

aXXa

t/

i^^XOare
ev

avOpLcirov

/uaXaKoig

add.

tjjULCpiecriiievov ;

iSov

ol tol

Oi ev ijuaTiarjuLa} evSo^u) koi

jxaXaKa (popovpre^ ev roi^

Tpvcpu

vwap-^ovres

[<^fct-

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


oucoi^ Tcov ^aa-i\i(jt)v.

15

(9)

yovT^
eiCTLv,

?]

ev Toii /SacriXeioig
loeiv;

oXXa

TL e^r]\OaT

irpO'
v/uliv,

pal Xeyo) (p^rrjv iSciv;

7rpo(p7]Ttjv;

Kai irepicraroTepov irpocpriTov. (10) ovTO's ecTTiv Trepl

ou ycypaTTTai*

iSov eyu)

cyci)

om.

aTTOCTTeWco Tov ayye\ov /JLOV irpo 'TrpocraoTTOv


(TOV,

b?

Karaa-Kevacrei
(TOV
ejuLTrpocraiULr]v

Trjv

ooov
ovK

Oev aov,
vjuLiv,

(11)

\eyco
ev
IUi^oi)v

ajuLi]v

om.

iyyjyepTai

yvvt]TOi<i yvvaiKOdv iJ.elYwv

ev

yew. yvv.

'l(ji)av.

'IcoaVVOV

TOV ^aTTTlCTTOV'
ev
rrj

(om. T.

/SaTTT.) ovSelg ecTTiv

Se

fxiKporepo^
ecTTiv,
r^fxepcov

jSacriXeKx tociv ovpavoov /mel^oov

TOV Oeov

avTOv
Toov

(12) airo
^Yooavvov
eft)?

Se

TOV ^aTTTlCTTOV
ri

apTi

BacriXeia

tcov
Koi.

ovpavcov
/SiacTTal

12 and 13 are in rever. 12 runs airo TOTe rj /BaariXeia tov


vers.

verse order

/Sia^cTai,

Oeov ev ay yeXiTeTai, Kal Tra?


e/9

apiraYovcriv
Trai/re?

avTi]v.

(13)

avTtjv ^KxTeTai.
vojULO^ K.

yap
vojiMO^

ol

KOI 6

7rpo(pf]Tai 'Icodvvov eft)9

ol

Trpocp. IJ-e-^i

7rpO(j)^TV(TaV,

e7rpo(pi^Tev(Tav

om.

In the majority of cases there


that here St. Luke's recension
(for the omission
ayur/i/,

is

no need of proof
;

is

of
x.

e-yw,

cf.

everywhere secondary St. Matt. x. 16 of

accordingly St. Matthew's recension is to be preferred in the neutral cases (with the exception of 6 hjcrovs occurring Ta twice).
cf. St.

Matt.

15)

OF THE

UNiVL

TY

^
)

16
juLoXaKa

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


;

is an awkward expression which (j)opovvTg offended St. Luke*'s sense of style rpud)^ is a word which is wanting elsewhere in the gospels, and there-

fore

The

nrost probably to be ascribed to St. Luke. present in verse 4 is changed by St. Luke into
is

the more correct aorist. Ovk eyrjyeprai sounded to him too un-Hellenic. His tov Oeov in the place of What St. Twu ovpavcov may alone be original. Matthew (Q) reads in verses 12 and 13 was as difficult for him to understand as for us. It is certain that

Matthew, in distinction from St. Luke, has in the main preserved the original version note particularly because is a favourite word (og apri, evayyeXi^ca-Qai
St.

is

with

St.

Luke.
KOI

Also
pojuLos

the
is

unusual
;

order
irag
eig

of

ol

TTpocprjrai

original

avTrjv

PiaCeTai

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 original than St. Matthew, is right in placing verse 13 before " verse 12, and in inferring " continued unto (in his " the Law and the John unto rendering Prophets ") " for " prophesied unto ? It is in his favour that his
order of the sentences
St.
is

more natural than that of


?

Matthew.
St.

But does
16
:

this decide the question

Matt.

xi.

tlvl ^e
X.

St.

Luke

vii.

31-35;
(f.

ojUiOi(jO(TOt}

Trjv

yeveau Tav-

13-15, 21, 22. odv


T.

Se)

Tr]v ;

ojULola

(ttlv iraiSloig

Tov^ apQpcoTTOvg
OJULOLOL
eiO'LV
KaOrjjUL.

yVa^
TOL^ V

KaOt]jULi'OL^

IT

poa(puivovvTa

v Toiq ayopal^, tol^ ere-

raurr]'} kqi tlvl eLcriv bjnoioi;


TTaiS.

poig (17) XeyovcTLV rjvX^koi ovk aajmev vjuliv

ayop.

KaL

irpoacpoo-

vovcTLv aX\}]\oLg

XeyovTeg*

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


Kcu

17

ovK

CKoy^aaOe.
'looduvr]^
ttlvcov,

(18)
/m/jre

eKXavcrare
eXyjXvOev
TiCTT//?]
jUL7]Te

^jXOev
ecrOicov

yap

'Icoavv. [o /5a7r-

/ULijre

Kai
e^e/.

juLyjre

eaOcov

aprov
Xe-

Xeyoucriv

Saijmoviov

TTivwv olvov

(19) ^]\0P 6 vlog Tov avCrOl(JOP KOI TTIVCOV^ OpCOTTOV Kai Xeyouariv ISov
TTog

yeTe

eXrjXvQev

avOpco-

Xey ere
(piX. reX.

(payoi

Kai

oivoTrorrjg^

TeXcovcov
TcciXcov.

Kai ajmap(piXo^ Ka\ r] eSiKaicoOi]


to3v
\epy(j)V
?

arocpia

airo

iravTcov tcov

TKV(iOV ?]

aUT^9.
(701,

TeKvcov

avrri'S,

(21) oval
K'Vj

XojOa-

ova\
1

(TOL,
fiOO)

^i^Qcra't^av
Kai Zjiowvl at
eyev)]Ot](Tav

OTi

ev 1

eyivovTO
yevoixevai

at
ev

SwdjuLeig
vjmiv,

iraXai
onrooip
ttXi^v

av

ev

oraKKO)

Kai

jULTev67]arav.
e-yo) vixiv^

(22)
vpi>

KaOyjjULevoL fierevotjcrav
Xe-yct) v/uLiv

Kai JLiocovi

om.
(ev

aveKTOTcpov
Kpiaeco^ au,
r]

ecrrai ev

^jmepa
Kpicrei)

Tn

vjuliv.

(23) Kai
jj-r}

K.a(papvaoviuL,

eoog

(x)<;

TOV

ovpavov

eco^ v>^(joQy](jY] ;
. .

aoov
KaTa/Bi/BacrOijcrr]

Kara/^tjcn].

(25) ev CKeivo)

tw

Kaipcp

ev

avTt]

Tij

copa

rjyaX-

aTTOKpiOeh 6

lr]crov^ elirev

XiacraTO to) irvev/xaTi tu)


dyio)

Kvpie
y^?, ttTTO

e^ofJioXoyovjuLaL <toi, irarep, Kai Trjg TOV

Kai eiirev

ovpavov
Kai

on

eKpv^a^

Tuvra

aireK

pv\^ag
B

<70(p(iov

crvvercoVf

18
Kai

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

avra aireKoXvy^a^ 6 val, {^6) Trar^p, OTi ovTO)9 evSoKia eyevcTO


pt]7rLoi9'

cjULTrpocrOeu
fJLOi

(^l)7rai/Ta vtto tov TrapeSoOrj koi ovSe]^ einimov, irarpo^


yiVO0(TKl

crov.

TOV vloV
ovSe

/ULt]

yiVCOCTKei, T19
.

(TTLV

vlO},

Traryjp, T19 eiriyivucxTKei ei juaj 6 vlo<i Kai to eav povAi]Tai o viog

tov iraTepa

koI t/? ccttlv 6 iraTrjp

ei jmrj

(without

yivocxTKei)

CLTTOKoXvy^aL
St.

Matt.
less

xi.

16

The introduction

is,

as usual,

transformed by St. Luke. The interof is an ol improvement in style polation avOpcoTTOi it is somewhat though pedantic, but koi tlvl eicrlv

more or

ojULoioi

or rather kq] tlvi

ccttiv ojuoia,
is

may have come

from Q.
St.

Matthew has

brevity. discern St. Luke's polishing hand, and that in spite KXaUiv is substituted by St. Luke of his \eyovTe<i.
for KOTTTea-Oai,

frequent in Q ; often destroyed it from a desire for However, in what follows we can clearly

ParalUsmus membrorum

he

is

fond of the former word (used

by St. Matthew only twice, ina 'KXrjXvOev cluding quotation from the LXX). is an from for the historical ^XOev improvement (twice) but he has thus of St. thrown doubt Luke, standpoint

by him

eleven times,

upon the saying


(see

Wellhausen on

as a genuine utterance of our Lord this passage). '^ApTov and ofvov

are evidently interpolations, and moreover pedantic (for, as a matter of fact, "eating and drinking"
signifies

"eating bread and drinking wine");

like-

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT

19

wise Xeyere in St. Luke is a natural correction for iravroov must the indefinite \eyovariv in St. Matthew.

be regarded as belonging to the text of St. Luke, it is indeed a favourite word of his ; but for this very
justified in not assigning it to Q. is a the TeKvwv only intelligible reading epycov most difficult to a sense which variant interpret, gives and which besides has only found its way into a part

reason

we are
is

of the authorities for the text of St. Matthew.


thoughtless scribe

like the addition of of epya. cyevrjOrja-aVy is a KaSri/uLvoi, stylistic improvement (so also the tov

think

was probably led by

eSiKaicoOt]

to

The two words Kare^ria-av and Karebefore ovpavov). St. Luke preoccur in Ezek. xxxi. 16, 17 fil^aXpv ferred the latter form, perhaps because of its rhythmic I have given the passage, likeness to {jy^tjoBria-ii.
;

xi.

25-27 (St. Luke x. 21-22), in the form which must be adopted on the evidence of the manuscripts. But judging from the exceptionally numerous and ancient quotations of this passage, we may conclude with great probability that, on account of the importance of
it

its

subject-matter, already at a very early date

had experienced serious correction, and, moreover, Luke jjiov was (1) that both in St. Matthew and St.
originally wanting after Trarpo^, (2) that the original reading in St. Luke was cyvca (not yivcoarKei),^ (3)

that the words tov vlov


1

el

jmr]

6 Tranip, ovSe (and T19


"

found, for instance, in quotations by Justin. Apol." i. " Tertull. adv. Marc." "Iren." i. 20, 3 (Markosians) " Demonstr." v. 1; Euseb. "Eclog." i. 12; Euseb. ii. 27; Euseb. "Hist. Eccl." i. 2, 2; Euseb. " Eccl. Theol." i. 12; "Dial, de Clem. " Horn." 17, 4 18. recta fide," i. p. 44, ed. van de Sande
'E7j'w is

63

{bis);

4, 11, 13, 20.

20
7nyivu)(TKi)

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


(the
St.

Matthew
wanting in

were perhaps originally wanting in St. corresponding words were certainly


Luke).

is iv avrij rij copa

a specifically

Lukan
in

expression (occurring with him six times, never St. Matthew) ; on the other hand, ei/ eKelvw rco

Kaipw

is only found in St. Matthew (twice again), and most probably comes from Q. tjyaWidcraTo too

TTvevjuaTL T. ay. is Lukan proved for r. iri^. r. ay.,

this does not need to be

is used by him four times (gospel and Acts), and ayaXXiacri^ it is wanting in St. Mark, and is found three times once in St. Matthew in the formal phrase y^aipere is used Kal ayiaWiaaOe. by St. Luke airKpv>^a<i

while ayaXXiai^

eKpv^a^ in accordance with his preference for compound words (vide swpra on St. Matt. x. 26).
for

Perhaps St. Matthew had already changed the very important aorist tyvia into the present (as if a timeless knowledge were intended), and this present was then also taken up into the text of St. Luke.
'ETTfyifcoo-zce/j/
yiP(Jo(TKLv.

can

With
;

scarcely be more original than St. Luke''s substitution of r/? o


St.

irarrip
vii.

for
;

49

viii.

tov Trarepaj compare 25 ix. 9.

Luke

v.

21

The

text of St.

Matthew

is

thus, apart

from the

present tense referred to, the more authentic. Except the omission in verse 16, the only alterations we may perhaps assign to this Evangelist are found in the

solemn \eyco
'Irjaovg
rjixepa

vjuliv,

in

to

the

introduction

the addition of airoKpiQeL'i 6 to verse 25, and in


(see St.

Kpiareoog.

Li place of the last expression the


iv

source

had perhaps

t^

Kpla-ei

Matt.

xii.

41, 42).

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


St.
1

21

Matt.
ev

xii.

27: kol
ol

Luke
xii. 10.

xi.
el

19, 20,

23;

iyo)

^eekYe^ovK
SaijULOvia,

Se

Kj3aX\oi)
VIOL
viJLWv

Ta
ev

TLVi

KpaA(28)
ecr.

XovcTLv ;

Sia

tovto avTOi
v/mcov.
vjUL.

KpiTai
1

earovrai

Kp.

oe ev TTvev/uLaTi Oeov eydo


to, Saijmovia,
(h' vjULag
.

eK^aXXco
e(pOa(Tv
Xelcx

apa
(30)

SaKTvXw om. eyco yt

(f. TTvevjuiaTi)

rj

/3a<TL.

Tov Oeov.
u)v

/uif]

/meT

ejuov
jmtj

Kax
trvva-

ijuiov ecTTiv,

Kai 6

ycov
TTi^ei.

/JLer
.

e/uiov
.

cKopKai

(32)

b?
09 epei eis
(t.

Kai 7ra?
Acara)

cav
vlov

e'lTFU

\oyov Kara rod


a<pe07]-

TOV avOpcoTTOv^
09 o

crerat avTO)

av eiwu

TO) Se

eh

T.

ay

irv.

Kara tov

TrvevjmaTO^

tov

fiXacrcprj/uLfjcravTi

ayLOV,
avTco
aicovi

OVK

a<peO}]<TeTaL

ouTe ev tovtco TOVTU ovTe ev


is

tw tm fxeWovTi}
St.

ovTe

yUeX-

\ovtl om.
(as in St.

eyo)
xi.

omitted by
restored.

Luke

Matt.

x.

16

10,
is

and

elsewhere), and the customary order of

words
at
so.

first

The Lukan reading SaKTvXo) seems the more original, but this is scarcely sight In spite of his liking for irvevjULa, St. Luke
(Exod.
viii.

substitutes the Biblical expression

19;

* The Beelzebub pericope stood in Q as well as in St. Mark, but the text printed above is all that we can with certainty assign to Q, besides isolated words from the introduction daL/xovi^djuLevoi, Kw<p6%,

XaXeiv,

01

Matthew

6xXoi (perhaps also i^iaTavTo), verse 25 (St. Luke verse 17).

and

ipTj/xoOraL

from

St.

22
xxxi.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


18
;

Deut.

ix.

offence

at

certain

Ps. viii. 4) he takes no 10 anthropomorphic phrases which


;
;

vide i. 51 have Bibhcal authority ^pay^icov Oeov, i. 73 The solemn i. 66 ^e)jO Kvpiou, opK09 tov Oeov. concluding phrase of verse 32 (a verse which St. Luke
: :

has corrected in regard to style)


polation by St. Matthew.
St.

may
Luke

be an inter-

Matt.

xii.

aircKi plOtjcrav

38 avTM
koi

rore
Tiveg

St.

xi. 16, 29, 30,

32, 31.
X^ovT<i

TpOL Se ireipacrt]iuLiov

Twv

ypa/UL/uLaTecov

^api-

cralwvXiyovTe^' SiSao-KoXe,
OeXojULev

eYriTOVv Trap

^ ovpavov avTOV

airo crov

crtj/ULiov

ISeiv
elirev

(39) o ^e airoKpiQei<i

avToh' yevea
''^ot^

irovrjpa
ctti-

jjp^aTO Xeyeiv

tj

yevea

Kou

iuiOi')(aXig

crrj/meiov

avTrj yevea irovripa ecTTiv


crj/meiov ^>JTi

IC^JTc^,

crrjjuieiov
1
jULt]

ov SoOi]cnj/meiov
. .

(TCTai

avTu

TO

'Iwm TOV
(41)

avSpeg

7rpO(p7]TOV. . IS^ivevelTai

om. TOV Trpocp^TOv

add.
^Ycovaq

KaOm yap
T019

avaa-TrjcrovTaL iv
juLCTa

r^ Kplaei
otl

eyeveTO ^iVVLTaig (Trjiueiov,

T^9 yeveag TauTt]^ kql


avTriv^

ovTcog hcTTaL Kai 6 viog

tov

KaTaKpivovcriv
jUieTevoricrav efV

avOpcoTTOV

Tn

yevea TavTrj.

Iwva,

Kai

Kijpvyjma loou irAeiov

to

'I com S)^e.

(42) (3a(TLKL(T<Ta
ev
Tf]

VOTOV
Kpicrei-

eyepOrjcreTai
/j.Ta

t^?

yeveag
K
TCiOV

Tcov

avSpcov T. yev, TavT,

TavTt]^
aVTYJV,

Kai

KaTaKpivel

OTL

rjAUeU

avTovg

yrjg aKOvorai Tvjv (jocpiav SoXoyUcoi/oy, koI iSov irXeiov 2oXo/>taroy wSe.

irepaTCov r^?

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT

23

Either the verses 41 and 42 have been reversed in


order by St. Luke, or what is more probable, verse 41 was originally wanting in the Lukan text (vide infrd).

The introduction is transformed by both evanThe scribes and Pharisees, and the vocative gelists. the original SiSda-KoXe, are peculiar to St. Matthew
;

introduction probably ran somewhat as follows In St. OeXo/aev airo crov a-rjiuLeiov iSelu. (they said)
:
:

Luke the correcting hand of the


clearly traced
;

stylist
is

is

here

likewise ^ yevea ktX.


yaof^^aX/?
is

provement.
St.

Again,
as

a stylistic imelsewhere avoided by

Luke

a vulgar word.

Here

also,

contrary

to 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 the

compound. The respectful affix tov irpocb^TOv, was most probably added by St. Matthew. rcov avSpwv

is

inserted by St.

Luke

compare a similar insertion


.
.

in St.

Matt. xi. 16. The words KaOcog yap

t^ yevea ravrrj in

St.
;

Luke are original (read, however, oxjirep for Kado)<s) St. Matthew has replaced them, or rather interpreted them as referring to the Descent into Hades, by
verse 40
:

Tpeh

r/luLepa^ rpei^ vvKra^, ovrcog ecrac o vio^ tov avOpwirov v t?] KapSia t^? ytj^ Tpeh ^jmepa^ Kal Tpei^ vvKTag, a clause which would never have been omitted

cocnrep Kac

yap

f]v

'Icom? v tu koiXiol tov ki]tov9

by
the

St.

Luke

if

he had read

it

in

his source.

In

(rt]/uLiov

for the Ninevites lay simply in the preach-

ing of Jonah (in disagreement with Wellhausen), that is, simply in the fact that a prophet had come to

them.

The

transposition

of the two verses in St.

24

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

Luke can only be due to an ancient error of a scribe, unless with codex D and Blass we regard St. Matthew verse 41 = St. Luke verse 32, as an interpolation in This is the more probable, in that the Lukan text. here r^? -ycj^ea? ravrtj^ is not changed into twv avSpcov The verse, however, certainly T^9 yeveai ravrr]^.
stood in Q. The aTroKpiOei^ of verse 39 of St. Matthew. style
St.
is

in the

Matt.

xii.

43

orav

St.

Luke

xi.

24-26.

Se

TO CLKaOaprov Trvevjma aTTO TOV avOpwTTOv,


Sl

om.

^lepyerai

avv^poov tottwv

Koi ou-^ i^rjTOvv apairava-iUf


eupKTKei.
1^

M
cvpKTKOV Xcyei
T. oi. viro(TTp ek
jjl.

TOV

(44) totc Xeyei' OLKOV lULOV e'TTKT'

e^tjXOoV Koi

iXOov eupicKeL cry^oXa^ovTa


[Kai^
(T(Tapw/uievoi'

ovTa rxoXa^c
[Kai]

Kai

om.

KKO(TIUL}]jULeVOV.

(45) t6t
'irapaXa/UL-

TTOpeveTat
/3avi
jULcO'

koi

eavTOV

eTrra

eavTov lueO'
TTVeVjil.

om.

Tpa
kav'

'Kvevjj.aTa irovtjpoTepa kav-

TOv Kai eiQ-eXOovTa kqtoiKi


Kiy

TOV eiTTa

Kai

(T)(aTa

TOV

ylvcTai ra avupcoTTOv

yetpova twv

irpcoTOov.

Both
also the

/uLt]

and evplcKou are improvements in changed order of the words in verse


is

style, so

44*,

and

the substitution of
CTpecpeip

found
times,

in

vTroa-Tpeyp-co St. Luke

for

eTricTTpeypco (vwo-

[gospel

thirty-three

never

in

St.

and Acts] Matthew and St.

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


;

25

The omission of o-^^oXa^oj/ra is intelligible, Mark). not so its addition the same is true of /xeO' kavrov, is found in St. Mark never, in St. Matthew *'YiTpo^
nine times, in St. Luke's gospel thirty- three times ; it has accordingly been added here. Tore pr. per-

haps belongs to
St.

St.

Matthew.
:

Matt.

xiii.

16

u/xwi/

St.
v/uLwv Se

Luke
om.

X.

23,

24.

ocpOaXjUol jiiaKapLOL oTi (SXeirovuLv, Kai ra cora OTL aKOVOVdiV. (17) lyjUL(J0P'\
aiJ.r]v

^e

oi

OL

PXeTTOPTcg a /SXeTTcre

Kai

yap \eyco

v/uliv,

otl Kai

aiJ.riv

Ta om.
.

aKovovG-iv

om.

TToXXoL

TrpocprJTai
eTreOvjULtjorav

[jcai /Sao- iXeig'l

Xeyco yap for Ka\ SiKaioi

SUaioi

iSeiv

rjOeXricrav
v/ULch /BXeTT.
[/cal

/5Xe7reTe koi ovk elSav, koI


OLKOvcrai
J^KOV(TaV

a aKovere^ Kai ovk

aK.

i^Kovcrav

om.]

Here St. Luke begins with a stylistic correction and with a pedantic simplification of the thought. Blass, following some authorities, is right in omitting the last seven words of St. Matthew from the text of The " hearing " was already wanting in St. Luke. St. Luke's parallel to verse 16 and if the concluding sentence of verse 17 had appeared in St. Luke it
;

should have read v/mecs aKovere (cf. the inmiediately preceding words of the Lukan text). Evidently St. Luke did not like it to be said that the prophets had

not heard, only that they had not seen. The emphatic strange in St. Luke, seeing that this evangelist elsewhere is accustomed rather to omit the pleonastic
viJLei^ is

but in this passage he had personal pronouns of Q omitted the vjjlwv at the beginning, and the vfxeh is
;

26

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

not pleonastic where he places it. aixriv may possibly inserted belong to the source, but may also have been doubtof its in spite by St. Matthew. Ka/ ^aa-iXek,
ful textual authority,

must be regarded
its later

to the

Lukan

text

for

as belonging addition cannot be

it is explicable that it should easily explained, while have dropped out of the text. If, however, it stood

in St.

Luke,
is

it

stood also in Q, and the SiKaioi of

St.

Matthew

a correction due to this evangelist, who


SiKaioarvvfj.

has a special liking for i-TreOvjULtja-av is an obvious


6vjuLiv

'JiOeXrjcrav for
(eTri-

stylistic

improvement

occurs only once elsewhere in St. Matthew). In Q, therefore, the saying ran essentially as it does in St. Matthew, with the exception of SUaioi (and

perhaps of the
St.

ajuLrjv),

Note

also the parallelism in

Matthew.
St.

Matt.

xiii.

3S

St.

Luke
iraXiv

xiii.

20, 21.
tlvl

aWtjv

irapa^oiXrjv eXaXf}ojULOia

Kai

elireV

aev avTOii'
^aoriXeia
Xf'l^lli

icniv

tj

o/uloiuxtco

t. /Saar.
^vjui]

t. Oeou;

V^

rodv ovpavwv Xa^ovara yuvtj


eig

ojuLOia

ecrrh

evcKpv^ev
Tpla,
eft)?

aXevpou crara
el^vjUicoOrj

ov

bXov.
all is identical.

Here, apart from the introduction,

The Lukan introduction seems


elsewhere
is

preferable, as St. Luke prone to transform rhetorical questions.

Commentators rightly point out that most probably the parable of the Mustard Seed, which is found in St. Matt. xiii. 31-32 = St. Luke xiii. 18-19, side by side with the parable of the Leaven, must also be
assigned to Q, although
it
is

also

found in

St.

Mark

INVESTIGATION OF THE
(iv.

TEXT

27

Proof: (1) The two parables are in itself improbable that it is and closely allied, in tradition apart from one down handed were they another (2) they occur together in St. Matthew and Seed has in St. Luke (3) the parable of the Mustard these gospels a form which varies from that of St. Mark (4) this form is akin to that of the parable of
30-32).
; ; ;

the Leaven.
Mark.

Matthew.
7rap6r]KvavTOL<s \-

Luke.
6-

Kal eXeyev Trws o- aXAr^v


fiono(T(DiiVTrjV fSacTL-

Trapa^oA^v cAcyev ovv tlvl


fxoia ecrriv
r]

jSacn-

Aet'av

Tov deov
avrrjv

r)

Iv

ywv
rj

ojJioia ecrrlv

TLVi
/SoXrj

irapa-

/3acrtAta

twv ov-

KOKKij) crii'aTrews, os OTttv (nraprj evrt rrjs


yrjs,

ws pavojv kokklo crLvdov XajSoiV o-tvaTrecos, ov AaTrews, icnreL- (3(bv avOpo)7ros avdpojTTos av- /SaXev et's k^ttov IpLLKporepov ov pev ev rw o.yp(^
6(0[XV ;

tov deov, Kat tlvl o/xoicocrw avTi]v; 6[X0La ecrrlv kokkci)


Acta

TravTWV
fXOLTiOV
Kttt

Twv
T(UV

a-irep-

tov*
fJ^iV

[XLKpoTcpov
TrdvTUiV
o-

CTTt

TTJs

(TTLV

(TV

avTov, Kal r)v^YjKal eycvcTO


cts

yrys,

orav

o-Tra/)^,

rwv

o-Trep/xarwv,

SevSpov, Kai
tov

to,

Si a v^t^ 6 rj fxelava/3atvt Kat ytve- Tav rai [Xiitov TravTWV (ov twv Aa^^avojv Twv Aa>(avo)v, Kat eo"Tiv Kat yiverat TTOiet KAaSovs [ley a- SevSpov, &a-re eAVTTO

Trerciva

ovpaolv-

vov KarccTKr^vwcrcv ev

rots KAaSots
rov.

Aovs, wcrre Svvao-^at T^v o"Ktav avTOV


TreTctva TOV ovpa-

^eiv

rd

Treretva tov

ovpavov
o-kt^vovv

Kat

Kara-

Ta

ev

tois

vov KaTao'KT^vovv.

KAaSots avTOV.

The
follows:

text

of

accordingly
ecrrlv

ran

somewhat

as

e\eyv'

6/J.oia

/BacriXeia

tov Oeov

KOKKW

o-fvaTreo)?,

6/8aXev) ev

tw

ov Xa/Soov avOpcoTrog eaireipev (scarcely koi rju^tjcrev Kal ylverai (eig) aypco avrov,

Trereiva rov ovpavov KaraaKrjvoi e'v roh SevSpov Koi TO. It also seems to me that the introKXaSoig avTov.

duction in St. Luke

is

original (tIvi ojmola

avnjv);

28
St.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


It is

Matthew abbreviates. Luke here shows himself


Mark,

noteworthy that

St.

to be independent of St.

differing in this point from St. Matthew, and also follows a simpler construction than the latter

evangelist, because he has kept closely to the source.

On

the other hand, the

/c^tto?

original (St. historic present of St.

Matt, aypo^

of

St.

Luke

is

scarcely

St.

Mark

yrj)^

and the
preferred. in com-

The
St.

Matthew is to be ra Trereim tov ovpavov, expression


is

bination with KaracrKTivovv,

also
ix.

found again in
;

Matt,

viii,

20

= St.

Luke

58

ra

irereLva t.

in St. Matt. vi. 26 (St. Luke has here ovpavov again 01 Ko/c/fo? crivaTreco^ also occurs again in St. KopaKcg). Matt. xvii. 20 St. Luke xvii. 6 ; likewise av^dveiv^ and the pleonastic \a/3u)Vf are again found

(Tirelpeiv,

elsewhere in Q.

St.Matt.xv.l4: Tfc^Xo?
Se

St.

Luke

vi.

39:

/mrjri

TV(p\6v

eav

oStiyu,

Svvarai
6Stjyiv;

TV(pX6g
ov-)(j.

TucpXov
elg

oLjiKpoTepoL Trecrovvrai,

ek

/366uvov

ajucpOTepoi

^oOvvov
difference
in St.
is
;

cfxirecrovvTai ;

The only
full

in the form,

which

is

more
be
re-

of

life

Luke

but

is

his version to

'Eaj/ is garded as more original on that account.? very frequent in Q, and St. Luke has very often

changed

it.

St.

Luke has
7

irecrovvTai by the compound, as


St.

is

replaced the simple often the case.

Matt,
iXOelv
7r\t]V
Si'

xviii.
to.

St.

Luke

xvii. 1

avevctk.

avayKY}

aKavtco

ocktov
/ul>]

ecttiv

tov ra

SaXa,
OpcoTTW

oval

av-

iXO.

[^ovai Se]

T(p

ov TO (TKOLvSaXov

apOpcoTTif)

om.

TO CKav-

ep-^CTai.

CaAov om. SaXov

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


The
original
first

29

in

half of the saying is certainly most the version of St. Matthew (avdyKt] is

found only here in this gospel, while it occurs a few times in St. Luke). Also the second half, because of the parallelism, is preferable in the form of St.

Matthew.
irArjv ovai

It

is

uncertain whether
oe.

St.

Luke wrote

or ovai

St.
oarrig

Matt,

xxiii.

12

St.

Luke

xiv. 11.

Ta7r6ivo)0}j(TTai,

Kai

ocrrf?

o TaireLvcov

TaireLvw(T6L

kavTOv

v^^uiOri-

aerat.
finite verb into the partiin St. Luke, likewise the substitution ciple frequent of Traj for o? and octti^.
is

Transformation of the

St.

Matt,

xxiii.

37:

St.

Luke

xiii.

34, 35.

*lpov<ra\r]jUL
tj

'lepovaraX^/uL^

<prjTa<s

aiTOKTeivovcra rovg irpoKou XiOojSoXovcra

Tov^ airearTaXfxevov^ Trpo^


avTyv, TTOcraKi^ ^OeXrjcra
eirieiri-

(TwayayeLV Ta TeKva
ov

crov,

avvat-ai i^c
eTTLcrvvayei iyi
Trjv eavTr]<s vocrcTLav

TpoTTOv
vocrcrla

opvL(s

eTTKTVvayet

om.

Ta

viro Ta<s [aiyT^?]


ijOeXi]-

TTTcpvya^, Kai ovk


crare.
VjULiv

(38)

iSov

acpLerai
ep>]/uLog.

o oIko9 vjulwv

p}]/uL09

om.

(39) Xeyco

yap

vjuiiVy

ov

/jlyj

yap om.
id>]Te yue
C0^

[Se ?]

yUe lOijTe air

apn

eco^

av

ei-

air
}/^l]

apn om.

irt]Te'
juLvo<i

ev\oyriiJLVO<5

6 ep'^o-

lav

0T6j

v ovo/uLari Kvplov.

30

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Most of
the variants are without significance, and

yet even here the text of St. Matthew shows itself to be the more ancient. The reading eo)? dv rj^u {vel ewq v^i) ore is very pecuHar, and little germane to

the style of St. Luke. If we could accept Wellhausen^s conjecture that ore represents the Aramaic relative (is cui), and that the real subject is the

Messiah, then this reading would necessarily be the more original ; but the thought " Ye will not see
:

Me He

until

He

comes, to
is

whom

ye shall say, Blessed

is

too amazingly circumstantial. it is to be noted that this word apri, is found in the gospels only in St. Matthew and St. John in St. Matt. xxvi. 29, 64, and three times (oLTT apri again
St. Luke has omitted this vulgar and, moreover, pleonastic expression ; in the parallel passage to St. Matt. xxvi. 29, he uses airo rod vvv (a phrase which occurs again four times in the gospel and once

that cometh, &c.,"" In reference to

in St. John).

in

On acplerai eptjjULo^ Wellhausen rethe Acts). marks " The destruction of the city is not something in the future, it is already destroyed and is to remain
:

The later commentators shut their eyes and think of all sorts of things." And again on St. Luke xiii. 34, 35 " The omission of eprj/uo^ is very
in ruins.
.
.

remarkable.''

why acpUrai eptj/uog cannot be a prophetic future and that St. Luke omitted is not absolutely certain in pr]fxo9 (the word, moreover, the text of St. Matthew) because Jerusalem rose again
;

cannot

see

from
St.

its ruins, is
is

Matthew

to me questionable. The saying in only a reproduction of the prophecv of


:

Jeremiah

(xxii. 5)

ei*?

But the reproduction

iptjjucoa-iv

ecrrai 6 oiKog outo^.


vjuliv

acplerat

oIkos

vjuLwtJ

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


eprjfxo^

31

did not sound


St.

destruction

quite logical, for the idea of has to be supplied, and also was not

good Greek.

the omission of

Luke improved this version by St. Matthew read: " Your eprj/mo^.
left

be temple will to your disadvantage


dition of desolation
"
;

in a con:

St.

Luke

corrected

Your

temple
[left]."

will

as in St.
it

your disadvantage be delivered up The passive cKplea-Qai has now the same sense Matt. xxiv. 40 f. = St. Luke xvii. 34 f., where
to

As to the stands in contrast to TrapaXaix^avecrOat. this saying is our Lord's, or is a quotawhether question tion used by Him (or put into His mouth), vide infra.
St.
'El/ceFi'o

Matt.
6

xxiv.

43:

St.

Luke

xii.
(f.

39,

40,

^e yivuxTKere,

on

42-46.

tovto

CKeivo)

el

^Sei

oiKooecnrOTrj^

TTola

(pvXaKii

/cXeTTT/y?

copa
Koi

(f.

(pvXaKij)
eyprjyopr^nrev

av epyeTaif eyptjyoprja-ev elacrev av ovK Kcu oiopv^Orjvai Tr]V oiKiav avTov.

av

om.

OVK av a(p^Kv

(44)
Sia

Sia TOVTO Kal


CTOlfMOlj

vjuei^

yiveaOe

TOV oIkov TOVTO om.

OTL

OU dOKlT

Wpa 6 VLO^ TOV avOpcoTTOV (45) tl^ apa io-Th


ep-^eTai.

copa ver.

44

OV SoKiT6 (the whole is perhaps an inter-

polation from St. Matt.)


oiKov6fjL09 (f. SovXo<!)

6 TTKTTO^ SovXo9 Kai (ppOov KaTecTTrjcrev o vi/ULog,


Kvpio^
eiTi

KaTacTTTjcrei

Tt]9

oiKTeiag

avTOv

TOV

Sovvai

avTOig

OepaTrela^ SiSovai
V

(f.

oiKereiag)

avTOig om.
(TlTOJU.TpiOV

(46) 6 SovXog eKCivo^f jmaKapiog OV AU(jOV O KVpiO^ OVTOV 6VpricreL

Trjv Tpo(pt]v ev Kaipip;

Kaipw TO

ovtocxs iroLOvvTa.

(47)
ctti

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

a/x^v

\ey(X)

Vfxiv

otl

32
Tracrii'

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Toig
VTraoYoutTiv virapyji
KaraarWjareL

auTOv

avrop.

(48) SovXo^ eKivo9 ev

eav Se eiirn 6 KaKog


Trj

KaK09 om.
O KUl
fjiov

KapSla
epx^crOai (add.

avTov'

(49) XP^^^K^'- ^^^ \ if

O KUpiog, Kai ap^rjrai TvirT61V TOv<s arvvSovXovg aUTOV,


icrOli]

Se Koi

irlvr} jULTa

twv
o

Tovg TraiSag post Kvpios) Kai ra^ 7raiSi<TKa^ (f. r.


earQleiv re arvvoovX. avT.). Ka\ iTLveiv Ka\ jULcOvcTKea-Oai

jUeOuOl'TCOP,

(50)
ov

7J^6L

SovXov hcelvov Kvpio^ Tov


TrpocrSoKa ov yivwarKei^ copa ^ (51) Koi SixpTOjuyjcrei avrov Kai TO avTOv /uLera
^ju-epa

ev

Kai ev

/uLpo9

TCOP VTTOKplTWV 0^<rl.

aTTLcrrcou (f. viroKpircov),

is particularly instructive in that it us to recognise the various motives which guided helps St. Luke in his correction of the text handed down to

This pericope

him for almost everywhere the text of St. Matthew, when contrasted with that of St. Luke, shows itself On linguistic grounds, St. Luke the more original.
;

replaces eKelvo

by tovto, Sovvai by SiSovai (as in the Lord's Prayer), afxyv by aXrjOwg (a proof, moreover, that the ajULr/v here and thus most probably elsewhere,

where

it is

wanting in
the
pal

St.

Luke

stood

in the source
St.

compare

Luke). the same grounds he replaces the forms eaSu]^ TTivih by the infinitive (at the same time transforming he imthe descriptive phrase /xera toov fj-eOvovTcciv)

also

which

is

found in

On

proves the

order

of the
(jlov

words

(the
Kaipw,

unnecessarily

emphatic positions of

and

ev

and

outco^ in

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


;

33

he drops the superfluous too unemphatic a position) words eypt]y6pr](jv dp Kal, Sia tovto, avTo7^, and KaKog, on the other hand he adds ep^^ea-Qai to because he wishes to express the principal Xpovll^^i, He replaces verb which is implied in St. Matthew. oiKiav by 01K09, which is in fact the more appropriate
word.
replaces

He
it

takes offence at the vulgar oiKerela, and by the classical Oepairela, He changes the

in St. Matthew is not an but both slave and overseer, into an oiKovofJLog, and accordingly the aijvSovXci must also be transformed (this word is never found in St. Luke, while it occurs again four times in St> Matt, xviii. He replaces viroKpiTal by ainj-Toii a word 2833). which was more current with his readers {viroKpLTal are much less frequently met with in this gospel

SovXo?,

who indeed even

ordinary slave

than in

St. Matthew) ; the colourless rpocpij gives to a technical term which place a-iTOjUL6Tpiov^ certainly moreover is not met with elsewhere to wpa, (pvKaKrj

because the thief does

not only come during the at any time. but Only in the case of the (pvXaKrj, substitution of acprJKev for eiacrev do I find difficulty
in

conjecturing St.
is,

eiaaev

eav

is

Luke's reason for the change however, certainly the original reading, for only found here in St. Matthew, while it often
;

occurs in St.
Finally, St.

Luke (ten times in the gospel and Acts). Luke has interpolated between verses 44 and 45 of St. Matthew the words 'Eairev Se 6 Uerpo^'
:

KvpiCi "TTpog

rjixag

rrjv

Trapa^oXrjv Tavrrjv Xeyeig

rj

koi

interrupt the Kvpiog. connection of the passage, which shows here only a
TTpog TTCLvrag ;

koi etirev 6

They

seeming hiatus, and they answer to the style and c

34

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


weight upon the Also Karaa-Ti^a-ei

manner of

St. Luke, who lays great definite address of the discourses.

(instead of Karea-rtja-ev)

ment

it

is intended to be an improvehowever stands in a certain connection with

the interpolated question of St. Peter.

The
If so,
St.

verse 44,

St. Matthew, from St. Matthew. an interpolation perhaps we cannot be sure that it stood in Q.

verse in St.
is

Luke corresponding to

Matt. XXV. 29
[TvavTi]

rw
roO
-)(l

St.

Luke

xix. 2(i

evovTi

SoOijcrerai

Km
de

7r
/JLtJ

picrcrevd^oreTai'
-)(0VT09

iravri t. e^. om. ctTro Se koi


Trepicrcr.

tou

Kai

apOr]<rTaL

air

avrov.

air

avrov om.

Here, in all three places, it is plain that St. Luke has improved the text linguistically; as regards the
sense, irepiG-a-evOi]creTaL

was superfluous.
in

There are only about thirty-four instances

which

we have found sometimes strong, sometimes weak, grounds for conjecturing that the text of St. Matthew
secondary to that of St. Luke, but these instances still fm'ther reduced in number when we pass judgment upon them in combination. It is, namely,
is

are

(1)

by no means certain that the aij.Y}v of viii. 10, xi. 11, and xiii. 17, is an interpolation of St. Matthew's, for in St. Matt. xxiv. 47 St. Luke represents it by aXrjOco^ (and in St. Matt, xxiii. 36 by val)
x. 15,
it

may

therefore very well have also occurred in

in

the other passages, and St. Luke may have left it untranslated, seeing that he avoids un-Hellenic words.

The same may be

said (2) of the solemn \eyoo vjuiv of

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


xi.

35

22

St.

Luke
it
is

St.

Luke

X. 12,

24

in Q,

and

often gives it in his text of Q (vide xi. 51 ; xv. 7, ; &c.) ; it thus stood therefore possible that it was also

omitted by St. Luke here and there. (3) It cannot be proved that St. Matthew in iii. 9 replaced apPria-Oe

by
efV

S6^}]T,

and

it is
iii.

quite improbable that he inserted


11.

fieravoiav in

In regard to the remaining instances, thirteen affect


the introductions to the discourses (not the discourses themselves), or contain insignificant stylistic alterations.

The

discourse, St. Matt.


:

viii.

19

f.,

is

intro-

irpocreKQwv a? ypajuLjuLarevg, and in the same passage (verse 21) rwv /ULaOrjrwv ^ is added to erepo?, together with the addition of the

duced by the words

koi

vocatives SiSda-KoXe, Here also (verse 22), Kvpie. in xi. 4, 7, 6 'Itjcovs is inserted, and in xi. 25

and

airoKpiQei^

'Itja-ov^.

The
:

discourse of

xii.

38

ff.

is

introduced

by the words

avTM Tives toov ypa/uijUiaTcov ^apia-alwv Xeyovreg, and the discourse of xii. 22 ff. by rore avrw Saijuoviirpoa-tjve'^^Qrj the parable of xiii. 33 by the words ; lastly, ^6juivo9
aTreKplOTjcrav

rore

koi

Tore (a favourite oXXrjv Trapa^oXtjv eXaXtjcrev avToi^. particle with St. Matthew, occurring in his gospel ninety times, in St. Mark six times, in St. Luke foui'teen times)
is

One cannot be
St.

inserted in ix. 37, and perhaps in xii. 44. quite certain whether in St. Matt. xi. 16
elcriv ojULotoi ai'e

the words koi tlvl

omitted, or whether
alternative
is

Luke has added them.

The former

probable, because also in the case of St. Matt. xiii. 33, St. Luke exceeds St. Matthew in reading the words
:

It is questionable
;

is

an interpolation

it

whether in St. Matt. ix. 37 may also be original.

rots /xadrjTaTs avrov

36

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

Tivi ojnoiocKTco Tfjv /Sao-iXeiav

tov Oeov ; though he elseIn where shows a dislike for rhetorical questions. is added to 'Iwi^a, and in xii. 22 xii. 39 Tou 7rpo(pt]Tov similar the dumb man is both blind and dumb St. Matthew''s treatment of in occur amplifications

the

is now left (about fifteen instances) made in the actual fabric of the comprise changes Here we must at once agree themselves. discourses has a distinct St. Matthew that preference for the

Markan text. The group that

expression
epithet

"

your (the) Heavenly Father,"" or for the

"Heavenly,""
"*'

and

for

the

substitution

of

which preference the God,'"* to have been found in cause not seem does exciting
for

" Heaven

"

of

Q.

in vi. 26, 6 6 ovpaviog is subirarrip vjmoov in vi. stituted for 6 Oeo?) 32, 6 ovpdviog is added to in 6 ev TOiq vii. 11, 6 6 Trarrjp vjulwv, TraTtjp vjulwv

Thus

ovpavoig

is

and

in xi.

written instead of 6 Trartjp 6 e^ oupavov, 11, t. fiaa: rwv ovpavwv instead of r. ^aar.

T. Oeov.

It is evident that in these cases the text of

this gospel is secondary, seeing that these terms also appear in passages which are not dependent upon Q.

Again, this evangelist has also a preference for the In vi. 33, koi Trjv conception SiKaio^ (SiKaiocrvvt]).
SiKaioarvprjv

means
are

and a by no certainly an addition and in xiii. 17, the ^acriXeh unimportant one
is
!

certainly

more
vi.

may perhaps
phraseology in
Tot'S'

One original than the SUaioL, discern imitation of sacred Biblical

26 (ra irereim tov ovpavov for 28 (ra Kpiva rod aypod for ra KopaKas)} for ev and in vi. 30 (tov y^opTOv tov aypov Kplva), here we cannot be certain. TOV yet aypw ^opTOv),
in vi.

^INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


The expression of
Koa-jULOv

37
rov

St.

I^uke

(xii.

30) ra
is

eOvtj

(in St.

Matt.

vi. 32,

rov

kocjulou

wanting),

which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament nor in the LXX, may be original (an Aramaic St. Matthew may have omitted tov Koajmov phrase) as superfluous.-^ There remain a few passages of
;

greater

weight

and

significance.
Trpcorov,

Matthew has
kingdom of
ol

inserted

In vi. 33 St. and has thus limited


to seek after the

the exclusiveness of the

command
ouro^

God;

in vii.
:

12 he has added to the

Golden Rule the words

yap icmv

6 vojuog koi

has given a complete twist to the TTpocprJTai, passage concerning Jonah, in that he has applied to the simile a new tertium comparationis (Jonah's three
days'

He

abode
it

in

the

whale's

belly),

and thus has

interpreted present tense in xi. 27 well as the conclusion of

of our Lord's abode in Hades; the


is

probably due to him, as


32.

xii.

On
treated

the whole

it

may

be said St. Matthew has

the discourses with great respect, and has edited them in a very conservative spirit. Seeing that the more important corrections are so few in

number,

it is

absurd to attempt to deduce from them

the permanent motives which guided the evangelist in making them. The alteration in the terms for " was no correction in God," or for " the

Kingdom,"
perhaps

his

eyes

"This
remain
"
*

is

TTjOWTOi',"

the summary phrase, the Prophets." Thus, there " " the and addition of only Righteousness " and the transformation of the of
;

still

less

the

Law and

Sign

One cannot be
and
xi.

sure of Q's term for the Last

Day

in St. Matt.

X. 15

22

{i.e.

whether

rj

ij/x^pa

Kplaeus

is

original or not).

38

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

Jonah," which transformation may have been found by him already carried out in his exemplar of Q.

In contrast with these few instances of correction on the part of St. Matthew, we reckon nearly one hundred and Jifty instances of correction by St. Luke ; hut these are all^ with very few exceptions^ of a stylistic
character.
St. Luke''s interest in style manifests itself

in detail in the

most varied
itself.

directions,

and yet
:

it

remains consistent with

Let us here give a

most important manifestations replaces vulgar expressions by those that are more refined, and substitutes more appropriate

summary of
1.

its

He

for inappropriate words.

by compound verbs. replaces conjunctions by the relative. 4. replaces /cat with the finite verb by ^e (or the but, on the participle, or by a final sentence) by other hand, he also inserts Kal when it makes the passage run more smoothly.
9>.

3.

He He He

replaces simple

5. 6.

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

numbers, and
7.

easily crept into translations

and,
8.

moreover,

into

from Semitic languages, the language of the common

people.

He
He

varies the

constructions (oa-Tig av
9.

monotonous use of eav by other by Tra?).


great
circumstantiality

corrects
;

too

of

language

but, on the other hand, he explains obscure

expressions.

INVESTIGATION OF
10.

THE TEXT

39

11.

He He

reduces the

number of
the

rhetorical questions.

introduces

construction

of iyivero
/

with the gen. abs. followed by a

finite verb.
is

12. He multiplies the instances where in construction with the participle.

used

to

Beyond these stylistic motives which have led him make corrections,^ no definite bias of any kind

can be discovered in his treatment of the sections with one exception, which we have considered

namely, the introduction of the Holy Spirit into The the passage parallel to St. Matt. vii. 11.
omission of the clothing in the passage parallel to St. Matt. vi. 28, 31, and the corresponding recasting of the words, is a somewhat drastic change, but in
so far as it displays bias, the bias is very innocent. When he replaces " bread and stone " by egg and be he upon another tradiscorpion,''

may
of

dependent

tional

saying which was perhaps a current proverb (vide supra on St. by He has indulged in a fairly long Matt. vii. 9). arv Se aireXOuov SiayyeWe interpolation in the words viii. 22) Trjv ^aa-Lkelav rod Oeov (ix. 60, cf. St. Matt.

form

the

influenced

but the interpolation is, so to speak, neutral in character. Again, in order to give greater liveliness of form, he interpolates into the discourse of St. Matt. eiTrev Se 6 xxiv. 43 ff., after verse 44, the words
:

'

Kvpie tt^ooj Kal elirev 6 KvpLO<s. koi Xeyeis irpog iravrag; he has ventured to give some sort of
rj

Hirpo^

^yua?

rrjv

irapalSoXrjv

ravrtjv

Lastly,

para-

phrase of the saying of St. Matt.

xi. 12,

which was

^ Also the omission of ^/stj^uos is probably to be explained from motives of style [vide supra on St. Matt, xxiii. 38).

40

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


:

evidently unintelligible even to himself, in his balder version airo Tore rj ^aariXeia tov Oeov evayyeXl^erai,
KOI Tra?
e(V

avTtjv /Bia^erai,

If
it
is

we neglect

these few instances, in which indeed

possible that another text of Q than that used Matthew may have lain before St. Luke, then St. by we may say that in regard to the rest of the text

(that is, the text as a whole), o?ie and the same text lies behind St, Luke and St. Matthexv. It further follows

that the connection

between these two gospels, of

the source of the other, must be a i.e. the literary connection dependence of each upon common oral sources is not a sufficient explanation.

which neither

is

Having gained this firm standpoint, we now proceed to the investigation of those sections common to St. Matthew and St. Luke in which the differences
are greater.

II
St.

Matt.

iii.

7^:

l^icv

St.

Luke

iii.

7^ eXeyev
eKiropevo^

Se TToXXovg TU)v ^apLcraidov ^aSSovKalcov Koi ^PX^~


jLievoug
cttJ

oe

\_ovv ?]

toI^

l^^^oig 6)(Xoig /BaTrricrOtjvai


vir
\_V(jo'7riov~\

to
'

/BaTTTicrjuLa

avrov.

CLTrev

avTOi^

no longer possible to determine exactly is stood in Q, certainly not " the Pharisees and what Sadducees" (they are characteristic of St. Matthew),
It

nor the imperfect eXe'yei^ (for it is characteristic of St. Luke), nor the infinitive ^aTrTKrOtjvai, which is likewise characteristic of St. Luke perhaps, how;

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


ever,

41
never

Q had
i.

ttoXXo/ with the genitive, for


St.

it is

found elsewhere in

Matthew

(see,

however, St.
avroi^i.

Luke
source

16),^

probably also the word


in
.

The
:

may have run somewhat


.

this

way

l^oov

TToXXov?

epyofxevov^
St.

eirl

avToU.

From

Matthew
fi

iSaTmcr/uLa St. verse 5

to

eiirev

Luke

verse 3, it follows that iracra

'7repL^(jdpo<s

rod ^lopSavov

stood in Q.
St.

Matt.

iv. 1

Tore
rod

St.

Luke
(5e

iv.

1-13.
ttpcv-

'Ij^ctou?

TrXjjprjg

Trjv

eprjjuLov

viro

jmarog
airo

Trvevfj.aTO^ ireipacrOrjvaL VTTO Tov SiaPoXov, (2)

aylop vTrecrrpeyp^ev TOV 'lopSavov, kol

tjyeTO iv
ev
Til

tw

Trvev/maTi
rjfxepa^ p. viro tov

Kai
fx

vrjcTTevaras
/J.

^jmepag

eprj/JLUi

Kai vvKTa<i

vo'Tepov

eTrelvaarev,

Treipa^o/uLevos Sia/36\ov. Ka\ OVK e(payev ovSev ev toi^ ^/mepai^


Keivai9j

Kai

crvvTeXecreirei-

Oeicrcov

avTcov

vacrev,

(3)

Kai

UdV TTpoce.\e^

eiirev oe avTio o
09' 1 f to? ei
eiire to?

oiapoiva

ireipd^
vio^
1

cov eiirev

avTco' ei
etTre

TOV ueoVf

TOV ueov

Kiuw tovtco
irpo's

IVa OL ALUOl

OVTOL apTOi
6 Se (4) elirev <yeeir

yevrjTai apTO<s.
Kai

yevcovTai,

aircKpiQi]
'Itjaovg*

avTOV

cnroKpidel^ ypairrar ovk


fjLOvo)

yey paiTTai
apTO)
juovco

aprco
6
aviravTL

OTi OVK e7r'

^7](TeTai
7ri

^TjareTai

6 avOpcoTrog.

OpwTTO^j aXX'
^

is also

Yet it is also possible that 6x^oi occurred in Q, since the word found elsewhere in that source.

42
priiJLaTL

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


(eKTTopevojtxepa)

Sia

(TTOjuaTO^) Oeov.

(5)

Tore irapaXajulBavei
in

The
St.

verses

5-7 come
after

Luke
Se

8-9.

ayiav ttoXiv, Kai ea-Trjcrev avTOV eiri to iTTepvyiov Tov lepoVj (6) Kai
eyei 'yei

'^yayev
*I

avTOV

eh
fol-

p lows

over aX^ JUL.


is

What

identical, yet
elirev (f.

om.

avToo' avT(p'

ei

viog VLog

avTOv,

Xeyei)

Tov OeoVy /3aXe (reavTOV Karco' yeypairrai yap OTL T019 ayyiXoi^ avTOV euTeXeiTai irept
(TOV,

evTeuOev [KaTto'\

irepi
(TOV

Kai

7ri
(r6j
/ULrj

"^eipcov

TOV

SiacpvXa^ai

ere,

apovcTLV

iroTe

Kai OTi

eiri

irpOG-KO^rig irpog \i6ov

TOV

rrroSa

arov.

avTcp

'Irjarovg'

(7) e(prj iraXLv

Ka\

cnroKpiOeig

'Itjarovg

yeypaiTTai' ovk CKTreipaaei^ Kvpiov tov Oeov


<J0V.

eJirev avTco {oti) e'lptjTai

avTov
opo<s

(8) 'TraXiv irapaXafxpavei 6 Sid^oXos 19

Kai
Sia/B,

avayayoov
. .
,

avTov
Kai

(o

Xiav om.)

v^rjXov XiaVj Kai SeiKvvcTLV avTCf) Traaag


/Saa-iXelai

om.

eSei^ev
(f.

r^?

oiKOVjuLevrjg

Ta^
fjLOv

tov

koct-

Koi
(9)

Tr]v

So^av
eiirev

T. KOQ-jU.), Kol T. So^av eV avTcov om., cTTiyiJup

avTCiov,

Kai

y^povov add., perhaps

ttjOo?

avT(p' TavTCL aroi iravTa SwacOi eav Trecrcov irpoaKvv^crrjg juLoi. (10) tot6

avTov,
(Tol

add.

6
Tt]v

^m/3oXo9,
e^ovcriav
[icai Trjv

S CO (7 CO

TavT>]V diraa-av

eyei
tf

avTw

lirjcrovg*

oo^av

avTcoi'j,
(o

oti

e/uLOi

vwaye, aaTava' yeypair-

TrapaceooTai Kai

av

ueAct)

INVESTIGATION OF THE
rai yoLp* Kvpiov tov Oeov crov ir pocTKVvrjcrei^
Ka\ avTO)
aeig.
jULOvo)
SiScojui

TEXT
crv

43

avTrjv'

ovv eav
evcoiriop

Xarpev-

TrpocrKvvrjcrr]^ e/mov, ecrTai crov Trucra. koi

aTTOKpiOeh
elirev

'Irjcrov?

avrw'
is

What

fol-

lows

identical,

but

without

vTraye,

oraTava

and yap,
(11) T0T6 acbiricriv avTOV 6 Sid^o\o9y KOI iSov
Kai
cruvTeXecra^

iravra

ayyeXoi

TrpoarfKOov

Kai

ireipaarfMov airea-Trj air'

SialBoXog

avrov ayja

SiijKOvovv avTU),

Kaipov,

In the above passage I have indicated by spaced type all the words which are common, or which
in the two gospels. closely correspond to one another, It is at once seen that we have here an essentially

The chief difference is that in St. text. Luke the third temptation has become the second. It is in favom' of the order of St. Matthew that
identical

the temptation on the mountain is undoubtedly the here it is no longer a question chief temptation of the Divine Sonship being put to the test, but
;

of

its

renunciation

the

Son of God

is

tempted

to enter into the service of Satan.

It is in favour

of St. Luke's order, that according to it the scene of the temptations changes only at the last temptation, that the devil makes his final assault with a

temptation actually based upon the words of Scripture, and that our Lord's answer forbids further It is not possible to give a certain detemptation.
cision

on the point, but probability

is

on the

side

44

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Nothing can be built

of the order of St. Matthew.

upon the viraye ^arava of St. Matthew, for these If they were, what words can scarcely be original. reason could St. Luke have had for omitting them ?

word with him, never and only once in the gospel, while it is found twenty times in St. Matthew, fifteen times in St. Mark, and thirty-three times
{vwayeiv
is

indeed a rare

occurring in the Acts

in St. John).
St.

Besides, the phrase

occurs again in

and may therefore, perhaps, have been inserted from the latter passage (where St. Mark viii. 33 also has it). The wide divergence at the beginning and end is partly due to the influence of the Markan text. Hence it is that St. Matthew derives the episode " " to ayyeXoL SitjKOvoui/ avrw (^TrpocrrjXOop belongs the style of St. Matthew, the word is found more It is from St. Mark than fifty times in this gospel). viro that St. Luke derives "
Matt.
xvi.

23,

Tov Sia/BoXov Tov ^arava).

"
(St.

^fxepag
yu'

jul

ireipaXpiJLevo(s

Mark

^jucipa^ ireipa^ojuievog

viro

All further deviations of St. Luke


in the introduction are likewise

from

St.

Matthew

secondary, so that we must recognise the pure text of Q in the version of St. Matthew ; for (1) in place

of the representation of the Spirit as the active subject St. Luke writes in accordance with his
style

and

irXrjpt]? TrvevjULarog ayiov irvev^aTi^ (2) he inserts virearpe^ev airo T. 'lop^. {yiTO(TTpe(peLV is found twenty-two times in the gospel and eleven times in the Acts, never in St. Mark or St. Matthew) (3) he writes the imper:

and mode of thinking

ev

rw

fect

riyero

for

avYi-^Or}

(the use of the imperfect

is

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


almost peculiar to
St.

45

it

Luke; moreover, avri^Or] is is found in St. Matthew certainly original, and it in this gives a correct touch of passage, only local colouring [the wilderness is on the high ground] elsewhere in St. Luke the word occurs frequently
for it
;

dropped here because the evangelist did not understand its significance) ; (4) he omits the forty
is

nights as superfluous (agreeing with St. Mark) (5) he replaces the clumsy va-repov by the good Greek phrase a-vPTeXea-Oeio-cov avroov, (6) he mistakes the technical vYiarreveiv, and replaces it by the extravagant
;

the

ovK ecpayev ovSep, (7) by his corrections, or through influence of the Markan text, he has made it

appear doubtful whether the temptations occurred during the forty days or first after that period

had passed.
St.

Matt. 3
;

(vide supra)
is

Se

is

Trpoa-eXOcov put for Kdl

is

added by St. Matthew by St. Luke 6 Treipdl^oov


;

most probably the original word.


St.

Matt. 8

The one

stone of St. Luke, and the

the stone, seem to me secondary, just because they better suit the situation. Why should
address to
St.

Matthew have changed them


St.

Matt. 4

<5e

airoKpiQeh

etirev is characteristic

of St. Matthew's solemn

style, but irpo^ avrov is Lukan, likewise on. St. Matt. 4 aX\ eiri Travri prjjuLaTi Oeov (with or without eKiropevo/txevw Sia crTOjuiaTO^, words which have weak attestation) is an interpolation of St. Matthew, who completes the quotation from the LXX. St. Matt. 5 The historic present is here, as always,
:
:

avoided by

St.

Luke

likewise

TrapaXajuL^dveiv

elg

(also

46

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Matt, xxvii. 27) was distasteful
"'''

in verse 8, again in St.

to him.
St.

Matt. 5

St.
""

Matthew has replaced " Jerusalem


;
"'"'

the holy city (see also xxvii. 53) of the Hebrews also read ' Jerusalem.

by

"

for the gospel

St.

Matt. 5

St.

Luke avoids the Semitic


is

repetition

of avTov.
St.

Matt. 5

evrevOev

the
in

word is found elsewhere in St. Matthew and St. Mark.


Matt. 6
Luke''s
:

a Lukan interpolation St. Luke, never however


;

St.

Tov SiacpvXd^ai

ere is

an interpolation
so also

(according to the here and in verse 7.


St. St.

of

LXX),

on

Matt. 7

Here
is

St.

'I>ycrot'? elirei/

avru)

the

Luke with koi aTroKpiOeh 6 more circumstantial of the


original 8)
; ;

two, so also in St. Matt. 10.


St. St.

Matt. 7 The ttoXiv of St. Matthew is Luke avoids iraXiv (see also St. Matt.
:

it

is

found about seventeen times in

St. Matthew, twentynine times in St. Mark, forty-seven times in St. John ; on the other hand, only two (three) times in St. Luke'^s

gospel and
eipfjrai^
is

five

times in the Acts.

ip}]juLPov)
ii.

original, for the latter (together with to vide ii. 24 ; Acts is peculiar to St.

Luke

yeypairTai^ not

16, xiii.
St.

40

elsewhere only in

Rom.

iv. 18.

opog v>\rri\6v^ perhaps also attested by the gospel of the Hebrews; St. Luke rationalises and leaves the scene somewhat in shadow (he would
8,
:

Matt.

probably have us suppose that om* Lord was raised up into the air so as to be able to see everything). The

word

oiKovjuLEVT] is

Lukan

(used

by
St.

St.

Luke eight
St.

times,
;

once by

St.

Matthew, never by

Mark and

John)

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


v (TTiyiuLO)

47

ypovov

is

(the words

kol rtjv So^av

of course interpolated by St. Luke avrwv have either been dis-

or should be omitted altogether). placed in St. Luke St. Luke's theological opinions have likewise led him to amplify the devil's address to our Lord by the long a-oi (set at the beginning, cf. the e/xol interpolation
:

and

(TV

in

what
ijULol

airacraVi
'

on
(TV

follows) ^wcrco Ttjv e^ovcrlav Tavrrjv koi <5 dv OeXco olowfxi 'jrapaSeSorai
. .

avTTjv

ovv

(TTai

CTOL

7ra(ra.

evwiriov

is

Lukan
in St.

(occurring in St.

Luke

thirty-six times, never

Mark and
11
;

St.

ireac^v is
{cf.
ii.

an interpolation in the
xviii. 26, 29).
:

Matthew); on the other hand, style of St. Matthew

St.

the inserted
St.

Concerning viraye 'Earava (whence which follows), vide siipra. ydp Matt. 11 Koi cruvreX. tt. Treip. is added by St.
:

Matt. 10

Luke

((TvvreXeiv

is

wanting in

stood in Q twice elsewhere in St. Luke). cKpitjciv is found ten times in St. Luke, never in St.
;

St.

Matthew, occurs

acpicTTOLvai

Matthew,

is a Mark, and St. John. ^XP'^ Kaipov Lukan interpolation which weakens the unique signi-

St.

The expression occurs ficance of these temptations. in Acts xiii. 11. New Testament in the only again The text of the story of the Temptation, as it
stood in Q, can therefore in

my

opinion be

still

restored with almost perfect certainty ; almost everywhere the matter which is peculiar to either of our

two authorities shows


genuine text
is

The itself to be secondary. the shortest, and St. Matthew apQ here proaches nearer to it than does St. Luke. ran somewhat as follows
:

'O

'lri(TOv<s

viro avij^Or] etj Tr]V eptj/uLov

rod

irvevfxaTO^s

48

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


vtto

Treipaa-Orjvai

tov SiajSoXov, koi


TOV U60V,
ClTTe IVa

vrjcrTevG'as ^juepag

jul

KOI vvKTag
aVTO)'
1

jjf

varrepov
L

eirelvacrev, koi

VL09

OL AlUOl

Treipa^wv OVTOL apTOl


eir

etircv

yevojpTai,
/ULovo)
ig

lepovaraXrj/uL

prep aireKpiQri' yey pairrai' rrycrerat 6 avOpotyirog. irapaXaju/SaveL Se avrov Kai ecTTrjcrev avTOV ein to TTTepvyiov tov
el viog el

koi

ovk

lepov KOI \eyL avTW'


KaTCi)'

tov

Oeov,

^aXe

creavTOV

yeypaiTTai

yap
orov,

otl

Toh ayyeXoi^ avTOu

evTeXeiTai irepi
[JLY]

Kai ein "^eipcov apovcriv ere, TTore irpocTKoy^iJ^ ttjOO? XiOov tov iroSa <tov.
6
'Irjcrovg'

<pr] avT(f>

iraXiv

yeypaiTTai' ovk eKireipaarov.

ereig

Kvpiov tov Oeov


eig

iraXiv

irapaXajmlSavei

avTOv
Tcc?

op09 v'^tjXov Xiav Kai SeUvvcriv avTw Trdarag

elirev avT(p'
/ULOi.

^acriXeiag tov koctjulov Kai Tt]v So^av avTcov, koI TavTa aroi iravTa Scocro), eav irpocrKwricrri^
Kai

Xeyei avTM 6
crov

'I/^croy?*

TOV

Oeov

XaTpevcrei^.
St.

TrpocTKVvriarei^ koi avTOv 6 Sid/SoXo^, a<pit](Tiv


St.

yeypaiTTai' Kvpiov Kai avTco jULOVia

Matt.

V. S, 4, 6, 11,

Luke

vi.

20^ 21-

12.

23.

(3)
T(p

^aKapioi
V

01 irTOdyoi

TTvevjULaTi,

oTi

avTiiyv

T(t)

TTvevjULaTi

om,

vjuLCTepa

ecTTiv

(Bao'iXeia

twv

(f.

avTwv)
(f.

tov
ovp.)

ovpavwv,
(4) jULaKOLpioi 01 wevOovvre?, oTi avTo\ TrapaKXtjOr]-

Oeov

t.

These two verses are transKXaiposed in St. Luke.


ovTeg vvv
creTe
(f.
(f.

aovTai}

irevO,)

yeXd-

avT. irapaKX.)
in the ordinary text

The beatitude which immediately follows


:

position varies in the MSS.) fiaKapioi ol irpaeh, on avrol KK-rjpovo= Ps. xxxvii. 11), is probably a later interpolation ; fjL-^aovaLv tV yriv (
(its

vide

Wellhausen on this passage.

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


(6) fxaKapioi ol 7rivu)VT9 Kol Siyl/coPTcg rtjv SikgiocrvvrjVf

49

wv
Kcu

(post ireLvwvTe^^
.

Sucaiocr.

om.

OTL avroi "^^opracr-

avTOL om.
arecrOe

"^opraa-Bri-

drjcrovTai.

(11) fiaKapioL e(TT orav oveiSiccocnv v/aag Kai oioo^wariv Ka\ e'nruxjLV irav irovrjpov
KaO^
[evcKev
KQLL

ecrea-Oe (?)

orav

/ULiarrjcrMcriv

vfxag ol avOpooTTOi kol


acpopia-oocriv vfj-ag
SlG'WO'IV ?^

orav

[Kai ovei-

vfJLWV
efjLov].

y^evSo/ULcvoi

Kai

K/3a\(J0G'lV

(12) yalpeTC ayaWiacrOe, otl o


TToXu? V T019
ovTcoi

TO OVOfXa VKa Tov


irov.

VfJLWV 0)9 TTOvrjpov

viov

Tou avOpco-

jJLLCrQo^ V/ULU>V

ovpavoi9*

yap

iol-

co^av Toi'9 XjOO^TJTay

Tovg

yapYire iv cKeivn r^ Koi iSov crKipT^craT' rjiJLepa 6 TroXf? v/ulwv jULia-Qog yap
ovoavcp'

irpo vjuLwv,

Kara ra
toi?

aura

yap

eTTOiovv

irpocp^aig avTWv.
It

oi

Trarepes

is still

of the original
Siylrm'reg)
rrjv

possible practically to settle text of verses 3, 4, 6}


SiKaiocrvvtjv
is

the question

As

(Kai

added by

St.

Matthew,

so also

with the greatest probability we may decide


:

similarly concerning rw Trvev/uiaTi (the simple tttco^oJ is also found in St. Matt. xi. 5 Trrajp^oi evayyeXiI'ovrai).

On
is

the other

hand,

AcXa/oi/re?

(for

ireu-

OovvTcg)
1

certainly a correction of St. Luke,

who

Apart from the order, and perhaps also the question whether The pronoun v/iirepos is first or third person is original. but it may stand for an certainly Lukan {vide a Concordance) Wellhausen and others decide for St, Luke. But original vfj.Qv. the repetition of the pleonastic avrol gives an impression of originMatt. xi. 18) transforms ality, and St. Luke also elsewhere (c/. St.
the
;

the third person into the second.

50
is

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


fond of using KXaleiv (eleven times in the gospel, Matthew only two occurrences and one of these
;

in St.

Luke vii. 32 = St. Matt. xi. 17) brought about the yeXda-ere in the following clause (St. Luke is fond of strong expressions, yeXap occurs again with him only in vi. 25? never elsewhere in the New Testament), Ps. cxxvi. may have influenced The twofold pvv is of course also the evangelist here.
in a quotation, qf. St.

KXaleiv then

in the gospel

interpolated by St. Luke (vvv occurs thirty-seven times and Acts, four times in St. Matthew). St. Matthew 11 and St. Luke 22 look like two
is

separate translations, yet are not so, as


St.

Matthew 12

= St. Luke
is

23.

We
and

shown by must start


then

from the consideration of


appear that St.
^lEip eKeivr]

this verse

it will

Luke

th

riimepa

is

almost everywhere secondary. as secondary as mjv ; the imstyle


;

perative aorists are an arare (for ayaXXiaa-Oe)

improvement in
is

a-KioTri-

a genuinely

Lukan exaggerais
i.

tion (vide supra yeXda-ere) ; crKiprdv St. Luke in the New Testament {vide

peculiar to 41, 44), like-

wise l^ov
St.

yap (never found


six

in

St.
;

Luke) not care for the plural oupavoU, and {Kara) rd avrd is Lukan (elsewhere in the New Testament only in St. Luke vi. 26 and Acts xv. 27). 'J^ttolovu for
eSicoPav

Mark,

times in

St.

St.

Matthew and Luke does

was written by

St.

ing clauses not only persecutions


are mentioned.

Luke, because in the precedbut also other trials

A genuine translation-variant appears


Wellhausen says
""

to stand at the conclusion.

St.

Luke has read


the verb; St.
in

'

their

forefathers

as the subject of

Matthew has read 'your forefathers' The difference in the Prophets. to apposition

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT

51

Aramaic is only that of daq'damaihon (ol Trarepe^ avTcov) from daq'daviailidn (tov9 irpo vjuloop).'''* But there
namely, yet another explanation of this variation that St. Luke is here influenced by his reminiscence
is

of the familiar invective against the Pharisees (St. St. Luke xi. 47 f.) ; in that passage Matt, xxiii. 29 f.

the prophets and the fathers are spoken of together, "" and thence he has derived " the fathers here. This

may
in

have happened the more easily since the words

Matthew (i.e. in Q), rovg irpo v/ulwv, appeared liable to misinterpretation (Apostles Prophets), or
St.

an unnecessarv addition which of for some better substitute.


as

itself cried

out

Matthew 12 pretext of has been altered the which sents Q, original Luke. it is St. Then, however, possible that by also St. Matthew 11 = St. Luke 22 are not two
It accordingly follows that St.

different translations of a
it
is

common

original

rather

probable that here again St. Luke has deliberin fact, has transformed the, whole ately altered in shows itself in the the first verse. This, place, of In variants. . place stylistic -vp-ef^oirovtjpov

IJLevoi (the very fact that y\fev^6iJiV0L does elsewhere in the synoptists shows that it

not occur

probably

belongs to Q) he writes the excellent Greek phi-ase and supplies the subjectless verbs with to)?
TTovijpov,

One of the principal difthe subject ol avOpcoiroi. ferences is that St. Matthew has oveiSlcrcoG'iv, Siw^cocriv,
elirwariv

irav

7rov>]pov

KaO'

vfxwv

y^evSojuevoi,

while

St.

Luke

writes
cog

/ulkt/jctcoo-li/,

t. a(popi(Tco(Tiv, eK/BaXcocrip

ovo/ma
is

vjULcov

7roP7]p6v.

not quite

logical, in St.

The order Luke it is

in St.

Matthew
:

strictly logical

52
hatred
is

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


followed
find

excommunication, excommunication by the general defamation of the name.

by

Besides,

we

that St. Luke uses

/miareiv

also

in

other places where it does not occur in the parallel passage of St. Matthew (vi. 27, xiv. 26), and that " to defame" eK^dWeiv, in the metaphorical sense is in New the good Greek, Testament), (here only Greek at all. is not whereas eliretv irav

Trovrjpov

Accordingly, here also the text of St. Matthew is It must remain an open everywhere to be preferred.
question whether, in the places where St. Matthew is secondary, the corrections are due to the evangelist

himself or
before him.

whether

secondary

The Beatitudes

text already lay certainly circulated in

various recensions from an early period, indeed from the beginning. Thus Polycarp (Epist. 2) quotes as follows ol tttco^oi koI ol SicoKO/mevoi evcKev jixaKapioi
:

SiKaioavvtjg,

on

avTCDV

ccttlv

fi

^acriXcia

tov

Oeov,

This looks like a combination


St.
is

of

the

texts

of

Matthew and St. Luke ; perhaps, however, it a combination of these two and of the source, or perhaps it is another version of the source.

St.

word must be said concerning [evcKev ejuLov] Matthew and evcKa tov vlov tov avOpwirov
St.

in

in

St.

Matthew's phraseology here is somewhat redundant ; many authorities have therefore omitted yp^evSojuevoi ; but this word seems to me to be supported by the oj? irovfjpov of St. Luke (vide On the other hand, eve/cei/ ejjiov should be supra). omitted from the text of St. Matthew, for a succession of ancient Western authorities do not read
Luke.
it;

others read

'ivenev

SiKaiocrvvtjg

(Da.b.c.g'.k)

the

INVESTIGATION OF

THE TEXT

53

ancient Syriac reads cvckcv tov ovo/maTOi fiov. If these words were wanting in St. Matthew then the cvck. t. of St. Luke most certainly did not vlov T. apQp. This phrase stands in close connection stand in Q. with TO ovojuLa vjuwv, which also does not belong to Q
(vide supra).
i/Kv
If,

nevertheless, the critic asserts that

must belong to Q, it is no longer possible to ascertain what word came after this preposition in
the source.

St.

Matt.

V. 13, 15, 18, xi.

St.

Luke
;

xiv. 34,

35

25, 26, 32.

33
;

xvi.

17

xii.

58,

59
(13)
vfjieig

xvi. 18.

iare to

d\ag

KaXov
eav
06

ovv
Kai

Tfj9 yf]S'

iav Se TO d'Xaj
ev t'lvl oKkjet? ovSev Icr'^eL

TO to

d'Xa?*

aAa?
ouTe

jULcopavOuj
6r](TTai;

jULCopavOi],

iv t'lvl apTud)]yrjv

creTaL;
eig

out6 ef?

jurj I^XtjOeu VTTO KaTairaTGicrOai

ctl

e^co TVOV

KOTrpLav evOeTOv ecTTLV p(a ISdWovcTLv avTO.

avOpooTTCOv.

(15) ovSe Kalovaiv Xi/^-

ovoeig

Av^vov
TOV

ayj/ag

ef?

vov Kai Tl
VTTO
7ri

',(TLV

aVTOV

Kpv7rTr]v

TiOrjcTLv
JULoSlOV^,

[ov^e

TOV
Trjv

JULOOIOV,

aAA
Kai
ev

VTTO
7rt

dXV

Xv^VLaVf
to2<5

\aiuL7rei

ttolctlv

th

Xv^viav, %a ol TO <pco<i eLCTTTOpeVOJULeVOL


Trjv
^XeTTCoa-LV.

oiKia,

(18)
vjuLiVj

a/ut-rji/

ecog

Xeyo) av irapeAur] o

yap

eVKOTTOOTepOV Se icTTLV

TOV
ytjv

ovpavov

KaL
r]

Trjv

ovpavoi Ka\ rj yrj, looTa v juiia Kepala ov juij


f]

tov vojulov TrapeXOelv jULiav Kcpalav Treaelv.

irapeXOi] ^'^^ '^^^ vo/xoVy


eo)?

av iravTa yevrjTai,

54

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


o)?

(25) 'i&6i evvowu Tip avtiSlko) <tov Ta-)(y ecog otov L /xer avTOu ev tu oo(p'
\
</

yap

virayeig juLera
eir*

tov
c^pX'

olptiSlkov (TOV

lUL^TTOTe

are

irapaoo)

ovTa, ev Til oSw S09 ipyaaiav airriXXaxOai air'avTOv,


IUL7]7roT6 KaTacrvpii ere irpog

aVTlSlK09 TO) KpLTlJ Kai O KUl KpLTT]9 TO) VTTtjpeTlJy


6ig

TOV
are

KplTTfjV,

Ka\ O KpiTT]?

(pvXaKtjv
aiJ-riv

^Xridrjcrri'
oroi,

(26)
fjit]

Xeyot)

ov
eco?

irapa^ccxreL to) irpaKere Topi, Kal o irpaKTcop

e^eXOr]^ CKclOev

l^aXei

elg
o'Oi,

(puXaK'^v
jmrj

av cLTToSa)^
KoSpdvTr]v,

Tov ecr-^arov

Xeyoo eKelQev

ov

ecog Kai

epeXO^g to earx^i-

on

(32) e-yo) ^e Xe-yco Traj o ax oXi'(

vjuitv

yuj^aT/ca

avTOv

irapeKT09

Tov XeiTTOV airoSwg. irag 6 airoXvoov Trjv yvvaiKa avTOV Kai yajULa)v eTepav luoix^vei, Kai o
aTToXeXvjmevrjv airo
Spog ya/uLcov juLoix^uei.
av-

Xoyov

iropveia^

ttolgi avTr}v

lULoij^^evOrjvai,

Ka\ b? iav
ya/ULrjcrr],

airoXeXvjut.evrjv
fjiof^^arai.

in the

saying also stood in St. Mark (ix. 50) kqXov to dXag eav Se to dXag avaXov ev Tivi avTO apTvareTe ; e^ere ev eavTOig d'Xa., yevrjTai, The saying in Q ran v/meig ea-Te to dXag Trjg yrjg or in a similar form St. Luke must [in this foi'm

The

first

form

have read

it in Q, for the context in which he gives the saying shows that he referred it, like St. Matthew, but as in cases of doubt he often to the disciples
;

prefers St. Mark to form of St. Mark]


oXia-Orja-eTai [here

Q, so here also he has chosen the

also

euv Se to dXag jucopavOi], ev tivi St. Luke uses the apTvciv of

St.

Mark];

eig

ovSev layyei cti [St.

Luke

replaces this

INVESTIGATION OF

THE TEXT

55

expression by ovk evOerog (evOero^ and avevOerog are peculiar to St. Luke, cf. xiv. 35 and Acts xxvii. 12),

and
St.

reinforces
eig

it

phrase oure

according to his custom with the in ytju ovre el<s Koirpiav (Koirpia only
8),

Luke, vide

xiii.

which

also replaces the


e^co

word

KaTa7raTiG-0ai^
Tcov

el

jurj

l3X}]6ei^

KaTairareiaOai vtto

apOpcoirwv [that ^XtjOev e^co is original is shown the fact that St. Luke did not like to sacrifice it, by but let it hobble behind the main body of the saying].

Thus the

verse stood in

in the

form in which

it is

preserved in St.

Matthew.

and "
is

In the second saying, dirreiv and avdirreiv (for "fire" light "), are Lukan, so that the verdict here must

be given for St. Matthew ; the participial construction Lukan ; the ovSelg for an indefinite third person 'Ytto tov juloSiov plural is a stylistic improvement.
is

probably an interpolation from

St.

Matthew

into

the

Lukan
30.

text
is

St.

Luke
vide

says
viii.

eiG-TTOpevojuievoi

saying occurs four times in the in St. In St. Mark iv. 21 it Luke). gospels (twice runs jujjti ep-^erai 6 XJ^i/o? 'Iva vtto tov juloSiov TeOij
xxviii.
:

The Lukan,

ek Kpyim^v. 16 ; Acts iii.

Ol
2,

ov^ 'ii/a eiTL Trjv Xv^viav TeOtj ; in Q ran as St. Matthew gives it. St. Luke gives it both times {vide viii. 16) with the same traits which can
r]

VTTO Tf]V k\lv}]v,

it

be easily explained as peculiarities of his own in " " from he inserts the bed St. 16, however, " Mark, and replaces the " bushel not by etV Kpvirrriv
;

viii.

but by the general phrase KaXvirreL avrov crKevei (for this word see Acts ix. 15 ; x. 11, 16 xi. 5 xxvii. 17). In making the lamp give light, not to those within the house but to those entering in, St. Luke evi; ;

56

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


;

dently intends to improve the sense of the passage


the gospel (though this is doubtful). The third saying in Q ran as follows
6 ovpavo9 Kai ^
airo Tov
lodra ev yrj^
j?

he perhaps also thinks of the missionary aspect of


:

eco?

dv irapeXQri
jULt]

irapeXQn In regard to form, St. Luke has improved the clumsy construction, but he has also altered the thought by the which he evKOTrcorepov
vofxov.

fxla

Kepaia ov

has adopted from other sayings

(^vide St.

cum

parall.; xix.

24 cum paralL).

Matthew, the Law abides as long as remain according to St. Luke, it


;

Matt. ix. 5 According to St. Heaven and Earth


lasts longer

than

they.

Here we discern St. Luke's genuinely Hellenic reverence for the Old Testament a reverence which

could be so deep, because the writer stood remote from the controversies concerning the application

of the precepts of the

Law

to the daily

life.

The

converse hypothesis (Wellhausen) that St. Matthew has attenuated the thought is unacceptable from considerations both of matter and style. St. Luke

has introduced ireaelv in order to avoid the double

irapeXOn {irea-dv in the metaphorical sense is not found in the gospels, but cf. Rom. xi. 11, 22; xiv. 4; 1 Cor. X. 12; xiii. 8; Heb. iv. 11), and he has

omitted the In singular.

Icora
St.

ev

as

superfluous

and somewhat
a/i^j/

Matthew the opening words

y. X. viMv and the concluding clause ew? dv iravra yeu. are perhaps secondary. The latter was probably

added because the preceding passage in

St.

Matthew

" " speaks of fulfilling ; the evangelist may, besides, have been influenced by a reminiscence of St. Mark
xiii.

30.

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT

57

Close consideration of the fourth saying also shows that St. Matthew has excellently preserved the text

of

Q (perhaps ayur/i/ is secondary). The temporal o)? at the beginning is specifically Lukan (references are
unnecessary)
;

here

eir'
'[(tOl

ap-^ovra

is

an explanatory

interpolation, and

Testament) seemed
it

cvvocov (here only in the New he replaced to St. Luke too weak

by the transparently clear phrase Sos epyaalav airrjWa-^Oai air avrov (epyacrla is not found elsewhere
however Acts
19
;

in the four gospels, see


xix. 24,

xvi.

16, 19

25

Ephes.
:

iv.

neither

is

airaXkacrcreLv

found elsewhere in the four gospels, see however Acts xix. 12 aTraXXdcrcrecrOai air' avTwi/). St. Luke
has just as happily avoided the awkward phrase Ta')(y 0)9 OTov el imeT avrov (he places the /merd at the very
beginning), as well as the unnecessary repetition of 6 dvTiSiKOi, Moreover, his sense of style would not

allow

him to

describe the action of the adversary

and

the judge with one and the same


uses

word

(St.

Matthew

wapaSovvai in both cases)

(Tvpeiv irapaSovvai elsewhere in the New Testament, but crvpeiv [of men] is peculiar to St. Luke, occm'ring indeed three times in

and

he writes here Karadoes not occur (Karaarvpeiv


;

the Acts).

Luke has replaced the very indefinite the technical term 6 TrpctKrcop, and VTrrjperrjg by the vulgar In all these cases KoSpavrrj^ by Xctttov. it is had before Matthew inconceivable St. that simply him, and has altered, the text presented in St. Luke. In the fifth sa3dng St. Luke is evidently dependent
St.

word

not only upon


av
airoKvarn
eir

Trjv

but also upon yvvaiKa avrov


Kal

St.

Mark

x.

ii.

(o?

Kai

yajuDja-u

aX\r]i'^

/j.oij(arai

avrrjv

idv

avrrj

diro\vaa<Ta

rov

58
av^pa
avrrjg

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


avTt]9

avSpog Accordingly, in St. Matthew we have only to omit the introduction and the phrase TrapeKTog \6you iropvela^. In St. Luke
yvi/tj

\yel

eav

e^eXOrj

airo

rod

Kai]

yajuajcrr}

aWov,

jULoi^aTai).

KOL yajuLuov in fact, erepav comes from another source from St. Mark and by its insertion the sense of the

saying

is

ing hand was

altogether changed (that St. Luke's correctat work here is also evident from the

substitution of the participle for 09 eav In yafxyjarn). the to the austere Q saying gave expression thought
:

"

He who
:

divorces

his wife

causes

her to commit

adultery

of adultery."
thought.
St.

both she and her new husband are guilty St. Luke has completely changed this

Matt.

V. 39, 40, 42,

St.

44-48.
(39) "OcTTf?
eig
ere

28,
paTTi^ei
cr

Luke 35^ 32,

vi.

29, 30, 27,

33, 36.
(76
ef?

Tip TVTTTOVTl
Ti]v

Tr]V

[^e^iav^

Lay ova

a Lay ova,

irape-^e

[exl] Kal

((70u),

crTp6\^ov avT(p Kai


ctol

Trjv aXXrjVj
\
">

Tijv

aWrjv,
KaL airo

(40) Kal TO) OeXovTL


KpiQrjvaL (Tov Xa/Beiv,

Kat

Tov

"^iTcova

tov aLpovTog aou TO IJuaTLOV KaL TOV "VlTCOVa


KCoXvoru^.

)f

kol a<p9 avrco


ere

lULt]

TO
Kai

IfXaTLOV.

(42) Tip aiTOvvTL


r

S69,
crov

iravTL

aiTovvTL

ere

SlSov,

TOV Six ovTa airo

KaL airo tov


era
jut]

SavicraarOat
Tpacpij^.

airod-

a'lpovTog tcl airaLTeL [cf. v. 35 :


juLrjSev

Kal

Savel^cTe

aweX-

TTL^OVTeg^.

(44) eyw 6e Xeyco vjuiv tous ayairaTe eyOpov<s

vjuLLv

Xeyco
t.

toli^

ukovovctiv
v/ul,,

ay air.

e^Op,

KaXwg

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


VIULCOV

59

KOI
Tcov Cicokoptcov
vjuLcig,

TTOieiTe TOig

jULiarovariv vjuas,

virep

evXoyeiTe
jULevovg
T(x3v

Tovg

/carapco-

i/jmag,

irpocrevyedOe
CTTJjpea^ovTCov

Trepl
vjuLag,

(45) 0X0)9 yeutjcrOe viol

Kai

ecrecrue

vioi

vyj/i(TT0v,

Tov irarpos
ovpavoig,
Kai

vjmcov

tov ev
ip\.iov

on
eiri

avTog
TOv<s

^jO>7<jto9

eaTiv

on

tov

a-^apldTOvg kcu

avTOv avareXXei ein


povg t
eyei
aSiiKovg.

irovt]-

TTOvripov's,

IS ayaOovg
)iKaiov9

koi
Koi

errri

(46)
TLva
Kai

eav

yap

ayairr]vj^-cig,
ov-)(j.

Kai

ayairaTe
vjaug, irola

tov<5
vjuliv

arjre Tovg ayaTrcovTag


fjLicrOov

ayaircovTag
')(OLpi<g

e-^ere;

[ecTTivl; Kai

yap

ol

OL

TeXoovai

to avTO

ajLiapTooXoi T0V9

ayairoDV-

TTOiovcnv;

Ta<i avTov<s ayairooaiv,

(47) Kai eav acnrao'tja-Oe T0V9 aoeXcbovg v/mcov ijlovov,


TL irepiarcrov iroieiTe; eUVlKOi KQl OL eui TO
TTOIOVCTIV;
ov-^i

Kol

\_yo.p^

^GLV [ef]

ay aOovjulip

"TTOirJTe

[-eire] tovs ayaOo-

TTOLOvvTag v/mag, iroia

aVTO

\api9
Kai ol

[X'^P^^

'^M-l

Gcrnv;

ctjUiapTcoXoi

to avTo

iroiovdiv.

(48)
TeXeioi

earecrOe ecretTVe
0)?

ovv

vjuei?

o iraTrjp vjmwv o ecTTiv. TeXeios ovpavoL<i

ylveorQe oiKTip/uovegf /caOco? O 7raTt]p VfJiCOV OlKTipjUiWV


ecTTiv
l^oiKTcipei'].

There can be no question that


verses St.
St.

in the

two

first
;

Matthew has preserved the


(1)

original text

Luke has
;

introduced

the

participial

con-

struction

by

TVTrTeiVi the equally

he has (2) replaced the vulgar paTrl^eiv vulgar (TTpe\^ov by Trapeze,

60
the

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


awkward un-Hellenic and
.

diffuse ro) OeXovri a-oi

Kai . . Xa/3eiv by airo tov alpovTOS (in the KpiOrjvai latter instance he has transformed a command relating

to behaviour in case of a judicial action into a general maxim ; hence /mt] KcoXua-ijg for the more positive acpeg. ' St. Matthew says He who wishes to sue thee for
:

thy coat, allow him to take also thy cloak ; St. Luke " He who takes says thy cloak, hinder him not from
:

"

taking also thy coat ").

^Pairii^eiv

is

found in the

New

Testament only
67); crrpecpeiv
(TTpacpei^i

in St.
is

Matthew (viz. once again in xxvi. used by St. Luke only in the form

also the Semitic repetition of the dative in avr^ (D. has avoided this by writing 6 OeXcov), " " coat,"" St. Luke In the order, " cloak might seem

notice

to represent the original; "for the coat is nearer to the body than the cloak." But St. Luke was obliged to begin with the cloak, for the robber catches hold

of the cloak, not the undergarment easily understand that the Lukan text
its origin,

we can thus
is

secondary in but we cannot explain a secondary origin of the text of St. Matthew.

The Lukan
verse 42,
fifth
is

insertion

of iravrl

in

St.

Matthew

found in the Lukan version of the of the Lord''s Prayer and elsewhere in petition
also

St.

Luke;
is

likewise the substitution of SlSou for 86$

also

occurs in the

AiSov
is

more

fourth petition of that prayer. correct Greek, seeing that the command

In what follows, the words airaiTeiv (note general. the play upon alrelv and airaireiv) and airekTrlXeLv of themselves show classical feeling ; the possessive pro-

noun {ra
airb

era)

is

also
.

Lukan
.

the whole clause, koi


is

rod aipoprog

airaiTeh

interpolated

by

INVESTIGATION OF THE
St.

TEXT
42^ in
is

61
St.

Luke.
is

On

the

other

hand,

verse

Matthew St. Luke


St.

original, for the

35,

thought and the construction in


is

expressed in

St.

Matthew

is

clumsy (the middle a7ro(TTp(p<rOai


Luke). In verse 44 St.

not found in

Luke

has, as is so often the case,

omitted the superfluous pronominal subject, and has

added
liar

this gospel).

T019 aKovovcriv (influenced by what precedes in In this verse the two exhortations

pecu-

Luke can scarcely be original what reason could St. Matthew have had for omitting them ? Besides, St. Luke is fond of the words /uLiareiv and
to St.
;

evXoyeiv (oi

/uLicrouvTe^

^fJ-a^f

in the literature of the

almost a technical post-apostolic epoch, term with Christians for their adversaries). The four verbs ayairav, KaXco^ Troieiv, evXoyeii/, Trpocev-^ecrOai
is

indeed

form a premeditated climax which


pared
for

is not to be comwith the originality simple combination

of ayairav and irpocrev's^eadai. St. Luke has already avoided the word Sicokciv in St. Matt. v. 11, 12 (vide
supra)

why,

know not;
iii.

eTrrjped^eiu

occurs again

only in 1 Pet.

16,

and does not belong to the


speech (vide Aristotle's de-

vocabulary of
finition).

common

In verse 45 the peculiarly Lukan i/xp-fo-ro? (without 6 and without Oeog) shows that St. Luke has made
changes

oVwy is not frequent in St. Luke (it is found ; only seven times in the gospel), elsewhere also its use is avoided by this evangelist. Xprjarog ecrrLv ein rovg

ayapLCTTov^ has too much of the flavour of the liteIt is difficult to say why rary style to be original. St. Luke has done away with the beautiful simile of

62
St.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Matthew.
express the before him

Did he think that it did not thought clearly enough ? That he had it
in his source seems to follow

comes

which and aSiKog of St. Matthew are suspicious; the former being a " Your Father favourite word with this evangelist).
Trovrjpovg,

from

in haltingly at the close (the SiKaiog

in Heaven,''' in
picious.

At

St. Matthew, is almost always sus"" is to be the very least, " in Heaven

omitted.

In verse 46 rlva
for

julictOov r)(eTe

is

certainly original

a specifically Lukan yapi'Si given by word (found twenty-five times in the gospel and the Acts, never occurring in St. Matthew and St. Mark).
St.

Luke,

is

The question Lukan (vide


in
St.
St.

in 46^

is

also

original

for kol

yap

is

the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer Luke, where St. Matthew has Km, in

Matthew

koi

yap

occurs twice,

in

St.

Luke's

gospel nine times), and St. Luke has often removed rhetorical questions from Q. Again, the reXcovat must be more original than the more general term
ol
ajULaprcoXoi.

St.

Luke perhaps did not wish to

repeat the phrase to avro iroiovcriv (vide verse 47), therefore he develops it here. The el here and in the
edv

following verse
is

is

certainly

secondary;

in

Q,

Also in very much more frequent than et. other passages St. Luke has changed edv into e:. In verse 47 St. Luke understood darTratea-Qai to mean to be friendly disposed towards anyone,"

"to devote oneself in love towards anyone" (probably rightly), and has accordingly rendered it by it is obvious that St. Matthew is dyaOoiroieiv, here. The julovov of St. Matthew is also original

INVESTIGATION OF
original
;

THE TEXT

63

St.

Luke avoids
[viii.

this use of the

once in the gospel Mark while in St.

50]

and

word (only that from St.


;

Matthew

it

often occurs

it also

For jroia v/ulip ')(OLpi<Sy occurs only once in the Acts). vide supra on verse 46 ; the fact that the corresponding words of St. Matthew (t/ irepicrcrov TroLelre) are a
is in their favour. For Ka\ ol a/maprcoXoi, " vide supra on verse 46 ; " cOvlkol is not found at all the word would have been almost uninin St. Luke

vulgarism

telligible to his readers.

In verse 48 St.
fluous

Luke has again


(cf.

pronominal subject

(oTTO)?) yevtja-Oe

by

erased the superIn replacing verse 44). ea-ecrOe in verse 45, and caea-Oe by

in verse 48, ylvearOe

he has in both cases improved

Likewise in writing KaOwg the logic of the passage. It is, however, for 0)9 he has improved the style.
difficult

to

decide whether reXeioi or oiKrlp/uLoveg

is

Wellhausen describes the latter the original word. as much the more genuine.*" TeXeiog is indeed
found in the gospels only here and in
xix. 21.
St.

Matt,

OiKTLpjULwu Nevertheless, I

assign the idea to Q or to our Lord on the evidence of these two passages is hazardous. is found nowhere else in the gospels.

To

am

inclined to prefer the latter

word

at least so far as significance is concerned. Perhaps and has been replaced in St. eXerijuoveg stood in

Luke by the more


St.
ijjuL(Jov

refined word.

Matt.
o

vi.

lidrep
.

St.
.
.

Luke
three

xi.

2-4.

^/ulcov

v TOig

ovpavoi^'

ovpav. om.

The
are
;

ay laa-Orjriio
(10)

to

ovo/ulol
t]

ctov

first

petitions

eXOciTft)

^aa-Ckela

probably wanting

read

64

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


OeXrjjiia

<TOV yevriQrjTW to
crov, cog

in their place

eXOera) to

ev

oupavcp

Kai ewi

ayiov
Kai

TTvevjULa arov (p' ^imag


rjjjiag,

KaOapicraTOi)

(11)

TOP

apTOV
Sog

rjfJLWV
rjJJLLV

(Jiliioiiv

om.

?)

TOV

eiTLOlXTLOV

^l^ov

TO KaO'

fifjiepav

<jrjiJLepov'

(f. (T^/uLepov)
^juliv

(12) Kai acbeg


o(pi\^IULaTa
^/uLcov,

Ta
Kai

Tag
ajmapTiag
(f.
^jULcig)

cof

koi

yap

avTo\
TravTl

rjfxelg a<pi]KaiuLv

T019 o<pi-

a(pio/UL6v
rjfJUV'

Xeraig ^Iulwv
(13) Kai
rj^ag
pvcrai
vripov.
i<5
/ULr]

6d)lX0VTl
eicreveyKrjg

TreipacTjuov,

aWa
iro,

aXXa
TTOVtjp,

^/mag airo

tov

om.

It

is

certain that the

depend upon
translation,

two forms of the prayer one original form and one original
just as certain that St. Luke the prayer as the customary prayer in the communities with
it
is

and

could not have


congregational
w^hich

known

he was acquainted, otherwise he would not

Have revised

rransmitted to
(cf.

St.

The form language so drastically. him contained only the vocative iraTep Paul) and the so-called fourth, fifth, and
its

All the other clauses found in St. sixth petitions. Matthew are either accretions which attached themselves to the common prayer during the process of transformation into a solemn congregational prayer in the primitive Jewish Christian communities and

under the dominating influence of the prayers of the Synagogue, or they were added by St. Matthew himself. With the correction SiSou compare St.

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


Luke''s

65
St.

similar

correction

of
as

St.
it
;

Matthew gives the prayer and as indeed it was, used


as

Matt. v. 42. was meant to


St.

be,
it

daily

Luke

gives

an instruction in prayer, therefore the present This also explains the substitution of to tense. KaO' rj/mepav for a-^juepov, as to which it is to be

noted that r. KaO'

New Testament
xvii. 11).

only in
it

^^/mepav St.

occurs

elsewhere
(xix.

in
;

the

Luke

47

Acts

to St.
there
is

Luke because
is

was most probably distasteful belonged to the vulgar idiom no doubt that it is the original word ; ^jmei^
'OcpeiXtjima

replaced

by avroi

in order to avoid the threefold

repetition of the same

word

(St.

Luke

is

also

fond

of omitting the pronominal subject before the verb vide mipra on St. Matt. v. 44, 48, and elsewhere)
Kai

yap

also is a phrase that St.

{vide supra
is

on St. Matt. v. 46). acprJKajuLev certainly as original as the cos (vide St. Matt. v. 23) ;

Luke uses The perfect


full

elsewhere

St.

Luke has here attenuated the

and important

Lastly, the interpolation significance of the petition. of iravrl (with participle instead of substantive) is
also

on St. Matt. v. 42 and elsethe amplification of whether question the prayer is due to St. Matthew himself, or whether he adopted it in the form it had already taken in the Church (vide supra), is one that cannot be definitely settled (iraTep ^/mwv 6 cv t. ovp. seems to An original form betray the style of St. Matthew).
vide supra

where.

Lukan The

"

(" Trdrep

must have

and the fourth, fifth, and sixth petitions) existed, and there is nothing to say

The seventh petition against its having stood in Q. like the first three has strong points of resemblance

66

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

with the prayers of the Synagogue, and it is certain that St. Luke would not have passed over this
petition if
St.
it

had existed

in his exemplar.
St.

Matt.
Se

vi.

W:

Orjcr-

Luke

xii.

33^

6r](r-

aupL^ere

vjuiv

Otjar-

aupov

aveKXeiirTOV

evToh

avpovg ev ovpavw, birov ovT (jrjg ovT ^pwcri^


a(f)anl^i

ovpavoig birov KXeTrrrj^ ovK eyyitei ovoe arjg


SiacpOelpei,

koi ottov kXcttSiopva-crov(riv

Tai ov

ovSe

KXeinovcriv,

Taking also into consideration verse 19 of St. Matthew and verse 33^ of St. Luke, it is at once seen that St. Matthew gives a saying which is complete in itself, while St. Luke adopts, as it were, only
a reminiscence of this saying, which he binds up with the command to sell all things and give alms (cf. his enthusiasm for this ideal in the Acts). Moreover, the plu^aseology and the selection of words betray the
deliberate choice,
St.

and thus the secondary character of

AiacpOelpeiv (also (pOelpeiv) does not belong to the vocabulary of the gospels, but is classical ; the thief and the moth are not easily understood apart

Luke.

from
St.

St.

Matt.

vi.

19

eyyil^eiv

is

a feeble word which


is

Luke was fond of using

(it

not found in

St.

John, occurs three times in St. Mark, six or seven times in St. Matthew, twenty-four times in St. Luke),

and

ai/e/cXefTTTo?

also

belongs

to

the

language of
cf. xvii.

literature (St.
;

Luke
46
:

loves such formations,


;

Acts xxvii. 12 avevSeKTog ^vcrPaarraKTO^ the plural ovpavoig, which avevOero^). Accordingly, is much rarer in St. Luke than in St. Matthew, can
xi.
:

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT

67

alone be claimed for Q, wherein verse 19 must also Verse have stood, as is shown by the Se of verse 20.

19 rmis
OTTOV

jmrj

Orja-avpH^ere
Pp(Jo(Ti9

v/jllv

Otjaavpovg
koI

ctti

t??

'y^?,

(Ttjs

Koi.

acpavil^ei^

oirov

/cXeTrrat

Siopvarcrovoriv

Koi Kkiirrova-iv,

Only,

been made to treasures upon earth,


the thief explain themselves.
St.

if reference had do the moth and

Matt.

vii.

13:

EiVeXOare
<TTvrig irvXijg'

^la

t??

OTL TrXa-

xiii. 24: elaeXOeiv ^la ayoovlXeaQe rtjg (TTevrjg Ovpag, on

St.

Luke

Tela

\_ri

Koi irvkti] evpvycorj

po^

ri

6S69

airayovara

eig

<tov(tiv

ttoXXo/, \ey() v/mv, ^>;t>}eicreXQelv Kai ovk


icr')(y<rovcriv,

rhv

oLTrooXeiaVf koi

ttoWol
Si

eicriv

ol

eicrep'^oiULevoi

avTt]9'
rj

(14) OTL crrevrj


Koi TeOXijULiuevtj ^
eig

TTvKrj
r]

6S09
^coTjv,

Kai

airayova-a
oAi' oXiyoL

rrjv

cktiv

ol

evpicTKOvreg avTi]v

Luke gives only he an extract, wherein, however, develops the teachand of means ing by ayodviCeaSe X^rirricrovcnv {aymL-

As

in the former passage, so here St.

Xeo-Baii

a classical

gospels, writes

though

it

occurs in St. Paul

word not found elsewhere in the St. Luke also


;

in Acts xvi. 10, and a eQirwaixev e^eXOeiv is not which 'tr]Tiv given in St. Matthew is also found in St. Luke's parallel to St. Matt. x. 39 with
;

OVK

i(T')(yiv,

compare

also St.

Luke

vi.
vi.

48, viii.

43,

xiv. 6, xiv. 30, xvi. 3, xx.

26; Acts

The
vi.

19

converse theory that St. Matthew f., has worked up a shorter text (Wellhausen),

10, xxv. 7). here, and in

68
is

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

St. Luke has absolutely incapable of proof. written dvpa for irvXtj, because he omitted the way,"

so

St.

Ovpa would more naturally suggest itself. Luke thinks of the door of a house (vide also the Q and St. Matthew think of the following verse 25)
that
;

gate of a city.
St.

Matt.

vii.

16

airo
tt

St.

Luke

vi.

44,

43

Twv Kapwcov eTTiyvwcreaOe


avTov^'
(TLV
juL-^Ti

eKacTTOv

SevSpov k

tov

crvWeyov-

airo aKavOu)v (TTa5/

^i/Xa?
(TVKa;

airo rpi^oXcov 0VTW9 nrav (1*7)

Kapirov yivooaKeyap e^ aKavSwv a-vWeyovcriv avKa, ovSe K ^OLTOV a-TacjyvXijv

iSlov

Tar

ov

SevSpov ayaOov KapTTovg KoXovg TTOielf TO Se crairpov


SevSpov Kapirovs irovtjpov^
TTOieL

(43) ovl^yapl Tpvywa-iv. ecTTiv KaXov SevSpov

TTOiovv Kapirov crairpov,


ovSe
[^irdXiv^

(18)

ov SvvaraL

SevSpov

SevSpov
TTOvrjpovg

ayaOov

Kapirovq ovSe eveyKCiVf

crairpov iroiovv Kapirov

KaXov,

SevSpov aairpov KoXov^ TToLelv,

Kapirov^

Cf. also St. Matt. xii.


iroLYia-aTe to SevKai KOKOV TOV Spov avTOv koKov^ Kapirov iroiricraTe to oevopov (rairpov Kai tov Kapirov avTOv crairpov e/c yap TOV Kapirov to SevSpov

3B

t]

if]

yivwcTKeTai,
St.

Matthew found the saying


it

in

two

sources,

and

therefore gives

twice, probably intermingling the

INVESTIGATION OF THE
two forms.

TEXT

69

Which of the two sources is Q, is to be determined by comparison with St. Luke. (In regard whether St. Luke verse to the order of the clauses we are no longer in a 44, stood before verse 43

position to say anything definite.) that Q had the words e/c tov Kapirov

We

may

be sure

to SivSpov

was probably added by St. Luke yivuxTKeTai (eKa<TTOv an interpolation of the same character as the Traj likewhich he is so fond of inserting in the text Also wise iSiov, which is, moreover, wanting in D). the rhetorical question of St. Matthew 16^ is original

St.

Luke has often removed such


on
St.

rhetorical questions

(vide supra

Matt.

v. 46, 47).

choice

expression

than

Baro? is a more is and therefore rpl^oXo^i

and the Lukan distinction between and (TuWeyeiv rpvyav is certainly appropriate, but
secondary,
for
St.

that very reason

it

can

scarcely

be

original.

singular crracpuX^V) because he had also replaced the plural rpi^. by the singular ^droi. The 17th verse of St. Matthew is wanting in St.

Luke chose the

Luke
(It
is

the latter may have considered it superfluous. nevertheless a Semitic practice to give positive
in
,
. ,

and negative expression to the same thought For ov Svvarat adjacent clauses.) iveyKciv
. . .

TToieh, St.
iroLovv

this participial construction is Lukan ; the evangelist probably also wished to avoid an infinitive aorist

Luke reads

ovk gcttlv

iroiovv

and present in close connection. It is, moreover, noteworthy that neither tjveyKov nor any of its derivatives are found in St. Luke^s gospel.
singular
33,

The
xii.

Kapirov

in

St.

Luke and
adjectives

St.

Matt,

together

with

the

/caXo?

and

70
crairpo's

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


(see

likewise

St.

Matt.

xii.

33) must have

stood in Q.
St.
Ira's

Matt.
Xeycov

vii.

21: ov
Kvpie

St.
vii.

Luke
:

vi.

46-49;
xaXeiTe

jULOi

Ti

Se jue

Kvpie elareXevcreTaL eig Ttjv toov /3a(Ti\eiav ovpapwv,

KVpie KVpie, KOI ov TTOieiTC

aW

a Aeyoo;

TTOicov

TO
[jlov

OeXrjjULa

Tov
To7<i

Trarpog
ovpavoi9.

tou

ev

(24) Tray ovp bcmg UKOvei jULOV TOVg XoyOVg TOVTOUg


KOI TTOiei aVTOV^
creTai
O/ULOlOoO)]-

(47) Tra? ovv ep-^ojuevos


CiKOVCOV JULOV irpOS jUL TOOV Xoycov Kai itolwv av-

Kai

avopl (ppovlfxa) o<tti9

T0V9,

viroSei^w

vjuliv

tlvi

WKoS6jUit](Tev

avTOv
rrjv
rj

Trjv

<TTIV OJULOlOg.

(4o) 0/U0109

oiKiav

ein

irerpav.
^po'^^rj

ecTTiv

(25) Koi Kare/B)]


Kai

jULOvvTi OLKiaVf

^XOov

ol TTorajuLoi Kai ol
avejuLoi

Kol

oikoSoavOpwirtp o? ecTKa^ev ejSdOuvev Kai eO>]Kv


eiTL

hirvevtrav

Kai

OejueXiov

Trjp

ireTpav.

TTpocreTrea'ap

td
'

oiklol eKeivn,

7rXr]iujuLvpi]<}

Se

yevofxevr]^

Kai ovK eirecrev TeOejuieXicoTO

irpoceprj^ev 6 TTOTajULO^ tjj


oiKia eKGLvyj Kai ovk 'icr'^crev craXeva-ai Sia to avTr]v

yap irerpav, (26) Ka\ Trag 6 ctKOvcov jjlov TOf?


XoyOVi

ri

cTrl rrjv

TOVTOVS
'^ p/

KOI

JULt]

KaXw^
(49)
fxr]

oiKoSojuLrjcrOai avTrjv.

TTOIWV aVT0V9 OJULOlCoOriCTCTai


^

^e

CLKOvara^
o/uloios

Kai
ecTTiv

aVOpi
jULtjarev

/ULCOpcV,

00-Tf?

WKOOOKai

TTOirja-a^

avTOV
ajuLjULOV.
rj

Ttjv oiKiav eiri

Trjv

(27)
Kai

avOpcoTTO) oiKiav eiri


OejULeXiov,
fi

oiKoSojurjcravTi
Ti]v

yT]v

"Xcopi^

Kare^r]
ol

^pO')(rj

Kai TjXOov
'iirveva-av

TTOTajuiol

TTpoaeprj^ev 7roTajUL09y Kai evOvg crvveireKai eyevcTo

ol avefxoi kcu

TrpocriKo^av
Kai eirecreVf

orev,

to

prjyjua

Ti] oiKia cKeivHy

Ti]9 oiKiag eKeivt]9 fxeya.

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


Koi

71

^v

ij

TTTWcf?

auT??

(vii.

jULeyaXt],
(vii.

pwcrev

1) 7riSr] eifkriiravTa Ta prifxara


.
. .

28,

viii.

iyevero
'Irjcrovs

ore

5) koli iriXeo'ev 6

avrov

eia^XOev

els

J^a(papuaov/UL.

Tovg Xoyovg tov.


.

T0U9

elareXQovTOS
,

Se
.
.

avTOV aV J^acpapvaovjUi
It
St.

may be
vi.

Luke

questioned whether St. Matt. vii. 21 and 46 are really derived from Q. The

source perhaps lies far in the background of and we may not with absolute certainty claim time,

common

the verse for Q. If, however, an attempt is made to reconstruct Q, then o Xeycov juloi Kvpte is, in respect of originality, certainly to be preferred to KaXeip jul6 Kvpie, " Father to " and " to do the will of words."

my

my

Matt. 22, 23 and St. Luke xiii. 26, 27 ai'e quite independent of one another (I have therefore refrained from printing these verses in the above passage), even
St.

though here also a common source lies far in the It is most probable that we have here background.
genuine
air
vjULiv,

instances
avTOis
ijuou

of

translation-variants
ovSeiroTC eyvoov
Ttjv

compare
'

6juLoXoyr](rcjo

on

vjulcls

airo-^w-

peiTG

ol

epyaCofievoi

avofxlav

with
ijuov

Xiyw

ovK OLoa TcoQev ecrre


aSiKtag.

air6(TTr]Te air

In regard to the parable which certainly stood in the common source, Wellhausen has remarked that in St. Luke it is more lifeiravres

epyarat

like,

and that

its

reference to the different characters

of the Christian community is more obvious and distinct. Even if this were so, it would have little weight
in determining the superior originality of St. Luke's

72

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

version. But I cannot share Wellhausen's impression, except perhaps in the case of the very descriptive

words
St.

Matthew

09 earKa'^ev koI e^aOuvev Kai eOrjKev OejUieXiov. often omits such descriptions, so that

these words are perhaps original (yet, on the other hand, we have ground for hesitation in the fact that the first two verbs are found in the New Testament

only in St. Luke ; a-Kairreiv again in xiii. 8 and xvi. 3 ; I shall, however, return to this As for the rest, point). the text of St. Matthew for the most part deserves
the preference (with perhaps the exception of vTroSel^co ktX. in St. Luke, for this viroSel^w receives a certain
attestation
iii.

from another passage

in Q, viz. St.

Matt,

St.

Luke iii. 7, and is once again omitted by Matthew in x. 28, cf. St. Luke xii. 5). The intro7
:

= St.

duction of the parable accordingly ran perhaps somewhat as follows Tra? ovv octtl^ aKovei /ulov tov^

\6yovg TOVTOvg koi


icTTiv
o/uioio<S'

iroiei

avrov^, VTroSei^co

vjuliv

tlvl

yet may very well be that vTroSel^co was inserted by St. Luke, and that the somewhat illogical future passive ojuloioSt. Orjcrerai has in this case a claim to originality.
ojuLOio'^

ecTTiv

kt\.

And

it

Matthew writes 7ra? Luke in better Greek


:

ovp
:

ocmg

aKovei koi

iroiei,

St.

irag ovv (ep-^^ojuLevo^ irpog fxe koi)

oLKOvoov Kai

iroicov.

St.

Matthew
:

writes

avSpi
in
rj

ocmg
St.

wKOoofxtjG-ev,

St.

Luke

aiSpcoTrw
St.
:

oikoSojulovvti.

Matthew, avrou rrjv oiKiav, Greek St. Matthew oiKiav.


:'

Luke

better
^po-^rj,

koi Kare^rj

and writes in the absolute St. Matthew genitive TrXrjjUiiuivpt]^ yepojuLei^rjs. thinks of storms of rain and wind, but to St. Luke it
St.

Luke avoids the vulgar

^po-^)^

seemed improbable that these could overturn a house,

INVESTIGATION OF THE

TEXT

73

For ovk and he therefore supplies a flooded river. 24. xiii. Luke St. vide on as Lukan, supra 'la-vya-evi
St. Matthew writes: Luke more correctly St. Matthew writes
:

Tra? o clkovcov koi


:

jurj

ttolcov,

St.

6 Se
eirl

aKovaa?

tcai

fxt]

Troirjora^.

cause he saw that a

even on sand

man

berhv ol/uljulov, St. Luke could build a house firmly


rrjv

writes:

eirl

yrjv

X'^P^^^

OefxeXiov.

these words are certainly added by St. Luke, it is " therefore improbable that the " eOrjKev OefxeXiov This, occurring in a former verse stood in Q. " however, also renders " ecrKay^ev kol efiaOvvev very

As

doubtful.

The original parable simply distinguished between the house on the rock and the house on the
Matthew
gives
it.

sand, just as St.

The thought that


is first

a good foundation depends upon labour

intro-

Luke, and was suggested by the words in Q reOefxeXlcoro iwl rtjv irirpav, where, however, the emphasis rests upon irerpav. Why indeed should St. Matthew have omitted this trait if he had found

duced by
:

St.

? On the other hand, it is quite the that simple contrast of "rock and intelligible " sand did not seem sufficient to a later writer, who reflected that still everything depended upon the

it in

his

exemplar

nature of laying a good foundation, whatever the the soil might be. Moreover, arujuLirLTrTeiv is certainly less original than the simple irlirreiv, and it is very of a great breach ai'e a clear that the words

speaking

correction

for " the falling


cppovijuog
/mcopos

In St.

Matthew

was great is a solecism. and jmwpo^ alone cannot be

"

claimed for

for

is

Matthew among the four


times in the
first gospel),

exclusively confined to St. evangelists (occurring seven


(ppopijuLo^

and

also occurs in

74*

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Mark, twice
in

this gospel seven times (never in St.


St.

Luke). It is a most important point that St. Matt. vii. 28 and viii. 5 have a parallel in St. Luke vii. 1 ; for

from this it follows with certainty that even in Q large portions of the Sermon on the Mount occurred together, and that the Sermon was followed by the

But Cure of the Centurion's Servant in Capernaiim. both evangelists have altered the wording here for
;

eyeveTo ore ireXecrev

is

a phrase that

by St. Matthew (vide xi. 1, xiii. and the genitive absolute (eioreXOopro^ avrov), which is added, likewise shows the secondary character of the But the Lukan text of St. Matthew at this j^oint. text is shown to be secondary by iireiS}] (never occurring in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John five times, however, in St. Luke''s gospel and Acts), in as well as by irduTa ra prj/mara (never occurring thrice again in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John St. Luke). There seems, therefore, no hope of recover;

often repeated 53, xix. 1, xxvi. 1),


is

ing the original wording of the source before the

words
St.

eicrtjXOcp

el^

J^acpapvaovju.

Matt.

viii.

5:

St.

Luke

vii.

1-10.

EfVeX^oi/TO?
eig
crrjXOeu avTco

^e

avTOu
irpo-

elcrrjXOev
vaovjuL.

e/9

J^a(pap~

}^a(papvaov/uL

(2)

eKaroPTapTeXcvrav, 69 {o) aKOv-

eKarovrap^09 irapaKaXcov avTOv (6) Kai XeycoW Kupie, o


Traig
julov

^ov
r]v

Se Tivoi oouXog KaKco?

6-^oov tJixeXXev

^e/^Xijrai ev

rn

avTip orag Se

evTiiui09.

Trepl

rod
irpos tcov

'hjarov

oiKia

TrapaXvTiKog,

oeivco^

aTrecTTeiXev

avrov
'Iou-

PacraviX6iJLevo<i,

(7) Xeyei

irpecr^vrepov^i

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


'

75
oircog

avT(p
irevcrod

e'yo;

eXOcov Oepa(8) airoKpi-

oaicoVj epcoTcop

avTov
Se

avTOV.
6

eXOoov
avTov.

oiaa-wa-}]

top SovXov
irapa'Irj-

$19
(pi]'

eKaroPTapj^os

(4)

OL

el/uil Kvpie, iKavos iva fJLOV viro Triv

ovK

yepo/ULPOi

irpog

tov

(Tovv

<rTyr]v eicreXOi]^'
jjLOVov

aWa
kol
/jlov,

TrapcKaXovv avTov

a-TTOvoaloog,

XeyovTC^
CD

otl

elire

Xoyto^
6

a^LO<s

(TTiv

Trape^r]

laQi]G-6TaL (9) Kal


TTOS
eifjii

7rai9

TOVTO,

(5)

ayaTTOL
kcjli

yap
t^v

yap

iyo) avOpooVTTO e^ovariav,

TO
crev

eOvo's

y]jJ.(Jiv

(TVvay(joyt]P
rifjuv.

avTo? wKOOOjur](6) 6 ^e
'I;;croi/?
j^Sr]

e/mavrov (rrpaTicorag^Kal Xeyco tovto)'


e-^cov vir'

CTTopeveTO
Se

crvv avTOL<s.

TTopevOtjTi, Ka] TTOpeveTai, Kai aWo)' epy^ov, Kai Ka\ tw epy^erai,

avTOv ov juaKpav aireyovTO^ airo r^y oiKia^,


eTre/ULy^ev

oovXcp

JULOV

TTolrjarov

Tap-^t]g
fxr]

(piXovg 6 cKaTOvXeycov avTu>


'

TOVTO, Ka\ TTOiet, (10) aKOvcras oe o irjcrovg


eOavjuLaaev ToTy aKoXovOovcriv
eyct)
vjULiv,

cTKvXXov OV
eijuLi

yap
viro

Kvpie, iKa-

V09

iva
JULOV

Ttjv

Kai

cLirev
ajmrjv

CTeytjv
TTpog eiire
(T

eicreXO)]^'

(7) Sio ovSe ijULavTOv ^plcocra

ovoe

ev

T(p

eXOeiv

aXXa

^IcrpaijX

TOdavTrjv
elirev

tt/ct-

Xoyw,
juov.

TLV evpop.
(13) Kai
TO)
0)9

6 6 ^Itjcrov^
viraye^

xaT?

Kai laO/iTco (8) Kai yap


elfxi

eKaTOVTap-^y
eiricTTevcra's

eyco VTTO
JULV09y

apOpcoTTOs
i^ovcriap
ey^WP
VTT*

Tacrcro'

yevtjQrjTOi)

ejULaVTOP

aoi' Kai laOrj 6 waig ev tj]


CO

G-TpaTUOTa^i Kai Xeyoo

pa

KLVl].

TOVTW'

TTOpevOtjTi^ Kai

iropeveTai, Kai aXXo)Kai ep-yTai, Kai p-)(^ov,


Tip

SovXw

JULOV TTOlijarOP
TTOiei.

TOVTO,

Kai

(9)

76

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


CLKOvcrag
^lt](jov9

Se

ravra

6
av-

eOav fxacrev

Kai tm <jTpa(pig aKoXovOovvTi avTO)0'^(p


TOVy
eiTTCP
v

Aeyci) vjmiv,

ovoe

T(p 'IcrparjX TocravTt]V TTKTTIV VpOV.

(10)
IS

Koi.

viro(TTpe>^avT<i
OL
TTejULCpOei'Teg

TOP OLKOV

evpov Tov
vovra.

SovXov

vyial-

In this section at
traits in
St.
St. St.

least

it

is

obvious

that

all

Luke

Matthew Q, and that Matthew thus transmits the source in the more The two deputations to our Lord original form.
are
(in place of the personal interview of the centurion) a later addition. This is strikingly shown the fact that the (1) by long speech which St. Luke

from or do not proceed from


different

in addition to

assigns to the friends


if it

is

intelligible

and appropriate

was spoken by the centurion himself, and only because also in St. John (iv. 46 ff.) the centurion (2) comes himself. An attempt to distinguish (^aaiXiKog) between that portion of the additional matter in St. Luke which perhaps came to him through tradition, and that for which he himself is solely responsible, is under such circumstances unnecessary. I would only remark that evrijuLo^ (verse 2), ol irapayevo/uLci/oi

(verse

4),

cnrovSaico^

(verse

4),

juaKpav

the aTre-^eLv (verse 6), ^l6 (verse 7), a^iovv (verse 7), far as as the rdaro-ea-Oai are, passive (verse 8) gospels

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


are

77

concerned, exclusively Lukan (Slo alone occurs once in St. Matthew) ; and, again, that it is in the

Luke to supply objects to the verbs verse 10 and St. Luke verse 9), Matthew (cf, and likewise to add rh (cf* St. Matthew verse 5 and St. Luke verse 2). Again, Siacrw^eiv can be claimed
style

of St.

St.

as

reCKev

Lukan, as well as the alternation between airecr(verse 3) and cTre/AxJ/ei/ (verse 6), and the It cannot be shown pleonastic arpacpei^ (verse 9).

that St.

Matthew has altered the text of Q (note other things the eyw of verse 7, which is so among characteristic of Q) moreover, traces of this text
;

still

the

appear thi'oughout St. Luke's version, even at beginning of the nai'rative where the transis

formation

verse 7, while SovXog

so complete (vide also ttcus of St. Luke is used in verse Thus roig 2).

aKoXovOovciv (St. Luke, to? aKoKovOovvri avro) o^Xw) is also With the original, probably also the ajmriv.

compare St. Luke The (St. 85). concluding verse has a completely different form in St. Matthew and
/uLrj

cTKvXXov of St.

Luke
v.

verse 6,

viii.

49

Mai'k

St.

Luke.

Later

I shall give

what

believe to be

sufficient justification

for the

bold hypothesis that

this verse did

Here I would only not stand in Q. viii. 13 is almost that St. Matt, out exactly point like St. Matt. xv. 28 (Canaanitish woman), while St. Luke winds up the passage with a conclusion
of conventional character.
St.

Matt.
vjULtv

viii.

11

St.

Luke
6

xiii.

28,

29

A.eyoo Se

OTi TToWoi
Ka\ Sua--

ckci ecrrai 6

KXavO/mog

airo

avaroXwv

Kal

^pvyjULog

twv

OF THE

UNIVERSITY
-A

78
"
IJ.CJOV

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


y
ij^ovcTLv

Kai

avaK-

oSov TOOV
Kai
Tovg

oTav
Ka\
Kai

byj/ecrOt

XidriarovTaL lULera 'A^/3Ka\ 'Icraa/c Kai paajUL


'IaKU)/3

'A./3paajUL

'Icraa/c
Trai^ra?

'laKCDJS

Til

/3a(Ti-

'Trpo(^Y}Ta'5

ev

r^
vjuLoig

Xeia
Xe/a?

Tcov

ovpavwv'
fiacri-

(12) ol Se vLOi T^9


eig

^acriXeia tov Oeov, Se K/3aWojULPOV9


(29)
Kai

e^o).

eK/3\ri6y](rovTai

yj^ovcriv

airo

[e^eXeucTOVTai]
<tk6to<;

to
e/ceT

avaToXoov Kai

Svcrjucov

to e^coTepov

(TTai 6 K\av6/UL09 Kai o


/SpvyjuLog

Kai [aTTo] /Boppa Kai votov, Kai avaK\iQri<TOVTai ev


Til

Twv oSovtwv.

^aa-iXela tov Oeov.

If
clauses

we represent the order of


of St.
1,

the

component

Matthew''s
2,

the series

2% 2\

version of the saying by 3, 4, then the order of St.

It given by the series 4, 2^ 2, 3, 1, 2% 2. is here evident that 4 occupies a false position at the beginning, for ckci is thus out of connection (it does
is

Luke

xiii. 27) ; hence 4 after 3, the 2 (iv Tij /SacriXeia order of St. Matthew, is original T. 6.) occurs twice in St. Luke, which of itself shows

not connect with

that

2*'^'

belong together, and that 2* (koi amKXiOtjthe beginning,

o-ovTai) is thus in place at The order of St. after 1.

coming
is

Matthew
in

is

accordingly

original.

The change of order

St.

Luke

due

to the transposition of 4 (e/cet kt\.) to the beginning, This required for which the reason is not obvious.
further transpositions that the oyp^ecrOe (so

and

also the interpolation

of

thought of the passage now reminds us of the Rich Man in Hades). UdvTa^ also Tovg TrpoOrJTag is also secondary oy^eaOe with If in St. Matthew, double accusative is Lukan.
;

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


ePeKeiKTOVTai
it
is is

79

the right reading,

as

is

probable,

N^phaq, vide which acts as the passive to Appeq (cK^aXXeiv) WelUiausen ; but St. Luke here has not given a new and better translation of the Aramaic word, but

then the translation of the Aramaic

has simply

replaced
in

the

poor

Greek e^eXeva-ourai
ei9

by
St.

Kl3aX\ojuL6vovg.

The phrase
the

t.

(tkoto^

t.

e^wrepov

occurs

New

Testament

only in

Matthew, and that thi'ice (vide xxii. 13, xxv. 30). Here also it is inserted by the evangelist, who again
probably introduced ttoXXo/ at the beginning (elsewhere it is not unusual for St. Luke to supply subjects On the other hand, Borras and to subjectless verbs). Notos certainly belong to the Hellenic evangelist.
[St.
^f.VOL

Matt.
Se

X. 7:

iropevo-

[St.

Luke

ix.

aTreV-

Ktjpvararere Ktjpi

Xerj

reiXev

avrov^

Krjpvarcreiv

yovTcg
PaoriXeia

OTL

tjyyiKev
ovpavwv,']

Trjv /SacriXeLav

tov Oeov koc


dv eicreXXeolku)
f}

twv

ia<jQaL\.
elg

(12) elcrepyoiJLevoi Se

(x. 5)

etV rjv S'

Ttjp oiKiav ao'TraaracrOe av-

OrjTe

oiKiav,

TrpcoTOv

TYjV (It^) Kai eav jmev f] ri ^ yt 1 t If f 'A/1' oiKia a^ia, eAuarct) rj eip-qvrj
vfJLWV ir
II

yeT'
tovto).

eiprivr}^

tw

(d) Kai eav

eKei

avTYjv*

eav oe

^irj

fioj ipr]Vi]g, eTravairaYjaeTaL


eir

a^La,

rj

elprjvr] vjulcov ttjOO?

avTOV
/Jiy]ye,

rj

eip7]vtj

v/ulwv

ei

vjUias

7ri(TTpa(p^Tco.

oe

em
:

vjmai

ava-

(24) ovK <7TLv juaOrjTtjg TOV oLoacrKaAov ovoe virep

Ka/uL^^ei.

(vi.
IULa6t]Tr]9

40)

OVK

ecTTLV

SovXo9
avTOv.
jULaOrjTi],

virep

tov

Kvpiov

virep

tov

SiSdar-

(25) apK6Tov

tw
o 6

KoXov*
avTOv.

%a
o

SiSaa-KaXos

avTOV,

yivrjTai koI

o)?

KaTtjpTiG-jULevog Tra? ecTTai 009 6 SiSdcrKaXog

Se

SovXo9

ft>?

aVTOV. KVpiO'S

80
St.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Matt.

Luke has transformed the direct discourse of X. 7 into narrative. The words kol lacrOai are a Lukan interpolation, as is suggested by the fact that our Lord's work of healing is the chief point of
St.

interest

with

St.

Luke.
to

He

also

delights

to give

special emphasis disciples. Again, the record that the Kingdom was the subject of their preaching is of later character than

the

Mission

of the

the tradition that it consisted of the proclamation " It is, however, very questionable whether ijyyiKev.'''' we are at all justified in assigning this clause to Q.

The

conjunctive relative (St.


is

Luke

x. 5) is

a con-

struction which

very frequent in St. Luke, belonging to the characteristics which distinguish his style from
those of the other evangelists, with whom it is of rare occurrence. EfVeX^^^re is a grammatical improve-

ment upon

elcrep'^oiJLevoi.

St.
v.

Luke has
47
;

also avoided

aa-TraXea-Qai in St.

Matt.

he substitutes the

words of the greeting itself, deriving them from what follows. It is also undoubtedly due to later reflexion
that the worthiness of a single inhabitant of the house replaces the worthiness of the whole house. " sons Moreover, St. Luke elsewhere uses the
phrases,
"" " of this generation {I.e. and xx. " of consolation " (Acts iv. 36), of the Resurrec34),

of

light'" (xvi. 8),


'"

**'

tion
St.

(St.

Luke

XX. 36).

Nothing similar

is

found in

Matthew. St. Matt. X.

used absolutely, is also found in "A^io's^ 11 and xxii. 8 ; St. Luke has avoided

it

^^iravairay^a-erai (on linguistic grounds rightly), (for eXOoLTCt) eir avrriv) is found again in the New Testament only in Rom. ii. 17, and shows by the
it
is

repeated preposition that

alien to the simple

INVESTIGATION OF THE

TEXT

81

St. Luke reads i for edv, as language of the source. in St. Matt. v. 46, 47 (el is rare in Q). (vide supra) The middle eTria-rpecpea-Oai is avoided by St. Luke in

the gospel and the Acts


St.

(see,
v.

Matt.

ix.
it

22 ;

St.

Mark

30,

on the other hand, viii. 33 St. John


;

xxi. 20) ; In St.

probably belonged to the vulgar idiom. Matt. X. 24 f., St. Luke seems to me to have
the
clause
it

omitted
trivial.

servant because

concerning the lord and the was superfluous and sounded quite

That the second half of the verse in St. Luke proceeds from the same source as St. Matthew, is shown by the words wy 6 SiSda-KaXog avrov. It is

therefore impossible to accept Wellhausen's theory that we have here an instance of faulty translation

from the Aramaic, and that

Tra? must be taken has often inserted Luke adverbially 7ra?, and the reason why he has here made such drastic Verse 25 in St. Matthew (i.e. changes is easily seen.

= perfectly). (

St.

in

the

source)

sounded as

if

without

difficulty

become as

his

every scholar could master ; St. Luke


in-

somewhat pedantically wished to make such an

ference impossible. Also KarrjpTiarjuLiuos, which does not occur elsewhere in the gospels, though indeed in St. Paul (Rom. ix. 22; 1 Cor. i. 10; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ;

Heb. xi. 3), is a word of somewhat choice charand hence points to the style of St. Luke. 'ApKGTov occurs once again in St. Matt. vi. 34, otherwise not in the New Testament (St. Matt. vi. 34 also comes probably from Q, but the parallel is wantcf.

acter,

ing in St. Luke).

The

text of St.

Matthew

in this

Even passage shows no trace of secondary elements. the Viyy LKev of verse 7 is original ; the narrative form

82

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


it

of the parallel verse in St. Luke made easy to include this word, vide supra.
St.

not very

Matt.
VjULlU

X.

27:

o
Til

St.

Luke

xii.

ocra ev

XeyCO
eig

ev

T^

(TKOTLOLf

OTKOTLa

eWaTe,

ev

rw

enrare ev

rw

(pcoTC

Kai b

TO
Koi.

ovg
cttI
jmrj

aKOvere, K>]pvtcop
Scoiuloltcov.

^are
(28)
Toov
(Tcojixa,

kou o (pcoTl aKOvcrQrjdeTai, TO ovg e\d\}]craTe ev irpog T019 Tajueioig, KrjpvyOrjcreTaL


eiri

(po/SeicrOe

airo

Tcov SoojULdTO)v. (4) Xeyo)


vjuLiv

airoKTevvovToov
Trjv

to
fJLr]

Se
jULi]

TOig

(piXoig

juov,

^e

^v^v

(pojStjOfJTe

airo

toov
croojuLa

SvvajuLevcov aTroKTelvai' (poSe juluWov tov ^eicrOe

airoKTevvovTWv
Kai jiieTa

to
juLtj

TavTa

e-^ovToov
Troitja-ai"

koi y^v^rjv Kai ev yeevvr]. aTToXecrat acojULa

Svvajuevov

TrepicraroTepov

ti Se

(5) virooei^oo
(poPt]0}]Te'
lULeTa

vjuliv

Tiva

(29)

ov')Q.

Svo

(TTpovdla
eiri

acTcrapiov

ircoXeiTai ; Kai ev
TreareiTai

(po/3rj6r]Te tov to airoKTelvai e-^ovTa

e^ avTcov ou
Trjv yrjv
vjULCov,

e^ovcriav e/m/SaXeiv eig t]V

aveu tov TraTpo^ (30) vjuLcov Se koi at


elcnv.

yeevvav vat, \eyoo vjuliv, TOVTOV (pol3}]0r}T. (6) OV-^l


irevTe

Tplye^
ovv

Ttjg Ke<pa\r]9 iraarai

^piOjuLfj/mevai

(31)

jjLri

crTpovOia TrooXovvTai Kai ev ef acrcrapioov ovo;


avToov ovK ecTTiv eTTiXeXrja-fxevov
evooTTiov

(bo^elaOe

iroWtov

(TTpovOicov Sia<pepeTe vjuLeh.

tov

Oeov.

(32) Tra? ovv ocrTig ojuloXoy7](TeL

(7)

aXXa

Ka\ at

Tpiye<i Trjg

ev

ejmoi

ejuLirpocrOev

Ke(f)aXr]g vjULoov Tracrai rjplBjULrjvTai.


lULt]

TOOV avOpcoTTCOv, 6lJLo\oyY)(J(J0 ev avT(p Kciyoo

(po^eicrOe' ttoX-

ejULirpocrOev

Xcov

TOV

iraTpos

fJ-ov

tov ev

(8) Xeyoo

(TTpovOloov Sia<pepeTe. Se vjuliv, Tra? o?


ev
ejuol

T019 ovpavoh, (33) octti^ Se apvr]crt]Tai jme ejuLTrpocrOev


To/

av

ejuLTrpoG-Qev

ojuoXoy^art] toov

avOpooiroov,

avOpwircov, apv/icro/mai

Kai

O VLOg TOV

avOpooTTOV

INVESTIGATION OF THE
Kayco avTOV ejuLirpoaOev rod
ojuiGXoyyja-eL

TEXT
ev

83
/ul-

avTM

Trarpog
ovpavoig.

^ov tou

ev

Toh

rcov ayyeXcov tov TrpocrOev Oeov. (9) o Se apv)](Td~


JUL6V09
/Lie

eVWlTLOV

TCOV

avOpcoTTCov

airapvfjQricreTaL

evcoTTiov t(jov

ayyeXoov tov

Oeov.

Wellhausen

recognises,

in

his

remarks

on

St.

Luke is here secondary. 7, he wished that our Lord should not appear Probably As he had already used eiirare as a mystagogue.
Matthew
verse

that St.

in the protasis he wrote aKOva-Qrja-eTai in the apodosis, and then he was again obliged to alter aKovere and

to replace it
ef?

by
St.

eXaXi^craTe

moreover,

ctKoveiv

TO

ovq offended his sense of style as


;

with an uncouth
correct

construction

Luke
ov<i.

substitutes the

XaXelv

TTjOo?

to

Again, oca

is

more more

correct

than

Then Ktjpv^aTc is changed into KtjpvvOija-eTai to ear aKovG-Oyja-eTai. parallel Finally, the contrast, and housetop," was too grotesque for the Hellenic he therefore softened it by interpolating " in artist the secret chambers.''"*
o.
;

Coming

to St.

Matthew

verse 28,

we

see that the

can scarcely be original. Xeyci) vjULiv toi9 (piXoi'S julov St. Luke felt the faulty connection of the two verses,

and therefore begins a new paragraph moreover, " " is a characteristic word which belongs both (piXoi to the Lukan and the Johannine writings. M^ is more elegant than jmr] (po/Beia-Qe (St. Luke (pop}]OrJT
;

has allowed the present in St.


stand).
St.

Matthew

verse 31 to

Luke

says

nothing

concerning

" the

84

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


"

slaying of the soul ; it is not clear for what reason " the soul " in verse I conjecture (he also omits 5). " " that the slaying of the soul was a monstrous idea to the Hellenic evangelist (and besides ri
irepia-croTepov

The vTroSel^co of St. Luke betrays the Lukan style). may be original, but need not be so (vide on St.
Matt.
is

vii.

24)

it

incorrect Greek.
;

stands in place of juloXKov, which Again, awoXea-ai ev yeivvri is bad


substitutes ijUL^aXeiv eig. By the and (po^YiOrjre at the close of the

Greek

St.

Luke

repetition of
verse, St.

to its importance. Naturally this emphasis is not original. The existence of the variants, " two sparrows for " a farthing and " five sparrows for two farthings "

Xeyw Luke yet again points

Had sparrows become (verse 29*), is an enigma. cheaper ? In 29^ no one will doubt that St. Matthew This is shown also in the has the original text.
phraseology ivooTriov is peculiar to St. Luke among the synoptists (it does not occur in St. Matthew and St. Mark), and ovk ecrriv eTriXeXrja-fjL. is the
:

language of literature.
for

St.

Oeos (vide supra

on

St.

Matthew's irarhp vjucou Matt. vi. 26) is alone

secondary. In St. Matthew verse 30, St. Luke''s arrangement of the words is grammatically more correct, but that

of St. Matthew better suits the sense, and is accordingly more original; i^plO/uLrjvrai is of course a correction for
i^piOjuLr]juiPai

etcrlv.

St.

Luke

replaces the

weak

by the stronger word aXKa. In St. Matthew verse 31, Wellhausen


^e,

asserting translation

is right in that we have here an instance of false

from the Aramaic

(iroWtiov in place of

INVESTIGATION OF THE
St.

TEXT

85

TToXXw); but the error already occurred in Q, for Luke also gives a similar text. The pronominal
(v/uLek) is

subject
St.

omitted by
f.
:

St.

Luke, as

is

so often

the case.

The

ovv in St.
St.

Matt. 32

Matthew is doubtful. Luke again marks the new

thought by introducing the words Xeyco Se vjuliv. " Son of Man," which he reads in his version of verse for in verse 33 he also has the 32, cannot be original
;

"I" (like St.


r.

Matthew
;

in

both

places).

However,

ayyeXcov is certainly original (vide St. c/m-TrpoG-Oev Mark viii. 38) here again we find support for the theory that St. IMatthew has probably often inserted " Father which is in heaven," " the the
phrases,

my

which is in heaven," into his source. In as well verse 33 both the participle 6 apvrjardiuevo^ as evwiriov and aTrapvrjOrjcreTai (for apvTjcrojuai Kayu)
Father
avTov) are
fi-equently
St.

Lukan

(St.

Luke

uses the

passive

more

than the other evangelists).


X.

Matt.
OTi
eiTL

34:

fjL^

St.

Luke

xii.

51

voiuLL(rt]T

^Oov
Trjv

eip^vrjv

yrjp'

jSokeiu ovk

SoKiT6 OTI
yevofxrjv
ov)(^if

elprjvriv

irapeyii;
t]

Sovvai ev
vjuliv,

tu

*]\0ov jSaXetv
IJia-^aipav.
Si)(a(Tai

eiprivrjv

aXKa

Aeyco

a\\

(35) jjXOov
avOpcoTTOV

yap
koI

Siajuepia-jULOV.

(53) Siajuep-

Kara

KrOrjcrovTai Trarrjp eiri vlw

Tov

Trarpo^

avTOv

Kai UL09
CTTf
7rl

eiri

Ouyarepa Kara
avTr]<s

rJy? iuLt]Tpo9

Ovyaripa
Tr]i/

Trarpc, Kai

/uLJjrrjp

OuyaTtjp
irevQepa

Kai Wfi(f)t]v

Kara t^?
[(37)
5y

/uL}]Tepa,
pv/j.<pT]v

irevOepag avr^^.
(piXcov

eiri

Tt]v

avrtjg Ka\

virep

iraTepa ovk ijuie


Kai o

jmtjTepa
/ulov
r}

vv/uL(pt]

eiri

Tt)v
Gi

irevOepav.

'icrTLV

[(xiv.

26)
IJ.

Ti9 epyerai

agios'

(piAoov

viov

TTpo^

Kai ov [xiaei tov

86
Ouyarepa

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


virep
lyite

ovk

irarepa

avTOv

Kai

Trjv

(TTIV jULOV a^io^.]

Kai Tt]V yvvaiKa Ka\ juLrjrepa TO. TGKva Kai Tovs dSe\(bovg Kai rag dSeXcpd?,

en

T Kai

Tr]p

eauTOv y^v^rjp,
juLaOtj-

ov Svparai eipai fxov

(38) Kai o? ov \a/uL/3avL

Tov

crravpov

avTov
jULOV,

Kai

CLKoXovOel

OTrKTOt)

OVK

(xiv. 27) ocrrig ov BacrTaYei TOP (TTavpop eavTOV Kai oiria-w jjlov^ ov ep-^Tai

ecTTiv fjiov a^iog.

ovpaTai
Trjv "^v^rjv

eipai /ulov /maOrjT^g.

(39) 6 evpwv

(xvii.
Tt]P

avTOv airoXecrei
6
ctTToXecras'

avTYjv^ Kai

33) 09 cap ^rjTTjcri} Y^X^^ avTOv Trepia'lroXecrei

Tt]V
ejuLov

y^v^t]v
evpricreL

Troi^cracrOai
TTJP,

av-

avTOv eveKev
avTYiv,

O?

o'

ap

oLTToXecTei

YwoyoPYicrei avTr)p.
vjULcig
ejULC

(40) 6 ^eypiievo'i Kai o ejuLe d-^Tai,


Se-^erai Se-^ojmepog air ocTTelXavT a [xe.

(X.
ejuLOV

aKoveij Kai
e/uLe

16) O aKOVWP VjULCOV 6 dOeToov


aueTci' o oe e/xe

top

v/ma^

aOeTCOP aOeTei top airoo"-

TciXapTa
In
St.

jue.

Matthew

verse 34,

we
;

find that St.


vojULiortjTe

Luke has
oti

again inserted XeycD vjulip. occurs also in St. Matt. v. 17


(St.

M^

SoKeiTc
xii.

is
;

^XOov found in Q
is

Matt. xxiv. 44

= St. Luke

44)

yet there

some doubt whether this verse belongs to Q. As, however, St. Luke has here the interrogative form, which he has often obliterated elsewhere, we must
decide in his
favour,
^iprjpfjp

Sovpai
;

ip

tJi

yij

is

is a certainly an improvement in style Trapeyepojuirjp choicer word than tjXQop^ and SiajuLepia-juLOP (here only

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


in

87
the

the

New

Testament) than

ij.a')(aipav,

lastly,

arrangement of the words in St. Luke shows more The same stands good of St. Matthew artistic skill.
verse 35

= St. Luke

verse

53
of

SiaiiApL(T/uL6<s

was the
for

cause

of the

substitution

SiajULepicrOjia-oPTaL

^XOov ^Lyaa-ai (the latter word is wanting in the LXX, and may also have been disliked by St. Luke)
;

irarrip

eir\

vlw

Km

vlo<s

eir\

irarpi

is

more

correct than

the

awkward
St.

symmetry
law."

tov irarpo^ avrov. avOpcoirop Kara Luke also repeated the "mother

For and

" mother-in-law and daughter-indaughter," and the


It is difficult to

come to a
It

definite decision con-

cerning the relationship of St.


St.

Matthew

verse

37 to
is

Luke

xiv. 26.

may be doubted whether Q


however certain
it
is

here the

common

source,

that

It

lies in the ultimate background. probable that St. Luke is strongly influenced by St. Mark x. 29, that juna-eip, and likewise en re kcu (re is Lukan), must be assigned to him, that he has formed the conclusion of this verse after the pattern of the one which follows, and that St. Matthew has

some such source


is

(This may also preserved the text of Q unaltered. is not which be true of St. IMatthew verse 36, printed
in eyOpoi tov avOpcloTrov [vide avOpcoiro^ the Luke omitted St. verse 35] ol oiKiaKol avrov. whole verse because it seemed to him quite super-

above

kol

fluous after verse 35.)

The

saying of St.

Matthew

verse 38, occurs twice

in both St. Matthew and St. Luke and once in St. Mark. The two forms printed above are derived from a single source, since they are both negative in

88

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

form, while the other three begin with el rf? OeXei, Again it is the original form of the negative version

which occurs in

St. Matthew: this evangelist writes while St. o?j Luke, in better Greek, writes ocni^, the '' former speaks of " taking the cross, St. Luke of " " of course, is intended to mean bearing ( taking,""

St. Matthew writes "bearing"). pleonastically (acto Semitic cording idiom) aKoXovOeiv oV/o-ft), St. Luke

corrects
St.

it

into

ep'^ecrOai

oirlcrM.

On

each occasion
for ovk

Luke

writes ov SuvaTai etvm


a^iog.

/ulov

/maOrjTJ]?

ecTTiv jULov

One understands how the former

phrase could have taken the place of the latter, but not how the latter could have replaced the former
(concerning the avoidance of a^iog, vide
sv/pi^a

on

St.

Matt.

X. 13).

The saying of St. Matt. x. 39 is one of the two sayings of our Lord which is found in all four gospels St. Matt. xvi. (twice in St. Matthew and St. Luke). 25 and St. Luke ix. 26 are derived from St. Mark viii. 35 thus St. Matt. x. 39 and St. Luke xvii. 33 come
;

from
St.

(in all the six versions the expression airoX'^v')(fiv

\veLv rhv

is

words Trepnroieia-Oai (vide Acts XX. 28 1 Tim. iii. 13) and Acts l^cooyoveiv (vide vii. 19 ; 1 Tim. vi. 13), which are wanting elsewhere
;

Luke here

found). uses the

in the gospels they are doubtless secondary ; in sense that is, with the Aramaic they are identical with
crcol^eiv

ahi" (vide Wellhausen). Moreover, the IC.Vtwh of St. Luke is very suspicious; for in St. Matt. vii. 13 (St. Luke xiii. 24) this evangelist has again interSt. Luke evidently regarded the polated X*l'^W0V(nv.
expression rhv
'^^'x}iv

evpeip

as not clear

enough

St.

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT

89

John also has replaced it by (ptXeiv rrju yp^v)(^v. Only we are surprised to find that in this verse St. Matthewhas the participle and St. Luke the finite verb (with
09 edv)
case.
;

St.

elsewhere almost always the reverse is the Luke was probably influenced by his ver-

sion

of St.

Mark which he had

given previously in

ix. 24.

"Ei/e/cei/ ejuiou is

interpolated

by

St.

Matthew

(from
St.

Mark). Matt. X. 40
all

St.

The second
In

the other of the two utterances of our

half of this saying is Lord which are

found in

four gospels.

St.

Mark

ix.

37 we find
:

the saying concerning the reception of the little child (in whom Jesus Himself is received), which concludes
Kai
09

av

ejULc

oeyj^rai^

ovk

ejULC

oeyeTai

aWa

tov

a7ro(TTi\avTd
St. St.

julc.

Upon

this passage are

dependent

Matt,

xviii.
ix.

Luke

5 (but without the second half) and 48 kol o? dv e/ue Se^rjraii Si)(Tai tov
:

airoa-TelXavrd

/xe.

In the three other passages (the


St.

two printed above and


av TLva
\a/uLl3dvi
Tre/jLy^o)

John

xiii.

20

6 Xa/uL^dvwv
Xa/UL^dvcov

ejae

Xafx/Sdvei,

Se

ejue

TOV TTCfxy^avTa jtxe) the reference is to the The reception of those who preach the gospel. and St. John in this of St. Matthew agreement
saying (St.

John

Matthew XaiuL^dveiv and

^e>^e<70at
7re/>t\{/-at

genuine

and

aTroa-TeiXaif

St.

translation-

variants) suggests the conclusion that St. Luke has The motive here arbitrarily altered and amplified.
is

clear
St.

from the

slight alteration

made by

St.

John.

In

Matthew (Q) the saying

applies to the reception

This application of the direct apostles of our Lord. no longer suited the circumstances of a later time, and more particularly of the Diaspora. Therefore

90

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


'"*

we read in St. John 6 Xa/u^avcov av riva TrejuLyjrcOi and " into " hearing St. Luke changes " reception (in the
sense of " obeying "), with
nought."" 8 o aOcTcov ovk avOpoiirov aOerei
:

contrast " setting at For aOereii^ in St. Luke, vide 1 Thess. iv.
its

St.

Luke

vii.

30
It

rrjv pov\r]i/

the thought in St.


fxe
SuJoKeig.
is

aXXa tov Oeov (and rod Oeov tjOerrjcrav) for Luke, vide Acts ix. 4 2aoJX, r/
;
:

thus proved that in the two last Lukan text is again secondary, although, owing to the marked difference between
verses of this section the
St.

Matt.

X.

40 and

St.

Luke

x. 16, it

must remain

doubtful whether this very widely circulated saying occurred in Q.


St.

Matt.

xi.

2:

'O
ev

Sh
tco

St.

Luke

vii.

18,

19:

'Icoavvtji

aKovarag

koi air^yyeiXav 'Icoavvei ol


fJLaOtjral

^eorjJLWTrjplcp

ra epya tov
Sia

avrov
Kai

irepi

iravTWV

Twp

nre/j.^a's ^piG-TOv, avrov jmaOtjTcov

tovtcov.

irpocTKaKea-d-

jmevog Svo Tiva<}

rwv

jma-

elirev avrcp*

OrjTcov

avrov

looavvijg

eirefji'^ev

irpb^

rov

KvpLov \ey(av'
St. Luke has already told us (iii. 20) that St. John the Baptist had been imprisoned, it was not therefore necessary to mention this again ; but something of the

in Q hence the ev rw To hear is Matthew original. SecrjuLcortjpLO) on the other the works" is an awkward expression hand, the corresponding passag of St. Luke is of the

sort

must have been mentioned


of St.

pression

conventional type likewise, ire/jLy^rai Sid gives an imof greater originality than the irpoa-Koke;

o-djuLV09 (cirejuy^ev)

of the formal gospel

style.

Lastly,

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


the interpolation of riveg the repetition of the name
in

91

verse

18

is

and o Kvptos is Lukan, and John shows that the version not original. St. Matthew has thus

preserved the text of Q.


St.

Matt.
')(^r]Te

xvii.

20^:

St.

Luke

xvii.

el

htav

irLCTLv wg

e^ere

ttlottlv w<s

kokkov

KOKKOv
T(p

o-ivaireoog,
'

epeire
'

CTLvaTrecog,
(rvKajuivo)

eXeyere av rrj
^i^^p^^-

jULeralSa opei TOVTcp evQev 6Kt Koi /ULeTajBijcreTai

(ravri])

coOrjTt Kai (pVTevOrjTL ev

t^

OaXaa-ariJ

Kai

V7rr]K0vcrv

dv
St.

VJULIV.

often the case, has written el for recognise that St. Luke has " " the " the mountain " a refig tree by replaced miniscence of the " Cursing of the fig tree," which he

Luke, as

is

edv.

The commentators

omitted.
St.

Matt,

xviii.

12

rl

St.

Luke

XV.

r/y

VfjLiv

SoKi;

eav yevrjTat

avOpco'TTog e^

v/mcov e^coi/

TiPi

avOpwTTw cKarov nrpo^aTa Kai irXavfjOr] ev


ovy^i
cKpyjcrei

cKarop
aTToXecra?

TTpo/Bara Kai e^ avrcov ev ov

^ avTcov,
TO,
TO.

KaraXeiirei

ra

evevi]-

evevYjKovTa evvea eiri Kai TTopevOeig opr]

Kovra evvea
Kai

ev r/; eprjjiKp
CTTl

iropeverai
evpcov

TO

f);Te? TO Tr\av(jdiJivov ; (13) Ka\ eav yivtjrai evpeiv

airoXooXog ewg eupu avro;


(5) Kai
eiri

eTriTiOrja-iv

avTOf

aiJLr]v

Xeyco

v/ulip,

on

T0v<s

co/uiovg

avrov

')(^aipi
f]

eir

avrw jmaWou

iirl

Toig VVi]KOVTa ivvea


TTGirXavriiJi.evoig,

Kai eXOcov etV "^aipcov, (6) Tov oiKOV arvvKoXei Tovg

T019

M^

(plXovg

Ka] Tovg yeirovag,

Xeycov

avT0i9'

aw^aptjre

92

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


yWOf,

on
jULov

Tov

evpov to irpo^aTO aTToXwXof. (7)


oti ovTCog

Xeyco

vjuiv

wapa
rj

ecTTai ev T(p ein evi ovpavix)

ajuapTcoXu)
eiri

/neTavoovvTi

evevYjKOVTa evvia SiKal-

ovs,

oWipes ov -^pelav e-^ov-

ariv jULTavola<}.

St.

in the apodosis

Matthew has the principal interrogative clause St. Luke by using the participial
;

construction (as so often) makes the whole into one

The former is original, likeinterrogative sentence. wise the awkward ylvea-Qai (St. Luke eyeiv). The
e^
vfxihv

of St. Luke

is

Luke

writes aTroXecrag for

out of good connection. St. ir\avi]6iii because with his

construction he was compelled to avoid the change of subject. KaraXeiVa is an evident correction for

the clumsy a(py](7i. 'Exf to, opt] and eV t^ ipyjjULw be as translation-variants, if it were might regarded

probable from other passages that St. Luke had knowledge of the Aramaic original of Q ; St. Luke has here repjlaced the special by the more general

Again, he writes to aTroXcoXo?, because he aTroXecra?, St. Matthew gives to TrXavco/mevov (in accordance with the TrXavrjOij of his
term.

had already written


text).

Tlopeuerai eirl to is good Greek for TropeuOeh The un-Hellenic phrase iav yei^rjTat evpeiu is ^rjTei. Here, therefore, the replaced by the correct evpwv.
text of St.
St.

Luke is shown to be everywhere secondary. Luke verse 6, and indeed the principal pari
5,

of vrse

have no parallel in

St.

Matthew.

They

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


may have

93

stood in Q, and St. Matthew may have omitted them because they only give coloin' and finish to the parable however, nothing certain can be said the 'Z^vvKoXeiv is found eight times in point. upon the New Testament, including seven times in St.
;

Luke and "


in

" also " neighboui's (St. liuke xiv. 12, xv. 9) " have a Lukan flavour ; <Tuv)(^aipetv is friends

the gospels exclusively


cLTToXcoXog

Lukan

(i.

58, xv. 9)

and

cauuot have stood in Q, seeing that in a preceding verse it has been traced to St. Luke's correcting hand. Here the Xe-yco v/uliv, which St. Matthew verse 13

TO

also stands in St.


it

is important, because shows that this asseveration also occurred in Q it

Luke

verse 7,

does not, however, follow from this that


original
St.

given by St. that the owner rejoices more over the one sheep than over the ninety-nine that
it is

when Matthew

always Matthew or St. Luke.

it is

asserts

had not wandered; St. Luke gives the spiritual application and interpolates the idea of repentance
(^vide

infra St.
is

Luke

xvii. 3,

There

no doubt

as to

4 = St. Matt, xviii. 21, 22). which of these versions is the

original. text.

Thus here

also St.

Matthew has the ancient

St. Matt, xviii.

15 'E a V
:

St.

Luke

xvii.

3: eav

Se ajuapT^cTl] 6
<joVy viraye

aSeXcpog

/uLera^v
jULOvov.

eXey^ov avrov aov Km avrov


crov

ajmaprrj 6 aSe\(p6g croVj eTriTLjuLtjcroi' avro), Kai eav


iJ-eravoyjcru^

eav

aKOvcrih

(4)
Ka\

KaL

eav

avTw. acpeg eirraKi^ t^9


ei<s

CKepStjcrai
(Tov.

tov

aSeXcpov

tjfxepag

ajULaprrjcri]

ere

eirraKi^

eTridTpi^n

94

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


TTpo^
ere

Xeycov

juerai/oco,

(21) t6t irpocreXOoov 6


TleTjOO? elTrev avrcp* Kvpie,
TTOcraKig aju(.apTJ]cri ei9
ejuLe

6 aSe\(f)6<! avTO);
ecog

juiov

KOI

aipijcrco

eTrraKig;

XeyeL avrw o
Xe-yo)
oroi
CO)?

Itjcrovg'

(22) ov

cTrra/cf?,

aXXa
CTTTa,

60)?

ifiSojuLtjKOvraKig

is

At the first glance the text in St. Luke, because it the shorter, seems to be therefore the more original in form ; as a matter of fact, it presents to a certain

extent the longer form, and besides rests upon a conflation of ideas. It is the longer in that St. Luke alone
gives T?? ^juepa^ and speaks of repentance (just as in XV. 7), of which nothing is said in St. Matthew verses

21

f.

laid
(i.e.

is

In St. Luke the point upon which emphasis is the sinner's repentance ; while St. Matthew
is

Q)

concerned with the question of uncondi-

tional forgiveness, not in the case of sins in general but in the case of personal injury. St. Luke confuses

Here, however, St. Matthew too is not original, for his version in verse 15 is already determined by the subject-matter of the following The text must have run eav verses (16 and 17).
the two cases.
:

ajuapnia-u

of St. {afxaprn

Luke

improvement) 6 aSeXcpo^
eXey^ov
is

crov,

a grammatical eXey^ov avrov (uiraye


is

belongs perhaps to the style of St.


certainly

Matthew

the rare

more

original than the frequent

INVESTIGATION OF THE

TEXT

95

The saying is, however, still imperfect, eiriTi/uLtjarov). hence we cannot do without the following clause idv (Tov CLKOvcru eKepStjcrag tov aoe\<p6v crov.
:

other saying in St. Matthew verses 21 and quite independent of the previous one which it. The absolutely St. Luke has blended with un-Hellenic construction of its clauses, the equally

The
is

22

un-Hellenic
close, are

eto?, and the cTrra (for eTrra/cf?) at the enough to prove its originality although

the

introduction

of

St.

Peter

may

be

secondary.
St.

The

e/BSojuL^iKovTOLKis eTTTcc

probably seemed to

Luke

too paradoxical.
St.

Matt. xix. 28
eirl

v/mei^
.
.

St.
v/uii$

Luke
/xer

xxii.

28,

30

OL aKoKov6i](TavT<i

jjlol

06 ecre ol

Sia/jLejuevt]-

KaOlcrecrSe

SwSeKa

Koreg

ejuov

ev
. .

to?9
.

KpivovTe<s Opovovg SwSeKa (pvXai tov ^IdparjK.

ra^

Treipacjuoi^

/mov

koI

KaO/jcrecrOe iirl

vovTcg TO.?

Opovcov KplScoSeKa (pvXa^

TOV

'l(Tparj\,

It is obvious that the introduction in St.


is

besides, Siajueveiv only occui's once again in the gospels, and that in St. Luke (i. 22) ;

more

original

Matthew

and the plural

Treipaa-jmoi
it

in the gospels, though rest is identical in the two versions " twelve," twice repeated, must be
original.
St.

not found anywhere else The occurs in Acts xx. 19.


is
;

the

number
as

regarded

Matt,

xxiii.

St.
v/aiv

Luke
to??

xi.

46

koi
oval'

Aea-jiieuovcriv

Se

(popTia
iirl

vo/ullko?^

^apia

Koi iTTiTiOiacrii'

(popTi^cTe tov^ ai^Opwirovs

96
Tovg
cojuiovg

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


TCOV
avOpcoTTCov,

avTol Se Tcf oaKTvX(p avrcov ov OeXovcriv Kivrjcrai avra.


^

(popTia Svcr/3d(rTaKTa, avTol evl Twv SaKTvXwv


vjuLWP

Kal

ov 7rpocr\^aveT Toig
ovai

(13) oval Se
fxaTci^

vjuiv,

ypa/mvttorrjv

<P opTioig, xi. 52


vo/iAiKOi^,

vjjuv

TOig

Km

KpiTQL,

^apLordioL OTL KKetere


tcov

Tr]V

OTL rjpaTe [e^ere] KXetSa T^9 yvijocrem'

^acriXeiau
eniTTpocrOei/
ujueig

ovpavoov

avTOi

OVK

eiarfKOaTe

Kai

twv avOpcoTrwv
ovk
elcrip-^ecrOe
ei(Tp-)^OjULVOVg

Tov^ eia-ep^o/ULevovs eKCoXvcraTe,

yap
TOl'9

OvSe

acplere eicreXOeiv. (23) oval vjuLiv,


fjiaTeig

ypajUL-

xi.

42

ovai

v/uliv

to??

Kal ^apicraloi viroKptTal, on OLiroSeKarovre TO ^SvOCTjULOV KOL TO ClVljOoV Kai

^apicraiOL?,

otl

airoSeKaKCU

T0VT6 TO

riSvOCTfJiOV

TO

TO

KV/ULLVOVf

KUL

acpijKaTC

Ta (BapvTepa tov vojuloVj Tt]V Kpicriv KaL TO eXeo? Kai Tt]V TTLCTTIV. TavTa Se
eSei
TTOirJG-ai

TTYiyavov Kai irav Xayavov^ Kai irapepyecrQe Ttjv Kpicriv Kal Trjv ayairtjv tov Oeov.

[ravTa
jULt]

eSei Troirjcrai KCLKelva

Trapeivai.^

KaKelva

julij

a(peivai.

(25)

oval

vjuLiVj

ypafjL-

xi.

39

vvv

vjmeig

ol

yuare?? Ka\ ^apicraioi vtto-

^apicraiOL to
TroTrjpiov

KpiTaif

OTL KaQaplXeTe to e^coOep tov iroTripLOV Kai


T^9 irapoyp^iSog,
earooQev

e^coOev tov Kai TOV irivaKog


ecrooOev

KaOapL^Tj TO Se
v/ULoov

Se

ye/uLei

apirayrji

Kal

yefxovaiv e^ apTrayrj^
aKpaar'ia^}
1

Kai

TTOPtjpiag.

St.

Matthew

verse 26 and St.

Luke

verse 41 are not without

connection, yet do not lend themselves easily to comparison. In the first place, St. Luke 41* {oCix 6 ?rot7j(ras rb ^^udep Kal rb ictaOev

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


[(27) ovai
\ fxaTei<s Kai

97

vjULCP,

$a/ picraioi

ypajuiviro-

[xi.

44
!)?

ovat

v/juv,

on
Ta
ovk

ecrre

Ta

juLvrjjULeia

KpiTai,

on

irapojuLoia^ere

aSt]\a, Kot ol avOpcoTTOi oi

racpoig KKOviajuievoi^,o'iTLve^ cbaivovTai /ULV e^ooOev


wpaioiy ecTcoQev Se yejuLovariv
OG-Tecov

TrepiTrarovvTe^
o'lSacriv.'^

eiravw

vcKpoou

Km

Tracrrji

aKaOapo-lag.J^

(29)

ovai

vjULiv,

ypajn-

XI.

4<7

ovai
TO,

v/uliv,

on
Se

jmaTeig koi ^apicraloL viro-

OlKoSojU6LT
TCOV

JULVt]IULia

Kpiraij

on

.(5( oiKooo/uieLTe

TrpocpijTcoUy
vjuwi'

ol

Tovi Ta(pov<f Tcov


Kai
K0crjUiiTe
SlKaiCOl',
ei

7rpo<pt]T(Jov
juLV}]/u.ia

ra

TWV

(30) KOL Xeev

yexe'
^jmepaig

'/jjueOa

rah

(48) apa /uapecTTe Kai crvi^evSoKeiTe Tvpe<s TCOV T019


ujuLcoVj

iraTepe^ avTov^.

aireKTeivav

ovK

CLP

irarepiav r/juLcov, rjjjLeQa avTcov kolvoo-

tcov

epyoi^ OTi avTOi


avT0V9,

juiev

iraTepcov aireK-

Teivav

vjULeis

Se

VOL ev T(p ai/xaTi toov ivpo-

oiKoSojULeiTe,

(31) C0G-T6 jmaprv(ptjTwv. on viol ecrre peire eavroh


TCOV

TTpocpriTas.

rof? (popevQ-aPTOov (32) Koi vjueig

TrXtjpwa-are

to jmerpov

tcov

Trarepwv

v/ulwv.

the same is the case iirotrjcrev;) has not any parallel in St. Matt. 26 with the vocative, ^apicrdie TV(p\^, of St. Matt. 26. Whether the words Kaddpi(Tov irp'jOTQv rb ivrds rov voTiipiov and irXrjP to. ivbvra 86t iXerjuocrvprjy go back to one Aramaic source (wherein "dakki" was confounded with "zakki") is doubtful. The latter halves of the
;

verses, iVa yivrjrai


vfuv
ia-Tiv,

/cat t6 e/cr6s avTOv Ka6ap6v and Kai ISoii irAvra KaOapa are alone really related to one another. If, however, a single source was here really used, then St. Matthew has the more

original text.

98

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


(34) Sia TOVTO iSov
eyct)
vjuLcig
rj

xi.

49

^la

tovto koi

cnrocTTeXXco
7rpo(br]Ta9

irpog Kai crochovg Kai

lochia TOV 6eov elirev

ypajuLimaTeig'

e^
koi

avrcov
(rravpco-

airoKTeveire
(rere koi

(p^Tag ^ avTcov airoKTevovcTLv Kai

airocTTeKoo eig avTOvg ttjOOKoi oLTrocTToXovg, koi

e^ avrcov /uLacmyTijOi]

wcrere ev raig crvvaycoyaig Koi. airo vjuiwv Sico^ere

TO

al/ma Travrcov tcov

TToXew?
OTTO)?
aijuLa

etV

TToXiV
(p
v/ULag

(35)
Trap

K-)^VVVOjULVOV TTpOiptJTWV airo KaTajSoXrjg k6g-/jlov

TO

Aur]

aiTO

Trig

yeveag
a'l/uLaTog

TavTrjg,

SUaiov eK-^vvofxevov airo rod aifxaeir). T^f yrjg Tog "A/SeX Tov SiKuiov eo)?

(51) aTTo
eft)?

"A/BeX

a'ljuLaTog

^Layaplov tov
/mcTa^v
Kai
v/uliv,

airoXoiJLevov
OvG'iacrTrjpLOv

tov
o'i~

Tov

alfxarog

Tja^aplov

tov

VLOV Bapay^LoVj ov e(povuo-are fxera^v tov vaov Km

KOV

lal,

Xeyco
airo

eK^nTf]-

OrjcreTaL

Ttjg

yeveag

TOV
ajurjv

Ova-iaa-TtjpLov.
9

(36)

TavTtjg.

TavTa Xeyco v/miv, 7'j^eL \ eiri TravTa Trjv y veav


Tavrrjv.

St.
is

Matt,

xxiii.

For
in

Sea-juLeveiv

(popTia, which

scarcely intelligible Greek,

St.

Luke has written


:
:

(popTiteiv
acTTpairl]
erl/uLtjcruv,

(popTLa

(cf.i

acTTpaTrTOvara,

Acts

this evangelist, xvii. 24 xxviii. 10 Tijuaig


aTreiXticrcoiueOa,

Acts

iv.

17

aTreiXi]

Acts
xxii.
(poovij

V.

28.:
:

irapayyeXla

15
V.

eTTiOvjuiLa

'TraprjyyeiXajUiev, xxiii. 46 eTreOujULtjcra,

St.
:

Luke
ecrTr},

(poomjcrag

[likewise

Acts

xvi.

28], vi.
St.

avaa-Tag
ii.

Acts

jULcvov

ejixevev,

Luke
the

(jyvXaccrovTeg

(pvXaKOLg).

The construction of
filled

cbopTi^eiv

with a

double accusative

place of

eTriTiOiaa-iu

INVESTIGATION OF THE
Sucr/Sda-TaKTOs
is

TEXT

99

literary
St.

Greek
Matt.

supra the remarks on


xii.

33.

kv\ T.

^aKT.
to,
it
is

is

lends
Kiveiv),

emphasis
because

ro)

a stylistic SaKTvXw.
this

irpocr^aveLv
is

and Lukan, vide vi. 20 = St. Luke correction of, and


(for

correction.

a compound,

shown to be a
stands

In

St.

Luke

verse

among

against the scribes ; this may be correct. St. Matthew introduced the verse into a description of the Pharisees which he had taken from a separate

the

Woes

source,

and

so

was able to arrange a

list

of seven

yet it may well have been otherwise (vide infra on verse 25) ; it is evident that in Q part of the subject-matter occurred in a description

Woes.

And

of the Pharisees, part in the form of Woes. ^ojunKog is found six times in St. Luke, never in St. Mark,

John, and St. Paul, once in St. Matthew (xxii. 35), but the latter occurrence is doubtful. The word, thereSt.

fore, certainly

has substituted
it

did not stand in the source St. Luke it for " Pharisees," or has combined

or used
42,

it

39,

43),

alternately with the latter word (vide xi. perhaps in order to remind his un-

instructed readers
xxiii.

who
Kal

the Pharisees were

(cf.

Acts
is

f.).

The

of St.

Luke,

verse

46,

probably to be counted original. St. Matt, xxiii. 13 The combination of scribes and Pharisees is also found four times in St. Luke
:

(v. 30, vi. 7, xi.

53, xv. 2).

If he

had found

it

here

he would certainly have given it in his text. Since, however, he writes vo/ulikoI, we must suppose that " " only Pharisees stood in Q (vide supra on verse 4)
viroKpirai than in St.
is

much more frequent in Luke and in St. Matt.


;

St.

Matthew

xxiv. 51, St.

100

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


it

Luke has replaced


in

in the passages

by aina-Toi. Whether it stood we are now considering cannot


;
:

be certainly determined probably Q ran oval vjuliv Toh ^apia-aloL^. It is obvious that " to hold the key

" is the correction, and " to close the of knowledge " kingdom of Heaven is the original ; moreover, the does not suit well with yvwa-i^^ which verb
elcrep^ecrQaL

word occurs only once again in the gospels, and that St. Luke also in St. Luke (i. 77, ypuxjig a-coTtjpiag).

puts avTOL in the place of

v/meis^

for

he does not

like the personal pronominal subject expressed with St. Luke gives the aorist eia-rjXOaTe instead the verb.

of the present because, as a matter of fact, the St. Luke "lawyers" did not possess the yvaxrig.

omits yap because its connection with the context is not clear, and he simply writes eKwXucraTe instead of the circumstantial ovk acfylere eiareXOeiVf just as in the case of St. Matt. v. 40 he replaces a(pg avrcp

by

juLT]

KwXvcrijg (KcoXveiv

once in St. Matthew, 6-\-6


intro-

times in the
St.

Lukan writings). Matthew xxiii. 23 Concerning the


:

duction, compare M^hat has been said above on " Anise and cummin " verse 13. (St. Matthew), " " Rue and (St. Luke) ; the former is every herb Ztschr. " Expos. Times," xv. 528 ; original (Nestle,

f. Neutestamentl," Wissensch. 1906, s. 10, believes that cummin and rue correspond to KDQli^ and is difficult of interTO, N")Ilti/)fiapvrepa tov vojulou

pretation

cording
the

to

and seems to conflict with verse 4, acwhich the very charge brouglit against
is

the Pharisees

words

are

that they impose the heavy burden therefore omitted by St. Luke.

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


Trapep^ecrQe It follows
is

101

from

words in

St.

Matthew

a more elegant word than acbrjKaTe. the middle of the three eXeo?
that here conduct towards

the neighbour is spoken of (Wellhausen) ; St. Luke, however, alters this and reads, " Ye pass by the judgment and the love of God." The conclusion of
the verse found in

many manuscripts
St.
it

of St. Luke

is

an interpolation from have stood in Q, for

Matthew.
is

It can scarcely

in

accordance with the

tendency of St. Matthew.

Moreover, the preceding


to
St.

words
St.

Koi rrjv ttlcttiv are very doubtful. Matt, xxiii. 25 Here, in contrast
:

Matthew verse 4, St. Matthew has the woe and the St. Luke the simple description (vide supra)
;

vvv,

which

is

found only here, seems to be original;


substituted
vi.

St.

Luke has

the

more general word

St. irlva^ {cf.

Mark

25) for Tra^oxJ//?.

He

has also

correctly interpreted the somewhat dubious 'i(T(jodev by TO 'i(T(j}Qev vjuLoovy and has replaced aKpacria, which seemed

too special a word here, by the more general irovrjpla. Wellhausen thinks that the St. Matt, xxiii. 27
:

text of St.

Matthew

is

here more
St.

original than that of

Luke.

diffuse and less But the sayings

in St. Matthew the Phariare absolutely different sees are to whitewashed sepulchres compared in order that (whitened, they might be seen of
:

in St. Luke, on the other hand, they are men) compared to just the opposite, to sepulchres which
;

cannot be seen.

The

latter
:

simile

is

only

intelli-

those who walked over gible from Num. xix. 16 The Jewish the sepulchre were rendered unclean. ordinance which lies at the background of the

102
version
in

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


St.

Luke

vouches

for

the

originality

of this text.

And

can scarcely be however, we are not allowed to assume that both verses belonged to Q, then St. Luke must have
the
preference, seeing

yet the text of St. Matthew due to intentional alteration. If,

that

St.

Matthew

verse

27

does not carry us much farther than verse 25. Only, the more elegant and appropriate /mvtjjuieiov (for

due to the correcting hand of St. Luke not found anywhere in St. Mark and (rdcpo^ St. Luke) see also the remai^ks on St. Matthew
TOLipog)
is

is

verse 29.
St.
St.

Luke here

may

29-32 = St. Luke xi. 47, 48. Does give an extract or the original ? confidently affirm the former alternative, because
Matt,
xxiii.

We

Moreover,

of the cold, matter-of-fact tone of St. Luke's version. its secondary character is also shown by
airoKTelveiv for
(poveveiv

and by
St.

crvvevSoKetVi

which

is

peculiar to St.
xxii.

Luke and
;

Paul (vide Acts

viii. 1,

20

Rom.

by

fxaprvs,

(jULapTvpeiv

i. 32 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13), as well as which occurs thirteen times in the Acts is found in St. Matthew only in this

passage).
itaque.

St.

Luke

also avoids cocrre in the sense of

and Pharisees are inter(vide Wellhausen on this passage) as well as the words koi kog-julit to. St. Matthew often concerns Twv SiKatcov. jjLvtjjj.e'ia
However, the
scribes

polated here by St.

Matthew

himself with

" the

"

righteous
like

(side

by

side

with

prophets and such

people).

We, moreover,

note that the prophets alone are mentioned afterwards. cf. the Again, verse 32 is perhaps original

clumsy phrase irXripodv

to

/uerpoi^

tcoi>

irarepwv (on

INVESTIGATION OF THE

TEXT

lOS

the other hand, verse 33 is an appendix which has been fashioned after the pattern of iii. 7).
St.

Matt,

xxiii.

34-36.

We

discover

from

St.

Luke alone that our Lord here quotes an authority The fact that we which He regards as inspired. do not know what this authority was, is no reason
for asserting that the passage in question
is

not a

quotation, especially seeing that we read elTrev (not the present), and that our Lord could not possibly have said, " I send prophets, wise men and scribes." can easily understand that the dislike to represent

We

our Lord as quoting from an apocryphal book, or some other motive, led St. Matthew to erase the
quotation formula (his iSou is, as it were, a substitute for what has been omitted, and Sia tovto has good

That St. sense only in St. Luke). is inconceivable. St. here polated
drastic

Luke has interLuke has made


usual,

corrections

in

detail.
;

As

he

has

omitted
the
in
1

before iyoo

the verb
scribes
^

he has transformed
!

wise

men and

into apostles

(just
;

as

Clem. 42, Deacons are interpolated)


;

he has

changed airoa-reXXa) into aTroareXo) (because of the conclusion of the discourse) he has inserted kql
before e^ avroov (pr.) he has replaced SicoKeiu by cKSiwKeiv, and the uncouth (Semitic) phrase eXOt] <p^
;

irav aljma by to aijua iravToov (the K^r]Tr]Oi] passive is enough to betray his style, also K^t]Tiv occurs in St. Luke alone among the gospels), also For eV^ OTTO)?, as in several other passages, by Iva.
v/ma^

This word is certainly original, seeing that in the context of Matthew the ypafj-fxareis are denounced, so that the evangelist himself could not have inserted them here.
1

St.

104
T^f
airo
less
<y5?j

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


which seemed superfluous, he has substituted Kara^oXfjg Koa-jULoVi words which seemed much

superfluous, and he has introduced yevea avn] from verse 51 in order to lend greater precision to the solemn asseveration of the close of that verse.

As
ov

in St. Matt, xxiii. 31, he avoids (popeveiv, replacing


(povV(TaT6

hj the

participle

tov

aTroXojULevou.

Concerning the variants elg avrovg and tt^oo? lyyua? I have nothing to say, the two prepositions occur in parallel passages of the two evangelists without any
recognisable reason
pwcreTe
vjuiiJov

for

their

variation.

In a-rau-

Kai

e^ avTtov /ULaaTiyuxTeTe ev Taig aupaywyaii


St.

we probably have an addition by

Matthew

cf. St.

Matt. XX. 19, juLaarTiyuxrai koi (TTavpuxrai also awo TToXecog eh iroXiv is probably interpolated in accordance with St. Matt. x. 23, likewise the two occurrences of '^ SlKaiov''\^{vide supra on xxiii. 29); St. Luke reads, but scarcely correctly, irdvrwv rcou
7rpo(pr}Tci)i/.

out (1) that

Concerning vlou Bapay^lov, I would point it is not quite certain that these words

are original in St.

Matthew

(2) that as St.

Luke

does not read them, and as the gospel of the Hebrews " filium according to St. Jerome''s testimony read
Joiadae
"
[so

also

(in

accordance

with

Chron.

xxiv. 20) a Greek scholion ta St. Matthew], it is therefore very improbable that the words stood in

Q.

What

reason
?

omitting them
discussing

within his reach.

could St. Luke have had for Their historical control was not We therefore here refrain from
is

what Zacharias

meant by

St.

Matthew or

his interpolator. There is no reason for suspecting an historical hysteron-proteron. In place of the " Temple

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT

105

and the Altar," St. Luke writes with greater precision, the Altar and the House (of the Temple)." Lastly,
the
i/al

of St.
to

Luke shows that


oltto

ajmiji/

stood in
rj^ei

KiCt]rt]6}](TeTaL

is

substituted
cKXrirriQii

for

eirl

in

order
verse
;

take
led

up the
to

this

the omission

of the previous of Tavra Trapra,

which words indeed do not express the sense very


clearly in the context to K'tt]T. in St. Luke

Tov twice
original.
St.

Matthew (the subject to aijma). The absence of before aijuLaros in St. Luke is probably
of St.
is

Matt.

xxiv.

26

St.

Luke
wSe*

xvii.

23

koi
e/ca,

J2jav ouv eiTroociv vjuliv loov

epovcriv

vjuliV
/mi]

iSov

ISov
6r]T'
fxrj

aTreXOfjre

ISoV ev T019 Ta/LlLOt^,

fjLt/Se

Sico^r]T.
fi

(24) wcnrep
acrrpaTTviro

7ri(TTeva-ijT' (S'T) oicnrep


rj

ryap

aarTpairrj
e/c
eL<s

yap
CLTTO

acrrpairt] e^ep-^eTai

T over a
ovpavov
Xa/iiTret,

tTj^

tov

eco?

avaro\(jov Kat ipaLveTat Sucr/ULcJov, ovrcog earai rj

Trjv vir

ovpavov

ovTCog ecTTai 6 vlo^


1/

Trapovcna
avQpodirov'

tov

vlov

tov

TOV apOpWTTOV
avTov.
(Tco/uiaj

TH
01

^jULepoi

(28) oirov eav

(3*7)
Kt

oirov

to

2 TO

TTTcojua, Ki (Tvva^Oi]-

Kai

aero I

aovTai ol aeTOL.
xxiv. 37
at
:

CTricrvva-^urjcrovTai,

"Qcrirep

yap

(26) Ka\ KaOo)^ eyeveTO


ev Tai<f ^jiiipaig Ncoe, oi/tcoj ecTTai KOI ev Ta'i<s ^jmepaig

tov Ncoe, ovTwg tjfjLepai ecTTai ri tov vlov TrapovcTLa

TOV

yap

(38) 0)9 ai/Opwirov. ijcrav ev Tal<s ^/mepaig


Tafj
TTjOO

TOV
(27)
juLOvv,

VLOV

TOV

avOpWTTOV'

tjaOiov,

eiTLvov,

eyaelg

[cKCLVaLf^

TOV

eyajULi^ovTO, CLXpi V^
elcrjjXOev

KaTaKXva-jULOv
Kai
TTLVOVTe^f

Tp(JoyovTS
yajuLOVPTeg

rjjjLepa^

Nwe

Tr}V KL^wTOv, Kai fjXOev 6

106

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


/cara/cXuar/xo? Kai airijoXecrep
elcryjXOev

^jmepag
Tt]V

Nooe

eig

iTavTa<s,

KI^CjOTOV,

(39) Kai OVK

eyvooG-av eo)? rfkOev 6


kXv(Tiulo9 Kai Tjpev

Kara-

aVaj^Ta?,

ovTcog

ecTTai

rj

irapovcna

Tov vlov TOV avOpcoTTOv. (40) TOTe ecovrai Svo


P Tip aypu),

(34) Xeyoa
Til

vjuliv,

Tavrn
cttI

eh

TrapaXajut.-

vvKTi

ecrovrai

duo

^averai
/ixvXcp, /una

Kai

eh acbierai.

KXivtjg

jULiag,

elg

Trapa-

(41) Svo aXyOovcrai ev tco


Koi

X)]iui(pOy](TTaL

juLia

irapoXajji^aveTaL aSlerai.

OLcbeOijcreTaL'

Kai 6 erepog (35) ecrovrai


eiri

ovo aArjuoucrai
f]

to avTO,
rj

fJLia

7rapaX}]jUL(pOtjcrTai,

Se

CTepa

acpeQ-qareTai.

Clauses with eav


in

may be presumed

to have stood

often uses such clauses, and, again, he As for the rest, it is difficult in often alters them.

St.

Luke

St.

Matt. xxiv. 26 to determine whether

St.

has abbreviated or St.

Matthew has
to

amplified.

Luke The

former

alternative

seems

me more

probable,

especially as Sicjokciv, used in this sense, is a word Li verse 27 characteristic of St. Luke and St. Paul.
aa-Tpairrj acTTpairTovcTa on St. Matt, xxiii. 4

= St.

of the clause in

St.

Lukan in style (vide note Luke xi. 46); the rest Matthew is also original (St.
is

Luke guards

against

the idea that


;

lightning only

cf. a similar Lukan corpasses from east to west rection of St. Matt. viii. 11= St. Luke xiii. 29). Also must be regarded as the reading irapova-ia of Q it is indeed only found in St. Matthew, but
rj
;

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


also

107

with the exception of xxiv. 3 (which passage may be derived from Q), only in places dependent
(vide xxiv. 37, 39).
St.

upon Q

Luke has avoided

the word, which belonged to the sphere of Jewish Messianic dogma and was an unsuitable term for
that

Second Coming in which Christians believed vide Wellhausen on and which is here referred to St. Luke"'s XdjULTrei is a better St. Matt. xxiv. 3. word than (palverai, and is therefore a correction.

'Ei/

Tij

rjfxepa

authority,
St.

but

avTov does not possess firm textual is an indispensable element of it

For the disagreeable word Luke's vocabulary. TTToofxa St. Luke has substituted the more elegant

he has deleted eau ij, has given smoothness (Tco/uLa, to the clause by the addition of kql, and has replaced double compound eirKTwa-^^O. a-vva-^. by the
St.

Matt. xxiv. 37
to

On
at

logical
^juepaL

grounds
. .

St.

Luke
ecrrai

could not allow


rj

cocrTrep

oi/'ro)?

irapovcrla

is

not fond of
16

wa-irep

remain unchanged (besides this he on the other hand, he uses

KaOo)^

+ 12

times,

>vhile

in

St.

Matthew

it

In regard to >} occurs only three times). wapova-ia in the right (vide supra on St. Matthew is again In place of the double comSt. Matt. xxiv. 27).

one element stating parison (St. Matt. xxiv. 37 ff.) St. Luke only the theme which the other develops The latter can scarcely gives a simple comparison.

be

original

but

St.

shown by the imperfects.


is

Luke's unoriginality is also The use of the imperfect

a speciality of St. Luke, feeling for the niceties of


iyajul^opTo
is

and shows the Greek

his

better

language.

Moreover,

an

improvement

upon

108
yafjuXovre^
rection.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


(vide

Wellhausen), and
as before in

is

thus

cor-

other pages, we find that the shorter text of St. Luke is not original

Here again,

but a revision.
St.

Matthew

It ahuost necessarily followed that verse 39* should fall a victim to the

reviser's pruning-knife,

nor indeed do we lose

much

thereby.

Wellhausen
variant
St.

calls

of St. Luke verse 34

Matthew and

i.e. poorer version in logic and sense

St.

verse 40 a poor but in comparing Luke it often happens that the the version which is less good
St.
;

Matthew

is

the

motive which

led

the original. Here, moreover, to St. Luke's alteration is

He wished by means of the examples quite clear. to given express something which was not distinctly
expressed in Son of Man
the
original

text

namely,
by
. .

that the

might come by night


ev
rep

just as well as

by day.
Til

Accordingly he changed t6t into ravrij

vvKTL

and replaced
el^
,
,

aypca
eT?

eiri
.

kXivi]?
eT^

lJLia<i,

again,

he substituted
,

for

the
fjLia

better
.
.
.

Greek 6

6 erepo^ (likewise for

lULia

lastly,

the better Greek ^ /uia ... 17 erepa) ; he changed the present into the more correct

future (so also in the following verse) and repeated the earovTai (in verse 35) which could not be disThat the pensed with in correct composition. women grind " at the mill " (St. Matthew) was
self-evident
;

it

was
ein

not

that

they

grind

to

superfluous to mention Hence St. Luke avTo.

substitutes the latter phrase for the former.

There are thus about

fifty

variants in

the

case

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


of which
;

109

we have found reason to question the of these originality of the text of St. Matthew one-half coincide with the variants which we have characterised above (pp. 34 if.). The aixrjv Xeycjo
in V.

vjuLiv

18

may be

V.

26, the iyco Xeyoo

original, likewise the v/uliv in v. 32, and the

ajmr}]/

in in

ajuLrjv

viii.

10 (vide supra). ovpavoh with irarpo^

On
(v.

the other hand, tov ev 45), ovpavw in place of

ovpavoU (vi. 20), and 6 irarrjp v/mcov for o Oeo^ (x. 29), are not original. We find circumstantial phrases, like those we have noticed above, in irpoa-eKQwv
(iv.

3),

^e

oLTTOKptOeh

etirev

for

aireKplQr} (iv.

4),

and Tore TrpocreXOcov 6 Tlerpo^ elirev avrw (xviii. we find interpolations in the " Pharisees and 21)
;

" '^ scribes in chap. iii. 7, in the " addition to the " Pharisees of chap, xxiii. 23 " scribes (together with the hypocrites "), and the " '" " The and Pharisees of chap, xxiii. 29. righteous '' also appear in these sections, and " righteousness vide v. 6 (" to hunger and thirst after righteous-

Sadducees

"

of

ness
V.

xxiii. and probably also 29, 35 ""), (bis), 45 (yet here " the righteous may perhaps be of the The viraye because parallelism). original
'*''

in all three cases of its occurrence (iv. 10, viii. 13, xviii. 15) is probably inserted by St. Matthew on

the other hand, one cannot be quite certain whether the viroSel^o) of St. Luke, which does not appear
in St.
it

Matt.

vii.

24 and

x.

28,

is

original or not
St.

seems to

in the

me more probable that No importance is to right.


iv.

Matthew

is

the slight stylistic variants in chap.


viii.

be attached to 9 {irecrwv add.),

5 (gen. abs. for

finite verb), viii.

11 {iroWol add.),

110
X.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

31 (ouv add.), xxiii. 4 (Se for Km), xxiii. 25 (vvv In these cases it is om.), xxiii. 35 (rov add. &^.y). It verdict. a definite to give naturally impossible of the in is probable that jultj vojmlcrtjre (x. 34), place
interrogative

secondary (vide supra on Also the words juLcopos and SoKciVi St. Matt. iii. 9). the two builders characterise which expressly cbpoi'ijuiog, are of houses in chap. vii. 24, 26, probably added
SoKeire,
is

by

St.

Matthew.

Besides these instances there are, however, several others in which the modification of the text is of

noteworthy, and at times of considerable, importance. In chap. iv. 11, at the conclusion of the story of the

Temptation, the words


Koi SirjKovovu avTU) "

''

Kai ISov

ayyeXoL

irpoa-rfKOov

that the
alone,"
is

quotation, continued (" but by every word, &c.,"


viii.

Before this are inserted. " Man doth not live

we

find

by bread
iv.

In chap.

12,

eig

to <tk6to9 to e^oorepov

"

4).

is

formula current with St. Matthew (for the simple But of considerably greater importance are eTo)). the following instances, wherein we trace distinct bias
of various kinds
1.
:

(iv.

introduced as the "holy city" is here we recognise the bias of a Christian of Jerusalem (note, however, that the term does not occur in the reproduction of a discourse of our

Jerusalem
;

5)

Lord).
2.

The addition
jmrj

in

chap,

xxiii.

23 (raura

eSei

TTOLrja-m KOLKelva

a Jewish ChrisTrapeimi) displays

tian reverence for ceremonial precepts.-^


1 The whole verse, xxiii. 27, is possibly an interpolation cannot come to a clear decision on this point.
;

one

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


3.

111

The conception of
V.

reXeios

is

introduced into
;

the conception SiKaiog) a distinct chap. ethical tendency is hereby indicated. 4. In chap. v. S2, in reference to the question of divorce, an important limitation is given in the inter(cf.

48

polated phrase irapeKTO's Xoyov Tropuelag. 5. Another limitation is given in the tco TrpevjULan (with ot TTTcoy^ol) of chap. v. 3.

quotation tov Oeov elirev, ^ocpla seems necessarily to presuppose the dogmatic bias of one who refused to recognise an uncanonical
enigmatical

6.

The omission
(xxiii.

of

the
rj

formula

34)

Kal

writing.
7.

The

substitution

of "Father in heaven"

for

the "Angels of God" (x. 32, 33) is connected with the evangelist's Christological position.
8.
is

The addition of
due
to

evcKev

e/mov

in

chap.

x.

39

likewise

the

influence

of Chnstological
avrov
julovov

dogma.
9.

The

addition of /ULera^v

crov koi

to

eXeyPov avrov (xviii. 15) points to the existence of a stereotyped gradation of disciplinary rule in the But it is questionable whether Christian community.
this passage in its present

form belongs to the original

text of St. Matthew.


10. Lastly, in chap, xxiii. 34, St. Matthew has probably interpolated the words kol a-Tavpcoarere Kal e^ avTwv fxao'TiyuxTeTe ev raig crvvaycoyai^ vjulwv, and has

added

airo TroXcw?

etV

iroXiv to oico^eTe.
all

Probably these are


has allowed himself to

variations which St.

Matthew

make from
ccoy

the transmitted text

of

(add also the clause

dv iravra yevtjrai in

112

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

chap. V. 18).^ Taking into account the considerable size of Q, they are few in number and of slight im-

Yet, on the other hand, they are numerous portance. enough to exclude the hypothesis that St. Luke did not follow a source common to himself and St.

Matthew, but used the gospel of

St.

Matthew

itself.

As for the variants of St. Luke, they are eight to ten times as numerous as those of St. Matthew. As
in the case of the former

group (pp. 38

ff.),

so also

here

can be clearly shown that these variants are almost exclusively of a stylistic character. The twelve
it

categories of our former list are now increased by The most important are the followseveral others.

ing

:
He
introduces the imperfect, erases the hist,

13.

present, and makes a correct use of the participle, imperfect, and infinitive present and aorist.
14.

He

substitutes the infinitive of the verb for a

prepositional clause.
Concerning vlov ^apax^ov (chap, xxiii. 35), see my remarks on the If the words were added by St. Matthew himself, passage "itself the question arises as to which Zacharias he was thinking of. In spite of Wellhausen's discussion of this question, the last word on the subject has not yet been said. The theory that it is the Zacharias who was slain in the Temple' at Jerusalem in the year 67
.

for though St. Matthew is, in my opinion, impossible could well put a detailed prophecy into the mouth of our Lord, yet he could not have let him say 6i> icpoveva-are. Since it follows from St. Luke that the saying in Q was not introduced as a word of the Lord, but as an utterance of the Sophia, this later Zacharias is absolutely excluded. I do not wish here to go further into the The address as it appears in St. question of the Lord's Prayer. Matthew suggests that the evangelist himself was the editor but

or 68 A.D.

there are other reasons leading to a contrary opinion.

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


15. 16.
tuates.

113

He He He

introduces the genit. abs.


amplifies,

exaggerates,

emphasises, accenr/?,

17.

inserts writes Xiyetv irpo^,

completes

objects, &c.

In some cases he alters the whole style of the narrative, changes the order (vide pp. 38 f. and else18.

where), amplifies, curtails

the stylistic motive

is

not

always apparent (other motives also enter into play, such as those which led him to the addition of new
traits

which enrich a simple narrative).^ He has favourite words and particles which he interpolates, while on the contrary he avoids other
19.

words.

Alterations in the subject-matter

of the

source

and bias are extremely rare when compared with those stylistic changes which remind us of the corrections constantly made in our hymn-books. In what follows, I propose to deal with the most important of these material alterations
showing distinct motive
:

In the story of the Temptation (iv. 113) it is expressly stated that our Lord was in Himself TrXrjpr]^

He was led into the ayiov, and that wilderness not vtto tov wvevjULaTog but iv irvevfj.aTU
irvevjuLaros

Also an opportunity
that
all

is taken to let the devil explain the world had been delivered to over power him, and that he could give it to whomsoever he willed The saying concerning divorce is altered
:

it

is

made

clear

that the one guilty of adultery

is

^ These variants, or, one may say, arbitrary alterations, range between those of the least and the greatest interference with the He even replaces a mountain by a fig-tree. text.

114

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Into

he who divorces his wife and marries another

the beginning of the Lord's Prayer (xi. 24) there is inserted a petition for the gift of the Holy Spirit
(eXderco to dyiov

In the parable of the Two Houses (vi. 4649), ^/uLag). St. Luke has inserted the new thought that in build-

irveviJLa crov (p' ^jma^

Kai

KaOapicraTco

ing everything depends upon the careful and laborious In chap. ix. 2 preparation of a proper foundation. " he has set " healing side by side with the preaching of the approaching kingdom as an equally important

function of the disciples

In chap.

xii.

3 he shows

a disposition to guard against our Lord being represented as an esoteric teacher in the following verse *" he has introduced " ol <pl\oi jixov as a designation which our Lord had applied to His disciples, and in the same passage he has omitted the expression " to the Hellene kill the soul," because it seemed to him
;

In chap. x. 16 he does to be too paradoxical. " " Lord our to of not suffer speak of the reception the apostles (into the house) ; for this, at the time

of the writer, was no longer possible, but of "" " Into the parable of the Lost them. hearing St. Luke has interpolated the trait of Sheep (xv. 7),

repentance, of which no mention was made in the text of the source (so also in xvii. 3, 4) ; in chap, *" for the " kingxi. 52 he has substituted gnosis " xi. dom ; in chap. 42, Tt]v ayairtj]/ rov Oeov for " in chap. xi. 49, " apostles for eXeo? (and irla-ri^) " wise men and scribes " ; and in chap. vi. 22 he has inserted eveKcv rov vlov tov avOpcoirov.
;

These, so far as I can

see,

are all the corrections

which display a distinct bias in regard to subject-

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT


matter.
influence

115

Such
with

bias,
St.

therefore, has

Luke than with


case, its

indeed, in the

former

had no stronger St. Matthew influence is somewhat

In regard to style, however, St. Luke has thoroughly revised the text of the source, while St. Matthew in this respect has, as it seems, almost
weaker.
entirely

refrained

from

correction.

Yet although

the stylistic corrections of St. Luke are so numerous, we cannot say that he has completely obliterated the
characteristics of his exemplar.
all,

Indeed, in spite of
his

we cannot but recognise that

work of

revision

ever carried out in a conservative spirit, and that his readers receive from him a just impression of
is

we

our Lord"'s style of discourse. In not a few passages are left in darkness as to the reason why in one

place he corrects and in another place he allows the transmitted text to stand in spite of its harshness ;

only in some passages can we explain St. Luke'*s version from his consideration of the parallel sections of St. Mark.
In a few cases
it
is

possible to

doubt

whether any common source lies at the background of St. Matthew and St. Luke (as in St. Luke vi.

46-49; vii. 1-10; xi. 41, 44; xiv. 26); yet there is an overbalancing weight of probability in favour of this hypothesis. We, however, almost always notice that short and pregnant utterances of our Lord, as compared with the longer discourses, have sufi'ered least correction, and that the revision is most in narrative and stringent pai'able. That one and the same Greek translation of an Aramaic original lies behind the two gospels is shown by the large number of parallel sections which are

116

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

Yet it is impossible to say anything verbally alike. at all definite concerning the homogeneity and extent

The exemplar used by St. Matthew source.-^ in this or that detail from the differed have may it is even which lay before St. Luke exemplar
of this

this was probable from the nature of such texts that but we have found no sure criteria by which we so

can clearly distinguish the separate exemplars so that we can with any propriety speak of Q^ and Q^. Even the translation-variants, to which Wellhausen, Nestle,

and others have drawn attention, are not


as

so certain

they appear

at

first

sight

always,

or

almost

Neveralways, they admit of other explanations. and here the I not would theless, possibility, deny

and there even the probability, of such variants. That in many sentences the Aramaic original is discernible under the veil of the Greek text, is a fact
which does not require to be specially pointed out.^
1 Yet we may here remark that there is no basis for the hypothesis that the parts of the Sermon on the Mount, which are common to St. Matthew and St. Luke, are not dependent upon a common written source, but are derived from oral tradition. The situation here is not dissimilar to that of many other passages i.e. it is beyond measure probable that St. Luke had before him a written text (the same which St. Matthew has used) which he

has edited in accordance with his own stylistic principles. 2 The result to which our investigation has brought us agrees in all important points with the results obtained by Wernle. This scholar, while rejecting the hypothesis that St. Luke was disof his sources, writes as follows tinctly biassed in his reproduction " St. Luke had before him the dis(" Synopt. Frage," s. 88) courses of the Logia-source in the primary form, not in a secondary
:

edition. He himself, in spite of his conservative attitude, submitted this source to a threefold redaction: (1) he corrected it in accord-

ance with his own Greek style


the discourses so as to give

(2)

he arranged and furbished up

them

definite positions in the course

INVESTIGATION OF THE
On

TEXT

117

the basis of the preceding investigations, I open the second chapter with a reconstruction of the text

In not a few passages I am quite conscious of Q. of the hypothetical character of the text as it is But without boldness it is impossible to printed.

make any advance in the solution of a problem such as this, and one must reckon with probabilities.
no slight probability for But before we pass to the next chapter, I would add an appendix which is intended to justify my neglect of the sections, St. Matt. xxi. 32 2-11 (St. Luke (St. Luke vii. 29, 30), St. Matt. xxii. xiv. 16-23), and St. Matt. xxv. 14-30 (St. Luke
However,
I

may

claim

the text I ofier.

xix. 1227), in

my

attempt to ascertain the contents

and the text of Q.


so clearly in the course Luke's introductions to the discourses have from the first been excluded from consideration] (3) he has edited them in accordance with the requirements of the
of the narrative [this does not of our investigations, because
St.
;

come out

times,"

Wernle

is

also

correct in his further remark

(s.

185)

"Almost everywhere St. Matthew has preserved a better text than " St. Luke yet he ought to have added that in St. Matthew there
;

are to be found

nature

far

many

alterations of the text of a very drastic

more

drastic than

any

St.

Luke has allowed himself

to make.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
St. Matt. xxi.

32: ^Xdev
vfias

St.
TTois

Luke
A,abs

vii.

yap to"

'I(i)dvvY}<s

Trphs

OLKOvcras

Kat 29, 30 kol ol


:

oo(^ dLKaLO(rvvr]<s, Kat

ovk
'

cttict-

TeAwj/at eStKatwcrav rbv ^cor,

Teva-are [scil. ol ap;(te/3ets kol ol TT peer^vre ol 8e pot] avTO)


TeXtoi/at KOL at iropvai IttlctTevcrav avTW * vfxels 8e tSovre?

TO /JccTTTta/xa (iaTZTi(T6kvT<i 'Iwccvvov ot 8e ^apiaraloi kol ol vofiLKol tt)v f3ovXrjv TOV


deov rjOerrja'av els kavTovs, -Qei vtt avTOv. P'aTTTtcrc/evTC?
firj

ovSe

rov

varrepov ixeTCfxeXrjOrjTe 7ncrTV(raL avro).

St. Matthew introduces this passage among the discourses with the Jewish authorities (at the conclusion

of the parable of the Two Sons) after the entry into in St. Luke it occurs very much earlier, in Jerusalem connection with the long discourse concerning St. John (that it does not fit into the context either at the one place or the other can be easily shown, vide Wellhausen on both passages). But one cannot but entertain serious doubt as to whether the passage belongs to Q indeed whether the two versions are directly dependent upon
;

any single common source. They are certainly derived from a common tradition viz. some saying of our Lord

publicans followed the preaching of the leaders of the people rejected him." while John, But beyond this all is different. Moreover, both in
to the effect,

"The

Matthew and St. Luke there occur in these passages such strong traces of the characteristics of the respective evangelists, or such evident signs of dependence upon the context, that it is no longer possible to deduce from of the tradition. " 01 Te\Q>vai koX them the
St.
ai TToovat

"

wording
in St.

original
118

Matthew come from

xxi. 31

"
;

^iKaioo-vvy]"

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER

119

must as a rule be regarded as an interpolation by St. '' TncrTeveiv avro),'' thrice repeated, is derived Matthew; from xxi. 25, and [xerafieXccrdaL from xxi. 29. The same is " '' the case in St. Luke. Has 6 Xaos occurs a dozen times
in this gospel (never in St. Mark, once in St. Matthew) ; the active hiKaiovv is never found in St. Matthew and
St,

Mark, while

it

occurs thrice in St. Luke's gospel


is

fSaTTTLo- Sevres to fSaTrrLcrixa

Lukan
dvacTTas

(c/!

TLfials

eTLf-crjcrav,

direiXy a.TreiXr](Twixe9a, TrapayyeAt'a TrapyyyetAajuev, cTrt^v/xt^


kTre6viit](Ta^

(^wvrjcras

<^wvt7,

ecrrr),

{xevov

e/zevev,

darpd-KTOvora, (fiopna <f)opot vofxiKOL in itself, and in conjunction TL^eLv); likewise with ot ^apLo-atoL, is Lukan ; " rj jBovX-i]" does not occur in
(jivXdcrcrovTes

(pvXaKds,

dcrrpoLTTi]

St. John, while it is used nine dOerdv (wanting in St. Matthew) is also inserted by St. Luke in x. l6 = St. Matt. x. 40; els eavTOvs (eavTov) occurs only once again in the gospels, St.

Matthew,

St.

Mark, and
;

times by

St.

Luke

Luke xv. 1 7. Therefore we can say absolutely nothing concerning the form and origin of this saying.
viz. in St.

St.

Matt.

xxii.

2-11 (the Great Supper)


identical
:

St.

Luke

xiv.

16-24.

The
course)

skeleton

is

A man who

his first invitation (to those


is

who

gives a feast ; are invited as a matter of

refused on the excuse of business of various kinds.

invites the vagabonds. In detail some verbal, or almost verbal, coincidences are found dv9po)7ros (the giver of the feast), direcrreLXev rhv
:

The master becomes angry and

SovXov avTOV
.
. .

(^Tovs

So'uXovs

avTOv), ot KeKXyjfxevoi, epyecOt


. . .

eTOLfxd ecTTLV (jjTOifxaKa

Sevre),

dypov -qyopaa-a

(eis

rov l8lov dypov^, (evyrj


els rots

fSoiov rjyopaa-a (eis tyjv epLTTopiav avTOv^^

opyicrdeis (^dipylcBt]), elrrev

avTOv), e^eXde eade eirl rds Ste^oSovs rwv 68wv), e^eXOe

tw SovAw avTOv {Xeyei tols Soi'Aois TrAaretas Kat pvfxas ttJ? ttoAcws (^Tropevels

ras 68ovs (e^eA-

66vTes

els

Tas o5ovs).

no
But
in

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


contrast

with

these
:

instances of great dissimilarity 1. In St. Matthew the host is a king (God). 2. The feast is a marriage-feast.
3.

coincidences

we

find

The marriage
In
St.

feast

is

given in honour of the son

(Christ).
4.

invitations, in St.
5.

In St.

Matthew several servants^ are sent out with Luke only one.^ Matthew the first invited are invited twice (the
;

second time other servants are sent) in St. Luke, after the invitation of the poor, homeless, &c., since there is still room, the invitation is extended to the utterly destitute. 6. In St. Matthew the second invitation to the first
invited
7.
is

amplified so as to attract them.

Matthew it is only shortly stated what the invited did instead of responding to the invitation ; in St. Luke their excuses are given word for word (three
In
St.
first

cases are given in contrast to two in St. Matthew). Matthew relates that some of the invited 8. St.

ill-

treated and slew the inviting servants J nothing of this.


9.

St.

Luke knows

St.

Matthew
;

relates that the king sent his armies

against those murderers and destroyed their city ^ St. Luke tells us notliing of
10. St.

them and burnt


this.'*

Matthew adds the

story of the
'

man without

wedding garment.
1 The prophets are probably signified. I do not understand how Wellhausen has arrived at the conclusion that the apostles are meant. 2 Perhaps our Lord Himself is signified but this interpretation is by no means certain.
;

3 The text here is, of course, doubtful ; perhaps we ought to read " destroyed them and their cities." ^ Taking together these new traits in St. Matthew, it is clear that the evangelist has amalgamated a second parable (B) with the main parable (A). B tells us of a king against whom his subjects

revolted in his absence,

vengeance.

and who punished them with a terrible This parable was allied to the parable of the Vineyard.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
There
St.
is

121

Matthew
is

question

no need of many words to prove that here is ahnost the only everywhere secondary whether the distinction of two classes of
;

poor, as well as the verbal report of the excuses in St. Luke, are primary. The former trait answers to this
evangelist's warm interest in the very poorest, and the to that pictorial style which is a frequent characteristic of St. Luke. Nevertheless, in these traits
latter

he may
tinction

also preserve the original text.

between the two versions


^

is

that St.

The main disMatthew

has transformed a genuine parable an historical motive.

into an allegory with

Did, however, the text, as presented in St. Luke, form the exemplar of St. Matthew ? and did it belong The first question should perhaps be answered to Q } in the affirmative the exemplar of St. Matthew, so far as its essential content is concerned, would not have presented a very different appearance from the text given in St. Luke, which besides permits of easy transThe second question lation back again into Aramaic.^
:

In the concluding verse in St. Luke (xiv. 24) our Lord I^imself represented as the host ; but the introduction of this tr^t has not seriously affected the general character of the original parable. 2 Note also that 5^ is wanting, and that, on the other hand, ten
1

is

clauses of the section begin with Kal (the style is, however, Lukan in places ; thus tis, verse 16 ; Tapayevd/xevos, verse 21 ; &pa, with gen.,

verse 17 [vide St. Luke i. 10; Acts iii. 1, x. 3, xvi. 33, xxiii. 23], ijp^avTO, verse 18 ; wapaiTHadai., verses 18 and 19 [wanting in the gospels ; see, however. Acts xxv. 11] ; dv&injpos, verse 21 [only again
in

New

Testament

in St.

Luke

xiv. 13]).

'Awd

fiias,

verse 18, can

scarcely be Semitic (Wellhausen), but is a vulgar abbreviation for dwh /iias yvd}fMr]s (so once in Philo) vel ^vxris. The phrase ^x^
:

good Greek. Is the phrase: ^x M^ We iraprjTr]ixhov ("habe me excusatum," Martial) a Latinism ? must of course become much more cautious in making such assumpIt is also possible that St. Matthew has preserved a more tions.
&vdyKr]v i^eXduu ISelv avrov is

faithful representation of the original text if we subtract all the traits which are derived from the parable B,

122

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

I am inclined to answer in the negative ; for St. Matthew has upon no other occasion so freely edited or amalgamated with other material those sections which are derived from Q. We must therefore conjecture that either this

received another form in


St.

section did not occur in Q, or that if it did, it had already before that source reached

Matthew.

In the

first

case, the section lies outside

our sphere of investigation into the constitution of the in the second case, it is difficult to determine text of the Lukan text purified whether we should claim for

of

its

Lukan

traits or

the text of

St.

traits

derived from the parable B.

Matthew less those Hence we must

disregard this section altogether.


St.
St.

Matt. xxv. 14-30 (the parable of the Talents)

Luke xix. 12-27. Here the chief distinction between St. Matthew and St. Luke lies in the fact that St. Luke has amalgamated
with the parable of the Talents (C) the afore-mentioned parable B (concerning the king taking vengeance upon his revolted subjects) which St. Matthew has combined

with the parable (A) of the preceding section.^ A very The parable B could not preserve its perplexing case and has been incorporated into the existence, separate
!

parable of the Great Supper (A) by

St.

Matthew, and

in both into the parable of the Talents (C) by St. Luke cases bringing into its new context a disturbing and

incongruous element.

In

St.

Luke the parable B^


Matthew, but

is

given in clearer detail than B^ in St.


connection with the context the latter gospel. has amalgamated with
It
1

its

is

even poorer here than in noteworthy that St. Matthew


is

yet a third parable

(the

in St.

Matthew

is

not quite identical with

in St. Luke,

yet they are closely allied. as Bi and B.

We

must therefore distinguish them

Wedding
Kt
ecrrat

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I Garment), and that C and D both


6

123
conclude
*

with the clause

K/3dXeT (avrbv) KXav9fxh<s Kal 6 jSpvyixos twv


:

els

rh o-kotos to l^corepov
686vt(ov.

The
:

command parable B^ also concluded with a terrifying and the parable KaTaa-ffid^aTe avrovs efXTrpoa-Qev jxov,^ likewise concludes with a melancholy sentence (St. Luke
xiv.
fxov

24): ov8els tcov dvSpojv Ikcii/wv twv KeKXrjfxevbiV yevcrerai There were thus four parables, all of Tov SetTTvov.

which were originally concerned with the Parousia (the Judgment and the Kingdom) St. Matthew gives them in the order first, A amalgamated with B^ and with D as an appendix, then C St. Luke gives first A, then

C amalgamated

with B^.
it
is

How

this

came

to pass in the

no longer possible to discover; we must therefore refrain from attempting to ascertain whether these parables stood in Q, and in what form.^
course of tradition

Now in regard to C, we find that at the beginning of the parable the form in St. Matthew is different from that in St. Luke on the other hand verbal, or
;

they become very strongly marked. ^lopav (both) SovXovs [ScKa SovAovs] eSwKev avrois SovXe dyaOe ttoXXwv oAiya (both) on dyaSe CKX'qpos c^wv ktA.]
istic
I

almost verbal, coincidences are not wanting indeed in the second part and in the dialogue this is character-

Cf. dvOptMiros

aTToSi^/xcov [7ro/5v^7j is

fxaKpdv^

c/caAecrev

[KaAecras]

tov<s tStovs

eu,

cttc

evrt rjs ttlcttos,

ere

KaTaa-Tyjcro)
lctBl

[evye,

SovXe,

kv

eXa-)(^L(TTO)

ttlcttos

iyevov,

i^ovoriav

el dvOpioiros,

6epL^(3iv oTTOv
\dv9p(x>7ro<s

ovK cnrLpas Kal crvvaywv oOev ov BiearKopincrais avcTTt^pos t, aipets o ovk WrjKas, Kal OepL^eLS 6

OVK ecnreipas]
^
:

Tronype SoGAe

birov ySeL<s otl depi^o)

ovk

d7rc6Xe<rev Toii (poveTs iKelvovi Kal tt]v irdXiv avruv iyiTp7]<Tev Cf. B^ [or in place of the last four words simply, rds 7r6Xeis]. 2 further amalgamation took place in the Gospel of the

Hebrews
with C.

here

the parable of

the Prodigal Son

is

combined

124

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


. .

OTi
(re

eairetpa kol (rvvdyu) odev ov StecTKopTrtcra [Troi'ry/jc SouA.e, ^J^eis eSei . aipiDV 6 ovK WrjKa Kal dyjpi^ijjv 6 ovk ecrTretjoa]

dpyvptd p.ov rots rpaTre^etrats, kol ^KdoiV dv to ephv o"Vv tokw [Kai Sea rt otjk eScuKa? eA^wv (ruj/ tokw dv avTo yaov TO dpyvptov eiTL rpdire^av ; Kayu) ovv dir Kal Sore t(^ )(^ovtl avrov to rakavrov dpare eirpa^a'l
ovv jSaXelv
to,

yio eKOixLcrdixi^v

rd
8c

SeKtt

ScKa

jotvas )(oi/Tt]

rdXavra [dpare a7r avTou no yap e^^ovTt

t'))v

/xvdv Kal 86t


.

tw
. .

Tcts

Trav'Tt SoOtja-eTaL

tov

/xt)

c'xovtos Kttt o

)(^eL

dpOrjo-eTai dir
/xt)

avrov [ot6 iravrl tw


/<ai

diro Se e)(0VTt SoO^aeraL,

tov

Ixovtos

o ;(t ap^rycreTat].

quite evident that there is, at the background, a single traditional source declaring itself even in details Hence the differences proceed most of phraseology.^
it is

Here

probably from the hand of the final revisor i.e. either St. Luke or St. Matthew have made corrections. Which
of them was the corrector.'' give the following table of comparison, wherein we of course entirely neglect those traits which St. Luke has derived from B^
:

We

St

Matthew
number.

St.

Servants of an indefinite

Luke Ten servants.


:

The

lord on his departure


all

The lord on

his departure

commits

his

posses-

sions to his servants,

commits to each only a pound, and expressly tells

them
and indeed
cording
to to
five

to trade therewith.

to each achis
ability,

one

talents,

to

another. two, to the third

one (these are intended to serve as examples of the

method of
1

distribution),
are linguistic

The synonyms are not translation-variants, but corrections made by St. Luke.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
he

I
is

125
not

who
five

received

five

This given

information

talents

gains

therewith

other

talents,

he
re-

expressly in the comnarrative but is


fol-

who
other

received two gains


two,

municated in what
lows.

he who
it

ceived

one buries
;

in

the earth

on
as

his

return the lord


sets

the

first

says

that

his

a reward

those

had received the five and the two talents " and over " many things "Enter into the adds,
joy
of
talent

who

gained pounds, the second that his pound has gained


five

pound

has

ten

pounds;
over ten
over

the

first is

set

cities,

the

who

thy taken from hipi had buried it.


;

lord

"

the

second

five

cities,

is

another [the other] returns the pound which

he had kept wrapped in a napkin ^ it is taken from him.


;

what he leaves behind to decide what makes trial of in Luke he St. do with should it; they ten of his servants, giving them an express direction as In St. Matthew he divides to each to their procedure. individually according to his ability, but gives the same reward to those who had laboured in St. Luke he gives the same to all, but the reward varies in accordance with
In St. Matthew the lord him among all his servants

leaving them

divides

the performance of each.^ It seems to me that the simpler version is that of St. Matthew. This impression,

Luke is an obvious Latinism. Matthew it is the servant who gains, in St. Luke it is the pound which each has received. The latter version is naturally
1

liovdaptop in St.
St.

In

still

Lastly, there are secondary, because it betrays most reflexion. obvious traces in St. Luke that his exemplar mentioned not

ten but, as in St. Matthew, three servants.

126
moreover, St. Mark.
{cf.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


confirmed by a glance at a passage in Here we read (xiii. 34) ws avOpoiiros olttoSyjimos Matthew verse 14 ioanrefj avOpojTros dTroSrjfxiov,
is
: :

St.

otherwise in

St.

Luke)

dcfiels tyjv

otKiav avTOV kol 8ovs rots

SouAots avTov Trjv i^ova-tav (therefore not a test but the management of the whole household, as in St. Matthew ;
St. Luke), Kao-T(^ to epyov avrov (to each therefore according to his ability; so also in St. Matthew, otherwise in St. Luke). Thus St. Matthew, in contrast

otherwise in

Luke, agrees with St. Mark, who evidently knew of the parable which has been drastically edited by St. Luke. It does not, however, follow that the parable
to St.

comes from Q, nor


has handed
it

if it

comes from

Qthat

St.

Matthew
is

down

indeed improbable.

to us in its original form. This In St. Mark to each servant

is

assigned his separate function in the household ; this idea can indeed be still traced in St. Matthew (and in St. Luke), but it has been thrust into the background

by ideas of another kind. The trafficking with money can have had no place in the forms of the parable with which St. Mark was acquainted for he knows nothing
;

money to the servants. Hence the common source of St. Matthew and St. Luke is secondary when compared with St. Mark (whether Its form has it was contained in Q we cannot tell).
at
all

of the

distribution

of

perhaps arisen from the combination of two parables 1 the departing lord delivers his household to the (C
:

care of his servants

C ^ the departing lord gives his ; property to his servants that they may develop it).
:

CHAPTER
LINGUISTIC

II

AND HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE NONMARKAN SECTIONS COMMON TO ST. MATTHEW AND
LUKE (Q).

ST.

I.The Text
1. (St.

Matt.
. .

iii.

5,

7-12
rj

St.

Luke

iii.

S, 7-9, 16, 17.)


. . .

(7)
iSoov

[.

Jlacra

7repi-)((iopog

rod ^lopSdvov
. . .

l^Icoavvrj^l

TroXXovg [vel rovg o^j^Xof?]


Tig

^p^poltto

jiiivovg CTTi

TO

iBaTrTKTjUia elirev avTol^''\


e-^i^voov,

YevvrjiJiaTa
Ttjs jULeXXovcn]^

vireoei^ev
Troi/jcraTe

vjuliv

(pvyeiv

T^9
ev

lJLeTavola<i

OjOy^?; (8) (9) kcu jur]


eyoiJ.ev
e/c

ovv Kapirov a^iov


?]

S6^r]Te [ap^tja-Qe

\iyeiv

avTOi<i'

iraTcpa

tov
t(jov
rj^t]

^A.l3padjUi'
X'lQcov

vjULiv

OTL Svi^aTai 6 Qeog


TO)

Xiyco yap tovtoov iyeipai

TKva
piXo.v

rj d^ivr] Trpog Tr]V KCiTai' irav ovv SevSpov jur] iroiovv (H) Kapirov KoXov KK07rTTai Kai ig TTvp jSaXXeTai. o ^e eyu) jmev vjmag ^airTi^o) ev vSaTL eig /uLeTOLvoiav

A.^paafX'" (10)

oe

Tcciv

SevSpcop

07ri<7ft)
eijiAi

jUiOV

p-)^OIULVOg

l(J)(UpOTp6g

jULOV

(7TIV,

OV OVK

Uavog

TLorei

VTroS^jmaTa /SadTacraL' avTog v/mag /Sajrev \7rveviJ.aTL (a-yico) Kai] ov to tttvov irvpi, (12)
to,

ev Til koI yeLp\ avTOV, SiaKaOapiei Trjv oXcova avTOu, koI ctitov avTov eig Trjv aTroO/jKfjv, to Se TOV (Tvva^ei ayypov

KaTaKavcrei
2.

Trvpi acr^idTU) (pp. 40, 41).

(St.

Matt.

iv.

1-11
eh

St.

Luke

iv.

1-13.)

(1)

'O

^\ri(Tov<s

avrjyOr]

Trjv eptj/ULOv viro

tov

irvev-

p-aTog TreipacrO^jvai viro tov Sia/SoXov, (2) koi vrja-Tevcrag


127

nS
^jmepag
jul

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Km
elirev

vvKrag
avTcp'

jj!

vdrepov
viog
et

eireivacrev,

ireipaYaciv

el

tov Oeov,

elire

(3) kol 6 \va ol

\lOoi ovtol aproi yevooprai, (4) Kai aireKpiOr]- yeypairovK eir apT(p juovw ^rjcreTai 6 avOpooTrog. Tttt (5) TrapaXaju^dvei Se avTOV ei9 lepovaraXtj/uL koi ecTTrjcrev avTOV iiri to Trrepvyiov tov lepov (6) Kai Xeyei avTW 1 VL09 1 TOV QeoVi jSoXe creavTOV KaTco' yeypaiTTai

yap

OTi TOig ayyeXoi9 avTOv evTcXeiTai nrepi <rov Kai iirl "^eipwv apovcrlv cre^ /jly] itotc 7rpo(JK6^n<s 7rpo<s XiOov TOV TToSa (TOV. (7) echrj avTip 6 hjaou^' ttoXiv
yeypaiTTat' ovk eKTreipaa-eig Kvpiov tov Oeov crov. (8) iraXiv TrapaXajm^aveL avTOV eig opo<s v^^rfKov \lav
Kai SeiKvvariv avTco Trdarag to.^ (SaariXeLas tov KOcrjuLov Kat
Trjv

So^av avTwVi (9) koi


edv TrpocrKw/jcrug
'

elirev avTco'
jjloi.

TauTO.

croi

irdvTa

Scecrot),

^Irjcroug

yey paiTTaL' Kvpiov


/cat

(10) kcu \eyei tov Oeov crov

avTw 6
Trpocrkoi

Kwrjcreig
d(pi}]cnv

XaTpevareig. auTov 6 SidjSoXo^ (pp. 41 if.).

avTU)

/ulovw

(H)

8. (St.

Matt.

v.

1-4, 6, 11, 12
17, 20-23.)
. . .

St.

Luke

vi.

(I) (2)

[.

o^OL

iSlSa^ev

Tovg
ecTTiv

juLaOtjTas

Xeycov

.]

(3) M.aKapLoi ol tttco^o/, oti,

avTwv
oti

rj

^acriKela

TOV Oeov,
(4) /uLaKapLoi ol
crovTai',

irevOovvTe^,

qvtoI TrapaKXtjOij-

(6) juLaKapioi ol ireLvcovTe^, otl avTOi '^(opTacrOrjcrovTaL (II) /uLaKOLpiOL ecTTe, OTav oveLSla-cooriv v/ixag koi Sioo^cocTiv

KOI

e'lTTOoa-iv

irdv

Trovrjpov

kqO^

vjmcov y^evSojtxevoi,

(12) -^alpeTe koi

ayaXXidcrOe,

oti

julktOos

vjulcov

THE TEXT
TToXi'? v

129
ioloo^av tov^ irpo-

Toig ovpavot9' ovTwg


vjulcIjv

yap

(pijras Toi/f Trpo

(p. 48).

4. (St.

Matt.
ere

v.

39,

40

St.

Luke

vi.

29.)
[coi'],

(39) "OcTis

paTrli^ei e/? Tr]v [Se^iav]

ciayova

Km Tt]v aWfji/, (40) Kai tco OeXovri <roi crrpey^ov avna KOI TOP yj.T(i>va arov Xa/Seiv, KpiOfjvai acpes avru) koi to
IjULOLTlOV

(p. 58).

5. (St.

Matt.

v.

42; St. Luke


^o?? koi tov

vi.

30.)
airo aov

(42) Tu> aiTOvvTt


Savlcrao-Oai
/mt]

ere

OeXovTa

aTroaTpacprj^ (p. 58).

6. (St.

Matt.

v.

44-48

St.

Luke

vi.

27, 28,

35^

32, 33, 36.)

(44) 'E-yo) Xeyft)

vjuLiv

ayairuTe Tovg e^Opovg


v/ma^,

v/ucov

Koi irpocev'^ea-Qe virep

twv ^mkovtcov

(45) OTrwg

yevtjaOe vloi tov iraTpo's vjuloop, oti top j'jXiop ovtov CLPaTeXXei eiri Troptjpov^ Kai ayaOov^ [Kai ppeyei eiri
SiKaiovi Koi
ao/zcou?].

(46)

cap

yap

ayaTrrja-rjTe

Tovg

ayaircoPTag
TcXcopai

v/mag,

TLPa

/ull(tOov
;

TO avTo

ttolovcip

ep^ere; ov-^i Kai ol (47) Ka\ cap aariracrfja-Oe

Tovg aSeXcpovg
KOI ol iOpiKol

vjucop /ulopop,

to avTO

TTOLOVCTLP;

t/ irepicrcTOP TroieiTe; ov-^i (48) eaeaOe ovp oiKTip-

fxopeg [? Xer]fj.0P9 ?] cog 6 TruTtjp vjulwp oiKTip/mcop [? eXe>7lULCOP ?] icTTlP (p. 59).

7. (St.

Matt.
oara

vii.

12; St. Luke


OiXrjTe
"va

vi.

31.)
vjuip

(12) TLoLPTa

cap

ttolooctip

ol

Kai apOpcoTTOi, ovTCog

ujmeig

iroieiTe

avTOig (p. 9).

130

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Matt.
vii.

8. (St.

1-5

St.

Luke

vi.

37, 38, 41, 42.)

ev w yap KpLjuaTi KpiOrjre, (2) koi ev (j) fxerpcp jmerpeiTe /uLerprjKpiOrjcreaOe, Kplvere Qria-eTaL vij.lv. (3) t/ ^e ^Xeireig to Kapcpog to ev tw

(1) M>;

/CjOiVere,

%a

/mrj

ScbOaXjULw Tov aSeXcbov crov, Trjv Se ev to) arw ScpOaX/uiii) SoKov ov KaTavoeis; (4) rj ttco? epel^ tw aSeXcpw arov
acbeg e/c/3a\a)

to Kapcpog
ocpOaXjJLW

e/c

tov 6(pOa\/uiov
(5)

crov, Kai

rj

SoKO^

ev

T(p

crov;

irpooTov

Sia^Xeylreig eK^aXeiv

TOV ocpOaXjULOv crov to Kapcpos k tov oipOaX/uiov tov

viroKpiTa, eKJBaXe Trjv Sokov, Koi TOTe

aSeXipov (TOV (p. 8).


9. (St.

Matt.

xv.

14

St.

Luke

vi.

39.)
etg

(14) TvipXog TvcpXbv eav BoOvvov TreaovvTai (p. 28).


10. (St.

oStjyu,

ajuLCpoTcpoi

Matt.

x. 24,

25

St.

Luke

vi.

40.)

(24) SovXos virep


imaOrjT^

OvK

ecTTLV fjLaOrjTrjg virep

tov SiSaarKaXov ovSe

tov Kvpiov
o)?

avTOv.
6

%a
cog

SovXo^

yivrjTai 6 Kvpiog avTOV (p. 79).

(25) apKeTov tm SiSa<7KaXo9 avTOV, koi 6

11. (St.

Matt.

vii.

16-18;

xii.

33; St. Luke

vi.

43, 44.)

TOV Kapirov to SevSpov yivwcTKeTai. jm-Wfcltto aKavOwv aTa(pvXa<5 tj airo Tpi/36Xcov crvXXeyovcriv (TVKa ; (17) ovTO)9 "ttclv SevSpov ayaOov Kapirov koXov
(33) 'E/c
TTOiei,

TO
ov

Se

crairpov

SevSpov Kapirov irovrjpov

iroiei.

(18)

SvvaTat
ovSe

SevSpov

ayaOov

Kapirov

irovrjpov
iroielv

eveyKelv
(p. 68).

SevSpov

crairpov

Kapirov

KaXov

THE TEXT
12. (St.

181

Matt.

vii.

21, 24-27; St.


ywot*
/cJ^Ofe

Luke

vi.

46-49.)

(21)

[Ou

Tra? 6

Xeywv

Kvpie, eia-eXeva-erai
deXtjfxa
juov

efV T^i^ jSacriXeiav

tov 6eov, aX\* 6 iroiwv to


ocrri^

tov
rov^

Trarpog

yuou].

(24) Tra? ovu

ctKovei

Xoyovg tovtov^ koi


eoTTLv ojULOio^
'

iroiei avTOV<s, tlvl VTroSei^o) vjulip in of these ecTTLv seven ojULoiog place [or
oarTi<s

words simply
avTOV

oixoLOdBrja-erai^ avSp\ rrjv oiKiav eiri rrjv Trerpav.


/caf

(pKoSojmrja-ev

(25) koi

Kare/Stj

rj

^P^X^

rjXBov 01 TTorajuioi Kai 7n^va-av ol avefxoL Kai

irpoa-eTrecrav

rn

oiKia eKeiprj, Kai ovk GTrccev reOejuLeXlwro

yap
TOl'9

cttI

Trjv

XoyOVg
avSpl
ajuLfjLOP.

(26) Trerpav. TOVTOV<S Kai JULtJ


ocrri^

Kai

ira^

clkovcov

/mov

TTOICOU

aVT0V9
Tr]V

OjULOlOoO^-

a-erai

wKoSo/mtjcrev
Kare/Btj
rj

avrov

oiKiav

CTrt

rhv

(27) Ka\
eirvev(Tav

l3po')(f]

Ka\

^XOov

ol

iroTa/uLol Kai

ol

ave/moi Ka\
tjv

irpoa-eKO^av th
avrrjg jmeyaXtj

oiKia KLvri, Ka\ eirea-eVy Kai


(p. 70).

Trrcocri^

13. (St.

Matt.

vii.

28

viii.

5-10, 13

St.

Luke

vii.

1-10.)

(28, viii. 5) [After


19

He had

spoken these words]

koi irpocrtjXOev avrw cKarovei&tjXOev J^acpapvaov/j. outov (6) Kai XeyooV Kvpie, 6 Traig rapYog irapaKaXccv oiKia ev rfj ixov fie^Xtjrai TrapaXvTiKO?, Seivwg ^aaraviXojjievog.

(7)

Xeyei

avrip'
Se 6

e'yo)

eXOwi/

Qepairevcroo

avTOv.

(8) OLTTOKpiOeh cKaroi'Tapyog (pt]' Kvpie, OVK ei/uil iKavog "iva jxov viro Tt]v a-reyrjv eKTeXOrjg' aXXa (9) Kai fxovov eiire Xoyo), Kai laOi^a-erai 6 iralg f^ov.
vir* ejuLavrov viro e^ovciav, eywv eyco avOpcoiroi eifJLi Kai Xeyco rovrip' iropevOtjTi, Kai Tropeverai, crrparKiOTag,

yap

132
KOI
aXXft)*

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


cp-^ov^

Ka]

ep'^^erai,

kol

tw

Sov\(p

fiov

irolfjcTov TOVTOf Kai iroiei.

cOaujULaa-ep
vjuLiVj

kol eiTrev T019

(10) CLKoXovdovaiv'

aKovara<s

^e o '\rjcrovq
[a/x^yi/]

Xiyco
oj?

ouSe iv
elirev

Tw

ttlcftip evpov. [(13) 'IcrpafjX Tocraurtjv

Koi

'li](rov^

tw
aroi.

7ricrTV(Ta^

yevrjOriTOi)

cKarovrap-^r]' ^vwaye^, Kai laOrj 6 irali ev Trj

copa

kelvril (pp. 71, 74).

14. (St.

Matt.

xi.

2-11

St.

Luke

vii.

18-28.)

(2)

*0

epya tov XpicTTOVf eLTrev avrw' (3) (rv


Koojuev;

^ ^Iwavvt]^ CLKOvcra^ ev T(a Sea-imcoTijpLa) ra oia twv /aaOtjTwv avrov 7r6yit\|/-a?


el o

(4) kou

CLTroKpiOeh

epyoixevo^ ri erepov TrpoaSoelwev avroig' TropevOevre^

CL'TrayyeiXare

'Iwavvu

aKovere

koi

pXiireTe.

(5)

TVcbXol ava^Xeirovcriv Kai

wepiiraTOvcriv, XcTrpol KaQapiYovTai Kai Kcocbol aKOvovcriv, kou vcKpoi iyelpovrai Kai iTTwypl evayyeXiXovTar (6) kol ^aKapiog ecrriv 09

ywXoi

av

fit]

crKavSaXicrOiJ iv

i/xoi

(7) tovtcov

Se

iropevoviro

/jLV(Dv

yjp^aro
eig

Xeyeiv T019 oyXoig irepl ^looavi/ov rt


rrjv
eprj/uLov

i^^XOare
aveixov

OeaaracrOai;

KaXa/uiOP

e^rjXQare ISeiv; avQpwirov ev /iiaXaKoig ejuLcpiecr/JLevovy iSov ol to, jmaXaKa v T019 oiKOig T()V /3a(nX(ji)v, (9) aXXa tI (popovvTcs
(8)
Xe-yo) v/ULtp, Trepicr^7]X0aT; TrpocpijTijv tSeiVj' (10) OVT09 eo'Tiv irepi ov yeypair(TOTcpov 7rpo(pr]TOV. Tai' ISov iyu) airocrTeXXw top ayyeXop fxov irpo

aaXevofievov;

aXXa

tl

vol

koi

TrpoardoTTOV crov^
efJLTrpoa-Qep
crov.

09 KaTaarKevaarei Tt]P (11)


[a/x>;i/]

oSop

crov

Xeyoo

vjulip,

ovk eyrjyep-

Tai P yepptjTOtg yvpaiKcop jmelToyp 'Icodppov [rot' ^airTioro ^e jULiKpoTcpo^ P T^ ^acTiXeioi TOV Oeov jULel^oov Toi/]*

avTov

ea-TiP (pp. 90, 14).

THE TEXT
15. (St.

133

Matt.

xi.

16-19;

St.

Luke
Tavniv

vii.

31-35.)
tivl eaTLV

(16)
o/jlolol]^
;

Tm

6juloi(jci(T00

Ttjv yei'cav

[/caf

ojuLoia iarriu TraiSioig KaOijimivoig ev

rah
'

ayopai^

a TTpocrCpcovovi/Ta Toh erepoig (17) \iyovariv


v/uLtv

tjvXrja-a/uLev

Kai ovK

wp'^ijcracrOe' eOprivrjarafJiev

koll

ovk eKoy^acrOe.
koI

(18) tjXOev

yap
(t6l(jov

icoavvrjg

/ul-)]T

ecrQicov

ixr]Te ttivoov,

Xeyovcriv
avOpcoTTOV

SaijuLOviov

e-^^i.

(19)
KOI

^XOev

fto?

tov

XiyovcTiv' iSou av~ Kai tcXcoi^cov (biXo^ koi ajuapoivoTrorrj^f OpcoTTog <payo^ TcoXwv. Kai iSiKatcJoOt] rj airo tcov riKvoov avrtj^ (ro(pLa
TTLvoov,

KOI

(p. 16).

16. (St.

Matt.

x.

7; St. Luke

ix.

2;

x. 9, 11.)
rj

(7) TlopeuojuLevoi Krjpva-aeTe Xeyovres otl ijyyiKev

^aa-tXeia tov Oeov (p. 79). 17. (St.

Matt.

viii.

19-22;

St.

Luke

ix.
croi

57-60.)
oirov

(19) [EiVeV

Ti9

avTCf)'^

CLKoXovOijcTCi)

eav

(20) koI Xeyei avrco 6 'Itjarov*;' al aXcoireKeg airep-^ri. Kai Ta irereiva tov (pooXeov^ e-)(ov(TLV ovpavov KaTacrKrjvu)06 o TOV VL09 o'ez?, avOpuctirov ovk 'i')(ei irov Trjv K<paXt]v kXii/ij. (^^) eTepos Se eiirev avTw' eiriTpe^^ov juloi tov julov (22) TrpooTOV OLTreXOeiv koi

6a\^ai iraTepa Xeyei Se avTcp' aKoXovOei juloi, koi acpeg tov9 vcKpovg 6a\^ai T0f9 eavTicv vKpovg (p. 10).
18. (St.

Matt.

ix.

37, 38

St.

Luke

x. 2.)

(37) A.eyi avTOi<^


ol Se oepicrnxog iroXvg,

[roh

ju!.aOr]Taig

avTOv

?]

6 juev

epyaTai oXiyor (38)

Sey'jBrjTe

ovv

TOV Kvpiov TOV avTOv Oepia-juLOv

OepiQ-juLov oTTCoj

CK^aXrj epyaTug ek tov

(p. 12).

134^

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


19. (St.

Matt.

x. 16*; St.

Luke
o)?

x. 3.)

(16) 'loof

eyoo

aTrocTTeXXoo

vjaag

Trpo/Bara

ev

juecrw XvKOOv (p. 13).

20. (St.

Matt.
eav

x. 12,

13; St. Luke


ei9

x. 5, 6.)

(12)
avTY}v

^icrp-)(OjULVoi

Se
>;

Trjv

oiKiav

acnraa-acrOe

a^m, eAaarft) ?; eiprjvri vjULoov eir avTtjV eav oe ij aha, eipyjvr] ujulcop irpo^ vjuLci^ 7r icTTpacp^Tco. (Preceded by some words which can still be supplied with some degree of certainty from St. Luke x. 4 jmrj ^aa-TaXere ^aXkavriov, fxt]
(1<3)
fj
jULt]
rj
:

Kai

oiKia

TT^pav,

/uLr]

vTroorJiaaTa, koi jurjSeva

Kara

Trjv

oSov acnrd-

a-riaOe [i.e.

" do not stop "]) (p. 79).

21. (St.
'

Matt.

x.

10^

St.

Luke
r^?

x.

7^)
avTov,
:

(10)

A.^109

yap

epydrtjg

rpocj)^?

Preceded by some such words as St. Luke x. 7* ev avTn Tu oiKia jmeveTe, eaOovreg Kal irivovreg ra irap
auTcov (p. 12).

22. (St.

Matt.
Xeyco

x.

15

St.

Luke

x. 12.) ecrrai
yij

(15)

['AyU^j^]

vjULiv

avcKrorepov

'ZioSojULcov

KOI

lu place of the last four TojuLoppcov [oT

words, ^oSojuoi's^ ev tu ^jmepa [cKelvr] ? Kpicrecog ?1 rj rrj TToXei eKelvr}. (Preceded, according to St. Luke x. 8-11, some such words as follow ek rjv av iroXiv elarepby
:

vjuliv k, ^eyoovrai Ufjuag, Oeou. r. S' av avroi^* e/? rj ijv /Baar. Xeyere t^jyyiKev TToXiv icreXOi]T K. jurj ^eyudVTai v/ma^, ePeXOovre^ eig r.

yjia-Oe

k.

eadlere r. TrapaTiOejULeva

TrXareiag ai/T^9
t]/uiiv

e'^Trare*
VJULOOV

k. t.

Kovioprov r. KoXXrjOevra
T.

CK.

T. TToXewj

ig

TToSa^ aTTOfxaa'a'OjuLeOa

vjuiiv)

(p. 13).

THE TEXT
23. (St.

135

Matt.
aoi,

xi.

21-23;

St.

Luke

x. 13-15.)
'

el

^opaYelvj oval (toi, BrjOo-aloav otl ev Tvpw Kal ^lSwvi iyevovTO at Swajueig at yevo/uLevaL vjMv, irakai dv ev araKKO) Ka\ cnroSw jtxeTevorjcrav.
(21)
irXfjv

Oval

(22)
Kal

[Xeyw

vjuiv^

Tvpco
?
juLrj

kolI

^iScovl avcKTorepov
rj

eo'Tai [eV VjuLepa Kplarew^


(TV,

ev TJj Kplo'ei ?^
eco?

vjuiv.

(23)
eojj

li^acpapvaoiifXy

ovpavov vy^coO/jcu;

aSov Kara/S^crij (p. 17).

[24. (St.

Matt.

x.

40 ;

St.

Luke

x. 16.)]

[*0

Kal 6 e/xe Se'^ojuevo^ Se'^ojuevog u/xa? e/xe Se-)(Tat,

Se-^eraL

tov OLTroarrelXavTa

/xe] (p. 86).

25. (St.

Mati.
KLV(j)

xi.

25-27;
Kaipcp

St.

Luke

x. 21, 22.)
oroi,

(25) 'El'
OLTTO

Tw

eiTTev e^ojULoXoyovfxaL
rtjg yt]<s,

Kal irarep Kvpie rov ovpavov


crochcov Kal arvvercav koi

on

eKpvy^ag ravra

cnreKaXvyp-a^

avra

vrjirloi^'

(26) valj 6 iraTYjpf otl ovrcog evSoKia eyevero eiJ-irpocrOev crov. (27) Travra fxoi irapeSoOt] viro rov irarpogf Kai ovoeig eyvco \jtov viov ei /mrj o iraTrjp ovoej tov Kai w eav (SovXrjTai 6 iraTepa [rig eyvco'^ el /mi] 6 utoy
uioj aTTOKaXv'^ai (p. 17).

26. (St.

Matt.

xiii.

16, 17; St.


ol

Luke

x.

23^

24.)

TO. S)Ta

(16) *Y/ULwv jxaKapLOi OTL oLKOvovcriv. [J/xcoi/],

otl ^Xeirovariv, kou ScpOaXjuol,

(17)

[^ajixt]v

yap^ Xeyco

vfMVy OTL iToXXol irpocpriTaL \_Kal ^aa-iXelf^ eireOv^tja-av ISeiv a (SXeireTe koi ovk elSav, Kal aKovaaL a a/coJere,

Kal OVK rjKovcrav (p. 25).

136

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


27. (St.

Matt.

vi.

9-13

St.

Luke

xi.

2-4.)

rjjuLiv
ft)?

TOU apTOV rjjULWV TOV eiriOlXTLOV So9 [(9) TloLTep, (11) (12) kgl a(peg rjij.lv ra 6(j)ei\i]fxaTa rj^im,
a-rjjULepov,
rjixel^

Kcu

acbr'JKajuiev

roig ocpeiXirai^

rj^cov,

(13) Kai

jur]

eicrepeyKug

rjfxa^ ef? TretjOacr/xoV.]

(p. 63).

28. (St.
(7)

Matt.

vii.

7-11

St.

Luke

xi.

9-13.)

AhelTe, KOI

So67](T6Tai vjulIv i^rjTeire, koi evpria-eTe'

(8) Tra? yap o aircov KpovT KOL OLVoiy^cTeTai vjULiv. koi tw Kpovovri avoi6 Koi \a/Jil3di/i, 'Q'lTOov evpla-Keij
aiTTja-ei (9) rj tI<s ia-riv i^ v/ulcov avOpcoTrog, yriG-erau 6 VLog avTOV apTOV^ firj XlOov eTTiScoarei avTa>; (10) i] Kot l-)(Qvv aiTi]cri, /mrj o(piv eirMa-ei avTcp; (11) et ouv

bv

v/meig irovrjpoL ovTe<s o'lSare

TOig ^So/mara] ayaOa owcrei 6 6 TeKVOi<s vjuLcou, jmaXXov e^ ovpavov Trartjp ayaOa rois airoddiv avrov; (p. 8).
TroVo)

SLSovai

29. (St. Matt. xii. 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 43-45 St. Luke xi. 14, 17, 19, 20, 23-26.)

(22) [iOepdirevcrev]
TTcia-a
.

Saijuovil^oiuLevov

Kwcpov,

[wa-Te]

TOV KW(j)6v XaXetVf (23) koi [e^la-Tavro] [Travres] ol


o-)(Xoi
.

(25)
.

iprijJLOVTai eK^dXXot) TO. Sai/movia, ol viol vjuloov ev tlvi eKJSaXXovcriv ;

fiaanXeia jmepicrOeia-a icp' eavTrjv (27) Kol el eyco ev BeeX^e/3oi/X


ecrovrai vjulwv
el

Sid

TOVTO avTol KpLToi


Oeov eyco
^ ^aa-iXeia
ejmov
.

(28)

Se

ev

TTvev/ULati
(p' Uyua?
ejuLOv

e/c/3aXXft)

rd
.

Saijmovia,
.
.

apa
/j.h

ecpOacrev
cov fxer

rov Oeov.

(30) 6

Kar

a-KOpTTi'teL

eomVj koi 6 jutj arvvaycov yuer' e^ov (43) orav to aKdOapTOV irveviJ.a
Si

ePeXOrj diro

tov dvOpooTrov, Siep-^eTai

dvvSpcov tottcov

THE TEXT
^tjTOvv
eig

137

avairavcriv Kai
julou

oJ^
[kui]

evpia-Kei^

Tov oiKOv

eTricrTpiy^ot)

(44) [rore] \eyei' oQev e^fjXOov Kai eXOov


Kai
KCKOcrjuLr]'

upi(TKi
jxevov.

(TKoXa^ovra

TrapoXajuL^avei jmeO' eauTov kiTTa TrvevjuLara irovrjporepa eavrou Kai eicreXOovra KaToiKci Kei, Kai yiverai ra ecr^ara tov avOpco-

(45) Tore

iropeverai

crea-apwixevov Kot

TTOV eKcivov y^eipova tcov Trpoorcov (pp. 21, 24).

30. (St.

Matt.

xii.

38, 39, 41,

42

St.

Luke

xi. 16,

29-32.)
OiXoiixev cltto ctov (rrjfxeiov ISeiv. (38) [They said] (39) 6 ^e eiTrev yevea irovripa Ka\ jxoi'^aXi^ (TrjfJLeiov
:

eTTi^rjTei,

Koi

atj/uLeiov

ov

SoOi]<TTai

avTu

ei

jmrj

to

artjiueiov 'Icova*

Taf9
'yei'ea

arjjueiov,

Niveveicocnrep yap iyevcTO 'Icova^ to?? Kai ecTai 6 tov u/o? ovTcog avOpcoirov tu

TavTTj.
KpLcrei

Tn

(^1) av^peg ISiiveveiTai avacTTricrovTai jULCTa r^y 'yej/ea? TavTt]9 tcai KaTaKpivovcTLV
et?

avTYiv^ OTL

]ULTev6)]arav

to

KTjpvy/ULa

icova, Ka\

iSov

(42) ^atriXKrara votov iyepOrjaeTai iv Tn Kplarei jmeTa t^9 yeveag TavTijg Kai KaTaKpivei avTYiVy OTi rjXQev k twv irepaTOdv Ttjg ytjg aKovaai
TrXeiov 'loova SiSe.
Tf]v

aocplav
(p. 22).

^oXojmcovo^f

koi

iSov

irXeiov

^oXof^covoi

&S

31. (St.

Matt.

v.

15

St.

Luke

xi. 33.)

(15)

Ov

Kalovcriv

Xv^vov

Ka\

TiOiaa-iv

avTOV vtto

TOV

/uloSlou,

aXX'

eirl

Ttjv Xv^vlav, Kai XajULirei iracriv

TO?? ev

Til oiKia (p.

53).
vi.

32. (St.

Matt.

22,

23

St.

Luke

xi.

34, 35.)
ocpOaXjixo'^

(22)
oroi^J*

Xv-^vog av ovv II o

TOV

adojUiaTog

ecrTiv

(pfaA/xo? crov airAovs, oAov

to

138
(TWiuLa

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


(Tov

(pwreivov ecrrai'

(23) eav Se 6 ocpOaXjuLog


G-Koreivov ea-rai.
el

crov

TTOvrjpoi ^,

oXou to
V (TOL

crwjuLa (tov

OVV

TO

(^W<S

TO

CKOTO^

icTTlV,

TO aKOTOg TTOCOV ;

(p. 4).

33. (St.

Matt,
St.

xxiii. 4, 13, 23, 25, 27, 29,


xi. 46,

30-32, 34-36 ;

Luke

52, 42, 39, 44, 47-52.)


Aear/txevovcriv
co/ulovs

(4) [Perhaps

"

Woe "]
eiri

(popTia

/Sapea Kal avTol

Koi.

eTnTiOeacnv
TO)

Tovg

SaKTvX(p
T019

avTcov

ov

toov avOpcowcov, OeXovcriv Kivyjcrai

avTa. (13) oval


vjuLiv

^apicraioi^,

otl

KXeleTC

Trjv
vjmel^

PacriXelav tov Oeov

cjixTrpocrOev

twv avOpwirwv
elcrep-^ofxevov^

yap

ovK eiarep'^ecrde ovSe TOvg


ToFff

acpleTe

cicreXOeiv.

(23) oval

vjjuv

TO Ta ^apvTcpa tov
^SvOG-jULOV KOI

TO

otl airoSeKaTOVTe ^apicraloL^, KOL TO avr]QoV KVjULlVOV, Kai a(b^KaT

vo/moVf tijv Kpicriv

Km to
v/mei?

eXeog.
ol

" (25) [Perhaps a


eacoOev Se ye/uLOva-iv e^
(St.

Woe "]

[vvi^]

^apia-aioi,

KaOapi^eTe to e^wOev tov TroTrjpiov koi

TfJ9 '7rapo\^iSogj

apway^g
v/miVj

koi

aKpacria^.

Luke

xi.

44) oval
ol

otl earTc

ol

aSrjXoi,
o'loacrip,

Kal

avQpoDiroL

ol

ol Ta(poi irepiTraTOvvTeg ewavco

OVK

^apLo-aloig, otl o1tiv6^ e^coOev juev TrapojuLOia^CTe Tacpoi^ KeKOViajuivoi^y ccrcoOev oe (halvovT-ai octtgoov yejuiovariv copaioi, veKpcov Kal Tracrr]^ aKaOapcrLas.'j
[(St.

Matthew 27)

oval vjjuv

Toh

(2932) oval

vjjilv,

Kal 7rpo(pt]Twv (30) Tcov TraTcpcov ^/ulcoVj

XiyeTC
ovk av

oTi oiKoSojueiTe Tovg Tacpovg twv el rjixeOa ev Taig i^/mepaig


fjjuieOa

avTcov

KOivcovol

ev

THE TEXT
TO)
aijULari

139
^crre
juLaprvpeiTe

tcov

7rpo(pr}Ta)u.

(^1)

(povevaravTcov tov^ Trpocbrjra^, [(32) Kat v/meig irXrjpuxTare to juerpov tcov iraTepcov vjuow']. (3436) Sia TOVTO Kai rj ^o(pia tov Oeov elTrev

eavTOi^,

on

vlol ecTTe tcov

vjua^ [^^'?] irpo^ irpocjyrjTag Ka\ Kai avTwv airoKTevelre (TO(pov^ ypa/uijULaTi^' e^ Ka\ Siu>^T, (35) oxco? eXOt] ecp' v/mag irav aJ/ma eK')^vvv6(xevov eiri rrjg yrjg airo alfxarog "A./3eX

aTrocrreXXo)

ewg

a'iiULaT09

TOV

vaov

Zia'^aplou, ov echovevcraTe /uLera^v Ka\ tov Ovcriaa'Ttjplov. (36) ctjULrjv

Xeyco vjuLiv, rj^ei TavTr]v (p. 96).


34*. (St.

TavTa iravTa

iiri

Ttjv

yeveai^

Matt.

x.

26-33

St.

Luke

xii.

2-9.)

(26) OvSev
creTai, Kai
VJULIV

etjTLV K6Ka\vjuLjUvop

o OVK airoKaXv<i)6ri-

KpvirTOV h ov yvcocrOrjcreTai.
(TKOTia, t7raT V

TH

TM

'

(pCOTL

(2T) o Xeyco Kttl 6 19 TO

ovg aK0VT, Krjpv^aTe iwl twv ScojuaTwv. airo twv airoKTevvovTwv to (po/SeicrOe
\|rt'^^j/
imr]

(28) koi
crcoiuLa,

jj-tj

t>]v

Se

ovvajuLevcov airoKTeivai'
yp^v^^rjv

TOV Svva/xevov koi

oe juaXXov (po/SeiaOe koi (Tw/xa ctTroXecraL iv yeevvrj.

(29) ov^L Svo [TreVre] (TTpovOla acra-aplov [acrcrapicov |8'] TTCoXeiTaL; Kat ev e^ avTwv ov irecreiTai eiri Trjv yrjv avev

TOV Oeov.
iracrai

(30)

vjucov

Se

koi

at TpL-^e(s t^? KecpaXtjg


'

ripLOiJ.rjij.ev

at

elatv.

(31)

fxr]

\ovv'\

(bo/BeicrOe

TToXXu)

[yet

TToXXoov already

stood in Q] a-TpovOloov
ovv o(TTig ojUioXoyijcrei ev

SiacpepeTC

v/uLeig.

(32)

7ra?

ejULOi /j.7rpocr6ev twv avOpwirwVi ojmoXoyyjcrei Kai 6 viog TOV avOpwTTOv [yel ojuLoXoyyjcrw Kayw^ ev avTw e/JTrpocrOev TWV ayyeXwv tov Oeov (33) ocrTig Se apvrjarjjTai twv fxe e/uLTrpocrOev avOpwTTWv, apvya-ofxai Kayw aiTOV twv ayyeXwv tov Oeov (pp. 14, 82). ejuLTTpocrOev

140

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


34^. (St.

Matt.
eav

xii.

32

St.

Luke

xii. 10.)

(32) Kai
avOpcoTTOV,
TTvevjULarog

^oyov Kara rod vlov tov avrw o? ^' av eiirn Kara tov a(j)66}](TeTaL tov ayiov, ovk acpeO^a-eTai avTw (p. 21).
09

eiwu

Matt. vi. 25-33; St. Luke xii. 22-31.) Aia TovTO Xeyuf vjuliP) jurj jmepijuivaTe t^ '^'^XW (25)
35. (St.
vjuicov

ov-^i

TL (payr]T, fxtjSe Ttp acojULaTi vjulcov tl ivSvcn^crOe' irXelov ecTTLV Trjg Koi to aco/ULa r} "^v-^r] Tpocbrjg
ejiilSXey^aTe eig Tovg
?],

TOV ivSvjmaTog; (26) TreTciva tov ovpavov


avT0ii9'

KopaKag [ra

oti

Yov(riv ov^e arvvdyovo'iv eig

ov aweipova-iv ovSe OeplaTroOrjKag, Kal 6 Oeog Tpecpei


^Xiklgv

ou^

vjuLi9

jULoXXop SLacpepcTe avToov; (27) r/? ^e


Tt]P

e^ vixcov fiepijULvcou SuvaTai irpoarQelvai ein avTOv Trrj-^vv eva; (28) kou irepl ivSvjULaTog tl
KaTajmaOeTe
to,

jixepijuLvaTe;

ov kottiwciv ovSe av^dvovcriv' Se ovSe VYfOovcnv (29) \ey(t) vjuiv, [oTf] SoXoyuwj/ iv Tracrr] ry oo^u avTOv irepie^aXeTO cu? ev tovtoov. (30)

Kplva

ircog

el

Se ev

dypw top

"^opTOv

cr^/ixepov

ovTa kou avpiov


ajuicpiei'pvcriv,
fxt]

eig

Kki^avov /SaXXojuievov 6
TToXXo) jULoXXov
vricrt]T
v[xa<5j
'

Oeog

ovTcog

ov

XeyovTe^

oXiyoTriCTTOi; (31) tl tl (paycojuLep ; rj

ovv

juepi/uLrj

'irlwjuev ;

tl

irepLPaXco/uLeOa ; (32)
'

iraPTa
olSep

KoarjuLOv']

eTTi^rjTOVcTLP

yap TavTa Ta yap 6 TraTrjp

eOptj
vfjLwv

[tov
otl

TOVTCov CLTraPTCOP. (33) ^jjTeiTe Se Tr]p ^a<Ti~ Xpil^^^^ XeLap avTOv, KaL TovTa iravTa irpoa-TeOrjcreTaL vjullp
(p. 4).

36. (St.

Matt.

vi.

19-21

St.

Luke

xii.

33, 34.)

(19)
OTTOv
(Tovcrip

arj'i

t^? yrjg, Otjcravpovg OtjaravplXeTe kol ottov KXewTai KOI /Spworig SiopvcTacpavil^eL, Se vjullp KOL KXeiTTOvcnp (20)
vjullp

M^

evrJ

OtjcravpliC^eTe

THE TEXT
Orja-avpovg

141
crrji

iv

ovpavoh,
ottov

ottov

ovre
ov

oure

acbavuCeii

Kai

KkeirTm

Siopvcrcrovciv

^pwcrig ovSe

KkeirTOvcTLV'
[u/xojj/],

(21)

oirov
tj

yap ecmv

cKel ecrrai koi

KapSia

Otjcravpog cov crov [vjulcov^ (pp. 66, 4).

37. (St.

Matt.

xxiv.

43-51

St.

Luke

xii.

39, 40,

42-46.)
(43) 'E/cer^o Se yivuxTKcre, otl el ijSei 6 otKoSecriroTt]? (bvXaKi] 6 /cXeTrr*/? ep-^eTai, eypriyoprjaev av kcu
e'lacrev

TTola

ovK av

oiKiav avrov. Siopv^Otjvai Trjv

(44)

\^Sia

TOVTO Ka\ vjuLeig ylveaOe eroijixoh on J ov SoKcire copa 6 vto? Tov avOpcoTTOv p')(Tai.li (45) TL9 apa <tt\v 6
TTfCTTO?
TtJ9

Sov\o9 Kai

(ppOPl/ULOgi

OV KaT(7Tt](rV 6 KVpi09
Trjv

CTTf

oiKereia^

avrov tov Sovvai avroi^


o
vp7](ji ovTCog

Kaipcp;

(46) juaKOipiog

SovXog ckcivo?
TTOiovvTa.

ov

Tpo<pr]v eV eXOcov 6

T019 virapyovcriv avrov Karaarrrjcrei eav Se avrov. e'lirr] o \_KaKog^ SovXog cKeivog ev ry (48) avrov (49) -^povi^cL juov o Kvpiog, Ka\ ap^rjrai KapSla rvirreiv rovg crvvSovXovg avrov, iaOirj Se Kai irlvri /ucera
iiTL

Kvpios v/JLiv oTt

avTOV

(47)

ajULr]v

Xeyu)

iracriv

'

roov /meOvovrcov,

ev

^fJ-epa

f]

(50) rj^ei 6 KvpLO<s rov SovXoV ckclvov ov TrpoaSoKa Kai ev copa ij ov yivcocTKei,

(51) Kai

SiyproiJirjcrei
Oi](Tei

avrov Ka\ ro
(p. 31).

jmepog

avrov juera

Tcov VTTOKpircov

38. (St.

Matt.

x. 34, 35,

36; St. Luke

xii.

51, 53.)

(34) AoKelre, on tjXOov /SaXetv elprjvrjv OVK t]XOov ^aXeiv eipyjvtjv aXXa jmay^aipav.

eir\ rtjv

y^v;

(35) rjXQov

yap

Si^^acrai

avOpcoirov

Ovyarepa Kara t^?


TrevOepag
avr^g.

Kara rov Trarpog avrov Kai Kai Kara riy? jj.rjrpog aurrjg w/uL(pt]v
[Kai

(36)

e-^Opol

rov avOpcowov ol

oiKiaKol avrov] (p. 85).

142

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


39. (St.

Matt.

v. 25,

26

St.

Luke

xii.

58, 59.)
eco^

(25) "IcrOi evvocov


fxer
T(p

tw

avTiSiKW crov
ttotg
ere

Tayy

otov

et

avTOv ev
KpiTu
au
Koi

rr] 6Su>'

fxyj

6 avrlSiKog TrapaSo)

^XrjOrjcrr]'
eco?

(26)

6 KpLTrj^ TO) VTDjpeTr}, KOI et? (pvXaKrjv ov juLtj [a/x^i^] Xiyco croi, e^eXOijg cKeWev,

CLTToScfs

tov

<7ya.T0v KoSpdvT}]v (p. 54).

40. (St.

Matt.

xiii.

31-33;
tlvl

St.

Luke

xiii.

18-21.)

(33)

[/cat

TTCiXiv

eiTrev'^

ojulokjoo-o)

rrjp PacriXeiap

TOV Oeov;

V^ XajSovcra yvvt] VKpv\^v This oXov. 19 aXevpov craTa Tpla, eo)? ov e^vjULcoOrj was most probably preceded by tIpi ojULola ecrTiv ^
:

ojULOia co-tIv ^vj^U,

/SacriXela

tov Oeov, Kai

tlvl ojuloiwotco avTY]v; ofxo'ia ccttiv

KOKKCp (TivaTrewg, ov Xa^oov avOpwiro^ ecnreipcv iv to) Km ylvcTai (etV) SevSpov koi aypu) avTOv, koi rju^tja-ev TO, TTCTeiva TOV KaTacrKtjvoi iv tois KXaSois

ovpavov

avTOv

(p. 26).

41. (St.

Matt.

vii.

13,

14 ;

St.

Luke

xiii.

24.)

(13) EiVeX^are Sia t??


[rj

crTevijg nrvXrjg'

oti TrXarefa

7rvXrf\

aircoXeiav,

Koi evpv-^wpo^ ^ 6S69 rj oLTrayovara eig t*]v Kai ttoXXol eitriv ol elcrep'^^oiJLevoL ^C avTriq.
OTTevri
eis
vj

(14)

OTL

irvXt]
^(t)W)

kou
'^ot^

TeOXijuLfxevrj

rj

0S09

rj

CLTrayovcra

Ttjv

oXiyoi

elcriv

ol

evpicr-

KOVTes avTtjv (p. 67).


42. (St.

Matt.

viii.

11, 12

St.

Luke

xiii.

28, 29.)
Svctjuloov

(11)

Ae-yct)

v/ULiv,

oti

oltto

avaToXwv

kcu

rjPovcriv Ka\ avaKXiOrjarovTaL


Koi. ^laKoo/B

T^

jmeTa ^A^lSpaajuL koi 'Icraa/c Oeov' (12) ol Se viol t?? tov /SacriXeia

j8acrfXc/a? e^eXevarovTai ^eK/BXijO^a-ovTai]

e^w

ckci ecTTai

6 KXav0jULO9 KOt 6 PpvyjULo^ TCOV oSovTCOv (p. 77).

THE TEXT
43. (St.

148

Matt,

xxiii.

37-39

St.

Luke
rj

xiii.

34, 35.)

(37)

lepovoraXriiJL,

lepovcoXrj/ui,,

airoKreLvova-a tov9

Kai XiOo/SoXovara Tovg cnrearTaXfj.evov's irpog 'Trpo(priTa<s


avrrjv,
TroaraKi^
rjOeXtjo-a

cTncvvayayeip

to,

TGKva

<rov^

ov TpOTTOV opvi9 [eiriavvayei'] ra vocrcrla [out??] viro To.'i wTepvyag, Ka\ ovk rjQeKrja-aTe' (38) ISov cKplerai vjMv o olKog vjuicov Ij0>//xo?. (39) Xcyot) \jy^p~\ vjULiVy ov fxy]
yu Lorire air

apri

eco?

av

[jjt^tl

orej enrrjre' evAoyrjjULevos

V ovojuaTi ep-)^6lULV09 KVplOV (p. 29).

44. (St.

Matt,

xxiii.

12; St. Luke xiv. 11.)


Kai

(12) *'0crTi9 v\^/oo<TL eavTOV TaireivodOrjcreTaiy oaTL^ Taireivwo'eL kavrov vy^coOtjcreTaL (p. 29).
45. (St.

Matt.

x.

37
rj

St.

Luke

xiv. 26.)
ijULc

(37)
fjLOv

O
'

(piXoov

Trarepa

jmrjTepa virep
rj

ovk etTTiv
ijuie

a^io9

KOI 6 (piXcov vlov

Ovyarepa

virep

ovk

ecTTLV juiov a^i09] (p- 85).

46. (St.

Matt.

x.

38

St.

Luke

xiv. 27.)

(38)^09

ov \a/uL^avL tov
fJLOv

aravpov avrov koI olkoXova^io9 (p. 86).

Oei OTTiG-oo yuou, OVK ecTTiv

47. (St.

Matt.

v.

13

St.

Luke

xiv. 34, 35.)

(13)

'Y/iieig iarre

to

d'Xa? [r?? 7??]' eav Se

to d'Xa?

v tlvl aKia-Qria-eTai; e/? ov^ev gtl el jmrj io-)^vi /mcopavOrj, viro twv KaraTraTeicrOai ^XrjOev e^co avOpcoTrcov (p. 53).

48. (St.

Matt,
v/uLiv

xviii. 12,

13

St.

Luke

xv. 4-7.)

(12)

T/

irpo/SaTa

koi

SoKi; cav yevtjral tivl avOpcoirw eKorov 7rXavr]0iJ iv i^ avroov, ov^i a(pi]<7ei to,

144

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


koll

evevrjKOVTa evvea

ein Ta oprj TropevOeig ^rjrei to TrXavwuxevov; (13) Kai eav yevrjrai eupav auTOy ^a/uirjv^ Xeyo) vjuLiv^ on yaipei eir avro) /maXXov rj eiri TOig ivev^-

Kovra evvea Toh


49. (St.

TreTrXavrjiuLevoii (p. 91).

Matt.

vi.

24

St.

Luke

xvi. 13.)

(24) OJ(5el9 Suvarai Svcr). Kvpioig SovXeveiv tj yap tov eva jULiar^crei /cat top erepov ayairrjarei, rj evog avOe^erai ov Svvaa-Qe 6eu) SovXeveiv Kal Tov erepov KaTa<ppovri<Tei
'

KOI

/iiajuioova

(p. 4).

50. (St.

Matt.

xi.

12, 13; St.


koi

Luke

xvi. 16.)
oltto

(13)

Ot

TrpocprJTaL

vojulos

ew? 'Iwavvov*

Tore

eft)?

pLaarrcu
*I(jodvvov
vo/jLog
eft)?

apri ^ PacriXela rod Oeov PiaYeraij koli 'A.iro rwv ^jmepcov apTrd^ovanv avrrjv \vel:
eft)?

KrX.

Travreg

yap

ol

'7rpo<prjrai

koi

'Idodvvov

'7rpo<p^revcrav'\ (p. 15).


v.

51. (St.

Matt.
Xeyco
t]

18

St.

Luke

xvi. 17.)

(18)
KOI
rj

l^AjULrjv

v/miv'],

yrjt

Iwra ev
53).

jmla

dv irapeXOr] 6 ovpavog Kcpala ov fxtj irapeXOrj airo


eft)?

rod

vo/jLov (p.

52. (St.

Matt.

v.

32

St.

Luke

xvi. 18.)

(32)

['E-yft)

avrov

TTOiel avrrjv f/.oi'^evOijvai, Kai b?

Xeyo) v/miv'] 7ra? 6 olttoXvcov rrjv yvvaiKa eav aToXeXvjmevtjv


(p. 54).
xviii.

yajn}]cry], juL0i-)(araL

53. (St.

Matt,

7; St.

Luke

xvii. 1.)

(7) *A.vdyKri
avOpdoTTw,
Si*

eXOelv ra cTKavSaXa, TrXrjv ovai ov ro (TKavSaXov ep'^erai (p. 28).

rca

THE TEXT
54. (St.

145

Matt,

xviii. 15, 21,

22; St. Luke

xvii. 3, 4.)

(15) 'Eai/ afj-apri^cru 6 aSe\(p6<i crov^ eXey^ov eav (Tov aKOvcrri, eKep^r]cra<s Tov aSeXcpov crov. TTOcraKig ajULapTrjcei eig e/ixe 6 aSeXcpog ulov kol
avTO)
;

avTov
.

a(p))crco

ecog

eTTTOLKig ;

Xe-yet

avrcp 6 'hjcrovg'

ov Xeyco
93).

(70i eco? eTTTOLKig,

aXXa

ccog ejSSojuLJjKOvra ctttci (p.

55. (St.

Matt.

xvii.

20^

St.

Luke

xvii. 6.)

TOO

(20) 'Eaj/ e-)^t]T irlcTTiv w? kokkov aivairewg, epecre 'ivQev e/cef, Kai fxeTa/SyceTai opei TOVTco' jULeTa/3a

(p. 91).

56. (St.

Matt;

xxiv. 26, 27, 28,

37-41

St.

Luke

xvii. 23, 24, 37, 26, 27, 34, 35.)

(26) 'Eai/ ovv


fxr]

eLircoG-LV

vjuiv'

iSov ev ti]
/mij

epyj/mu) icTTLV,

^e\0t]T6'
tocTTrep

iSov ev TOig
t)

Ta/aeLOig,

TriCTTevG-tjTe'

(27)
KOLL

yap
eco?

aaTpairr] l^ep^eTai
ovTCog eVraf
{j
rj

airo

avaToKoov

(paiveTai

Sva-jULoov,

Trapovaria
TTTcojuLa,

tov
CKei

VLOv

TOV apOpooirov (28) ottov eav

to

ol aeToi. a-vva-)^6i](T0VTaL (37) ^'Qicnrep at ^luepai tov Ncoe, ovTwg ecTai rj tov vlov tov avOpwirov (38) wg yap rjcrav irapovo'ia ev Ta7g tov KaTaKKva-jULov rjfxepaig [eKeLvaLg'\ Tcug irpo Kal Ka\ irlvovTeg,

TpooyovTeg
OL')(pL
rjg

yajuovvTeg

yajui^ovTeg,

^jLnepag eicrtjXOev
ecog rjXOev

ovK eyvcocrav
ovTcog ecTTai

(^^) '^'^^^ 6 KaTaKXvcr/nog Kai rjpev diravTag,

Ncoe

eig Ttjv KifBcoTOv^

t] irapovaia tov vlov tov avOpcoirov. Svo ev tm ay pep elg TrapaXajulSaveTai eaovTai (40)
j

Kai eig ev tw /xJXo), juia acpleTai' (41) Svo aXrjOova-ai kq] juLia TrapaXaju/SaveTai acpleTai (p. 105).
K.

146

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


57. (St.

Matt.

x.

39
eav

St.

Luke

xvii. 33.)

(39)
aTToKearei

eupcov [o? avTYfv, Kai b?

evprj"^

rrjv

^v^^tjv

avrov
Ttjv

av aTroXecrei [o airoXecra^]^

"^v^rjv

avTOV

evpriaeL avTriv (p. 86).

58. (St.

Matt. xxv. 29
[iravTi]

St.

Luke

xix. 26.)
KOI
7repi<T(Tev-

(29) Tftj
6r}(TeraL'

')(OVTi
juitj

SoO^(TTaL

tov Se

e^ovros Koi o e^ei ap67](TeTai air

avTOv (p. 34).


59. (St.

Matt.

xix.

28

St.

Luke

xxii. 28, 30.)


.

KaOlcrecrQe (28) *YiULi9 ol aKoXovQrjo-avTe^ juoi . . 7n ScoScKa Opovovi Kpipovreg tov^ SooSeKa (pvXa^ tov
*Ia-pa}]X (p. 95).

II.

Linguistic
the
three

Characteristics
(St.

Each

of

synoptists

markedly) possesses grammatical peculiarities,^ even if the style of each These be not distinctly formed and homogeneous. sections which we have here separated away from their present context do not possess such marked
characteristics.
least

numerous verbal,

Luke most stylistic, and

It

is

therefore
their
style.
is

impossible,

or

at

uphold grounds of vocabulary and


^

unsafe,

to

homogeneity upon

The

best discussion of these


"

found in Hawkins, "Horae

Synopticse

(1899), pp. 1

ff.

VOCABULARY
A. VOCJBULARV
(1)

147

Verbs

find in Q about 166 eTvat, Apart simple verbs (occurring in about 475 places) and about 82 compound verbs (in about 168 places), namely
:

from

we

dyaXXLucrdaL, 3
dyaTrav, 6
aireiv, 5,
(ter),

f^aTTTi^eLv

(bis)

5iSacrK6tv (3)
StSoVat, 2, 5, 27,
(terj,

49

/SacravL^eLV,

13

28

atpcLv, 2, 56,

58

/3acrTd^LV, 1,
/Sia^ecrOat,

20
14,

30, 37, 58

28 (quinquies) aKoXovdelv, 13, 17, (bis), 46, 59


^

50

BLKaiovv, 15

pXkiTUv,
(bis)

8,

26

Sixd^etv,

38

BixoTOfxclv,

37
6,

l^ovXecrOaL,

25

BuoKCLv,

3 (bis),
1,

oiKoveLv,

12

(bis),

13,

14

(ter),

26

(6) ya[Xlv, 52,


/?/)6X5^^'

S3
SoKtv,

(quater), 30,

34%

54
dXyjOeiv,
d/Xi^etv,

56 47 54
(bis)

56 56 ykfx^LVy 33 (bis) y tVecr^at, 2, 6, 10,23


yafXL^eLV,
(bis), 25, 29, 30,

37,

38,

48
8ovA.e7Jtv,

49
1,

(bis)

Bvvaa-dai

34*

dixapTaveiv,
dpidix.iv,

34* dpKelv, 10 dpvetcrOai 34* (bis)


dp7rd^LV,

yLvii)(XKiv,

37, 40, 48 (bis) 11, 25


34,

Jbis), 35, 49 (bis)


idv,

37

kyyi^LV, I6,
kyelpeiv, 1,

22
(bis),

(bis),
(bis),
ypatfieiv,

37

14

56
2 (quater),

30
efvai, vv.
ciTTetv, 1,
11.

50
6,

apx^a-dai (1), 14,37


dcnrd^ea-OaL,

14
yp-qyopdv, 31
Saijuovt^ecr^ai, Savt^ecr^at, 5

20

(bis) avXetv, 15

29

2 (quater), 3, 8, 13 (quater vel ter), 14 (bis),

av^dueiv, 35,
d(fiavL(Lv,

40
(bis)
2,

5et/v'vv6tv,

36
1,

Seicr^ai,

2 18

/SdXXeiv,

13,

SecrpeTueLV,

35, 38 (bis), 39,

Bex^o-dat,

33 22

17 (bis), 22, 25, 30, 33, 34* (bis), 34b (bis), 37, 40, 43, 55, 56
(bis),

kXky\.iv,
pr][xovv,

47
^

24 (quater)
The numbers here

54 29

refer to the sections of the text as given

above.

148
epx^crOai,
1

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


(bis),
l(rxvLV^

47

[xepllciv,

29

12
29,

(bis), 13(ter),

Kaietv, 31

14, 15 (bis), 20, 30, 33, 31,

Ka6apL^Lv, 14, 33
KaA,v7rTiv,
KLcr9aL,
1

/xepi/^vav,35(quater) pTpiv 8 (bis)


jXLa-eLv,

34*

49
47
2

(ter),

38

(tei),

poLx^vetVj 52 (bis)

43, 53 (bis), 5Q
ka-dUiv, 15 (bis), 2J,

Kp8aLVLV,

54
34*

ixcopaiveiv,
VT^^etv,

Kr]pv(T(TLv^ 16,

35

22, 31
evayyeXi^ea-Oatj 14

Ktvetv,

33 36
(bis)

Vr](TTVLV,
oS'j^yeti',

KXeUiv, 33
KAcTrreii',

evXoyeiv, 43
cvvoelv,

o?Sa, 28, 33, 35, 37,

39
13,

kAiVciv, 17

Vpi(TKLVf

28 KoXXacrdai, 22 29 (bis), Kovtav, 33 (bis), 37, 41, 48, 57 KOTTiai^, 35


(bis)
KOTTTeardai,

^39
oiKoSo/xeiv,

12

(bis),

33
o/xotow,
15,

12

(bis),

15
8 (qua-

40 (bis?)
3

exeiv, 1, 6,

13,

15,

KocTixdv,

29
4,

6/xoAoytr, 34* (bis)


oi/etSt^etv,

17
ffv, 2

(bis),

55,

58

Kptveiv,
ter),

(ter)

^r;Tii/,

28

(bis),

35, 48
{vjuovv,
i]Kiv,

59 KpovLv, 28 (bis) 29, KpvTrretv, 25, 34 AaAetv, 29


Xap/SdveLV,
4,

6p)(eLcrOaLj
Tretm^'eiv,

15
2 2 (bis)

7r6var,

7rei/)a(etv,

40

28,

7r[XTrLV,

14

33, 37, 42, 43

40

(bis),

46

TTCvdetv,
TTiVetv,

17 (bis) Bavfid^eLV, 13 OeacrOaL, 14


BoLTTTeLV,

31 Aarpeveiv, 2
Aa/xTreiv,
Aeyeti/,
1

3 15 (bis), 21,

35, 37,

56

(bis),

2
11,

OeXetv (e^eA.tv), 4, 5, 7, 30, 33, 43


OefxeXiovv, 12
6pa7rVLV, 13,
depi^eiv,

(bis),

(3),

6,

12, 34* 7n(TTevLV (13), 56


TTtTrretv, 9,

12,

(bis)^

14

13 (quater), TrXavacrOai^ 48 (ter) 15 (ter), irXt^povv, 33 16, 17 (bis), 18, ttvUlv, 12 (ter)
(bis), (bis), 23,

29
(bis)

22

26,

TTOteii/,

35

29, 30,

33

(bis),

1 6 (bis), (ter), 7 (bis), 11

6r](Tavpi^iv,

06

34%

35, (ter), 37,

(ter),

12

(ter),

6'At^iv,
Op-qvetv,
laa-Oaij

41 39, 42, 43, 48, 15 51, 54 (bis) 13 (bis vel XiOof^oXeh', 43


fiapTvpeiv,
(bis),

13

(bis), 37,

52

TTopevea-dai,

13 (bis),
16, 29,

serael)
tSetv, 1,

33

14 48

(bis),

14
2

26

[xeOveiVj

37
1

7rpo<fi7]Tveiv

(50)

(bis), 30,

43

pcXXeLV,
jxeveiv,

TTwAeiv, 34*
paT7L^LVf
4i

tcrravai,

21

VOCABULARY
(TaXevetv, 14>

149
^tXeiv (45) (bis) cfio/SeLcrdaL, 34* (ter)
^oi/Vtv,
(f)OpLV,

aapovv, 29
CTKavSaAi^etv, 14
aKopTTL^eiv,
(nretpetv,
(rTpe(f)iv,

29 35, 40 4

35 56 TiVretv, 37 I'l/'ovv, 23, 44 (bis) cf)ayLV, 35 (bis) (^aivecrOaij 33, 56


Tp(fiLVf

rpioycLV,

33 (bis)

14

yaipeiVj 3, 48 Xopra^eiv, 3

(fjipSLV,

1 1
1

TttTrecvovv,

Tidivai,

44 (bis) 31, 37

cfi-vyiVj

XpOVL^LV,
xl/v8a-6o.L,

37
3

cfiddveLV,

29

dixcfiievvvvai,

14, 35

34b
54,

(bis), 43, 48,

'jrL('r]Tiv,

30, 35

dvo-fSXeireLV,

14

56

(bis)
1

imdviia.v,

26
20,

dvayeo"^at, 2 dvaKAivetv, 42

StajSXiTreiv, 8

e7rto-r/D6(/)tv,

29

StaKadapi^eiv,
8ia(fipLV, 34*,

e7r6(Ti;vdytv,

dvareAAeiv, 6
di^tcTTdvat,

35
(bis),

kiriridkvai,
eTTLTpeTreLV,

30 dvotyetv, 28 dvTe>(o/xat, 49
(XTrayyeXAeiv,
(XTrdyetv,

8Lpx^<y0o.L,
Sto/ovcraetv,

29 36

43 33 17
59

a-Oat), 15,

14

lcrp)(e(r9aL,

12,

13 KadLO-rdvaL, 37 (bis)
KaTa/?atVetv,12(bis),

41 (bis) aTrkp^cddai, 17 (bis)


(XTroSeKaTOVv,
aTToStSovai,

(bis),

20, 22 (bis),
(ter),

29,

33

41

23
KaraKavetv,
1

33 39

L(rcf)epeLV,

27

dTTOKaAiVreiv,

25 Kf3dXXLV, 8 (bis), 18, 29 (ter), (42?) KaTa[xai'6dvLV, 35 (bis), 34* KaraTraTelv, 47 airoKpLveaOai, 2, 13, eKKOTTTeiV, 1 14 KaracKevd^etv, 14 aTTOKTetveiv, 33, 34^ K)^LVtV, 33 KaracTKT^vow, 40 e^epx^crOaL, 14 (ter), KaTacf)povLv, 49 (bis), 43 22, 29 (bis), 39, KarotKeiv, 29 aTroXXvvai, 34*, 57 42, 56 (ter) perafSaiveiv, 55 (bis) (bis) aTToAi'etv, 52 (bis) /xeravoeiv, 23, 30 k^KTTavLa, 29 TrapaSiSov'tti, 25, 39 dTTOjxdcra-ecrOaLj 22 ^opoXoyi(T9o.Lj 25
dTTOO-reXAeiv, 14, 19,

KaraKpLvetv, Karavoetv, 8

30

(bis)

iyKpv7rTtv,

24, 33,

43
5

kpfiXkiruv^
ei'SvviLV,

d7rocrT/D6(^cr^at,

40 35 35
28
(bis)

TrapaKaXelcrdaL,

3,

13
TrapaXap.(Sdv.iv,
(bis), 29,

d(/)tevat, 2, 4, 8, 17,

ivTeXetv, 2
7r68iSoi'a6,

27

(bis),

S3

(bis),

56 (bis) TTo.paTLBkvai, 22

150
Trapkpyicrdaiy
(bis)
Trapofxoid^eiv^

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


51 Trpocrevx^o'OaLf 6
TrpOCTKOTTTeLV^ 2,

(rvXXcyciVf 11

12

o-wayetv,

1,

29, 35,

3S

TTpoa-Kwelvy 2 (bis)
TrpocTTLOkvai^

56
VTrdyiLV (13)
V7rdp)(tv

TrepifiaXXeLv^Sb (bis) TTpocnrLTTTeiVj 12


TrepnraTelv, 14,
TTpocrSoKoiVy 14,
7rpo(Tp)^ecr6aij

33 37
13

35
15

(Partic),
1,

(bis)
7rpocr<jiUiViVj

37

woSaK vwat,

12^

The numerical
is

of interest.

ratio of simple to compound verbs They stand in the ratio of 100 50


:

very nearly the same as that which holds in the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle of St. James.^ In
the Epistle of St. John the ratio of simple to compound verbs is actually 100 18 ; in the first Epistle of Peter, on the other hand, as 100 63 ; in the Epistle of St. Jude as 100 78, and in the Epistle to
: :

the Ephesians as 100


cent,

79.

St.

Luke has about 66 per

more compounds than


is

gospel the ratio


St.

Mark.

Matthew, in which almost exactly the same as that in The relatively small number of compound
St.

verbs in

occurrences

may
^

number of 475 of simple verbs to 168 of compound) be advanced as evidence of near relationship of

(especially if one takes the total


:

this source to the Semitic*

The compounds
:

are almost

Of these eighty-two compound verbs, twenty-four are not found elsewhere in St. Matthew, namely aiitpievvvvai, dvdyeadai, dvTix'^ff6ai, dTodcKaTovv,
SLop^KxaeiUy

dTrofidcaeadai,

Sia^X^weiv,

SiaKaOapl^eLV,
iyKpOirreiv,

5i^pxf(y0aif

ela^px^o'dai,

iKireipd^eiv,

i^ifftdvai,

4in5i56vai,

KarafxauddycLV, Karavoetv, KaracTKevd^eiv, irapo/xoLd^eiv, vpocrdoKdv, irpoa-

KbwTuv,
2

Trpoa-iriTTTeLv,

vpoaTidivaL,

irpo(T(fi(a}VLV,

vwoSeiKi^Ovai.

John there are about 209 simple verbs to 100 compound ; in St. James, 126 simple to 64 compound. In St. John, however, it must be observed that a particular simple verb occurs much more frequently than a particular compound verb. ' The rare use of compound verbs in St. John admits of a similar explanation though here a conscious literary purpose must also be
In
St.
;

taken into account.

VOCABULARY

151

always verbs of the most common description^ indeed the majority of them are those in which the preposition has kept its elementary local significance,

The only compound

or those which are no longer felt to be compounds. verbs that are at all characteristic

in in 1, are Sia^Xeireii/ in 8, Siopvcrcreip SiaKaOapl^eiv 36 and 37 (vide Job xxiv. 16 ; Exod. xxii. 2 ; Jer. ii.

34),

eiril^rjTeiv

in

30 and 35,

efx^Xiireiv

in 35, irpocr-

Compounds with virep and irpo are absent. The entirely simple verbs also are practically in common use ; the only exceptions are verbs always in the LXX), Si-)(otoiuliv (37 ; ; wanting ^Lyoj(^Lv (38
irlirreiv

in

12.

c/! Exod. xxix. 17), only here in the New Testament KoviaaQai (33, cf. Acts xxiii. 3), a-apovcrOai (29, cf. St. can disLuke XV. 8, a later form of

o-aipea-SaL).

We

cover scarcely any instances of constant use of, or Of the of prejudice in favour of, particular verbs. in occur more eighty-two compounds only twenty-five

than one passage

(viz. ajuLCpiei^i/vvai, air OKaXvirreiv^ airo-

KplveaOai, airoKTelveiv-i airoXXuvai,

aTrocTTeWeiv, a(pievai,

Sia(hpiv,oiopv<T(reiVi eicrep'^ecrOai, 6/Cj8dXXe/j/, epepyeaOai,


eiriCrjTeiVi eTTiCTTpeCpeiv,

KaOi^ecrOai, KaTa/Saiveiv, fxera-

voeip,

TrapaSiSovai,

'irapaKaXeicrOai,
TrpocTKOTrTeiv,

TrapaXa/m/Saveiv,

TrepiiraTeiv,

TrpocrSoKav^

avvayeLV,
trait
is

viro-

the only important but of especially of repetition Siafpepew, Siopvcra-eiv, Of the 166 simple verbs only fifty-one are
Seucvvvai)
;

here

the

a^Levai. found in

more than one passage


CLKOveiv,

(viz.

ayairav, aipetv,
acriraXecrOaL,

aireiVi

cLKoXovOeiVf

ap'^ecrOai^

avPaveLVi jSdXXeiv, ^acTTa^eiv, (SXeireiv, yajmeiVi yiveaOai,


1

A double

compound

is

only once found

(in

43

iTria-vpdyeiv)

hut,

as will be shown, in a quotation.

152
yivw(TKiv,

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


ypa(j)iv,

^eyeaOah
eyeipeiv,
rjKeiVy

StSovai,
eiTreiv^

SiWKeiv,

SoKeiv,
ecrOieiv,

ovvacrOaii
evpiarKeiv,

iyyl^eiv,
e-^^eiv,

epj^ecrOai,

^tjreiv,

OeXeiv, Oepaireveiv, ISelu,


Xa/uL^aveiv, KpuTrreiv, ir'nneLV [iriar-

KaOapi^eiv,

KrjpvcrareiVi

Kplveiv,

XeycLV, otSa, oiKoSojuLetv, ojuloioup, irlveiv,


Teveiv]^
iroieiVi

TropevecrOai,

a-Trelpeiv,

riOevai,

v^j^ouv,

none of these (except perhaps (palvecrOai, yaLpeiv)\ in 1, 14, 30, the redundant in [1] eyeipeiv ap-^^eaOai 14, 37, aKoXouOeiu, aa-iraYecrQai:, (SaXXeiv and SoKeiv) is characteristic. That our sixty sections form an whole does not therefore admit of homogeneous based stringent proof upon an investigation of the character of the verbs both simple and compound.
(2) Substantives

and Adjectives

What
form a

has been said of the verbs also holds good


:

for the substantives

and adjectives these also scarcely basis for the conclusion that the sections are

homogeneous.

Remarkable words and phrases are exceedingly rare, and these as a rule occur each only once. Yet attention may perhaps be drawn to the
Tlacrag Ta<} ^acriXelag tov koctjulov koi Trjv So^av avTwv (2) and ^oXojmwv ev iraarri tu So^^] avrov rag ^acriXela? tov koctjulov (2) and tol eOvt] tov (35) k6(7iulov (35); "loaf" and "stone" in 2 and 28; airoOrjK^r}

following

the ; avaToXri and SvotjuloI in 42 and 56 frequent occurrence of the word ^aa-iXeia ; the use of yeved in 15, 30, 33, of in 1, 11, and 40, of SevSpov in 2, 14, and 56, of o SovXo9 in 10 and 37, of ^
in 1
;

and 35

eprjjuog

epy^6iJLV09

43, of ^la-parjX in 13 and 59, of KXeTTTtjg (together with in 36 and 37, of Siopvcra-eiu) ol in 6 and 14, o)(Xoi in (1) 14 and 29, of
in
1,

14,

and

ircpicra-ov

VOCABULARY
:

153

of TO. irereiva rov ovpavov in 17, 35, and 40, of irla-Tig different degrees ot faith), of crocpla in 15, (13, 55 in and 15, of and 30, (33), of reXcopt]^ in 6

8 and 37.

viroKpiTrj's

noteworthy

trait is the great

number

This finds an of adjectives used as substantives. that the in the fact original was Semitic. explanation
Proper names are of very scanty occurrence (Abel, Abraham, Jacob, Jonas, Isaac, Israel, Ninevites, Noah,

Solomon, Zacharias, John


Beelzebub,

Mammon

[the Baptist], Phai'isees, Bethsaida, Chorazin, Gomorrha,

Not Jerusalem, Jordan, Capernaum, Sidon, Sodom). one of the disciples of our Lord is mentioned hy name, not
even St. Peter
for
;

by accident
in

also the

name

ol [xaSyiTal

the text preserved for us wanting 14 the word does not refer in in one passage 10; (except to disciples of our Lord) this, however, is only acciis

them

dental

numerous passages

refer to them,

and

in

59

we are

told of twelve thrones for the followers

of Jesus.

The concept
in

Q import for our Lord

"ot aKoXovdouvre's^'' (aKoXovOeiv) is of great The term 6 ^piarrog (13, 17, 46, 59).

In regard to is found only once (14). the title 6 Kvpiog as applied to our Lord, it is not
quite certain whether St. Matt.
vii.

21

(St.

Luke

vi.

46) stood in Q ; but in this context it has no more significance than the Kvpie in the mouth of the centurion (in 13) ; Q itself never calls our Lord "o /cJ^to?,'"*
its

" Jesus " (vide 2 In the and to adjectives, by far regard [13], 17, 54). the most noteworthy feature is the use of a^iog (1, 20,

designation for

Him

is

simply

21, 45, 46), of juaKapiog (3, 14, 26, 37), of 0X09 (32, 40), of TToXJ? (3, 18, with julktOo^ and with Oepiar/uLO^), and

of

-TTovrjpo^

(11, 28, 29, 30, 32).

154

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


following
:

The

and adjectives
"AjSeX, 33]
'Appaoifi,
1

is

a complete

list

of the substantives

dvTiStAcos,

39

(his)

ypafifiare'V'Sf

(bis),

42 d^ivq,

yvv-q^ 14, 40,

S3 52
29

dyaOd,

Ttt,

28 (bis)

dirod-qK-q^ 1,

35

Saijudi/tov,

15,

aTTwAeta, 41 dyaOoif 01, 6 d/OTrayry, 33 dyaTTwvTes, oi, 6 dyyekoL, 2, 14, 34* d/3Tos, 2 (bis),

(bis) SttKTv Aos,

33
(bis),

27,

Sei/o/oov,

11

28 ay opd, 15
dyp6<s,

(quinquies), 40

darcrdptoVy

34*

ScarfxioTqpcov^ 1

35, 40, 56 d(rT/)a7r'^, 56 dSeXcfios, 6, 8 (ter), d^vpov, 1 54 (ter) fSaXXdvTLOV^ 20


^Sr^s,

Std/3oAos, 2 (bis) StSdo-KaAos, 10 (bis)


StKatoi, ot (6)
StWKOl/TS, Ol,

aSiKot, ot (6)

23^

^diTTLa-pLa, 1

fSaTTTKrTrjS

(14)

80KOS, 8 (ter)
Sd/xa (28)

aT09,
ai/xa,

56 33 (quater) dKaOapcrca^ 33
dKdv6aLf
dKpacria,
1 1

fSapvTcpa, rd,
16,

33

jSacrtAeia, 2, 12, 14,

33

dXas, 47 (bis) dXevpoVj 40


aAtuv, 1
dXwirrj^y 17

djutapTwAos, o,
djX[X0S')

15

12 dvayKT], 53

dvd7rai;(rts,

29 56
14
(bis),

dvaroAT^, 42,
dvepios,

86^a, 2, 35 29 (bis), 33, SovXos, 10 (bis), 13, 37 (quater) 35, 40 (bis ?), 42 SvvapLLs, 23 (bis), 50 ^ao-tAcv?, 14 (26) 8v(rp.6sj 42, 56 ot SwSeKa, fiacTiXicrcra^ 30 (indirectly), 59 BeX(e/3ovX, 29 Br^^craiSdv, 23 Sw/xa, 34* 50 WvLKOL, OLy 6 (iia.(TTr^S-i Wvos-, 35 /36dvvov, 9 e'iprjvq, 20 (bis), 38 ^pox^, 12(bis) l3pvyp6<Sy 42 (bis) 1^ /3/3cuo-ts, 36 (bis) eKardi/ra^XO?)
.

12

dv-qOov, 33 dvrjp, 12. (bis),

yeevva, 34* (ter vel bis) yeved, 15, 30 (qua- eAeos, 33


ter),

30

33
1 o,

v8vixa,
l^ovo-ia,

35
13

(bis)

dvOpMTTos, 2, 7, 13, yevvrjfia^ 14, 15 (bis), 17, yevvrjTOSj

14

^(j)9ev, TO,

33

28, 29 (bis), 30,

yrj,

33 (ter), 34^ (ter), 38 (bis), (40), 47, 48, 53 Tofxoppa, 22

22, 25, 30, 33, ipydTrjs, 18 (bis), 21 34*, 36, 38 (47), epyov, 14 51 14, 2, 6/5>^/xos, 17,

56

VOCABULARY
pXOflVOS, O, 1,

155
Adyos, 12 (bis), 13,

14^

idoTtt,

51
25, 37

43
evSoKta, 25

Kttipd?,

34b
AvKOS, 19

/caA.a/zos,
Ktt/oSta,

14

S6,
1

37
(bis),

xOpoi,
ix^Svrj,^

ol,

6 (38)

KapTTOS,

11

(quinquies)

Za^a/ota?,
^v/xr;,

33

Kdp<f)os, 8 (ter)

Av^via, 31 Avxvos, 31, 32 10 (bis), padr]TT^S, 14 (18)


/xaAttKa, ra,
pap(i)vas,

40
33

KaTttKAvcr/xds,
(bis)

56
17
3,

14

(bis)

C^rji

41

i78i;o(7/xoVj

KaracTKr^ V(u(ri9,

paxo-f-pa,

49 38

"qXiKia,
"qXtoSy

35
22, 23, 33,
(ter)

Ka<f)apvaovp^

23

pkpos-,

31
1

^/x/3a, 2,

Kepaia, 51 K<fiaX-q, 17, 34*

pka-ov (19)
/xeravoia,
(bis)

37 (50), 56 OkXrifia^ 12
^os,
1,

2 (bis) 12,

14,

16,
(bis),
(bis),

29
34

(bis),

33 35

(ter),

40

(bis?),

42, 49, 50
^cpto-jutos,

18 (ter)

p.krpoVy 8, 33 Kijpvyixa^ 30 kl/Siotos, 56 priT-qp, 38 (45) kAcxSos, 40 pLKpOTCpOS, 6, 14 KXav6p6<i, 42 piados, 3, 6 36 (bis), pdSios, 31 KXiTTT-qs, 37 pvXov, 56 vads, 33 KXt^avos, 35 6, 14, 17 Kotvcuvot, 01, 33 ve/cpds,

O-qa-avpoSi
^/oij,

36

(ter)

KOKKOS, 40, 55

(bis)

34a

^pdvos, 59

39 KovLopros, 22
Ko8pa.vTi-)s-,

VT^TTIOS, o,

NivevttTT^s,

25 30 43

(bis)

38 (45) ^VGriaO"T7^ptOV, 33 'lo.Ka>f3, 42 le/odv, TO, 2


9vy(XT()p,
*Icpova-aA.iJ/x,

Kopa^, 35
Kocr/xos, Q,

(?)

vd/xo5, S3, 50,


vocrcria, ra,

51

25

K pi pay 8
Kpivov,

vdros,

30

35
22,

2,

43

Kpia-Ls,

23,

vvpcpr], 38 30 Nwc, 56 (bis)

(bis)
'Iv^o-ovs,

(bis),

33
29, 39 (bis)

68d?, 14, 20, 39, 41

2(ter)(13),

K/DiTTJs,

54 IfxaTLOV, 4
17,
'Io/oSavr^9,
'lo-actK,

Kv/xtvov,

33

dSovs,

42

KvpLos,
1

(bis),
(bis),

2 (bis), 10 oiKCTeLa, 31 12 (bis), 13 oLKLa, 12 (quater),


13,

42
59

'lo-pa^iA, 13,

18, 25, 37 (quater), 43, 49


6,
_

20

(bis),

21,

31, 37
OtKlttKOS (38)

ixOvs, 28
'IcDvas,

Kcu^ds,
(bis)

14,

29

30 (quater) 50

oiKoSeaTTOTyjs,
o,

'Iwavi'Tys, 1,

14 (qua- XcTrpos,

14

OLKOs, 14, 29,


olvOTTOTTJS,

31 43

ter), 15,

XtOos, 1, 2 (bis), 28

15

156
43

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


35
;rvu/xa
(l),
2,

oXiyoTTLcrTos, 6,
ovojxa,
opyrj, 1

29
:

crocfiia,

15,

SO
33

[of

evil
bis]
;

spirits

2o(^ia,

33
25,

29
55

to dyiov,

oo(f)6s, 6,

opvLs,

43
33

34^
TToA-is,

opos, 2, 48,
o(TTeov,

TTOV-qpoi, 01,

22 (quater) 6

23 o-Tav/)os, 46
o-TToSos,
crraffivXrj, 1 1

TTOvqpov, TO, 3 ovpavoi, 3, 36 ovpavos, 17, 23, 25, TTorafjios, 12 (bis)

crreyrj,

13 13

(TTparnx>rYi<i,

28 (35), 40, 51 ovs, 26, 34* offieiXeT-qs, 27 6({iLXr]ixa, 27


ocfidaXiJios,

TTOTTJpLOV,
TTovs, 2,

33 22

a-rpovOiov, 34* (bis) OrVKOV, 11

7rp6/3aTOv, 19,
TV

48
14
(ter),

o-w5oi;Xos,
0-VVT0S, 6,
o-w/xa,

poa-oiiTov ,

14
3,

37 25

(sex),

Trpocfy-qrrjs,

26, 32 (ter)
ocfifi,

(bis), 26,

33

28
1 (3),

43, 50
14,

oxXo6,
Trats,

29

TTpdra, rd,

29

32 (ter), 34* 35 (bis) ra[xeiov, 56 rdcfios, 33 (ter)


(bis),

TratSiov,

15

TTTepvytov, 2

TKV0V,

1,

15,

28,

13 (ter vel bis) irrkpv^, 43 TTTVOV, 1 irapaXvTLKos, 6, 13


Trapovcria,
Trapoxj/LS,

43
TeAcovT^s, 6,

15

56 (ter) 33
6
(bis), 12,

TTTWjota,

56
12

TOTTOS,

29
1 1

TTTWO-IS,

rpt/3oXos,

rrarrip, 1,

7rTa))(ds, o, 3,

14
vel

TpOTTOS,
rpocjiri,

43

17, 25 (quater), 27, 28, S3 (bis), 35, 38 (45) 7rtVtOVTS, ol, 3


Tteipd^iiiv, o,
7ri/oa(r/xo9,

TTvXy],

41

(bis

ter)
TTv/),

21, 35, 37 Trpos, 23 (bis)


o,

1 1

(ter)

Tv<l>X6s,

(bis),

/3iC^

14
v8o)p, 1
i;iot

TTevdepd,

27 38

TTivd0VVr<S, 01, 3

23 40 (TrjixLov, 30 (quinq.) 36 (bis) (rrj<s,


craKKOs,
craTOt',

T.

ISacnXeiaSf

42
vtos, 6,

29, 33 (45)

irepaTa, rd, 30 TrepidCTov, TO, 6,

o-taywv, 4

vloS T. dvOpiOTTOV, 15,

14

2iS(ov,
(TivaTTL,

irepix^pos, y), 1 Trereivd, rd, 17 {35),

23 (bis) 40, 55

17,

30

(34*), 34^

(TITOS, 1

(37), 56 (ter) ^ vtos T. deov, 2 (bis),

40
irkrpa,
Trrjpa,

(TKdv^aXov, 53 (bis)

25
v7rdp\ovTa, rd, 31
V7rr)piTr]<s,

12 (bis)

cTKoria, 34*

20
35
13, 55

o-KOTOs,

tttJ^^v?,

2o8oju,a,

TTLcrTLS,

nXareia, 22

32 (bis) 22 ^oXofxuJVj 30 (bis), 35

V7r68r]pa, 1,

39 20 VTTOKpirris, 8, 37
cf)dyos,

15

VOCABULARY
^aptcraioi,

157
J^ptcrros,

33 (qua- (^wXeos, 17
<j()ws,

ter)
<f>iXo<s,

32, 34

6,

15

Xi>, 1,
XtTcor,

(fiOpTLOV,

33
37,

(fivXaKi],
(fivX-j,

39

X.opa^cv,

23

14 14 ^vx^i, 34* (bis), 35 (bis), 57 (bis) w/xos, 33


^(oXos, 6,

59

Xopros, 35

w/)a(13)(37), 37

dyados, 11 (bis)
ciyios(l),
aSrjXos,

eTOLfJLOs,

31
41 13

TTICTTOS,

34b 33

vpv\oipo<i^

TrAttTVS,

37 41

iKavo, 1,
tcr;(V/oos,

TroXvs[l],3, 18,26,

aKaOapTos, 29
avKTos, 22, 23

30

(bis),

34% 35
(bis),

avvSpoSy

29

KttKOS (37) KaAos, 1, 11 (bis)

(bis),
TTOvr^/jos,

41
1 1

ajios, l,20(bis), 21

KpVTTTOS, 34*
fiaKapios, 3(quater), 14, 26, 37
/xeyas, 12,
lxoL)(aXLS,
VK/30S,

(45) (bis), 46
aTrXovs,

28, 29, 30, 32 (raTTpos, 11 (bis)


crKoreLv6<5,

32

32

apKcros, 10
a(r/3ecrTo^, 1

14 (bis)

(TTv6s,

41 (bis)
2

30

rax V, 39
vxj^t^Xos,

papys, 33 (bis) Seivios, 13 Sextos, 4


7rioT;o-ios,

33

6 (bis) oA/yos, 18, 41


oiKTtpiHiiv,

(ppovLixos,
<fi(i}Tiv6<S,

epr^fios,

27 43 ecr^aros, 39

oAos,

32

(bis),

40
40

Xet/owv, ojpalos,

6>oios, 12 (bis),

31 32 29 33

(ter ?)

The
seem ofQ.

simplicity and homogeneity of the vocabulary does to me to incline the balance in favour of the unity

(3) Prepositions

Among
are

wanting
seven

the prepositions Trapd, crvv, and evwiriov is (in place of the latter ejuLirpoaOep
times)
;

used

the

prepositions

of most

fre-

quent occurrence are ev (about fifty-nine times, and with the most varied significance), then iirl (about twenty-eight times) and ek (about twenty-eight
times), also
cltto

(sixteen times),

e/c

(thirteen times).

158

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Of rarer observe at once the Semitic original. sense of in the eo)?, juLeTo, (only Sid,
and
viro (eight,

We

occurrence are
''with*"),

nine,

nine,

and ten times

respectively).^

only seven times " of " against ; sense in the with the genitive (always the occurrence with the accusative in section 20 is
is

Kara

found

four uncertain), irpog and virep five times, Trepl only each oirlcrw three avev, times, a-^pi, jmera^v, times, TTpo

only once. The absence of irapd and a-vv is important ; for is found elsewhere in St. Matthew eighteen to irapd

twenty times (and indeed with all its three cases), avv is in St. Luke twenty-nine to thirty times; found elsewhere in St. Matthew two to three times,

and
In

in

St.

the

absence

Luke twenty-four to twenty-six times. of the preposition irapd we may

clearly

There
article

recognise a distinct characteristic of Q.^ are a few cases of construction with the

and

preposition

in

substantival

or

adjectival sense.^
^

39, 43, 51

?wj also occurs as a conjunction six times {vide 39 ?ws 6'roy, tm oC, 56 ^wj TjXdev). 'At6 is also found ^ws &v, 40
: :

with particles dirb totc, 50 [t6t also again in 8 and 29], air' dpn, 43. 2 Uapi is found with all three cases in St. Mark in St. John it frequently occurs with the genitive and dative, but is wanting with the accusative. We should have an instance of occurrence in Q if
;

were permissible to regard the text of 21 as simply that of Q we have not authority for this, seeing that there is no parallel in St. Matthew.
it
;

but
8 ffoi

Cf.3:
(21
:

01 Trpb vfxuv,

28

6 i^ ovpavoO, 31

ol iv

oIkI<},

32

rb iv

TO. Trap' aiirwy).

GRAMMAR AND STYLE


B.^GRAMMAR AND STYLE

159

in Q are most frequently connected ^ in Semitic languages) of Kal means Se, as (as by falls very much into the backwith Kai, compared ground it is indeed found scarcely thirty times Neither Se only thrice in 1, 18, and 33). (yueV can we speak of yap as of frequent occurrence (about

Sentences

twenty times, koi yap in


frequent ten times
as
*
el.

The
:

13).^ latter is
el

'Eaj^

is

twice

as

found only about


elire
*lva

(2
:

[bis'j

el vlo?

rov Oeov,
SiSovai

vel

^dXe.
TTOG-w

28

el

o^Sare

ayaOa
Swcrei.

T019
:

TeKV0L<5,

jmaWov 6 irarhp

29

[bis]

el

ev

BceXei
ei

eK^aXXo), ol viol ev Tin eK^dWovcriv ; 32 TTvevjuLari Oeov eK/3aX\co, apa eipOaaev. ei ev (bcog (TKOTOS earTLV, to ctkoto^ iroa-ov ; 35
YepoiiK
: :

ev

to

ay pep
TraXai
tcov

Tov YopTOV 6 6eo9 ajUL<pievvv(nv^ ov 23 e: iv Tvpw eyevovTO at vjuLoig;


:

ttoWco fxaWov
ovvdjuLei^,

av

juLeTevojjarav.

33.

el

tjimeOa
:

ev

Tai^

rumepai^

37 el ijoei 6 OLKOoecnroTtj^ ovk av rj/ULeOa. TraTepcov, av Kai 6 TTola KXe7rTr]9 epyeTai, eyprjyoprjcrev (pvXaKu ovk av e1.a(Tev). Besides the four instances just quoted,
av occurs again in sections 14, 34^, 52, 57 (69 a^),

25 (y
^

av), 39, 43,


e.g.

51

(eo)?

av),
ko.1

bQ

(ottou

at^).*

The
is

rare
2

Cf. vide

sections 12 and 13.


e.g.

Also

with the apodosis

not

sections 13, 35.

OZv is found about a dozen times cf. 1 (with imperative), 1, 6 (with the imperative future), 12, 18, 28, 32 [bis], 34^ [his, but one of these is doubtful], 35 (with imperative), 56. Atd Toxno occurs in
sections 29, 33, 35 (37).
'

Also

ii-f)

= except)

three times [vide 25, 30, 47)

and

ttXtJv

(23, 53).
^

Section 22
29), 6re

(3

and

is doubtful: eh i)v Slp. "Orap is found only twice never (for in 43 it is very doubtful).

160
particle

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


. .
.

re is never founds nor in consequence re while Kalj they occur both in St. Matthew and St. oure Luke. Ov^e occurs about ten times, ovts
. . .

once (36), /uirjSe once (35), nirjre M'/t^ once (15), once also the interrogative jud^tl (H)? ov jmri thrice ? once (49). (39, 43, 51), ?
.

wg are entirely absent;'^ in the we have their place simple participial clauses is fomid only once (14), not in a absolute genitive saying of our Lord but in a descriptive passage
Temporal
clauses with
;

constructions, {tovtwv iropevofxevwv). Participial both with a temporal significance and as a substitute
for
relative
clauses,

moreover,

several

extraordinarily frequent participles (co-ordinated or sub-

are

it

However, the ordinated) are found in conjunction. the with constniction of eJvai participle , so common
with
St.

Luke,

is

very rare; I have only found

in section 56.

So

far as I see, the accusative with infinitive occurs

only once (53). Final clauses are often


infinitive {vide, 2,

expressed by the

simple

37 [here with the genitive of the article], 38 \ter\ 47); tVa and ottc*)? are not The former is only found in the following frequent.
14
[^^r],

combinations
1

e^Ve

'Iva

ol

XlQol aproi yevooprai (2),

' just as," vide 6, 10 (13), 27 (ws kuI), 33, 35, 56 ; "Ov rpbirov is found in 30 and 56 \his] ; Kaduis is wanting. cf. &<nrep OiJrws is used in the apodosis, vide 7 {iravTa 6(ra eav once (43).

fis

throughout =

6^\r)Te
(cos)
. .

ovTw

iroielTe),

30,

66

[ter]

in the

connection

ovTUi, also in the principal sentence in 3, 11, 37.

"Oaris

ibcnrep

is

also found a

also occurs a
36,

few times (4, 12 [bis], 33, 34 [bis], 44 [6is])."Ottou few times (also in the sen^e of "whither"), vide 17, 56 (followed by e'/cel in 36 and 56 ; iKcT also occurs in 55).

GRAMMAR AND STYLE


ocra
ixrj

161
(7),

eav

OeXrjTe

'iva
jur]

ttoiwctiv

vjuliv

ol

avdoo^iroi

KpLvere

ha

KpiOtjre

(8),

apKerov tw
ei/uu
;

fxaOtjTii
1.va

"va yivtjrai cog 6 jULOV VTTO rrjp

SiSdcrKoXog (10), ovk

tKavog

areyriv elcreXOrj^ (13

but in section 1

Uavoq

is

combined with the

infinitive).

The

third

"Otto)? passage alone answers to the classical use. occurs only three times (6: oirwg yevrjcrOe viol

Tou

TraTjOoy,
:

18

Se^OrjTe

rod Kvpiov
(p'
vjuLag

oircog
aljuLa).

eK/SaXu
Mrj,

ipydrag, 33

ottco?

eXOiJ
is

irav

in the sense of "w^,"

in

from the both cases

LXX

found only in a quotation (2) and in section 39 (and, moreover, in the combination /ult] irore)}
;

Clauses introduced by on (in the sense of that,'' " for," and " because ") are frequent they are found

about thirty-three times, and present no remarkable feature. '^Qo-re, in the sense of '^itaque,''^ is found once (33) on the other hand, coarre consecutive is
;

probably altogether wanting, for its occurrence in section 29 is doubtful. The various constructions with which IV are so usual in St. Luke and are also at, y
JUL

found
This

in
is

Matthew^ are likewise of importance. A redundant


St.
:

entirely

absent.

ylvecrOai occurs

only once (48

One

eav yevtjrai evpeiv). characteristic of these sections


is

is

use that

made of

interrogative sentences
^

the copious ^ (with or

without interrogative particles)


^

; cf. 1, 6, 8, 11 (12), Otherwise the use of particles presents no point of special interest. We find dXXd (12, 13, 14 [bis], 31, 38, 54 ; here the use in 14 is alone noteworthy), d/xriv (14, 26, 33, 37, 39, 48), &pa (29, 37),

ij8v (1), vat (14, 25), yOv (33),


2

&c.

The frequent use


Vide
TTcDs, 8,

of the future with a significance of continuity/xaXKov,


Troo-d/cts,

is

also to be noticed.
'

35

trdacfi
;

28

oi

ToWcp
;

fxSXXov,

36 [fidWov

also again in 34*, 35, 48j

43, 54

ij,

28, 35, &c.

162

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

14, 15 (17), 23, 28, 29, 32, 34% 35, 37, 38, 40 (43), These interrogative sentences give the 47, 48, 54. discourses a certain individuality, to which the not

unfrequent employment of parataxis and of parallelismus memhrorum lends a further distinctive trait. Not a

few of the sayings are conceived in this simple artistic Taken together, the stylistic expedients which form. are employed impress upon the sayings a stamp of

homogeneity.

Use

is

not often made of the historic

The imperfect present {vide 2, 13, 17, 18, 40, 55). the optafound never see is ; 29, (yet 30) practically The frequent use of the tive is absolutely wanting.
redundant personal pronoun and of the superfluous avTO^ in its oblique cases (more than 100 times) is Both traits are Semitic. Lastly, we characteristic. a adduce by no means small number of unmight
constructions occurring in the majority of the sections, some of which may likewise be due to the influence of Semitic idiom, such as those we have already noticed above in the case of tVa, but to
classical

mention them
elire

in detail

would lead us too

far (vide

similar phrases). All these characteristics taken together, and especially the negative characteristics, give to the sections,

\6yu) and

or at least to the great majority of them, a certain individuality, and distinguish them from the style

of St. Mark, of St. Matthew, and of St. Luke. cannot give a convincing proof of their unity from the results of investigation into their vocabulary and
style ; and yet especially if it is considered how different and various is the content of these sections
it

We

must be acknowledged that there

is

in

them a

FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS
certain unity of grammatical

163

and

stylistic character

and colouring.

III.

The

Formal Characteristics of the


Subject-matter

The
sist

we have obtained

sixty sections (34 is a double section) which as the result of our analysis con-

of seven narratives, eleven (twelve) parables (and similes), thirteen groups of sayings, and twenty-nine
single sayings of smaller or greater length.

The

seven

narratives

comprise

the

Temptation

story (2), the narrative concerning the centurion at Capernaum (13), the question sent by St. John from
his prison

and the answer of our Lord

who declared himself ready and of one who desired first to bury
of one
(29), the

(14), the story to follow Jesus, his father (17),

the cure of a demoniac and the Beelzebub controversv

demand for a sign, together with our Lord's answer (30), and the question how often one ought to forgive, together with our Lord's command (54).
There are thus only two
miracles of healing) in Q one a very notable miracle, a cure wrought at a distance. The introduction to

stories of miracles

(and these

some of these stories may have been longer in Q, but we have no means of settling this point. Nor can we at once discover any motive for the choice of just these seven stories; they have nothing in common
with one another.
It is important that (in 23) the towns Chorazin, Bethsaida, and especially Capernaum, appear as the chief scenes of our Lord's ministry An equally (concerning Jerusalem in 43 vide infra).

164

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

important point

is the strong emphasis laid upon the of St. John the Baptist. The discourse significance concerning him, which was suggested by his doubting question and which is continued in 15, is preceded by

an account of his preaching of a baptism of repentance (1), and is followed by the testimony (50) that with

him

closes

the

epoch
is

of the

Law and

the

Prophets.

No mention
stories.

made of the

disciples of

our Lord in these

Q includes the following parables and similitudes the Blind leaders of the blind (9), the Good and
:

corrupt tree (H)? the House on the rock and on the sand (12), the Querulous children at play (15), the Sheep and the wolves (19), the Light under the
bushel (31), the Thief by night and the Faithful and unfaithful steward (37), Concerning the correct

behaviour to the adversary (39), the Leaven and the (40), the Strait gate and the narrow way (41), the Lost sheep (48). Eight of these

Mustard seed
parables

have

closer definition

an

individual

address

only two refer to the

without any Kingdom of

God, one to the present generation (15), and one to This preponderance of the indithe disciples (19). vidual address is noteworthy, and it is also noteworthy that the two parables concerning the Kingdom of God are not eschatological, and are closely connected
together (vide infra).
37,

The
an

39 (41)

close

with

parables in sections 12, outlook towards the

end.

Without anticipating a closer critical examination, a cursory glance suffices to inform us that the parables bear the impress of genuineness in a
high degree.

FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS
The
:

165

of sayings (discourses) ^ may be grouped in regard to subject-matter as follows The discourse of the Baptist, together with
thirteen
collections

the reference to the

Coming One
;
;

(1)

the Beati-

Love mote and beam


tudes (3)
;

for enemies (6)


(8)

the
;

Lord's

against Judging, Prayer and the

power of Prayer (27, 28) Fear not, be not anxious, lay not up treasure (34% 35, 36) The great thanks;

giving to the Father (25) ; The great denunciation Not peace but a of the scribes and Pharisees (33) sword (38) ; False Messiahs, the Parousia of the
;

Son of

Man

(56).

In judging of

it is

specially

important to note that this source also contains a sermon of the Baptist, and further, that formal teaching concerning the better righteousness, and
that exact directions concerning prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, are wanting, although an ethical code is

imparted in sections

3, 6, 8, 27,

28,

34%

35, 36.

In

the discourses concerning our Lord's relationship to the Father, concerning His attitude towards the scribes and
Pharisees and towards the world,

and

in the discourse

concerning the Parousia, the most important relationships ad extra are dealt with, except the relationship to the Baptist, which has been explained in the narrative section

14 (and also beforehand

in section 1).

shorter or longer sayings are less varied in content, as appears at the first glance ; of them be regarded with more or less

The twenty-nine

many

may

the restoraprobability as parts of discourses in Q, tion of which must however remain problematical ; in
Besides these, it is very probable that sections 16 and 18-24 belong to one discourse.
^

166

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

the case of others, it is possible at once to recognise that they are either related to one another or depend Nine of the the larger groups of sayings.

upon

also in form, sayings in subject-matter, and perhaps 4 (The sections code ethical to the namely, belong

blow upon the cheek, non-resistance when the coat is taken away), 5 (Give to him that asketh), 7 (The Golden Rule), S2 (The light of the body is the eye), 44 (He that exalteth himself), 49 (No man can serve two masters), 57 (He that findeth his life), 58 (Whosoever hath to him shall be given), 52 (Against
divorce). directions

Fifteen sayings belong together as special

namely, 10 disciples 16 his not above (Proclaim master), (The disciple that the Kingdom of God is at hand), 18 (The

and promises to the


is

harvest

is

great, the labourers few), 19 (I send

you

forth as sheep), 20, 21 (Conduct of the mission from house to house), 22, 23 (The mission in the cities,
sayings concerning the Galilean cities), 24 (He that receiveth you receiveth me), 26 (Blessed are your eyes and your ears), 55 (The faith which removes mountains),

45 (He that loveth father or mother), 46 (The bearing of the Cross), 47 (Ye are the salt of the

Of the 59 (Ye will sit upon twelve thrones). and Law the section 50 (The remaining sayings, with the narrative of connects until John) Prophets section 14 the saying concerning Jerusalem (43), as
earth),
still
;

well as the saying that the children of the kingdom would be cast out while the Gentiles would enter in

purport belong together, and can be connected with the Great Denunciation (33). Quite by themselves stand the sayings concerning the Son
(42), in their

FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS
of

167
offences

Man and
The

(53)

the Holy Spirit (34^), concerning and the permanence of the Law (51).
first

impression that one receives when one

For the most surveys the content of Q is twofold. part, the subject-matter seems to fall asunder into
disconnected parts, and this impression cannot be
quite overcome ; but as soon as one calls to mind the content of the three gospels and compares Q with it, then Q appears to be undoubtedly more homogeneous than

amy of

the three.

What
Mark
!

varied material stands in

peaceful juxtaposition in St.

and even

in

St.

Matthew and St. Luke, Even if one neglects the

stories of the Infancy,

what a multitude of varied

interests, indeed of discrepancies, cross one another in those gospels would ever have believed that
!

Who

all

that St.

Matthew

or St.
if

Luke

or St.

Mark

nar-

rate
itself

stood in one

book,

in each

case the

book

as a single ? these whole with gospels, the complete Compared content which we have assigned to Q is simply Here a great number of points of view homogeneous. and tendencies which prevail in those gospels are

had not been handed down to us

absolutely wanting.
It is characteristic of St. Mark that he emphasises the supernatural in our Lord, the Son of God of St. Matthew, that he treats a great part of the gospel material from the point of view of the primitive community, giving to his whole narrative a
;

Jewish and yet anti-Judaistic tone in the interests of and of St. Luke, that with the largeapologetics
;

heartedness of a Greek he thrusts those


display Jesus
as

the

traits, which Great Healer, into the fore-

168
ground.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

But in Q all these tendencies are absent. Here we receive rather the impression that the

author is simply concerned with the commandments of our Lord, and aims at giving a description of His message, in which description he appears to be influ-

enced by no special and particular bias. Perhaps we not be mistaken in that his selection may supposing

was also determined by his desire to illustrate our Lord's message and His witness to Himself, in their main and characteristic features, by specially striking

The Messiahship (Divine Sonship) having examples. been established in the introduction, is in the body
of the work presupposed as a fact that admits of no
further controversy.

The
Galilee,

geographical
It

horizon

of

is

bounded by

and indeed much more


is

strictly so than that

of the synoptists.
ever looks

beyond

Galilee.

indeed a question whether Q Reference is made to

section 43, but I regard it as being very improbable " Das viertes (with Schmiedel, Evang. gegeniiber den

drei ersten"

[1906J, s. 45 if.) that this utterance Jerusalem stood in Q as a saying of our concerning Lord. It has been shown above that in section 33 the words (St. Matt, xxiii. 34-36 = St. Luke xi. 49-51)

form a quotation from an apocryphal Jewish writing, wherein they were spoken by the Wisdom of God ^ for so St. Luke (therefore Q) describes the author; nor could Jesus have said that He was sending forth prophets and wise men and sci'ihes. Moreover, in St. Matthew this passage is followed immediately, and without a fresh introduction, by the words concerning Jerusalem St. Luke does not give them (St. Matt, xxiii. 37-38
;

FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS
until

169

xiii. 34). It is therefore in itself very probable that these words also belong to the quotation, and that it is accordingly Wisdom which says TrocroKig
:

It is Wisdom eiriavvayayeLv ra TCKva aov. herself who, by sending forth prophets, wise men, and scribes who had been slain by Jerusalem, had in
rjOeXtjcra

vain essayed this gathering together of the children of Jerusalem (while if ascribed to our Lord this TToa-aKig, together with the lament over the murdered
is supposed indeed impossible).^ Thus, according to the intention of Q, our Lord's own words first begin with Xe'yo) [7a/)] ^1^^^, ov fxt] fxe

prophets, wise men, and scribes to have sent, hangs in the air

whom He

is

'IS^ire

ktX. (St. Matt, xxiii. 39


section

St.

Luke

xiii.

35).'

Hence from
1

43 we can draw no conclusion

somewhat different from that of the sayings of 'Ov rpbirov does not occur elsewhere in Q (cis is the only word used) ; verbs compounded with two prepositions are wanting elsewhere. Yet I do not wish to lay much stress upon
style also is

The

our Lord in Q.

these points.

In Q, is accordingly as follows 34-38 was given as a quotation used by our Lord to give force to what He was saying, to which verse 39 was appended as a real utterance of our Lord Himself. This caused some uncertainty in regard to the limits of the quotation. The result was that St. Matthew did not treat it as a quotation at all, but transformed the whole passage into an original discourse of our Lord (and yet with the help of St. Luke we can still detect in 5td tovto a trace of what has been obliterated), while St. Luke has broken off the quotation directly before the appeal to Jerusalem, and omitting the latter here, has given it in a different place as a saying of our Lord Himself. If this explanation is correct, then it further follows that St. Luke has torn asunder verses which stood together This is important for we see that it is not always the case in Q. that St. Matthew has arbitrarily combined passages from Q which did not stand together in that source, but that on the contrary St. Luke also has separated passages which were in juxtaposition.
history of this passage
xxiii.
:

The

St.

Matt,

170

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

concerning any close connection of our Lord's mission with Jerusalem nevertheless there is a strong balance of probability that sections 33 and 43 were spoken in

Jerusalem, where it is more natural that they should have been delivered than in Galilee.^ which is thus never menTogether with Jerusalem

tioned in

except in the against the Pharisees the Passion and all references to the Passion are absent

Woe

The single isolated saying concerning the of one's own cross (46) would at the best, if taking up it really stood in Q, only afford an indirect reference to the Passion, and the sign of the prophet Jonah (30),
from Q.
according to the account in Q, had absolutely nothing to do with the Passion. So far therefore as we can

judge

all that after the 'precedent

form

the

mam theme of the Synoptic Gospels the Passion

of

St.

Marie goes

to

and the narratives and discourses leading up to the Passion was completely wanting in Q. Herein lies the fundamental difference between the gospels and Q. The latter, in fact, was not a gospel at all in the sense that the Synoptics are. The narrative of this source must therefore have been wanting in historical climax no thread of

have run through it, bindthe end the to ing beginning for what climax or what thread of continuity could have existed where
historical continuity could
;

the Passion, and the thoughts connected with the Thus Q in Passion, were left out of consideration ?

main could only have been a compilation of There is sayings and discourses of varied content.
the
one must remember that we are told in St. Mark vii. 1 There came together to Him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem" cf. vii. 5, &c.
1

Still
' '

that

FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS
no force
St.

171

in the objection that St. Matthew and Luke may have omitted the parts of Q which dealt with the Passion. If from St. Luke xvii. 34 to

the end only two isolated verses can be proved to be derived from Q, or if from St. Matthew xv. 15 to the

end only a very few isolated verses in chaps, xvii., and a couple or so of longer passages in chaps, xxiii. and xxiv. belong to Q, this cannot be A source which afforded the merely accidental. such evangelists ample and excellent material for the first half of their works would have been used by them elsewhere if it had contained further material. But may it not be that one of the two evangelists for some reason or other departed from the source while the other still followed it, so that the matter
xviii., xix., xxv.,

peculiar to him in the concluding third part of his work was derived from the source ? This is
possible,

and

it will

the

matter

which

therefore be necessary to examine is peculiar to each of the two

Until this gospels, keeping this contingency in view. is done, the verdict which the facts before us only
allow us to give
is

that

Qis a
the

compilation of discourses

arrangement of which has no reference to the Passion, with an horizon which is as good as absolutely bounded by Galilee, without any
clearly
discernible
bias,

and sayings of our Lord,

whether apologetic, didactic^

ecclesiastical, national,

purpose at
instruction

all

that of imparting catechetical can be discovered in the compilation, it

beyond

or anti-national.

So far as any

consisted
certain

perhaps in an endeavour to give, with a

the

degree of completeness, a representation of main features of our Lord's relationship with

172

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Perhaps an investigation of the

His environment.

order of the sections will help us further.

IV.

The

Order of the Sections

Since we may regard St. Matthew as independent of St. Luke and vice versa, it follows that if they agree in the order in which they present sections

which

do not occur in

St.

Mark, that order

is

This thereby proved to be the order of the source. the has been critics, by rightly emphasised point

and has lately been investigated by Wernle and Wellhausen (" Einleitung," s. 65 ff.). In the first place, the first thirteen sections show an astonishing coincidence in order
:

St.

Luke.

St.

Matthew.

(1)

iii.

7-9, 16, 17
20,

(2) iv.

(3)

vi.

1-13 21-23

= iii. 7-12 (The Baptist). = iv. 1-11 (The Temptation). = V. 2-4, 6, 11, 12 (Introduction
to

Sermon

the

Beati-

(4) vi.

29

= V.
= V.
= V.

tudes). 39, 40

cheek,

(Blow upon the robbery of garto

ment).
(5) vi.

30

42

(Give

him

that

asketh).
(6) vi.27,28,35^1

32, 33, 36
(7) vi.

4448 (Love your enemies).


12 (Golden Rule). 1-5 (Judge not; Mote and Beam).

31

(8) vi.37, 38, 41,42

= vii. = vii.

ORDER OF SECTIONS
[(9) vi.

173

[(10)

vi.

39 40
43,

= X.
44

(11)

vi.

14 (Leaders of the Blind).] 24, 25 (The disciple not above his master).] =vii. 16-18; xii. 33 (The good

= XV.

(12)

vi.

46-49

= vii.

and corrupt 21, 24-27

tree).

(The house

(13)

vii.

1-10

= vii.

upon the rock and upon the sand).


28
;

viii.

clusion

5-10, 13 (Conof sermon ; the

centurion at Capernaum).

must accordingly judge that Q began with the preaching of the Baptist, that then there followed the story of the Temptation, then important parts
of the so-called Sermon on the Mount,^ which con" After Jesus had spoken these words he entered into Capernaum," ajid was
cluded with the notice
:

We

immediately succeeded by the narrative of the centmrion


at

question in

The subject-matter Capernaum. St. Luke, chaps, iii., iv., vi., vii.,
entirety

in
is

found in

(with the exception of St. Luke vi. 39, 40) in St. Matt., chaps, iii., iv., v., vii., and viii. with very few changes in order.
its

St. Luke now introduces in vii. 1835 (sections 14 and 15) the discourse concerning the Baptist ; St. Matthew does not give this discourse until
^

St.

Luke and

St.

Matthew

differ

concerning the

site.

The

former says
iirl

(v. 1) dv^^Tj els

But was present, and that the sermon was nevertheless addressed to the disciples. These statements must have occurred in the
rdirov TreSivov.
(tfxXos)

rb 6pos, the latter (vi. 17) Kara^as ^(rrtj both agree in stating that a great multitude

source.

174
chap,
xi.,

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


and he
inserts

beforehand

the

sections

concerning discipleship and the charge to the disin this gospel they occur in viii. 1922 ; ciples in St. Luke these sections (1622, ix. 37, 38, and x.
;
;

24, 34, 38, 45, 46, 57) are found dispersed through-

out

chaps, ix. (2), 57-60; x. 2 (3), 5, 6 (7''), 9, 12, 11, (16); xii. 2-9, 51, 53; xiv. 26, 27; xvii. 33.

At
upon

first

this

glance it seems impossible to throw light chaos and to discover the order of the
as soon
as

source, but

one
in

sets

down the
is

related

sections

side

by
:

side

lists

the chaos

falls

into

order in an astonishing fashion, as


following table
(16) (St.

seen from the

ORDER OF SECTIONS
Q.
It
is

175
as

now

still

more uncertain whether


;

^ whole they belong here for when they are omitted in order, the reno disturbance there is absolutely

maining nine sections follow one another in exactly the same succession both in St. Matthew and St. It is at the same time shown that these sections, Luke. which are indeed closely allied in subject-matter, were
not first brought together by St. Matthew, but that in Q they stood in the same order of succession as that of the first gospel; for it is clear that St. Luke also

found them in this order.


chaps, ix., X., xii., order of succession.^
xiv.,

It is

noteworthy that

this evangelist has distributed them throughout the


xvii.,

without altering their

to

Seeing then that the sections (16), (19), (24) are be left on one side, and are perhaps to be

altogether excluded from Q, the only question which remains open in connection with the order of the
sections (l)-(8), (11)-(15), (17), (18), (20)-(22), (34*),
is whether the (38), (45), (46), (57), in St. Matt, viii.x. originally

to

material belonging stood before or

As it concerning the Baptist. that St. Matthew (and not St. Luke) has proved reproduced the arrangement of the source in chapters
after the discourse
is

viii.x., it is

follow

him

accordingly probable that we must also here, and conclude that in Q the discourse

concerning the Baptist came after the discourse to the disciples. Now follow, in St. Matt. xi. 21-23 and xi. 25-27
^

Nevertheless internal reasons

demand

that at least section 21

be assigned to Q. 2 In an important passage we thus gain insight into

St.

Luke's

method

of composition {vide supra, p. 169, note

2).

176
as in St.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

Luke x. 13-15 and x. 21-22, the Woe denounced against the Galilean cities (section 23), and the great thanksgiving to the Father (section 25). But just as in the case of sections 9 and 10, we
cannot

form

any judgment
is

as

to
all

their

original

position in Q, so

it

also

with

those passages

of the Sermon on the

Mount which we have not


If

already given in the above list. in the order of St. Matthew, we


table
:

we take them

have the following

St.

Matt.

ORDER OF SECTIONS
able results, if

177

we only neglect the eight short sayings 84^ 42, 44, 50, 53, 55, 59) and the (sections 26, then we find in the short parables (40 and 48)
following order
:

St. Matt. xii. 22, 23, 27, Beelzebub (section 29). St. Luke xi. 14, 19, 20, 23-26. 28, 30, 43, 45
;

St. Matt. Sign of Jonah (section 30). St. Luke xi. 16, 29, 30, 31. 41, 42 Woe against the Pharisees (section 33).
;

xii.

38, 39,

St.

Matt.
;

xxiii. 4, 13, 23,

25, 27, 29, 30-32,

34-36

St.

Luke

xi. 46,

52, 42, 39, 44, 47, 49-51.

The coming

of the

Lord
;

as a thief ; the trustworthy

and the untrustworthy steward (section 37). St. Matt. xxiv. 43-51 St. Luke xii. 39, 40, 42-46.
Jerusalem, Jerusalem (section 43).
St.

Matt,
St.

xxiii.

37-39

St.

Luke
22
;

xiii.
?

34, 35.
(section 54).

How

oft

shall I forgive

Matt.

xviii. 15, 21,

St.

Luke
St.

xvii. 3, 4.

The Parousia
;

(section 56).

Matt. xxiv. 26, 27, 28,


35.
St.

37-41 St. Luke xvii. 23, 24, 37, 26, 27, 34, To him that hath shall be given (section 58).
Matt. XXV. 29
Since
;

St.

Luke

xix. 26.

we have already

seen above that St.

Luke

has

concerning arbitrarily separated Jerusalem from the Woe against the Pharisees, it is evident that the correspondence in order in this list
only disturbed by the question concerning forgiveness and by the splitting up of the discourse,
is

the

section

St.

Matt. xxiv. 2651

(St.

Luke has divided

it

and

placed the second half before the first) ; otherwise the It is of importance for our knoworder is identical.

178

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

ledge of Q to notice that discourses which had the end of the world in view evidently stood at the conclusion of this source, such discourses, namely, as the

Woe

against the Pharisees,

the prophecy of judg-

ment upon Jerusalem, the coming of the Lord as a thief in the night, the faithful and unfaithful steward,
the warning against false Christs with the announcement of the Parousia, lastly, the saying, To him " that hath shall be given (with its converse). From this investigation, which has been carried

somewhat further than that of Wernle and Wellhausen, we derive the following results
:

(1)

The

sections

distinguished

above

by the

numbers 1-8, 11-15, 30, 33, 34% 37, 38,


identical in St.

17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29,

43, 45, 46, 56, 57, 58, permit of being arranged in an order which is practically

Matthew and

St.

Luke

they thereessential

fore certainly belong to a single source.^ (2) This source had an order which in

points is natural follows


:

and

intelligible.^

It proceeded as

The preaching of the Baptist. The story of the Temptation (probably preceded by the Baptism of our Lord with the
voice
1

from heaven, vide

infra).

I have long adopted an extremely sceptical attitude towards the hypothesis which assumes a single definite source for the material (not in St. Mark) which is common to St. Matthew and

but the facts which are here disclosed seem to St. Luke be conclusive (against Hilgenfeld, Zahn, Godet, and others).
;

me

to

It is,

moreover, astonishing how superficially and cursorily Zahn passes over this question in his voluminous " Einleitung" (IP, s. 410 ff.). " 2 C/. Wernle, Synopt. Frage," s. 226 ff.

ORDER OF SECTIONS
The most important
the Mount.
parts of the

179

Sermon on

The charge
mission.

to

the disciples concerning their

The discourse concerning the Baptist. The Woes against the cities. The great Thanksgiving to the Father. The Beelzebub section, and (bound up with it) The sign of Jonah. The Woes against the Pharisees, together with

the

pronouncement

of

judgment against
;

Jerusalem.

The warning

against false Christs concerning the Parousia.

the discourse

The coming of
night
;

the Son of

Man

as a thief in the

the faithful and unfaithful steward.

The

saying that to him that hath shall be given, and the other saying that the disciples

should govern the twelve tribes of

Israel.^

The
35,
36,

sections 9, 10, 16, 19, 24, 26-28, 31, 32,

34^

39-42, 44, 47-55 do not admit of being It is therefore only mmx arranged in a definite order.
or less probable that they belong to Q, and therefore in an investigation into the characteristics of Q they ought
to
(St.

be

regarded

as

of

only

secondary

authority

Matthew and St. Luke can well have depended upon more than one source for their common matter
which
is

not found in

St.

Mark

still

the difference

in order is
*

no proof

in favour of such

an hypothesis).
Matthew Luke
at a
is

St.

Luke gives

this saying (59) at the end, St.


(in

very much earlier point the right here.

chap, xix.)

perhaps

St.

in

180

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


:

In this connection the following points must also be

noted These

Eighteen of them have been already included above among the very short sayings, and seven of them are short parables

them

twenty-seven sections short, indeed very short.^

are

almost

all

of

or only similitudes (9, 19, 31, 39, 40, 41, 48) which could easily change their place ; only five sections (27, So far as their 28, 35, 36, 54) are of greater extent.

content

is

concerned, the majority of these sayings


suit the character of

admirably

Q and give sion for postulating another source. (3) From the discourse to the disciples

no occathe

{i.e.

subject-matter in St. Matt, x.), and from the fact that in the first gospel the sections 33 and 43, as well as sections 56 and 37, are correctly given in
juxtaposition, preserved the

we conclude that

St.

Matthew has

order of the source more faithfully than St. Luke.^ It therefore follows with no slight
probability that those parts of the Sermon on the Mount which ai'e common to St. Matthew and St.

Luke, and yet do not stand in the same order in the

two gospels

47, 49, 51, 52),

(sections 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 41, in the order of St. occurred in

Matthew, and that St. Luke has separated and distributed them throughout his work for reasons which can no longer be discovered (in the belief that he
shall be justified in could trace a better rd^i^). deciding similarly concerning other sections which
^

We

Together they form scarcely a quarter of the whole contents

of Q.
2

We now

recognise that the great composite discourses of


their outline already given in Q.

St.

Matthew had

ORDER OF SECTIONS
occur in different positions in St.

181
St.

Matthew and

in regarding St. Luke in this matter as in the extreme. capricious no gospel like St. Matthew, St. Mark, was (4)

Luke, and

and

St.

Luke, and yet

it

was not a merely formless

compilation of sayings and discourses of our Lord without any thread of connection. Rather we learn

from the beginning and the conclusion (eschatological discourses) that it possessed a certain definite arrangement of subject-matter and the outlines of a
It was, however, in no sense a chronological order. biographical narrative, but essentially a collection of This is the very reason that it makes no discourses.^

mention of the Passion. Nor need we be surprised at the composition of a work which confined itself to the discourses and sayings of our Lord ; indeed, if one keeps in mind the contemporary Jewish fashion,
the composition of such a work is a priori probable, and, moreover, finds support in Christian terminology, which from the first distinguished between the acts
1 The seven narratives {vide supra, p. 163), which at least were included in Q, do not alter this character ; for in five of these the important feature is clearly a saying of our Lord, and the story is cursorily narrated only in order to give the occasion of the utterance. It is otherwise with the story of the Temptation, and, as it seems, with the narrative concerning the centurion. But the inclusion of the former becomes at once intelligible if the story of the Baptism was also included ; in this case we must conceive of Q as a compilation of sayings which received its necessary

determination, and thereby an historical character, in that it was prefaced by an account of the consecration of Jesus as the Messiah.

This hypothesis is corroborated by the strongly Messianic character of the story of the Temptation in Q {vide the following note). Accordingly, only the story of the Centurion seems to fall outside
the framework of Q.

Yet vide

infra.

182

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


i.

and the sayings of Jesus (vide


Acts
1
SiSdcTKeiv

Trepl Is St.

Epistles ; wavrcov wv yjp^aTO 'Irjaov^ Troielv re Kai Luke here thinking of his two main
?

St.

Paul's

sources, St.

Mark and Q

cf.

St.

Luke

xxiv. 19, &c.).

V.

Can

we Discover any Trace of Q in the Matter that is Peculiar to St. Matthew


OR TO St. Luke, or in Indirect Evangelic Tradition ?

istics,

Seeing that Q is so neutral in linguistic characterwe can scarcely use arguments based upon phenomena of style and vocabulary in order to

Nor prove that passages in question belong to Q. does an analysis based upon phenomena of subjectBut one thing is matter promise much success.
we can distinguish numerous passages in both gospels which certainly could not have stood in Q.
at all events possible
:

Let us begin with St. Matthew and with the Sermon on the Mount.^ Of the passages that stand in St. Matt, v.vii. and are wanting in St.
Luke,
world.
it
is

possible

that
hill),

v. v.

1%
41

City upon

16 (Light of the (If one constrain

1 Wellhausen (" Einl.," s. 74) judges that the Baptism of our Lord by St. John could not well have been absent from Q. There is by no means little to be said in favour of this theory {vide supra, " and note that both " dv-qx^V " and " virb toO irveiiiaTos in the story of the Temptation can only be understood in the light of the story of the Baptism) and in this case there is much that is attractive in the hypothesis that the original form of the voice from heaven in But WeUSt. Luke is to be derived from Q {vide Excurs. II.).

hausen's combination of the temptation by the devil with the temptation by St. Peter (St. Mark viii. 32, 33), and his confident

OTHER TRACES OF Q

183

thee to go one mile, then go two), vi. 34 (which finishes ofi' the verses 2533 belonging to Q), and
vii.

22,

23 (Many

will say to

me

in that day, &:c.)

20-24, 27-31, 33-38, 43; vi. 1-8 (14, 15), 16-18; vii. 6-15, must have been wanting in that source, because
;

stood in

all else,

namely,

v. 17, 19,

these passages are strongly


characteristics of St.

marked by the peculiar Matthew (better righteousness,

formal directions concerning almsgiving, prayer, and fasting, &:c., vide supra, p. 167) and because St. Luke offers absolutely no parallel to them. The

by no means
is

discernible

nothing
certainly

slight degree of homogeneity which in the passages in question (while similar is found in the passages which

proof
all

belong to Q) is in itself a strong that they are alien to Q. They indeed partake of that controversial attitude towards

Judaism which is a peculiar characteristic of St. Matthew. The same may be said of the sayings concerning Of the parables the Sabbath in xii. 5 ff., 11 f. peculiar to St. Matthew in chap. xiii. the Buried Treasure and the Pearl (verses 4446) may have stood in Q, because they are similar to the Mustard Seed and the Leaven ^ but we have no certainty that this was so, especially as they are
;

assertion that the C7ra7e Saraj'a of St. Matthew is derived from the record of our Lord's repulse of St. Peter, are rash. Wellhausen's

other conjecture that a trait in the story of the Baptism, in which


St.

Matthew

differs

from

St.

Mark, namely,

St.

John's objection

to baptize our Lord, had its origin in Q, is destitute of all foundation and is, according to Q, section 14, improbable.
1

So Wernle, "Synopt. Frage,"

s.

187.

184
separated
like
is

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


from the
latter

pretation of the parable

parables by the interof the Tares and seem


St.

an appendix added by

Matthew.

No

one

Tares and likely to claim the parables of the of the Draw-net for Q, any more than the concluding

passage

(xiii.

51

f.)

of the collection of

parables in chapter xiii. The story of St. Peter's


is

walking on the sea a of narrative entirely secondary (xiv. 2831) character, likewise the words addressed to St. Peter
concerning the Rock upon which the Church would be built (xvi. 1719), perhaps also the story of the coin in the fish's mouth (xvii. 24-27), certainly
(xviii.

the

discourse

on

discipline
xviii.

16-18).

Q ; that the parables of the Great Supper (xxii. 111) and the parable of the Talents belong to Q is not impossible, as we
the
little

Possibly ones) stood in

in the Church 10 (The angels of

but we can arrive at no have seen (pp. 119 fF.) on this above all, we can no longer certainty point All restore the form in which they stood in Q.^ the parables and discourses that occur that remains

the last chapter of St. Matthew preceding the must probably be kept distinct from Q, Passion for they present no indication of relationship to
in

that
1

source.^

As

for

the

narratives peculiar

to

The order in which the parable of the Talents occurs in the two gospels is in favour of its belonging to Q ; for it is found in St. Matt. XXV. and in St. Luke xix., thus in both cases it follows the discourse concerning the Parousia, St. Matt. xxiv. and St,
Luke
Matt.
*'

xvii.

This

is

not so in the case of the Great Supper


xiv.).

(St.

xxii.

and

St.

Luke

* Naturally, in the case of many parables and discourses, the possibility" of such relationship cannot be disputed.

OTHER TRACES OF Q

185

the account of the Passion in St. Matthew, it would be a most arbitrary proceeding to assign
these to Q, seeing that even the prophecies of the Passion are wanting in this source and that these passages of St. Matthew are secondary or even
tertiary in character.

In
can

St.

Luke the

situation

is

not different; we

state

with considerable

and such passages that are


did not stand in
trast

probability that such peculiar to St. Luke


discourses,

all

the narratives,

and parables which


love
for
sinners,

specially

emphasise

the

con-

between the poor and the rich and our Lord's

and are

so

characteristic
these,

of St.
there

Luke''s
is

peculiar genius.

Apart from

peculiar to this gospel which may possibly have belonged to Q ; but I have sought in vain for any clear principles upon which a probable
is

much

that

is a priori probable, indeed quite certain, that much which occurs only in St. Matthew or in St. Luke is derived

proof of such relationship could be based. must content ourselves with this. It

We

from Q, but except the parable of the Mustard Seed which grows into a great tree and this has been

by us already assigned to Q, though it also occurs in St. Mark I believe that there is no part of

the subject-matter peculiar to any one of the two gospels which we are justified in definitely assigning
to Q.i

Any
1

one

and assumes that the apostolic source

that adopts the standpoint of Resch " existed for


in this connection than

We

must therefore be more discreet


other scholars.

Wemle and many

186

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


by
side with

centuries side

our gospels, and with them


tradition, will

exercised influence

upon the evangelic

passages of Q in the gospel He, however, who sayings found in the Fathers. cannot convince himself that there is any proof, or

attempt

to discover

possibility of proof, that the later tradition has been influenced by the sources of our gospels, will hope for

very

little

from the examination of the " Agrapha "

and related material.

Nevertheless, I have investi-

gated afresh the material which Resch has collected The ("Texte und Unters.,'' Bd. 5, 10, and 30).
appearance of light at the Baptism (Bd. 30, Heft 34, s. 36), which is a very early tradition and is found in Codd. Vercell. and Sangerm. at St. Matt,
iii.

15

XX. 28
^e

{cf.

the saying found in Syr. Cur. at St. Matt. also the same passage in Cod. D) v/xer?
K
/uLiKpov

XriTeLTe

av^fjarai
;

Kai

jULrj

e/c

/xeiToi/o?

eXarrov ehai (I.e. s. 39) the Logia in 1 Clem. ii. 13, 46 and Polycarp. ii., and in Acts xx. 35 ; the
iv oh oiv ujjiag KaraXa^co, ev Tovroig koI KpLvw of Justin Martyr and others (I.e. s. 102) ; the saying strongly attested from Clement of Alexandria on-

wards

aireicrOe,

(pWh
s.

to, juLcyaXa, koi to. jmiKpa

v/uliv

irpoa-reOrjcreTaL Q.c.

Ill); the yet more constantly


:

yhecrOe Sokijulol TpaireQTai (s. 112 ff*.) ; ^lol rovg acrOevovi^ra^ the saying attested by Origen iirelvcoi/ koi Sia tov^ Koi. Sia Tovg ireipcovra^ i^aSeuovv. the crv kol ; saying SL\l^oopTa<} iSi'^oov (s. 132)

quoted saying

g-oo^ou

rj

180) Alexandria and Tertullian


^v)(ri
(s.
;

(Tov

the
:

saying
elSe^

in

Clement of

cTSe^

TOV Oeov
/jlov

eyyv^

182) ; tov iyyv^ iraTpo^ (MS.

(tou (s.

tov aSeXcpov crov, the saying in Origen o


:

6 Se juaKpav irvpo^),

OTHER TRACES OF Q

187

these air e/uLov fxaxpav airo t^? ^acriXeia^ (s. 185) are passages which could be offered for consideration
here.
It is indeed most improbable that the interpolations found in some manuscripts of the gospels, of which two examples have been given at the beginning of the above list, are derived from Q. Seeing that they can have to the original text either of belonged scarcely
St.

Matthew or

which case only could there be any real question concerning their origin from Q they must therefore have been derived either from other To suppose written gospels or from oral tradition. that they were derived directly from Q, the source of
tions in
in

D)

St.

Luke

(cf.

especially the interpola-

St. Matthew and St. Luke, would be to assume a remarkable accident without any justification, seeing

that these passages show no relationship in subjectmatter with Q. The quotations in the Acts of the Apostles and in

of Rome and of Poly('arp more promising material for these time date from a at which still ha-y-e Q may writings been known and when the canonical gospels had not
the epistles of Clement

perhaps afford

yet reached

all parts of the Church, or at least were not everywhere recognised as canonical. It is therefore remarkable that the five sayings which are quoted

in these writings have introductions of essentially the same character as is here seen
:

Acts XX. 35

/uLvrjjiioveveiv

Tov Kvpiov

^Itjcrov,
^]

on

re tcov Xoyoov

avTo<s clTrev IS/laKapiov icrnv

/jLoXXov SiSovai

Xafj-^aveiv,

188
1 Clem.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


xiii.
:

juLoXicrTa

/uLejuLvrjimevoi

twv Xoywv

Tov Kvptov

*ItjG-ov, 01/9 iXaXrjcrev SiSclctkcov CTrieiKeiav

KOI jULaKpoOujULiav ovrm yap elireV 'EXeare "Iva eXcrj^ ovtco TroirjOri6tJTy ad)LeT "iva acbeQn ujmiv cog Troieire,
a-erai vfxlv wg SlSore,

ovrwg

^oOrjorerai vjuliv wg KpLvere,

ovToag KpidrjcrecrOe-

cog

yjpria-TevecrOe,

ovrcog )(^pr](TTvOr]~

aerai
VJULIV,

vjuliv

juiirpw fxeTpelre,

ev

avrw

fxerprjOija-erai

1 Clem. xlvi.

fxvijcrOrjTe tcov

TOV KVploV
eKLV(p'

^JULCOV
rjv

CLTTeV
el

\6ycov tov 'Irja-ov y^P' OvOl TW avOpWTTO)


imrj

KoXov
/ulov

avTu>

iyevvtjOr]
rjv

rj

hva

tcov

ckXcktcov
fjLiiXov

G-KavSaXlarai.

KpeiTTOV
elg

avTcp TrepireOrjvai
OaXacrorav,
r}

Kcd

KaTairovTicrOrji/aL
fjiov
ii.
:

Ttjv

eva

TCOV

kXKtwv
c.

oiacTTpey^at.
/jLvrj/uLovevovTcg

Polyc.

wv

elirev

o Kvpiog
KOI

SlSdcTKCOV
acbeOrjo-eTai

/ULT]

KpLVT,

%a

fXrj

KplO)]T'
eXerjQyJTe'

a(j)ieT,

vjuliv

iXeaTe,

Iva

/iXTp(p

JUiTpeiT, aVTljULTpt]0r](r6Tai VfllV

KOI

OTl'

jJ.aKapioi

ol

irTcovoi Kai
ecTTiv

ol Sicoko/ulcvoi eveKeu oiKaioavvtig^ oti avToov

Oeov. r} ^aa-CXela tov 1 Clem. ii. iravTeg eTaireivocppovetTe


:

VTroTaarrj

(rojuLCVOL

juLoXXou

rj

VTrOTaarcrovTeg,

rjoiov

oioovTeg

Xajm/SdvovTeg TOig e(j)oSioig tov


fxevoL Koi irpoareyovTeg^

^picTov

dpKOv-

Tovg Xoyovg ovtov


cnrXayyvoig.

CTri^eXcog

Tolg ve(TTepvL(JiJ.ivoL rJTe

There

is

no doubt that

in all these passages the

referred to as a compilation, sayings of our Lord are and the form of the quotations suggests that this compilation was crystallised in a written document tov which bore the title, " 'Irjarov,'''' and

Koyoi

Kvplov

was regarded as giving the authoritative teaching of

OTHER TRACES OF Q

189

our Lord.^ In such a case identity with Q would be But, in the first place, we can practically proved. here only arrive at a certain degree of
probability;
in the second place, close examination of the subjectmatter of these sayings is not favourable to the

" It is more blessed hypothesis ; for (a) if the saying, " to give than to receive stood in Q, why has St. Luke not taken it up into his gospel ? (yet this is

not a very weighty objection) (b) in Polycarp the formula of quotation and the quotation itself (the latter only partly and freely reproduced) are most for Polycarp probably derived from 1 Clem. xiii. has made constant use of the epistle of Clement
;

( Clement. Alex. Strom.,"


;

ii.

18,

is

also

dependent

upon the same passage) (c) the first saying quoted by Clement of Rome in the parts which have no direct parallel in St. Matthew and St. Luke (eXeare
'iva

eXerjOfjTe, a(piT Lva


v/uliv
0)9

acpeOu

v/jliv

o)? Troieire,

ovroo
vjuliv

iroitjO^creTai
ft)?

SiSore,

ovrcog

SoOrjcreTai
vjuliv)

-^^prjcrrevecrOe,

ovroo^ ^^ycrTeuO^o-eraf

may

very

but the part in which it coincides in subject-matter with Q, as we have given this source above, has a different wording. In place
well have

stood in

of

fjLtj

KpiveTe,

ha

/jlvj

KpiOfjre,
cbj

KpiO^crea-Qe

we have

Kpl/ULari Kplvere, It Kplpere, ovroog KpiOrjcrea-Qe.

ev

w yap

may, however, be objected that Clement here has simply omitted a phrase or so, and for the rest has
followed another translation
Iva
1

of
suit

but

fxr]

Kplvere,

kt\.

does

not

at all

his

context.

The

" After having written this I see from " Theol. Jahresbericht for 1905 (iii. Abt. s. 246), that Harris, and lately Lake (in " Hibb. Journ." iii. 332 ff.), have preceded me in commending this
hypothesis.

190

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Q
remains therefore uncertain,
(d)

dependence upon

" Clem. passage of Clement (I neglect Alex. Strom.," iii. 18, because it depends upon Clem.

The second

Rom."*') reproduces sayings which are found in all three evangelists they may, nevertheless, have also stood in Q ; indeed, we have shown that the allied

words
in

avayKV} Si^ ou avOpcoiro)

eXOeiv

tol

(TKavSaXa,

irXrjv

ovai

tw

to (TKavSaXov epyeTai, probably stood

Q
:

{vide section 53).

St.

Mark
oiial t^j

xiv.

St.

21

av-

24
is

Matt. xxvi. as St. Mark


after

St.

Luke

xxii.

Clem. Eom.
oval Tip dpdpiawip
ixeipip'

22
o5

oval Tip dp-

dpUTTCj} iKcivip 5t'

(except that ^p

Opibirip iKelpip 5i'

KaXbu
fj.7)

fjp

Od 6 Vlbs TOV
6p(j}irov

CLV-

added

irapadidorai
6
vibs
T.

avTip
p^6t]

el
i)

iyep-

Trapadi-

KaXby),

[soil.

iva tCjv
jXOV

SoTai' Ka\6yai>T(^
el

dpd.}.

iKXeKTClP

ovK iyevvrjdrj 6

CKapbaXiuaL.

&v$pu}7ros iKeivos.

St.

Mark
&>'

ix.

St.
6,

Matt,
:

xviii.

St.

Luke

xvii.

42

6s

(TKavrCov

first

as in

1,2:
eiTTtP

dvipbtKTov

KpeiTTOP
Tip

fjP

av-

doKlcrji

^va.

St.

Mark, then
ds
'

TOV Ta (XKdv{XT}

irepLTedijpai

fxiKpGjv

Toirwv

Tn<TTv6vT(t)v
4/j,4

5aXa
ir\T)P

iXdeip,
5t'

fidXop Kal KarawoPTiadrjPaL,

tQv

ITLffTevbvTWV,
i<TTiv

crvfxcp^pet

oial
'

o5

KoKbv
TUi

avT(^

avT(^
fj.acrd'^

tva

KpefxijXos

ipX^TO-f-

Xvirtel

ha

tCop ^/cXe/CTcDv

fiaWovel

vrepiKeL-

TcXei
Xidos

avTip

p.ov 5ta(rr/3e^at.

/JLijXoi

6vtKb%

dvLKbs

irepl

top

jj.vXt.Kbs

avTov vepl rhv rpdxv^ou Tpdxv^ov aiiTov Kol ^e^\7]- /cat KaraTTOVTiaOy
rai
els tt^v

TreplKeiTai,

Trepl

ddXaa-

iv
TTJs

Tip

TreXdyei
daXdacrj's.

Tbp TpdxrjXop aiTOV Kal ^pplTTTai,


els TTjP

aav.

ddXaacap,
Toi-

oval
dirb

Tip

KbcTfXlp

ha

(TKavbaXiari
flLKpCjP

tCov

cTKav-

TUP
Ti*}P

odXcop'

yap

dpdyKT] iXdelp to.


ttXtjv

Pa,

(TKdpdaXa,
oiial Tip
5t*

dpdpuirip

o5 t6 (TKdpSa-

\ov ipx^TM,

OTHER TRACES OF Q
The
in

191

interpretation of the phenomena presented the above table is difficult. It is possible that

Clement erroneously understood the saying concerning Judas in a general sense and combined
it

wrongly with
little
;

the

ones,
it
is,

" elect "

concerning offending reproduced by him as however, also possible that not


saying
freely
Si

the

only the general clause, avayKrj iXOeiv ra orKavSaXa,


TrXrju oval ro)

avOpcoTro)

ov to ctkolvSoXov ep-^eTai,

stood in Q, but also something concerning offending the elect in just that double form in which Clement
gives it (this would then be the more ancient form, while St. Mark has introduced the special reference
St. Matthew and St. Luke had St. Mark to Judas) and Q before them, and have on the whole followed
;

the former in that they have reproduced from Q Yet only the general saying concerning offences. this second explanation is far less probable than

the
hit

for (1) it is strange that they have both the same solution of the problem (yet in upon St. Luke xvii. 1, 2, the order is different from that
first
;

in St. Matt, xviii. 6, 7)

(2)

we can form no
;

definite

conception of the wording of this hypothetical text in its two halves of Q (according to Clement)
it
is

extremely tautologous, and accordingly gives

the impression that these two halves were originally


separate from one another and came from different sources (just as it is in the three gospels). Lastly, we have the cKeivcp at the beginning, which tells a
tale.

There is therefore at least no surety that we have Q before us here, however attractive the hypothesis may be and though it may claim the

192

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

support of what seem to be translation-variants. {e) Neither can we well claim for Q that it is the
source of the second half of the quotation in Polycarp
;

for though "juaKapioi oi tttco^o/" (without to? Trvev /uLan) answers to the wording of Q (and of St. Luke), yet
SiwKO/uiei/oi

Gvenev

SiKaioo-vvrjg,

which

is

found

in

St.

Matthew, cannot be proved to have stood in Q.


Accordingly we must reluctantly abandon the hope
of recovering from these quotations, which seem to presuppose our gospels, anything which certainly belongs
to

there

is,

in fact,

no

sufficient

basis of proba-

" bility for the hypothesis that these \6yoi rov Kvpiou " is here one of The case identical with are Q. ^Irjcrov
very moderate possibility, and it is permissible only with considerable reservation to claim the quotations
in 1 Clem,
If,
xiii., xlvi.

for Q.^

however, our investigation of these passages leads to such unsure results, the uncertainty is very much greater in regard to the " Agrapha " which are In all found in writers from Justin downwards.
these cases it is more probable that these sayings have been derived from the gospel of the Egyptians, the gospel of St. Peter, or other sources, than that This specially they were directly taken from Q.

holds good of the sayings discovered by Grenfell and Hunt, and likewise of those in the Clementine
thought certain that "Xoyot kt\.''^ in Clement signifies a book, which must therefore be identical with Q, it will then be necessary to assume a separate recension of Q, which It is in was afterwards amplified from the canonical gospels.
If it is
1

the

title of

favour of this hypothesis that in St. Matthew (and so also probably in Q) the Sermon on the Mount is introduced with the words:
idlSaffKey
airoi/s

X^yuv,

Q AND

ST.

MARK
We

193

Homilies, though it is possible that elements of great know that the antiquity are preserved therein.
gospels mentioned were

read in the second and third centuries, while we have no such knowledcre Therefore in each particular case the concerning Q. burden of proof rests with him who advances the
still

claims of

but with Resch and others of his way

of thinking one seeks in vain for real proofs.^

VI.

The

Essential Characteristics

of the Con-

tents OF Q. Comparison of Gospel of St. Mark.

with the

In the comprehensive chapter of his Einleitung


in die drei ersten Evangelien,"
ss.

73-89, Wellhausen
St.

has

made a complete comparison of Q and

Mark.

Since, according to him, mutual independence is " not to be thought of," he discusses the question of priority and decides in favour of St. Mark. Compared with
St.
1

Mark

the content of

is

everywhere, or almost

we

In 2 Clem. v. Let me bring forward yet another instance. read: \^yet 6 Kvpios' "Eo'eade <hs dppla iv /x^aip Xvkiov. This form of the saying seems to be more ancient than the form which we have ascertained for Q in section 19 idoi) iy<h dTroariWcj v/j.d$ ws
:

But without regard to the fact that 2 Clem, has probably used an uncanonical gospel which was certainly not Q (probably the gospel of the Egyptians), we have already seen above, pp. 13, 174 f., that the saying is perhaps not to be assigned to Q, but that its presence in St. Matthew and St. Luke is to be
irpb^ara iv
fx^a-cp

Xvkcov.

The gospel of the Egyptians (the 2 Clem.) is on the whole certainly gospel, that is, which is used by secondary to Q, indeed to the Synoptic Gospels yet, like the gospel
attributed to another source.
;

of the

Hebrews,

it

has preserved some very ancient elements.

iy4

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

everywhere, secondary, and presents the traditions concerning Jesus in a form which had already ad-

vanced in the direction of definite Christian dogma and of ecclesiasticism. I, on the contrary, beheve the in I show can that following pages that Wellhausen in his characteristic of Q has unconsciously allowed himself to be influenced by the tendencies of St. Matthew and St. Luke, that he has attributed to

what belongs to these

gospels,
St.

and that

in not a

few passages he has preferred

Mark on

insufficient

The conclusions at which I have arrived grounds. stand therefore in strong opposition to the results of
his criticism.

with St. Mark we must base on those passages which certainly our investigation the probable constituents of Q belong to Q in the second line for our must be marshalled
In

comparing

review.
St.
tist,

begins with the preaching of the Bapthe baptism of our Lord, and a summary account

Mark

of a forty days^ temptation of our Lord in the wilderness ; Q, with the preaching of the Baptist (the baptism of our Lord) and a detailed account of a

temptation of our Lord to disbelief in His Messianic vocation, which took place after a forty Even if, as is prodays' abode in the wilderness.
bable, the baptism of our Lord stood in Q, it does not necessarily follow that St. Mark and Q are de-

pendent upon one another for it may very well have happened that at a particular epoch these sections were the regular passages with which the catechetical tradition of the sayings of Jesus the Messiah began
;

Q AND
(St.

ST.

MARK

195

Here, however, the subject-matter the more original, for St. Mark only Q cler^rly introduces the Baptist in order that he may point forward to the " One,"" while Q first describes
i.

Luke
is

4).

of

Mightier

the preaching of the Baptist concerning repentance and judgment, and then only attaches the reference " to the " Mightier One that was coming. Besides, St. Mark is guilty of hysteron-proteron in his description of the

Coming One

as one that

would baptize

with the Holy Ghost, while Q speaks of Him as of one who would appear with the fire of judgment and

would thoroughly purge His floor.^ Similarly, in to it the of the can neither story regard Temptation, be proved that Q is dependent upon St. Mark, nor can it be asserted that in St. Mark the Temptation
is

conceived as being non-Messianic in character,^ nor can the narrative in Q be claimed as a later legend.

If the story of the Temptation, with the voice from heaven in the form, " Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee," stood in Q, it is then natural

that the devil should address himself to Jesus as the

Son of God, and should wish to upset His faith in His Divine Sonship. There is no need to suppose that this must have been a later tradition than the shorter account of St. Mark, which always arouses the suspicion that St. Mark here knew more than he has
priority of Q is here recognised by Wellhausen (s. 74). Wellhausen {I.e. ) makes this assertion but if the Spirit which descended upon Jesus drives Him into the wilderness, where He is tempted for fortry days of Satan, surrounded by the uncanny creatures of the desert, while the angels supply Him with food, this can then be no ordinary temptation but is the period far
2
;

The

excellence of

Messianic temptation.

196

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

told us,^ for legend is not accustomed to work by a method so concise and allusive.^

The Sermon on the Mount now follows in Q. Mark here aiFords us only four parallel sayings.^
writes
(iv.

St.

He

24)

ev

w /merpw

juLeTpeire

/uLTpt]6r](TTaL

vfjdv (just

as in Q, section 8). of connection with his context


^

out Again, in ix. 50 -: koKov to aXa?* eav Se

The circumstances may be conjectured to have been as St. Mark was obliged to touch upon the fact of the Messianic temptation by Satan, since it belonged to the stereotyped material of catechetical instruction (St. Luke i. 4 trepl wv
follows
:

was, however, known to him, not in the narrative of Q but in another form. If the narrative of Q had been known to him, the trait of fasting could not have been omitted by him, nor could he have mentioned the wild beasts and
Karrjx'^O'ijs

Xdywv);

it

the angels in his short summary. St. Mark presupposes a legend where there was no mention of our Lord's fasting in the wilderness, where, on the contrary, it was recorded that He was fed by angels, so that there could scarcely have been a place therein for a temptation by means of hunger. Nothing is said of the nature

of the temptation of

therein

is

uncertain

but

Satan

that

the wild beasts played a role

that St.

them

is

more than probable.

Mark knew something about The "Gospel of Jesus Christ,"


;

according to him, first begins with verse 14 in a double introduction, verses 1-8 and 9-13, he simply says what is absolutely necessary concerning the Baptist and his testimony, and concerning the Divine Sonship of Jesus. The wondrous "^avratrfa" (Theodore of Mopsuestia) of the story of the Temptation in Q is independent of St. Mark, and may have arisen at any time after the year a.d. 30 i.e. it possibly belongs to the primitive tradition. 2 It is quite another question whether the story of the Baptism (Spirit and voice from heaven) was the oldest form of the tradiI am with Wellhausen of the conviction that it was not, tion. rather that it has taken the place of the more ancient story of the But this question cannot be discussed here, as Transfiguration. it belongs rather to the period of development that lies behind Q and St. Mark. 2 And in the case of three of these it is only probable that they stood in Q.

Q AND
:

ST.

MARK

197

TO aXag avaXov yevrjTai, ev tlvl avro apTvaere ; while Q, section 47, reads v/uLeis ecrre to aXa^ [r^? 7^?]* cav Se TO dXag [xwpavQn^ ev tlvl aXLaStjcreTaL. Here, in the first place, we notice a genuine translation-variant, " as the " salt to and next, that Q
interprets
is

referring
s.

the disciples.
as
St.

This

probably the original reference,


again out of connection 6 XJ^i/o? 'Iva viro tov ep-^eraL
iirl

Wellhausen

also recognises ("

Mark

iv.

21 we read

with his context


jULoSiov
. .

Mark,"

82).

In

/ul^tl

TeO^ ou^ Iva Q, section 31, we find ov avTov viro tov juloSlov aXX'
:

Tt]v

\vyviav TeO^ ;

In

Kaiovariv
iirL Trjv

\vyvov Km
Xv^vlav, Kai

TiOeaariv
Xa/uLTrei

irac-Lv

Toig ev

Tij

oiklol.

In St.

Mark

" the " light

St.

represents the teaching of our Lord, in St. Matthew the good conduct of the disciples (this is secondary) but this is only the interpretation of St. Matthew.
it

Luke, who gives the saying twice, gives 16) with the same significance and (viii.

first

in

the

same connection
(xi.

as

St.

Mark, and a second time

13),

according to Q, without reference to the


JTius

disciples.

mQ
Q
St.

unexpressed, and

compared with St.


lation-variants.
airoXvcri] Ttjv

the reference to the disciples was was therefore not secondary zvhen Mark. Here also note the trans-

Mark

writes

(x.

11

f.)

o? av

eV

avT/jv

'

yafxyjcrt] aX\}]v, /ixoiy^uTaL KOL eav avTrj airoXvcraara tov avopa avTrjg

yvvaiKa avTOv kul

probably more correctly, kol eav tov avSpog avTt]<} Km bXKov 'ya/x^Jcr?;], yuvrj e^eXOi] ascertained for the text of have Here we juLOL-)(aTm.
yaiJ.y](Tii

oKKov

[or

cltto

in section

52

[eyco Xeyco
iroiei

vjuliv]

Tray

6 clttoXvcov

TTjv

yvvaiKa

avTov

avTriv

jJLOiyevdrivm,

Km

o's

eav

aTToXeXvfxeDjv

yajurjai],

juoi-^aTaL.

Wellhausen's

lys

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


this verse

judgment on

depends upon the supposition

that the words immediately preceding it in St. Luke Se ecmv tov ovpavov kol Trjv yrju TrapeX(evKoirwrepov
Oeh' t] TOV vofjLOv fxlav Kepaiav Trecreiv, xvi. 17) are to be regarded as explaining, or rather confirming, the But verse statement of the verse concerning divorce.

17 belongs, as
:

is

shown by the

Se,

to verse 16,

and

is

intended to correct the seeming Antinomianism of the words 6 vojuog koI ol 7rpo(prJTaL jae^pi 'Icodvvov, while
the saying concerning divorce then follows without have therefore no surety that any connection. even St. Luke intended that verses 17 and 18 should

We

As for Q, it is inconceivable that be taken together. they stood together in that source, for St. Matthew presents them in complete separation in v. 18 and
32.
St.

Then

again,

Mark

x.

of the saying
his wife

it is more than questionable that forms the starting-point for the version " He who divorces in Q. St. Mark

says

and marries another commits adultery against her, and likewise she that is divorced and marries Q says " He who divorces again commits adultery." his wife makes her an adulteress [because she will marry again], and the new husband also commits That there is a difference here is clear, adultery." but it is not to be sought where Wellhausen sees it.
:

According to Wellhausen, in St. Mark'*s form the adultery lies not in the divorce but only in the but this is quite improbable, for marrying again (1) it is opposed to the context in St. Mark (verses 19), and (2) it is artificially read into the words of St. Mark. And besides, especially in an Oriental
;

environment, a second marriage was sure to follow a

Q AND
divorce.

ST.

MARK

199

and Q does not

Therefore the difference between St. Mark lie in this point, but rather in the

circumstance that St.

Mark

declares the

husband and

the wife, if she marries again, to be guilty of adultery, while Q condemns the wife who marries again and her

Yet this difference is only in appearhas only left unexpressed what was selfevident according to my opinion, this writer intended " He who divorces his wife to say (not only makes himself guilty of adultery, but besides) calls a twofold
new husband.
;

ance

Q
;

she that is divorced together adultery into being The with her new husband are guilty of adultery."
:

^ saying is then one of pregnant conciseness and force ; while the saying in St. Mark is feeble in comparison. Thus Q, section 52, is certainly not derived from St.

Mark

x.

11

f.

It follows, therefore, that neither is

52 founded upon St. Mark x. 1-9, but in the most favourable case it must be assumed that there was in Q an account parallel to that of St. Mark, of which Q 52 formed the conclusion. Nevertheless, the verse requires no other context than that given in St.

Matthew

'^ppeOt]

o? airoXvan

rrjv

SoTCD avT^ aTrocrrdcriov.

Yet the context

yvvaiKa avrou, in Q could


St.

scarcely have been quite like this.

These are the only passages in which

Mark

affords a parallel to those parts of St. Matt, v vii. which belong to Q ; for the theory that St. Mark
1 St. Matthew alone has preserved it so ; St. Luke has abeady modified the first half of the saying in accordance with the form St. Matthew, however, has also offended in that in St. Mark.

he has inserted irapcKTbi "Koyov iropveias an interpolation which is self-evident, and yet, as it stands, quite out of place in the
context.

200
xi.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


may be
left

25 is the germ of the Lord's Prayer on one side.-^


If

of the

we now investigate the contents of the passages Sermon on the Mount which stood in Q

(of the first-class sections 38, of the second-class sections 9, 10, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 41, 47, 49,
52), we notice scarcely anything which might not pass as primary tradition. But Wellhausen is of another opinion {vide his note on St. Matt. v. 1 ff.).

51,

He
in

finds

that just as

runs parallel to St.

Mark

the preaching of the Baptist (the Baptism) and the Temptation, so is it also with the Sermon on
the

Mount,

for

both documents

now proceed

to

give a programme of the preaching of our Lord, Q a manifesto which is evidently an artificial fabrication, St. Mark (i. 15) a short and unassuming general

summary of

preaching. the two is not simply formal but extends also to the subject-matter. In St. Mark our Lord's theme
the same as that of the Baptist, namely, juLerdvoia men are warned to repent by the rousing proclamais

"

the ever-recurring subject of our Lord's And the difference which exists between

tion of the near approach of the Kingdom of God. In Q, on the other hand, our Lord, unlike St. John,
1 The Lord's Prayer does not belong to those passages which can almost certainly be claimed for Q if, however, in a shorter form {vide section 27) it belonged to Q, it cannot have taken its origin from- the single clause of St. Mark xi. 25, which corresponds
;

to the so-called fifth petition. This clause says absolutely nothing about the content of the prayer, and is thus related in form not
vi. 12, but to the saying in St. Matt. v. 23, 24 (which, Yet it of course confirms however, is more ancient in form). the genuine character of the so-called fifth petition as it is found in St. Matthew {vide infra for a more detailed discussion).

to St. Matt.

Q AND

ST.

MARK

201

shows not the reverse but, even in the very beginning of His ministry, the obverse of the Kingdom with it He entices men. He proclaims it of God
;

He begins not with tidings of great joy. a stern warning to the whole Jewish nation but with blessing to His disciples.*"
as

good

Here we
at
all

must

events

first object that St. Matthew did not regard the Sermon on the

Mount

as a detailed substitute for St.

Mark

i.

15,

seeing that he himself has given us in a passage preceding the Sermon on the Mount the words
(iv.

17)

airo

Tore rjp^aro 6
i'lyyiKev

^Irjcrovg

Ktjpvcrcreiu

koi
tcou

Xeyeiv*

fAeravoeiTe'
Still less

yap

rj

BacriXeia

ovpavwv.

Q pretation assigned these passages of Q to a much later position in his gospel, indeed has distributed them
of

can we speak of such an interby St. Luke, seeing that he has

And next, even according throughout his work. to Wellhausen, St. Mark i. 15 contains a flagrant hysteron-proteron from which St. Matthew and
St.

preached the fulfilled and the the time is Gospel of God, saying, of God is at hand believe the and Kingdom repent ye,
:

writes

Luke, and therefore Q, are free for " Jesus came into Galilee and
;

St.

Mark

GospeV

saying it " But if we take this into consideration, Gospel." then the whole question presents a quite different appearance from that given it by Wellhausen in
his
St.

estimating the full meaning of this does not do to pass by the mention of the

When

representation

of the contents of the verse


also has

in

from the very begintaken the of ning up "message joy" into the theme
St.

Mark.

Mark

202

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

of our Lord's message ; he also shows at the very " first the " obverse of this message, and indeed in a much more secondary form than is ever found

But where the word " Gospel never occurs. it seems to me a most extraordinary proceeding to set the whole Sermon on the Mount, as Q has given it, side by side with the short sentence of
in Q,^
St.

"

Mark

i.

Beatitudes^

15.
in

The " gospel "


it
is

in

signifies

the

fact,

appears in Q, hear and see


:

section

14

The
. .

blind

the proclamation which " Tell John what ye receive their sight, the

lame walk

Why
to

should

not

the poor receive good tidings." Q be justified in setting this

message of good tidings in the forefront in contrast the message of the Baptist ? seeing, moreover,
that
its

historical
if

character

cannot

be

disputed.

And
stern

even

more summons to repentance than appears in Q, why need we therefore regard the attractive side
reality

this preaching of good tidings was in deeply set in the framework of the

of the message as something especially secondary ? Again, is not the whole Sermon on the Mount
together with the Beatitudes also a most powerful How indeed are we to summons to repentance ?
conceive
It could

of

our

Lord"'s

prea;ching

of

repentance

not have consisted simply in the repetition of the word " repent," it must have pictured in glowing colours the blessedness of conversion and
^

Wellhausen's
"

discussion

of

the

"

Gospel
2

the

Mark seems to me word much the same as St. Paul.


in St.

significance of the word St. Mark means by correct.

Here, therefore, the difference from St. possibly can be.

Mark

is

as great as

it

Q
of the new
in the
life
!

ANB
And

ST.
this

MARK
is

203

just

what we

find

Sermon on the Moiint.^


:

But a second fault is detected in this sermon it must be regarded as a sermon addressed to the
Christian

community

i.e. it

presupposes the union of

and compact society. This is, in my opinion, true of St. Matthew but not of Q. According to St. Matthew and St. Luke the Sermon
Christians in a distinct

on the Mount was spoken to the disciples (in the presence of the people) it was therefore so given in
;

Now it is true that, if we stretch Q upon the Q. Procrustes' bed of chronology, a discourse to the disciples occupies a strange position here at the
but, in the first place, we do not know beginning whether in Q something may not have preceded the Sermon on the Mount, and secondly, chronological tests ought not to be applied to Q. Q of course did not begin with the end but with the beginning, nor did it conclude with the beginning but with the discourses on the Second Coming apart from this, has no further influence upon however, chronology which is a collection of disQ, heterogeneous simply
; ;

courses

and

in groups.

sayings, for the most part bound together If Q was a compilation of the sayings of

of giving authoritathat (and principally ethical), it is not that this discourse to the disciples was strange great set in the forefront as being the most important of all.
tive teaching

our Lord,

made with the aim

Certainly the Christian reader was intended to say to


^

There

is

no want of sternness either in the Sermon on the

Mount

or elsewhere in

the "

"
^aa/cdpios

stands in contrast to

fearful warnings.

204
himself
:

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

" All the promises and commandments here addressed to the disciples apply to thyself," but it does not necessarily follow that the compiler has
coloured his reproduction of the sayings of our Lord with a view to contemporary readers. Taking first

where

only the sections of Q that are certainly genuine, is such colouring to be found in the Beatitudes

(section 3) in the sa3dng concerning the blow upon the cheek and the cloak that is taken (4), in the

direction to give to him that asks (5), in the command to love one's enemies (6), in the Golden Rule (7), in the prohibition of judging and the similitudes
(8), the Good and Tree and the House (11)? Corrupt upon the Rock and upon the Sand (12)? But, object Wellhausen and others, in the last Beatitude mention is made of persecutions which are also implied in the saying Here we come to concerning love to one's enemies.

of the

Mote and the Beam

a question of principle.

In modern criticism of the

Gospel narrative,
thing which
is

it

constantly happens that every-

at

once

possibly be a hysteron-proteron pronounced to be such with absolute

can

This seems to me to be a form of criticertainty. cal conscientiousness which leads to critical narrowmindedness.
of

Of

course there are


in

numbers of instances

hysteron-proteron suggestion of practical aim


hysteron-proteron, and the

the

aims

the merest gospels or purpose leads to a gospels follow practical

yet

it

saying corrected

after
in

by no means follows therefrom that saying must have been coloured and
accordance with
the circumstances of
its

later times.

Very often the saying receives

de-

Q AND
which
it is

ST.

MARK

205

sired practical significance


set

from the very context in without any change from the hand of the editor. Must it be that Jesus could not have said to His disciples, " Blessed are ye, when men
revile you,

and persecute you, and say all manner of " you falsely ? Surely even in the lifetime of Jesus the disciples must have experienced such treatment again and again, and in the most varied forms and it seems quite impossible that He
evil against
;

should not have spoken about it. cannot understand the objections

I confess that I

that are usually made to such sayings, and in their removal, as a matter of principle, from the genuine sayings of our
.-^

Lord, I discern a most serious error By this method of destructive analysis we are left at last with only
the critic himself; for, considering the likeness which naturally existed between the circumstances of the first
disciples

and of the
little

later

community,

it is

possible

trouble to object to everything as hysteron-proteron. Again, in reference to the persecutions which the

with very

view,
also

it is

to be noticed that

Sermon on the Mount has in we do not read, " So

have they persecuted me," but " So persecuted they the prophets which were before you." In Q, sections 3-8, 11, 12, nothing is to be found which must be assigned to secondary tradition. How
does
it

stand with those sections of the Sermon on

Mount which can only with probability be The direction, " Ask, and it shall assigned to Q ?
the
1 It is another question whether these sayings in certain cases are not coloured by the circumstances of later times this seems

to me, of course, certain.

206

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

be given you," together with the similitudes of the Bread and the Fish (section 28), the Light and the Bushel (31), the saying concerning the eye as the
light of the
(32), the great discourse concerning the anxiety (35), warning against laying up treasure on earth (56), the Adversary and the Judge (39),^

body

the Strait gate and the Narrow way (41), the Salt that had lost its savour (47), the warning against

masters (49), the word concerning the permanent obligation of the Law (51), the saying concerning divorce (52), and lastly, the Lord's Prayer
serving two

remain to be considered.^ In section 28 there it nothing that can be objected to as secondary is, however, well worth noticing that the disciples also are reckoned among the We have Trovrjpol. discussed 196 sections 31, 47, and 52. already (pp. ff.) In sections 32, 35? 36, 39, 49, even the sharpest eye will discover nothing that Jesus could not have said. " The But on section 41 Wellhausen remarks
(27), still
is
;
:

eschatological colouring
St.

in

St.

Matthew

strait gate is
is

here, just as it presupposed as something

Luke disappears in The does in vi. 19.


known, for
it

the needle's eye of St. Mark x. 25, as we shall see in St. Luke. At a still later time Jesus Himself has

become the Door


St.
1

(St.

John
to

x.).

From

the

'

one gate

'

Matthew

passes on

the

two ways/ leaving,

Note the threat with which it concludes. Perhaps also the word concerning the leaders of the blind (section 9), and the saying that the disciple is not above his St. Luke has both sayings in his Sermon on the master (10). Plain St. Matthew has the first in chap, xv., the second in the charge to the disciples in chap. x. (this may have been its original
2
;

position).

Q AND
'

ST.

MARK

207

however, the <gate' in the singular and reserving it for if Lachmann's reading of vii. 13, the ' narrow way which I have followed in my translation, is correct.

The

favourite Jewish metaphor of the ' two ways is not derived from some such foreign source as the Greek

'

legend of Hercules, but from Ps. i. 6, and originally from Jer. xxi. 8." I gladly agree with the last remark,

and am only sorry that there

is

in these days

need to
in

make

it;

but
I

ca,nnot follow

Wellhausen
St.

what
for

precedes.

can neither hold the text of

Luke

the more original (vide supra, pp. 67 f.), nor does it seem to me permissible to bring in the "needle's

eye" here.

The "gate" and


:

the

"way"

need, in

my opinion, no interpretation every one must at once understand what they mean, seeing especially
that they are sufficiently explained by " the many The eschatological colouring is, and " the few." moreover, clear enough in the version of Q (St.
"

Matthew), and nothing secondary can be found in


the simile that
is

used.

In the saying of section 51 concerning the permanent obligation of the Law, Q has given expression to our Lord's attitude towards the Law.

We

may not
ultimate does not

interpret this saying as pointing to an abolition of the Law, for the emphasis
lie

meaning is and earth abide.

on the contrary, the point that the Law abides as long as heaven

upon

this

There is no ground for disputing that this was really what our Lord meant and yet on the in St. Mark no such saying is to be found " Heaven contrary, it is written in St. Mark xiii. 30 words shall not and earth shall pass away, but
;

My

208

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

If it is proposed to bring this saying pass away.'' and it is into comparison with the saying in Q

there can then almost impossible to avoid doing so be no doubt where the secondary traits are to be found. There still remains the Lord's Prayer.^ Whether

Q is, as we have already shown, quesand its tionable, original form is a matter of controIf follow the short form which we have we versy. of a common prayer, and the character given above,
it

ever stood in

in

mains.

a certain sense of a stereotyped prayer, still reBut it is far too hasty a proceeding because

of this to regard the tradition as secondary. Even Mark our Lord directs His to St. according disciples
to pray, and I doubt whether in the East a prophet or teacher has ever given directions concerning prayer

Wellhausen rewithout giving a pattern prayer. marks " Jesus could not give to His disciples a stereotyped form for congregational prayer, because
:

they did not yet form a congregation (" Einl.," s. 87). But does it follow that the Lord's Prayer is a congregational prayer because it is a common prayer ?

"

and did there not exist among the companions of our Lord a close bond of discipleship which even during common life ? Our his lifetime united them in
ja.

knowledge of the nature of the common fellowship that existed in this circle of disciples must be far more
1

than he (sections 9, 10), arouse no justifiable suspicion. A sceptic on the will suspect a hysteron-proteron in the second saying presupposition that our Lord could have said nothing which might also refer to the circumstances of a later time.

disciple

The sayings concerning the leaders of the blind, and that the is not above his master and must expect no other fortune

Q AND
detailed before

ST.

MARK

209

we can have the

least justification for

asserting the impossibility of a prayer being given them by our Lord. It may, of course, be admitted

Lord's Prayer in the form given in St. and indeed even in St. Luke, is liturgical in Matthew, is and character, accordingly a congregational prayer
that the

but this does not hold good of the short form. This in can be that form, my opinion, presents nothing
objected to in point of genuineness. Judged in detail and as a whole, all that is presented as teaching of our Lord in the Sermon on the

Mount
is

bears the stamp of unalloyed genuineness. It at a St. that time Paul was when astonishing

actively

engaged in his mission, and when the problem of apologetics and the controversy concerning the Law were burning questions, the teaching of our Lord should have been still so clearly and distinctly
preserved in the memory of Christians in the simple force of its essentially ethical character.

The didascalia given in the Sermon on the Mount were immediately followed in Q by the story of the Centurion at Capernaum (section 13). How little the
compiler of

words
fairly
s.

Q cared for chronology is seen from the which our Lord here looks back upon a long period of ministry. Wellhausen (" Matt.,""*
in
is

36)

St.

Mark,

of opinion that Q here, in strong contrast to lays the greatest emphasis upon the miracle

wrought simply by a word and at a

distance, and, moreover, he thinks that the centurion may be a In regard to the latter point, duplicate of Jairus.

the

stories

seem to me far too different to allow

210

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

but

of the experiment of deriving one from the other ; Wellhausen's first assertion demands detailed

examination.^
(1)

When we

consider the import of this section in

the context of Q, we cannot but wonder that it stands in Q at all if its point lies in the miracle. On this is falls of of it out the which Q, supposition sphere

elsewhere a compilation of discourses.^ (2) If one looks more closely one sees that the

point of the narrative does not lie in the miracle of healing, but in the great faith of the heathen centurion (just as in the story of the Canaanitish

woman) in the unlimited power of is the word of our Lord testifying

oui*

Lord;

for

it

to this faith, not

the word of healing, which forms the climax of the The word of healing comes in haltingly at narrative.
the close St. Luke.

m St. Matthew^

and

is

not even mentioned in

(3)

This in

itself is decisive

enough, but we

have above perhaps proceed a step further. as left the to the conclusion (p. 77) question open of this section in Q. St. Matthew concludes it much in the same way as the story of the Canaanitish

We

may

woman

kcu
co9

elirev

^Irjcrov^

tm

eKaToi'Tap^u
Kai laOr] 6 iratg

[vTraye], ev Til

eTrtcTTeucrag yevtjOrjjo) <tol


eKelvr].

writes quite summarily wpa with three thus in his own style) (and participles, Kai oIkov ol Tov ii v7focrTp\^ai/T9 7rji/.(pOePTg evpov
St.
:

Luke

^ We may at the same time question whether St. Mark really would have rejected a miracle wrought at a distance {vide the Canaanitish woman).

of a long

In the Beelzebub section the miracle only gives the occasion and mo^Jt significant discourse of our Lord.

Q AND
TOP SovXov vyialvovra.
conclusions
is identical.

ST.

MARK
is

211
in these two

Not a smgle word


This

What very strange. then may we suppose was the conclusion of Q ? cannot tell. Since this is so, it seems to me to be not

We

nothing at

too bold an hypothesis to assume that in Q either all was said about the cure, or that in this

source there

stood
in St.

something quite

different

from
at

what we read
alternative
all
is

Matthew and St. Luke. ^ possible, and not improbable


;

Either
it is

events certain that the concluding verse, both in

St.

Matthew and
is

also

in

St.

Luke,

is

suspicious.

surprising that they have both independently of one another given the story the conclusion which we now read.

Neither

it

If the point of this passage lies in a short saying of our Lord, in which He testifies to the receptivity of a Gentile, and if the miraculous cure takes a

secondary place, having been either not narrated at all or described in some other form, then there is

nothing strange in the fact that the narrative occurs in Q,^ nor can it be described as containing tradition

which is secondary to that of St. Mark. The Baptist had already proclaimed in warning tones that God could raise up from the stones children to Abraham, and the story of the Canaanitish woman (St. Mark)
affords an important parallel to our section.
* In the case of the Canaanitish reluctance in performing the cure.

woman, our Lord

also

shows

2 Wernle (" Synoptische Frage," s. 232) thinks that we are forced to conclude that the section was interpolated in Q at a later time, seeing that it conflicts with the Judaistic tendency of

Q ; but Q does not bear the traces of a Judaism which would not allow the expression of such appreciation of faith iu a Gentile.

212

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


passages in the gospels referring to the sending of the disciples contain much tradition of a

The
forth

secondary character, but it does not therefore follow that the event itself is impossible or improbable however certain it is that we have here an intermixture
of later elements.
St.

Wellhausen says (" Mark.,"


:

s.

46, on

twelve only make an exff.) and afterwards are just as dependent and periment, as the before, although passive experiment is a success.
vi.

Mark

"

The

In fact, Jesus did not institute experimental missions But the fact of the as an exercise for His seminary."

sending forth of the disciples itself is too strongly attested by the twofold tradition in St. Mark and Q to

being summarily rejected, nor is it in itself improbable that our Lord thought that, in the short space of time allowed Him, He must provide for the
allow of
its

widest possible circulation of His message of the near Yet we are not here conapproach of the Kingdom.

cerned with the fact itself ; the question for us is only the relationship of the account in Q to the account in
St.

Mark.

They

are, partly in subject-matter, partly

almost verbally, identical, and are combined together in St. Matthew, but in St. Luke (chaps, ix. and x.)

they

are

kept

parallel sections

In the apart from one another. where the text of Q can no longer be

ascertained with certainty (therefore they are included in brackets in our construction of the text), the chief
difference
is

that St.

while

does not.

Mark allows a staff and sandals, The version of St. Mark seems to
had
arisen in actual

me

to reflect a relaxation which

Q the missionary charge to the disciples practice. was preceded by the story of two men, of whom one
In

Q AND

ST.

MARK
It
is

213
first

offered himself as a disciple

and the other wished

to bury his father (section 17). sake of the two sayings of our
in the
is

related for the


it

Lord that

contains,

" former of which the expression " Son of Man found for the first time in Q. The sayings bear

the

stamp of perfect genuineness.

Then

followed

(section 18) the saying concerning the greatness of the harvest and the paucity of labourers. Wellhausen

" The harvest elsewhere is s. 44) remarks the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. If by the lord of the harvest we must understand that
(" Matt.,"
:

signified, then the prayer does not quite correwith the active intervention of Jesus who, in spond what follows, Himself sends forth the reapers."'' This
is

God

however, it does not seem objection has some weight to me to be decisive against the originality of the tradition the simile of the harvest can well have
:

been variously applied by our Lord Himself. In the to the there would be a missionary charge disciples most important difference between St. Mark and Q
if it

were true that the former speaks only of the


:

private mission in houses, while Q speaks also of the mission in cities. Wellhausen (" Luk.," s. 49) says

public mission in the cities is later than the secret mission in the house, just as the reception into the city is later than that into the house. Accordingly St.
priority over
vi.

"The

Mark, who speaks only of the house, has the Q for it is not doubtful, and is indeed
;

correctly recognised

by

St.

ff.

and

St.

Luke

x. 1

be compared together." cities did not stand in the place of the mission in the

Matthew, that St. Mark are variants which must But in Q the mission to the
ff.

214

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

house, both stood together side by side. This is not redundant, nor is it in the strictest sense tautologous. The

horizon of our Lord*'s missionary outlook included cities as well as households, vide the Woe against Chorazin, cannot therefore see Bethsaida, and Capernaum.

We
is

why directions concerning the mission in cities should be later in date than those concerning the mission in
the houses
;

in

practice, as

shown by the most

ancient records, both phases of the mission coincided in point of time. But the whole presupposition that
to

wanting in St. Mark is According to Wellhausen there is in St. Mark vi. 10, 11, no difference between oiKia and toVo?, this however is not, in my opinion, the
the mission in the
cities
is

me

very questionable.

interpretation that first suggests itself, rather totto^, as usual, signifies city," but the mission in the city and in the house are conceived as one and the same ; and

thus no real difference can be discovered here between


St.

Mark and

be more

The warning in Q, that it would Q. tolerable for Sodom in the Judgment than

for the perverse cities (section 22), presents no diffiI pass by section 24 (vide supra). In section culty.

Son of Mark. Wellhausen's argument to the contrary (" Matt.," s. 62 f.) is not convincing. In section 34*, which otherwise shows
; ;

Q proclaims that words spoken against the Man will be forgiven this is wanting in St. This fact is in favour of the priority of Q
34^

all

the signs of the earliest tradition,

it

is

possible

that the duty of confession of the person of Jesus may be a secondary trait; but it is not necessary to " I will suppose this, and the promise acknowledge Him in the presence of the angels of God" (thus at
:

AND

ST.

MARK

215

the Judgment), sounds very primitive. The same must be said of section 38 it is possible to regard it as a vaticinium ex eventu ; but why might not our
:

foretell the result of His preaching, seeing that other prophets have made similar predictions ? He must have seen how that even in His lifetime His

Lord

preaching had brought division into families and had I separated those who were nearest to one another.
pass

by the

quite certain

closely related section 45, because it is not that it belongs to Q. In section 46

proteron,-^

(Bearing the cross) we have probably a hysteronbut certainly a primitive one. The saying

concerning the finding and losing of the soul (section


47) presents no difficulty.

These passages which we have here discussed briefly have some other parallels in our second gospel, apart St. Mark also writes, from St. Mark vi. 7-11.
iav
ov yap ea-riv KpvTrrov, parallel to section 34* (iv. 22) jUfj %a (pavepcoOu' ovSe eyevero airoKpvchov^ aXX' 'iva eXOi] eh (this looks like a translation-variant
:

(pavepov of an identical Semitic text), again parallel to section

46

(viii.

34)

e'l

rig

deXei

ottlctci)

julov

eXOeiv, airapvr]-

cradOco eavTOV Kai aparoo tov crraupov OeiTco fjLoi, again parallel to section

avTOv

Km

aKoXov-

57

(viii.

35)

6?

iav OeXn

Tt]v

"^v^rjv awcrai, ctTroXicrei

avT7]v'

o? ^'

&v

^ The hypothesis of a reference to the custom that one condemned to be crucified was compelled to bear the transverse beam of his cross is, of course, not satisfactory. On the other hand, we

perhaps conjecture, as Reinach has lately pointed out again, that the crucifixion of the righteous man, in accordance with the well-known passage in Plato and Ps. xxii., had become a typical

may

and widely spread conception.


establish this hypothesis.

Yet much

is

still

wanting to

21(5
airoXecrei

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Ttjv

-^vyriv
arcocrei

avTOv

eveKcv

ejuou

Kai tov

avrijv, lastly, parallel to section evayyeXioVf 24 yet this saying did not perhaps occur in Q at all 09 dv e/me Se'^^rjrai, ovk e/xe Se-^erai oXXa (ix. 37)


itself

TOV airocrTelXavTa

/jlc.

Nowhere here does Q show

secondary to St. Mark, indeed the contrary is the case; for the anachronistic addition, eveKev ejuLov
Kcu

TOV evayyeXiov,

commandments
upon

is Hence in these foreign to Q. to the disciples Q is neither dependent

St. Mark nor secondary when compared with that gospel. It is not surprising that identical sayings should be found here and in St. Mark ; for these

directions of our

Lord

certainly stood in the forefront

of tradition, and could not but be received into every

compilation thereof.

There now follows the great discourse concerning the Baptist (sections 14, 15), occasioned by the question brought by a deputation of St. John''s disciples ;
to this there
is

no parallel

in St.
is

Mark.
so

The

story,

together with the discourse, bears at the same time so

in the first place because of the candid genuineness admission of the doubt of St. John ; then because our

important, and clearly the stamp of

work

Lord's ministry of healing appeals as His characteristic ^ (thus involving the near approach of the King-

dom of God) and lastly, because, together with a most valuable account of the Baptist, we have here from the mouth of our Lord an appreciation of his Only the words, 6 ^e fxiKpoTepo? person and mission.
;

^ The considerations which Wellhausen advances in order to prove the probability that the words are to be understood allegorically, do not seem to me to have much force.

Q
v Til ^acriXeLa

AND

ST.

MARK
the

217

tov Oeov

/ulciI^oop

hysteron-proteron (from Christian community); whether they are really so

avrov eariv, look like standpoint of the

cannot be ascertained, for we do not know how far In St. Matthew it our Lord went in this direction. is indeed very probable that /SacriXeia tov Qeov has much the same significance as eKKXtja-la, but can we

Now follows the passage with say the same of Q ? the wonderful comparison between children at play and the nation which advanced such peevish claims
upon
Wellhausen presses the double ?X0ei/ and argues " The tenses for John and If then John here beJesus are exactly the same.
its leaders.

in section 15,

If this kind longs to the past, so also does Jesus." of argument is intended to prove that the discourse

belongs to a later time than that of our Lord, I do Our Lord's ministry had already not understand it. lasted a considerable time, and His life (in contrast
to that of St. John) was in the full view of the public
eye.

Why

then could
?

He

speaks here

or,

rather, in

not have spoken as He what other way would


?

Wellhausen have

Him

speak

This discourse

also, in

my opinion, bears both as a whole and in detail the stamp of originality. There is nothing that can be
said against
it,

except that
tliat is

it

proteron, but

no objection at

mai^ possibly be a hysteronall ; the less so

" l^ov seeing that the words avOpwiro^ (payo^ Kai oivo" do not exactly suggest the prevalence here of TTOT?;? It is also a good sign that nothing later tradition.
is

St.

recorded concerning the result of the question of John, so that the Baptist is, as it were, left in a

state of doubt.

218
It
is

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


possible that section

23 (the

Woe

against the

The " Swdjuei^ at yevojuevai cities) now followed in Q. " are what make the cities so inexcusable. It ev vfjuv
the same idea upon which emphasis is laid in the answer to St. John in the preceding section (the acts
is

if in spite of these He is of our Lord compel faith rejected, the reason can only be hardness of heart) ; also the statement that Tyre and Sidon would have
;

repented is to be compared with section 30. thus perceive that these sections are closely bound
together, so far as their subject-matter by one and the same idea.
is

We

concerned,

to

following section (25), the great thanksgiving Father, is at present regarded by many critics as altogether secondary, indeed as a Christian

The

the

hymn. I cannot bring myself to agree with them, and I am glad to see that Schmiedel also judges otherwise (" Das vierte Evangelium," 1906, s. 48 if.). As to whether the section is genuine word for word, who is there that can assert this and who can prove it ? But it can be shown that it contains conceptions which fit in with our Lord^s genuine sphere of do not know when it was that these thought. words of exulting joy were uttered. They stand in sharp contrast to the preceding section. Our

We

Lord here thanks the Father that He has neversuccess for His message and theless met with success " can only mean this) in His teaching (for " ravra The rejection and that among the simple folk. on the part of the wise and prudent, and the rejec-

tion

of these prudent ones by our Lord, are traits

Q AND

ST.

MARK

219

which are certainly neither unhistorical nor abnormal (they find their echo in St. PauFs first epistle to the " ravra " " knowIf, however,
" " or " doctrine," the meaning also of " Trdvra ledge it signifies, as indeed we see from what is thus fixed
Corinthians).
signifies

" the Wellhausen is follows, knowledge of God." " In this context there is no correct in saying reference made to power but to knowledge, to insight
:

into

divine

things, to
all

the true nature

All doctrine and


'

knowledge

is

with

of religion. the Jews

7rapa^o(Ti<Si

the TrapaSoa-ig, however, of Jesus pro-

ceeds directly from God, not from men." Our Lord " most probably not here uses the word " Tlar^p " " ^just as in the introduction 7raT}]p juov

is

irarep

nai t^? 7^9'" The absolute use of Kvpie Tov ovpavov " the Father, the Son " is likewise found in St. Mark

32) character
(xiii.

and
of
:

conclusion

"

Q No man

accordingly no sign of the secondary as compared with St. Mark. The

hath knowledge of the Father

except the Son, and to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him," says nothing about an "eternal" relationship between the Father and the Son, but It does not simply expresses an historical fact.

beyond the line which is drawn in St. Matt, 16, 17 (vjuLwv fJLaKapiOL oi odtOaXfxol, otl ^Xeirovcriv kt\.), in St. Matt. xi. 911 (concerning the Baptist), and in St. Matt. xii. 88 if. (a greater than Jonah and Solomon). The union in this exultant
lie
xiii.

thanksgiving

of

elements

of

ecstatic

elevation,

of

which individual examples can be found elsewhere, or is Jesus the only one is no sign of secondariness

to

whom we may

not ascribe ecstatic utterance such

220
as

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


one expects from

The every great prophet ? thus contains that can be objected saying nothing be used as one of the to, and may therefore
most important sources of our
knowledge
St.

of the
find

personality parallels to
parallel
restless

of

our Lord.
traits
;

In
of

Mark we
with

to

separate the whole

the saying,
evangelist

but no
his

this

and hasty temperament was incapable reproducing such an utterance.^

of

The Beelzebub

section (29),

for the sake of the

which is given not miracle of healing but of the


;

Mark in St. Matthew Luke the Markan text is so intermingled with Q that one can only make certain of remnants
discourse, has a parallel in St.
St.

and

of the latter source.^


discover secondary
(pOa(Tv
(j)'

There
in

is

an

inclination
clause
:

to

traits
ij

in

the

apa
Kai

vjua^

jSacriXeia
ejuov

tov Oeov, and in the


e/mov
ecrriv,

saying
juLrj

firj

wv
is

juer
ejmov

/car'

(Tuvaycov fxer

(jKopirlYei,

for in

the former

described as already present ; and in the latter there is a proclamation of the dogma

the

Kingdom

"extra
original
1

ecclesiam

nulla

salus,"
ix.

so

that

it

is is

less

than

St.

Mark

40 ("
I.

He who

not

For further detail vide Excursus


(xi.

The

continuation of

this saying in St. Matt. as its real continuation.

28-30)

is

regarded by

many

critics

But

if it is so,

has St. Luke omitted it ? It was just to him. Besides, its connection with verses 25-27 is rather superficial than essential. The question of its genuineness is not affected by the decision that it is independent of the preceding
verses.
*

and if it stood in Q, why what would have appealed

This

is

especially so at the beginning.

Q AND
against you
if

ST.

MARK

221

But St. Mark also says, is for you"^). indeed only indirectly (iii. 27), that the kingdom of Satan is drawing to its close, because the " strong man " is now bound ; the direct statement ought
not to be treated in contrast as a later developIn regard to the following ment of the thought. has one no yet thoroughly ascertained its saying,

with its context in St. Matthew and Luke it is therefore still less possible to say what was intended by the saying in Q. I do not see " why we must suppose that the saying implies exti'a Even if, as is probable, ecclesiam nulla salus." are to be interpreted in and a-Kop-Trl'i^eiv (Tvvdyeiv
connection
St.
;

accordance with the metaphor of a flock (a-vvdyeiv is also used of grain [section 1] in the discourse
of the Baptist), yet these are well-known prophetic termini techiici for the leading of Israel to God and their alienation from Him, into which we have

no right without
tical significance,

special reasons to read

an

ecclesias-

Matthew thus understood them. Moreover, our Lord certainly more than We had better once spoke of His own crvvdyeiv.
even
if St.

neglect altogether a comparison of this saying with the seemingly contradictory saying of St. Mark ix. 40
(St.

Luke has both

sayings)

for these sayings occur

in

different contexts

and could both of them have

been quite well spoken by our Lord. If, however, it is thought that we must not desert the principle of the critical school, which in such cases aims at
unification, then

we may
is

well ask whether the

more

original
^

saying

not

the

one which

is
first

exclusive
person.

According to D.

The Greek codices have the

S22

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

disciples the preof at Jesus. least can be brought Arguments rogative "" forward on either side, hence " non liquet Lastly, in the passage which is appended in Q, the ironical
:
!

and which does not transfer to the

criticism of the results of exorcisms

is

so paradoxical,

so singular,

and without

all

"

"

Gospel

significance,

that no one will dispute

its originality.

concerning the sign of Jonah (30), if the artful interpolation in St. Matthew, we only remove This evil and is of peculiar simplicity and force.
section

The

adulterous generation must repent, and if in frivolity it seeks for signs, it receives only the preacher of reyet a greater than pentance, as did the JSinevites Jonah ; nevertheless it abides unrepentant. What objection can one wish to make against the genuineness of this discourse
?
^

The sections which now follow, 33, 43 (the Woe against the Pharisees and the announcement of judgment
false

upon
Messiahs

Jerusalem), 56 (the warning against the discourse concerning the Parousia), ;

58 (Whosoever hath, to him shall be given), 37 (The coming of the Son of Man as a thief in the night the faithful and unfaithful steward), and 59 (The
;

a
In
it
2

disciples will judge the twelve tribes), so far as we Section 58 can judge, formed the conclusion of Q.^ ^ The story of the refusal of the demand for a sign also stands in St. Mark (viii. 11 f.), but in an entirely independent form, which cannot have been the source of Q. St. Mark says nothing of the sign of Jonah in the reply with which the demand was dismissed
trait

which with
it is

St.

Matthew

its bitter irony cannot have been invented. transformed, because in its summary plainness

seemed

And

also the
if

to the evangelist insufficient and unsuitable. two parables of the Great Supper

and of the

Talents,

they really stood in

{vide supra, pp. 119 H.).

Q AND
is

ST.

MARK

^23

Sections 33, 34, also found in St. Mark (iv. 25). have been discussed above (pp. 103 ft., 168 ft*.). The flagrant anachronism, which Wellhausen thinks must

be accepted in the case of Zacharias, is in all probability Sections 33, 43, not to be laid to the charge of Q. the same is are already eschatological in character
;

true of 56, 37, 58, 59.

The warning

against false
;

but Messiahs in section 56 mai/ be an anachronism Otherwise they all this does not mean that it is one. bear the stamp of genuineness, and stand in brilliant
contrast to the detailed eschatological discotirses in St. The promise to the Twelve that they would Mark.

rule Israel after the Parousia,

most

clearly

shows the
discourses

Jewish horizon.

has

transmitted

no

concerning the Passion.

There now remain only the

isolated sayings

26,

can no longer dis40, 42, 44, 48, 50, 53, 54, 55. If in St. Matthew section cover their position in Q.
in place of St. Mark iv. 13 (reproach of the disciples), this implies nothing for Q, seeing that St. Luke has the saying in a quite diflerent place The saying itself shows no trace of 23^

We

26 stands

24). later colouring, neither


(x.

do the three parables of the

Mustard Seed, the Leaven, and the Lost Sheep in sections 40 and 48 they give rather the impression
;

The saying that the Gentiles of exquisite originality.^ would sit at meat with the Patriarchs in the Kingdom
1

Fide Jiilicher

"

Gleichnisse II."

s.

569

ff.,

314 ff. The parable

of the Mustard Seed, which also stands in St. Mark (iv. 30-32), is somewhat shorter and more concise in Q than in the second
gospel.

224

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

of God, while the sons of the Kingdom would be cast out (section 42), presents a thought similar to that of The sympathy with the Genthe Baptist's warning. tiles does not pass beyond the bounds which the

prophets of the Old Testament had already reached ; The the figure of the feast is genuinely Jewish.

in saying concerning pride (section 44) the The Mark. statement St. concerning position of the in the and Law the history of religion Prophets

is

also

found

and the saying combined with it wherein " " is marked off, from John until now the epoch of later the arouse composition ; but the suspicion " three stages, Prophets, John, Jesus," are also disin section 14, and there the genuineness tinguished
(section 50),

Here of the distinction can scarcely be disputed. no of with have means judging certainty again we
what our Lord could say and could not say, strange " though this marking off of a period from the days until of John now may seem (the saying must have after the death of the Baptist, and also been spoken
"*'

stands in St.
section 14).

Luke

at a very
it
is

much

later point

than

Besides,

difficult to ascertain the

Does it wording and the significance of the saying. until the and Law lasted the mean that Prophets Has John ? or that until John, they prophesied " " " were the same as they signification they lasted " in force," or as " no more new prophets appeared
"

"^

What is meant by The Kingdom of God is taken by " " storm ? and who are those " who take it by storm ? The original character of the expression is a strong
guarantee for the genuineness of the saying itself. No more can be said. The short saying, " It is necessary

Q
whom

AND
is

ST.

MARK
in

225

that offences come, but woe unto the

man through

wanting we do what context it stood in Q. Is Judas referred to (scarcely so), or has the saying a

they come/"* not know in

clearness, because

The twofold command in secgeneral significance ? tion 54, in which each half is quite independent of
the other,
St.
is

Matthew has made Q

an excellent example of the way in which serve ends which are foreign

to that source.

sinning brother by this means one may be able to save a brother ; again, Q taught (2) that one ought without limitation to forgive personal injuries at the

said

(1)

One ought

to

cmrect the

hand of a

brother.

St.

Matthew has here introduced

the community, and has established a rule of ecclesiastical discipline. Cases of sin, injury, and wrong

were certainly not of rare occurrence in the

circle of

the disciples, and there is no reason why our Lord should not have expressed Himself concerning their
treatment.
St.

Mark
St.

The
Mark
ev

Besides,
last

we have

instances of the kind in


is

saying which remains


it

section
:

55.

has also transmitted


ajutjp

e^ere

iricrTiv Oeou,

Xeyco

vfxiv,

on

(xi. 22, 23) b? av enr^ T(p


Koi.

opei TOVTCp'
juLi]

apOrjTi

koi

/SXi'jdrjTi

ig rrjv

OaKacrorav,
irKTrevrj,

SiaKpiOri

t^ KapSla avroUy

aWa

on

No one can ever earrai avrcp)rylverai, prove that this version of the saying is preferable to that of Q (eav h^r]T6 ttlcttiv oj? kokkov o-Lvaireco^,
o

XaXel

epiT TO) opi TovTco' jULerajSa evSeu

e/ce?,

Kai

/uLera/S}]-

aerai).

This comparison of Q and St. Mark, as well as our examination of the subject-matter of Q, have in no

226

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Q
is

instance led us to conclude that


St.

dependent upon

Mark, and

from

scarcely ever to acknowledge that Q, the historical point of view, is inferior to St.

Mark

in several instances, indeed, they have con; vinced us of the superiority of the former to the There exists, of course, a relationship between latter.

Q and
is

St.

Mark, even a

literary relationship,

but

it

confined to only a few sections and is evidently indirect i.e. both have received and delivered some

tradition in the

same

fixed form, but as a rule in a

different translation.

upon Q

for if there exists a relationship of direct dependence between the two this would be the only
possible hypothesis
this
is

The dependence

of St.

Mark

is

also difficult to establish

for

nowhere demanded, and the attitude assumption of St. Mark towards Q would in this ca.se be almost Whether St. Mark had knowledge of unintelligible. much that has been taken up into Q, whether, moreover, he betrays this knowledge in some passages of his work, whether behind St. Mark (and known to
him) there did not
lie

compilations of sayings of our

Lord that had strong points of similarity with Q, are different questions which might well be answered in
the affirmative
;

but that this evangelist made use of

The most striking be able to prove. instance of relationship between the two the simiQ, no one
will

larity in the order in the need not be in any way

opening sections of each

a literary relationship, as

we have already remarked, but

is explained from the customary order of catechetical instruction in The Galilean horizon, within the apostolic epoch.

which

seems

to

move more

exclusively

than

Q
St.
fact.^

AND

ST.

MARK
as

227
an historical

Mark, must be simply accepted

This definitiou of the relationship between Q and St. Mark agrees essentially with that of Holtzmann, Wernle, Bousset (in a review of Wellhausen's Einleitung in the " Theol. Rundschau"), and of Jiilicher but Jlilicher (Einleitung^, s. 320 ff.) believes that he is compelled to make some important concessions to Well;

hausen's criticism.
is

He

finds that this scholar has

extremely probable that the edition of Q used St. Luke was posterior in time to St. Mark.

by

St.

shown that it Matthew and

In support of this

theory, he adduces the story of the Temptation, of the centurion at Capernaum (healing at a distance, which it is implied presupposes a more developed craving for the miraculous than the

simple stories of healing in St. Mark), the "undoubtedly later" version in Q of the saying " Whosoever is not with Me, &c.," also of the saying concerning blasphemy, and of the saying concerning In these cases, however, he assumes no literary dependence. light.
:

There

is, of course, nothing against St. Mark's having sometimes given a tradition in a more original form than Q, but among the instances given they have been already discussed above I can recognise scarcely one of which this is true. The saying concerning blasphemy in Q, when compared with St. Mark, does not seem " " secondary ; the light in Q had no reference to the disciples (this reference was first introduced by St. Matthew) whether the two sayings, "He that is not with Me is against Me," and "He that is not against you is for you," ought to be confronted with one another at all is doubtful, and even if they are so confronted, the decision as regards priority is uncertain ; in other places, at all The pericope events, the latter trait counts as the more original. concerning the centurion has its point not in the healing at a distance but in the faith of the Gentile, and the story of the

Temptation in St. Mark most probably presupposes a fuller deJiilicher then scription and one which differed from that of Q.
(s.

321

f.)

proceeds to sketch a conjectural history of the origin

which he holds a development by successive steps as probable at a distinct moment in the history of this development on the the plan of St. Mark is supposed to have influenced Q other hand, it seems natural, indeed quite necessary, to explain St. Mark's neglect of so many important discourses of our Lord from the circumstance that a compilation of discourses was already " in the hands of the faithful. Accordingly Q would be both older
of Q, in
;
;

228

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

Chronological arrangement in detail should not be looked for in Q. Except in the introduction and in
the collection of eschatological discourses at the close, the prevailing arrangement is an arrangement accord-

ing to subject-matter, and probably even this does not hold good everywhere. The choice of material and its arrangement were determined by the needs of
Christian teaching

ing

though
in

more especially of ethical teachno means exclusively, for in these by


the relation of Jesus to
all

sayings and

discourses

powers

heaven and earth


''Irja-ov,^

comes

to

expression.

which give a clear impression of His message in all its manifold aspects. The "" " not narrated. are but Q in SvpdjuLi9 presupposed, character occupies the mean position between an

They

are

Aoyoi

Lord and the form of the written gospels, and so Q could not have prepared the way for the latter. and younger than St. Mark however, the common elements of St. Mark and Q are so slight in extent and in importance, that
amorphous
collection of sayings of our
definite literary
;

simply not worth while to take up again and again the hopetogether a linen and a silken texture both of which indeed are something far more than mere collections of I entirely agree with the last remark, also separate threads." with the premise that Q grew by separate stages but I consider it unnecessary to assume that St. Mark influenced Q at a definite moment in its development. Absolutely the only evidence for this hypothesis is found at the beginning of Q, and this is not
it is

less task of knitting

suflQcient.
^ To characterise Q as a mixture of discourses and narratives would be incorrect. Apart from the story of the Temptation, which serves as a prelude, in the other six narratives the story This is especially serves only as an introduction to the discourse.

Lord concerning the Baptist, and


is it

obvious in the story of the centurion, in the Testimony of our in the Beelzebub section. Nor
otherwise with the other three narratives (sections
17, 30, 54).

CHARACTERISTICS OF Q
gospel-type

229
that
the

had been Messiahship

first

come

into

existence

after

the

time

sayings, miracles,

and Passion, proof of created by St. Mark for Q


;

cannot possibly be regarded as a completion of St. Mark''s gospel, and the gospel-type, after it had once

(compare the apocryphal with the canonical gospels). An inquiry into the character of the subject-matter of Q will confirm this verdict. I shall attempt in

arisen, established itself with sovereign authority

what follows

to

summarise the main characteristics

of the contents of Q.

The great sermons, which take up so much of the space and form the principal part of Q (corresponding to St. Matt, v. vii., x.), comprise directions to the disEverywhere
ciples (first in presence of the people, then privately). where the interests of Christological

apology did not as yet preponderate, the interest in


the commandments of Jesus stood in the foreground. can see that this is so from the time of St. Paul

We

to Justin, but

we can

trace it

still

further.

Naturally

the Christians set themselves in the place of the disciples, and applied to themselves what was once said

And yet we find in Q very few traces of conscious or unconscious modification of the sayings.
to these.
Ecclesiastical

organisation and the Church, as St. Matthew knows them, do not appear in Q. The sayings apply to the individual even when they are

addressed to a multitude.
tianity with

The

controversy of Chris-

Judaism

as

between two distinct religious

principles, the opposition of the old and new precepts, are wanting ; only in reference to divorce does Jesus

go beyond the Law.

Elsewhere

it

is

said that the

230

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


abides so long as heaven and earth remain.-^ horizon and Jewish sentiment are also
in the fact that the bliss of the

Law

The Jewish
shown

Kingdom of pictured as a sitting at meat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and in the promise to the apostles that they should rule the twelve tribes of Israel. But

God

is

the opposition to the present generation in Israel, to the " evil and adulterous generation," which would

bend the men of God to


against
its spiritual

its

will,

and the

conflict

rulers the Pharisees, are

nowhere

more sharply brought out than


children of the

in this source.

The

Kingdom

will

be cast out
;

weeping

and gnashing of teeth await them it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha than for Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, and a fearful Woe is
launched against the Pharisees. The expression of friendliness towards the Gentiles who in place of the children of the Kingdom will feast with Abraham

fits

without

difficulty

into the

picture, or rather

offers

no greater

the Prophets. The same (^a similar purport 'remarks apply to the emphasis laid upon the faith of The commandments in detail, the Gentile centurion.

difficulty found in

than earlier utterances of

though they are

so different

a spirit one spirit in its austere assertion of the unique claim of goodness, in its recognition of the absolute sovereignty of

theless breathe one

and and the same

so manifold, never-

Good

that

is,

of

God

in the heart, a spirit

which

declares itself in humility, in trustful prayer, in love


1

The Law and the


lot to suffer

Prophets.

The
is
3,

persecution lays special stress, vide sections

Their

latter stand in the foreground. the point upon which our Lord 33, 43.

CHARACTERISTICS OF Q
and

231

placability, in the renunciation of earthly rights, earthly goods, and earthly cares, and lastly, in the

Neither is there lacking a sense of the necessity of repentance ; for this is implicit in all these commandments (vide supra, pp. 201 and f.),
readiness to suffer.

moreover, strongly emphasised in section 30 (cf. Taken as a whole, we have here our Lord's 23). own rule of life and all His promises a summary of
is,

genuine ordinances transforming the life, such as is not to be found elsewhere in the Gospel. Their noblest characteristic is their implicit assumption of
the self-evidence of their claim, because man belongs to God ; in this lies the force of their appeal. It is not otherwise in the sections belonging to the

great charge at the sending forth of the disciples. The words are austere and stern in tone scarcely
;

the terrifying prospect lightened otherwise than by reference to the " World to come," or by the On earth comfort that the foe cannot kill the soul.
ever
is

nothing but the fate of the Prophets is to be exGod's good and gracious will, and His pected.
providentia circa miniinum, until then all is over ;
is

recognisable only

He

never

when makes up His

account; yet He gives "good things" to those who ask Him for them, and He knows the needs of His
children.

In these discoui'ses and sayings the term " the " is of It Kingdom of God frequent occurrence.^ is regarded as belonging to the future in section 12

(Not

all

Kingdom
1

that say Lord, Lord, shall enter into the of God), in section 16 (Proclaim that the

Q and

St.

Mark agree

in this characteristic.

232

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


of

Kingdom

God

is

nigh at hand), in section 42


in the

(Gentiles will sit

down with Abraham


the
children

King-

dom
will

of

God; but
:

of

the

Kingdom

be cast out), also in section 33 (Ye shut the Kingdom of God ye yourselves enter not in, and

ye prevent others from entering),^ and in 35 (Seek ye after the Kingdom of God, and all these things But in the four will be [there] given to you).

remaining passages
it
is

it

is

otherwise.

said that

the

deliverance

In section 29 from the power of

the evil spirits implies that the Kingdom of God In the had already come among the people. of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven parables
(section 40) it is represented as a growing power, an influence gradually leavening mankind, and this conception makes it possible to regard the new

epoch which dawned with the active ministry of our Lord, succeeding the mission of the Baptist,
as already the epoch of the Kingdom (as if present ; This conception has nothing to sections 14, 50).

Whatever the do with that of the " Church." Oeov Kal ol /SiacrTai. words tov ^aarikela /Bia^eraL, mean, avrrfv they certainly do not may apTraCovcTLv sound ecclesiastical. If, however, any one finds it
:

rj

" the Kingdom impossible to accept the antinomy is future and yet present," argument with him is The sovereignty of the eschatological point useless.

not impaired by this antinomy only this for not be must exclusively in sought sovereignty
of view that
is

dramatic eschatology to which Q also bears testimony, with the result that the message of Jesus
^

The eschatological sense

is

not certain here.

THE PERSONALITY OF OUR LORD


is

233

stunted in the interest of a meagre and inferior Behind and above the dramatic eschatology " that God is guided by stands the " eschatology
unity.
justice in His rewards and punishments, and that His will is expressed in the moral law, to which man

must

offer

himself a living
is

sacrifice.

The proof that Q


and an ancient
source,

essentially

homogeneous

ultimately based upon the nature of its description of the personality of our Here the following observations may be Lord.
is

made
(1)

As has already been noticed above (pp. 170 f.) Even if omits any reference to the Passion. of the probable object the compilation namely, to ^' record the A.6yoi tov kvolov 'I/ycroi/, oi)? eXaXrjcrev

SiSaaKcov'^''

be
it

kept well in view, this

is

still

an

However, extraordinary circumstance. ordinary circumstance is a fact from which we cannot


this

extra-

proves at all events that we have to do with a very ancient compilation.^


escape,

and

sceptic acquainted with the comparative history of religions perhaps find even more here. He will argue as follows The most ancient source which we possess for the life of Jesus knows nothing of His death upon the cross. This is the more strange in that we have here no amorphous collection of sayings, but one which begins with stories telling us of a consecration to MessiahIf ship and of a Messianic temptation successfully withstood. this source had an historical introduction, it must also have possessed an historical conclusion i.e. it must have given a narrative of the Passion if this really happened. Seeing that no such narrative is given, the Passion did not really take place. This doubt receives confirmation when it is once considered that the Passion (and that indeed as a death upon the cross) is bound up closely with the Resurrection, and together with it formed in certain circles a constant element in the history of the Christ (long
will
:

OF THE

UNIVERSITY

234

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

(2) In close connection with what has just been said comes the observation that Q has no interest
in

the

Christological apologetics such as would explain choice, the arrangement, and the colouring of
discourses

the

and sayings
St.

it

contains.

In
St.

this

Q
St.

shows

itself

absolutely different

Matthew, and

John.

St.

Mark, Luke here stands

from

nearest to

but this gospel cannot well be com-

pared with Q, because its chief interest, the description of the supernatural mission of healing,
is

quite

the
in

wanting in Q (though it evidently forms background here). All that is Christological Q, after the Messiahship (Divine Sonship) of
;

before the time of Jesus) and when it is further considered that the Kesurrection and all that is connected with it is absolutely untrustworthy, and is simply the result of the projection of dogma
into the realm of history,

and when,

lastly, it is

remembered how

mysterious and questionable are all the announcements of the Passion in the gospels, and how uncertain and full of discrepancies is the narrative of the Passion itself. If all these circumstances are taken into account, we only adopt half measures in claiming from the ideal story of the Christ only the element of the Passion for the historical Jesus, while rejecting the rest. We must rather make a clean sweep of everything, obliterating also the " The proof that our most crucified under Pontius Pilate." clause ancient source knows nothing of the Passion, imprints the seal of truth upon our critical operation. From Q we can only conclude that Jesus suddenly vanished in a more or less mysterious way. This indeed is hinted at by the words of Q (St. Matt, xxiii. 39),
uncertain,

how

Ye shall not see Me henceforth until ye shall say, Blessed is He I regard it as quite that Cometh in the name of the Lord." possible that we shall very soon have to listen to this or to similar The beginning is already made. In fact, there are absurdities. far too many possible explanations of this remarkable limitation
of Q, and above all, our knowledge of Q far too uncertain to allow of the building

"

and up a

of its conclusion
critical

is

theory upon

such a foundation.

THE PERSOxNALITY OF OUR LORD

235

our Lord has been established in the introduction (the stories of [the Baptism and] the Temptation),
only implicit, receiving its determination from the introduction (with the exception of section 25 and the Announcement of the Second Coming).
is

This of itself is a proof that the compilation in Q was intended solely for the Christian community and was addressed to those who did not require the assurance that their Teacher was also the Son of God. Of course
the apologetic epoch of Christian doctrinal tradition dated from the first origin of the Christian com-

munity,

but

there

is

no

need

to

assume

that

apologetical interests affected the details of that This indeed tradition from the very beginning.
is

just

what

is

shown

in Q.

(3) But although Q was not compiled in the interests of Christological apologetics, it is nevertheless
in discourses and sayings in which prominence is given and special attention drawn to the personality of Jesus. The following

rich

special
is

sections are to the point


(19),

1, 2, 12,

1315, 17, 18,

22-26, 29, 30, 31, 34% 34^ 37, 38, 43, 45, 46, What do we learn from these ? 50, 5Q, 59. After St. John had drawn attention to the One coming after him who was greater than he, and had described him as one who would appear with
the
the
fire

eschatological

of judgment (in complete agreement with phase of the Messianic expectaof

tion),

then probably proceeded to narrate the our Lord, together with the descent baptism of the Spirit and the voice from heaven, by which

He

was marked

off as the

Son of God (the

INIessiah)

236
in

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


the sense of Ps.
ii.

7.

The

use here
all

made
ideas

of of

the

word from the Psalm

excludes

Q then pre-existence and of a miraculous birth. goes on to describe how the Son of God (the Messiah) at once approved Himself as such by standing the
test of

temptation by Satan. i.e. our Lord is Messianic

The temptations
tempted
to
use

are

His

miraculous power to break through the limitations imposed upon Him, the Messiah, to test Him ; to win for Himself acceptance by working a miracle
of display in reliance upon the angelic help that

had been promised

Him
He

to

submit

Satan in order that at one stroke

He

Himself to might become

Lord of the

earth.

resists all these

Now

begin the Aoyoi


is

'Ij/ctoi',

temptations. the question of Christo-

logical apologetics

answered and done with.

In the Sermon on the Mount, which as a whole lies above the level of a prophetic manifesto, the
personality of our

Lord comes into prominence at


describes
set

two
light
it

points.

He

which ought to be

His teaching as the on the candlestick that

may give light to all (section 31), and it is by the obedience to His commandments, which is treated as the same thing as doing the will of the Father^ that
1 In section 6 we read, "That y6 may be children of your in section 25, Father," and "Be ye merciful as your Father" God is four times called simply the Father, or " Father, Lord of heaven and earth" (as compared with "the Son"), in section 27 " the disciples are instructed to address God in prayer as Father" ; " How much more will the Father (6 i^ ovpavov) give in 28 we read,
;

good things," and in


above passage
doubtful here.
(12),

35,

"Your Father knoweth

of all these things."

"My
it

but

that ye have need Father" is thus only found in the must be remembered that the text is

THE PERSONALITY OF OUR LORD


it

237

is decided whether a man is building his house on a rock or on sand ; the mere saying " Lord, Lord," is

worthless (12). The story of the Centurion which

now

follows (13)

is

intended to give an instance not so much of the miraculous power of our Lord as of the faith of
Gentile
;

the

it

wondrous
claims

forces

only shows us implicitly that Jesus stood at His command.

absolute

faith

and

finds

it

not in

Israel,

story, and this among context of the broke the alone, sayings which story stand in St. Matt, v.vii. and viii.x., it accordingly

but

the Gentiles.

If this

gains extraordinary significance, but this significance

not Christological. In the charge to the disciples, and in the two sections which precede it (17 and 18), the special
is

significance of the personality of our

Lord

is

stated

again only indirectly but the more impressively. Now is the field ripe unto harvest (18), but the to be a labourer means to follow labourers are few Jesus wherever He goes, even to the extreme point
;

of destitution,^ and to follow Him renouncing all earlier relationships, even that to one's own father " I am come not to bring peace, but the (17) ; for sword, and to set nearest relations at variance with
Notice that the saying: "Foxes have holes, &c.," sajB nothing of the following even unto death, but only unto the bitterest In section 46 however poverty. What a sign of genuineness
^
!

there the bearing of the cross is demanded as the necessary form of discipleship. It is, as already noticed, the only referred to in Q, As passage iin which the death upon the cross is " I send has been shown, it is not certain whether you as sheep " He that receiveth into the midst of wolves," and you, receiveth
it is

otherwise

Me, &c.," stood in Q.

S38
another'' before
confession

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


(38 and 45).
;

Jesus
those

must be confessed
that

men

for

only

make

such
at

acknowledged Angels (34^). Capernaum " is " lifted up to Heaven by our Lord's ministry in that city, Chorazin and Bethsaida have seen works such as had been wrought in no mighty

will

be

by Him

the

Judgment

before

the

their

other city with the result that the judgment upon unbelief would be only the more terrible.
Jesus begins a new epoch He is the touchthe sign of final decision and judgment
these
besides

With
stone,

for

all.

In

sayings,

the

mention

of

the

Messianic acknowledgment at the Judgment, we find " the expression " Son of Man used three times (17,
34^' ^)
^
;

while

it

occurs four times elsewhere in

(15, 30, 37, 56)" The Son of Man hath not where to lay His head," " The Son of Man will acknowledge those who confess Him," " word said against the Son of Man will be forgiven," " The Son of Man

and drinking," " As Jonah was to the the Son of Man become a sign to this " The Son of Man cometh at an hour generation," when ye expect Him not," " As the days of Noah, so also will be the coming ,of the Son of Man." Three of these sayings are eschatological in character but the four others seem to deprive this circumstance of its significance. We must acknowledge that in Q the phrase has become simply a term which our Lord ordinarily used when speaking of Himself. Seeing that Q pays no regard to chronology, this

came eating Ninevites, so

is

Yet

it is

doubtful in section 34.

THE PERSONALITY OP OUR LORD


source

339

is not suitable as an authority upon which to base investigations as to the period at which our Lord Such investigations began so to describe Himself.

can only be based upon the Gospel of St. Mark. Q, however, gives some help in that we learn from this source how completely and quickly the consciousness,
that there was once a time when our Lord did not so

name Himself, had vanished from

tradition.

There

can scarcely be any doubt as to the sense of the If in Q the only historical passages expression in Q.

word

historical, that

is,

in

the narrower sense of the

of the testimony of the Messiah coming (of the Baptism), and of the Messianic temptation, and if then abruptly " and repeatedly the expression " the Son of Man
Baptist to the
crops

are the narratives

up

in the collection of sayings, it necessarily

follows that in

the term can

mean nothing

else

than "the Messiah."^

The compiler
uses

of Q,

when he himself

speaks, never

he speaks simply of Jesus (not 6 or of " o The latter term is used X^zcrro?." Kvpiog) in the introduction to the sections concerning the
;

the term

The references to the personBaptist (14, 15, 50). of in this our Lord discourse, and in the great ality to the Father, are the most important thanksgiving
in the
^

whole collection of sayings.


still

Our Lord here

the

it is very probable that also in never had any other meaning. Of course one cannot be sure that Jesus always called Himself Son of Man in those passages where Q makes Him thus speak of Himself. It is, for example, more than doubtful that Jesus used the expression in section 15, when before in the same discourse (section 14) He had plainly enough avoided auy Messianic self-designation.

am

of the opinion that


it

mouth

of Jesus

240

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

appeals to His worl<:s (as in section 23 to His Svvd/uLeig). These are the works of Messiah; but the open de" is avoided. claration " I am the Messiah To these " works belong also the and tttw^^^oI evayyeXi^ovrai,'''' it is this which is either exclusively or principally
referred to in the Beatitude "
(TKavSaXicrOiJ ev eimol^''
jmaKOLpiog
(ttlv o^

dv

jultj

which

in

must naturally be

In the following the of the high passage appreciation Baptist, who is as all the represented surpassing prophets, is ulti-

understood in a Messianic sense.

mately based not upon the real greatness of the man himself but upon his office as forerunner; this again gives indirect expression to the Messiahship of Jesus,

which
in

is

fully disclosed in the sentence that the least

of God is greater than John. " The the Accordingly, simple contrasting phrases "" " The Son of Man came," cannot be came Baptist understood as implying equality in the contrasted

the

Kingdom

subjects in a passage whose genuineness is guaranteed " The Son by the unique information it affords us
:

eating and drinking, and they say. Behold a man gluttonous and a winebibber, a " friend of publicans and sinners This definition
of
!

Man came

of the significance of the Baptist, in contrast to the prophets on the one hand, arjd to our Lord on the
other hand, removes all cause for hesitation in accepting the genuineness of the saying that the Prophets and the Law lasted until John.
It
is

said

time. Who product indeed would defend the exact verbal accuracy of
is

question discourse

(vide supra,

return yet again to the historical that this whole pp. 216 f.)

the

of a later

THE PERSONALITY OF OUR LORD


!

241

such a discourse But, on the other hand, we must bear in mind that in Q it stands in the midst of a context whose interest is purely ethical, and that Q's

aims are not those of apologetical Christology.

We

must further remember that it is purely a petitio principii to assume that our Lord could not Himself have spoken concerning matters which also in after times claimed men's attention and were the subject
of their discussion.

Why
is

could

He

not have given

expression to His views concerning the Baptist just as we read in Q, seeing that the context (St. Matt,
xi.

46 and

xi.

1619)

as

trustworthy as

it

is

possible to imagine it to be ? confess that He was simply

Must we

not, indeed,

compelled to express Himself concerning the Baptist, and that there is nothing extraordinary in the fact that He on the one hand subordinated St. John to Himself, and on the other ranked him above the Prophets ? Nothing else,
however, nothing more of essential importance, is said about him, with the exception of the scarcely genuine

That in the background of the ttTTo t6t eo)? apri. whole discourse there lies the presupposition " I am He," affords no ground for suspicion if so, one must
;

draw the pen through the whole content of the gospels. The following pericope (section 25), to which section 26 perhaps belongs, has been already discussed above from the Christological standpoint (pp. 218 ff.). It forms the climax of our Lord's self-revelation, and yet it does not assert more than that He had been
permitted to bring to the simple ones the knowledge that knowledge which He alone as the Son of God (the Messiah) was the first to receive, and which He

242

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

The was now revealing to whomsoever He willed. in are which the blessed pronounced disciples saying because they see and hear what all the Prophets (and kings) had desired in vain to see and hear,
again brings to light the final and absolute character of this knowledge of God, and at the same time testifies to the fact that our Lord (vide the
once

preceding paragraph) really did reflect upon the renot only in lationship of the past and the present reference to the Law but also to the Prophets.

This also appears in the Beelzebub section (29) ; for if in our Lord's exorcism of devils through the

power of the Spirit of God, the Kingdom of God had already appeared upon earth, then it followed that a new epoch had dawned, the epoch, namely, of Messiah. He needs not to give Himself this name, nor does He assume it the facts speak for themselves. Here again He is proclaimed to be the sign of decision and of judgment for all (vide supra^ p. 238) in the words " He that is not with Me is It is the against Me." same thought which is expressed in the next section " As Jonah was to the Ninevites, (30) in the words

so

am

I also to this generation

"

repentance preacher who is greater than and the who is wiser than Solomon. The Jonah, king of first the Second is touched thought Coming upon
the the concluding sections, and with it is combined the revelation of the Messiahship ; this is found in
in
1 The seeming discrepancy that also in Q our Lord points to His Swd/ieis and ^pya, and yet declares that no sign should be given to this generation, is no discrepancy at all. He will not have wonders and signs wrung from Him by this generation any more than by Satan.

but

the preacher of

THE PERSONALITY OF OUR LORD


section 43
e'lTTijTe'
:

243
ore)

ov

jul^

fxe 'ISrjTe

aw apri

co9

av

(Jj^u

in ^v ovo/maTL evXoyjjiULevo^ 6 ep^6iJ.evo9 Kvpiov,

section

37 where it lies at the foundation of the whole section, and in section 56 where it likewise In the first section the dominates every sentence. destruction of Jerusalem (of the Temple ?) is also foretold, but only in words quoted from a more
In the second section the thought ancient prophecy. of the Second Coming is employed to enforce the

need of watchfulness, of preparedness, of conscientious


in the third section a description is ; of the world at the Second Coming state of the given and of the just as it was in the days of Noah

faithfulness

a warning

awful suddenness and unexpectedness of that coming Peris also given against false Messiahs.
;
:

haps the last saying that stood in Q is section 59 " Ye, that follow Me, shall sit upon twelve thrones, This saying tribes of Israel." twelve the judging
affords us the strongest imaginable testimony that Q is dominated by the belief in the Messiahship of

Jesus

the fact of the Messiahship

is

proved in the

introduction, it is presupposed as self-evident from beginning to end of the work, and in the eschatological discourses it
is revealed by Jesus Himself. " of the source, as the compiler Christology understood it, presents a perfectly simple and conThe compiler of Q could not sistent picture.^

The "

as teacher

Only in section 10 does our Lord describe Himself (indirectly) and His disciples as pupils nevertheless this relation;

ship is implicitly presupposed also in other places. The existence of this relationship, side by side with that of the Messiah to His subjects, presented no problem to the compiler, who simply The Messiah who brought the subordinated one to the other.
revelation of the

knowledge

of

God could

only reveal by teaching.

244

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


;

imagine otherwise than that Jesus was the Messiah, all the consecrated as Son of God at the Baptism stand out of his therefore, against compilation, sayings we think away the introthis background. 7/*, however,
duction,
the

resultant picture

is

essentially

different.

We

before us a compilation of sayings in which the speaker is a teacher, a prophet, one who is

now have

more than a prophet the Ji7ial decisive Messenger of God; but so surely as He demands unconditional obedience to His commands, in which the Will of God is expressed, and calls upon men to follow Him, so little does He do this with the expressed self- witness " I am the Messiah." Rather He points simply to His miracles and His works (in so far as He does not count upon the self-evidence of His commands in
:

their appeal to the hearts of therefore neglects the term "

His hearers). If one " Son of Man which was certainly used by our Lord, though we cannot be sure that it is genuine in any particular saying Jesus first asserts His claim to the Messiahship in the

sayings at the close of the source, hut only in connection with and under the imagery of the Second Coming; He who already in His present state of existence is

more than a prophet and greater than John, He who is the Son, will be the coming King and Judge.
Critical investigation of the accounts in St.

Mark

seems to compel us to the conclusion that our Lord during the first and longest period of His ministry
at

did not speak of Himself as the Messiah (because He first neither regarded Himself as Messiah, nor indeed could so regard Himself) and even rejected
the
title

of Messiahship

when

it

was applied to

THE PERSONALITY OF OUR LORD


sessed

245

Himself, but that, on the other hand. He was posby the strongest conviction that as a messenger

was entrusted with a mission of decisive and that He knew God as none other knew import, Him a conviction to which He again and again gave and that at a later period after He had expression
of

God He

accepted at Caesarea Philippi the confession of the " Thou art the Messiah " i.e. Thou wilt disciples
:

be

henceforth (though indeed still with reserve until the entry into Jerusalem) called

He

""

He from

Himself the Son of Man, and with growing confidence proclaimed His Parousia, i.e. His Messiahship. There is nothing in the compilation of discourses in Q, if only we neglect the introduction, which can be alleged to be discrepant with this picture of gradual We cannot, it must also be acknowdevelopment. from derive Q certain testimony to the detailed ledged,
accuracy of this picture, because

pays such slight

regard to chronology ; nevertheless Q also bears witness to the main position, in that in the sayings collected in Q the Messiahship is only clearly expressed under the form of the Parousia,^ and in that in 1 The absence of this important passage in Q suggests that we
should not exaggerate its importance. Besides, the question of St. John, together with the answer of our Lord in Q, can be regarded as a parallel to the passage in question. 2 The great thanksgiving to the Father could be in point of time posterior to St. Mark viii. 27 ff., but this hypothesis is not
careful and reverent application of obvious that our Lord's consciousness of Sonship must have preceded in time His consciousness of Messiahship, must indeed have formed a stepping-stone to the In spite of all that has been deduced from the apocalyptic latter.

necessary.

With the most


it is

psychological methods,

and dogmatic Messianic conceptions

of the times,

we must

assert

that the consciousness of Divine Sonship and of Messiahship could

M6

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Lord claims

these sayings our

but because this is unthinkable the present Messiah He works the works of God and proclaims His com-

faith not because

He

is

mandments.

VII. CONCLUSION
THE ORIGIN AND THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF Q

we consider Q apart from its introduction are dealing (sections 1 and 2), we see at once that we there with a document of the highest antiquity is here no need of proof; but even if we take into
If

our view
is

little

difference

together with the introduction, there The idea in the final verdict.

Jesus was endowed with the Messiahship at the Baptism had, as St. Mark shows, already taken form in the apostolic age and in the circle of the

that

how early we do not know. An disciples idea so impressive and so incapable of proof or of disproof could have taken form and have established
immediate
itself in

the Christian

community at a very

early

date.

to

The view indeed which preceded it, according which Jesus was declared by God to be the

idea

Messiah by means of an act of glorification, is an which had already completely lost its significance
for
St.

Mark,

while

St.

Matthew

and

not have existed together from the beginning ; for the consciousness of Messiahship never meant anything else for our Lord than a consciousness of ichat He was about to become. In His soul the
this

consciousness of what He was must have come first, and only when had attained to the height of consciousness of Sonship could the tremendous leap be taken to the consciousness of Messiahship.

HISTORICAL VALUE OF Q
St.

247

Luke knew no more of


St.

it

than what they read


fact

in

Mark.

Further,

the

that

our

Lord

throughout the principal part of His ministry had not represented Himself as being the future, and still less the present, Messiah, was afterwards found
to

be
to

no

difficulty

at

all.
:

The
"

disciples

needed

only say stand Him," and this is just what they did say. The cases of discrepancy and confusion which we
find in their own and their disciples'* reproduction of particular stories and discourses, and which have led to the adoption of such strange subterfuges and harmonising hypotheses in the interpretation

to themselves

We

did not under-

of the Markan accounts, did not exist for those who were provided with this refugium ignorantice} St. Mark indeed knows as little of a development
in

Q he also, like Q, Divine Sonship (the places of our Lord's active at the beginning Messiahship)
our Lord's consciousness as
the
revelation
;

of the

ministry, and it is only because of the careless and naive fashion in which one may say he has gathered together and heaped up his materials in strange contrast with the energy with which he follows his main purpose and finds it vouched for in the most discrepant narratives that we (against the will and intention of St. Mark) receive any hint of

stages of development in the ministry of our Lord.

Q,
in
*

compilation
{vide
us,

of

sayings

originally

written

Aramaic
These show

Wellhausen, Nestle, and others),


of their

however, the relative faithfulness

record.

248

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

its

This is shown by belongs to the apostolic epoch. form and contents, nor can I discern any reasons for a contrary opinion ; in particular, the destruction of Jerusalem

already

occurred.^

than
is

St.

Mark.

not here presupposed as having moreover, more ancient is, The iiifluence of '^ Paulinism'''' which
is

It

so

strong in St.

Mark

is

entirely
St.

wanting, and

accordingly the

main theme of

Mark

that

Jesus,

His death and resur7'ection, form the own gospel is not to he found in Q}

content

of His

that

was composed in Palestine


horizon
his
is

It is evident
its

Jewish and
St.

Palestinian

quite

obvious.
in

Mark,

No proof however, gospel can be given of any literary relationship between This is an indication that we the two works.
wrote

Rome.

must not
sible

set

Q
in

too

incomprehennor used it, even though he wrote at a place far distant from

already long that St.

early ; circulation

for
it

it
is

Q had

been

Mark

neither

knew

it

Palestine.
Is Q of apostolic origin ? I can make no new contribution towards settling this question. That Papias (like Eusebius) in the well-known

passage (Euseb.,

Matthew,

is

Presbyter Seeing that

39) means our St. very probable ; whether, however, the meant this St. Matthew, is doubtful.
Eccl.,''
iii.

" Hist.

our

St.

Matthew

cannot

have

been

1 Moreover even iu passages peculiar to St. Matthew sayings occur which must have taken form before the destruction of

Jerusalem.
2 There is surely no need for me to notice the theory that Q was intended as a complement to the Gospel of St. Mark, who had gathered together all the tradition within his reach.

HISTORICAL VALUE OF Q

249
:

composed by an Apostle, and that the tradition ^larOaiog ^/Spa'i'Si SiaXeKTO) to. Xoyia crvveraPaTO, already dates from about a.d. 100, there is a strong balance of probability that Q is a work of St. Matthew but more cannot be said. It is useless to discuss the historical and psychological question whether one of the Twelve could have composed
;

such a compilation as for or against cannot


so-called

be

corivincing reasons either discovered. From the

clude that behind the

charge to the Apostles we can only conwritten record there stands


of

the

memory

an

apostolic

listener.

But who-

ever the author, or rather the redactor, of Q may have been, he was a man deserving of the highest To his reverence and faithfulness, to his respect.

simple-minded common-sense, we owe this

priceless

compilation of the sayings of Jesus. Our knowledge of the teaching and the history of our Lord, in their main features a,t least, thus

depends upon two authorities independent of one

composed at nearly the same time. they agree their testimony is strong, and On they agree often and on important points.^
another, yet

Where

the rock
are

of their united
critical

testimony the assault of

destructive
to

views,

however necessary
research,
will

these

easily

self-satisfied

ever

be

shattered to pieces.

And yet again how different are these two sources On the one hand St. Mark wherein page by page

the

student

is

reduced

to

despair

by the inconand the


historical

1 Compare especially the historical background references in numerous sayings in Q.

250
sistencies,

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

the discrepancies, and the incredibilities of and yet without this gospel we should be deprived of every thread of consistent and concrete
the narrative

and on the other hand,


conception of the

historical information concerning the life of Jesus ; this compilation of sayings,

which alone affords us a really exact and profound


teaching of Jesus, and
is

free

from bias, apologetic or otherwise, and yet gives us no history. In St. Mark an almost complete to distinguish between what is primary or inability between what is trustworthy or questionsecondary, able, an apologetic which grasps at all within its reach, to which everything is welcome and right and yet at the same time a feeling for detail and for life, and even where this feeling is not present, the actual preservation of these traits in Q, on the

other hand, a many-sidedness in reference to that which is the most important, which quite com" pensates us for the want of history." Which is the more valuable ? Eighteen centuries

of Christianity have their answer is true.


in the sayings

of

question, and portrait of Jesus as given has remained in the foregrcmnd}

answered

this

The

The attempts which have been made to replace it by that of St. Mark have met with no success they will
;

lead ever and again into the abyss of confusion, they will come to nought through their own inconsistency.

The

collection

of sayings and

St.

Mark

must remain in

Above all, the power ^ but the former takes precedence. the to exaggerate tendency apocalyptic and eschato^

This

is

drawn by Wellhausen

so even with the sketch of the personality of our in his History of Israel.

Lord

HISTORICAL VALUE OF Q

251

to sublogical element in our Lord's message, and ordinate to this the purely religious and ethical This elements, will ever find its refutation in Q.

source

the authority for that which formed the theme of the message of our Lord that is, the revelation of the knowledge of God, and the moral call to repent and to believe, to renounce this and nothing the world and to gain heaven
is

central

else.

We
its

cannot

tell

how long

this compilation

remained
It

in existence.

Its traces in St.

Clement of

Rome and
found

in writers after his

time are not certain.

grave in the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, and probably elsewhere in some apocryphal gospels.
St.

Mark

alone could not have supplanted it;

but

the narrative type of gospel, which was created by the second evangelist and which answered to the

needs of catechetical apologetics, no longer allowed the separate existence of a compilation of sayings.

The

final

blow to the independent existence of

was

dealt

when it was incorporated in the gospels of St. Luke and St. Matthew. In St. Luke it exists, split up and dispersed throughout the gospel in subin St. Matthew servience to the historical narrative it was treated in more conservative spirit, though in some important passages it has suffered more from revision and shows clearer traces of the particular In most skilful fashion often bias of the evangelist.
;

or by an arrangement of only by means of an accent the first the context which seems quite insignificant of discourses evangelist has made this compilation subservient to his own special interest in the Christian

252

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

has

community and its organisation, while St. Luke, who much more frequently altered the wording of his
has
nevertheless
its

source,
essential

kept

so

closely

to
is

it

in

points that

original

character

more

clearly perceived in his reproduction.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
Translation of

II

(When John saw many [or the multitudes] coming Ye offspring of vipers, to baptism, he said to them) who warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance and think not [begin not] to say within yourselves
:

We
the

have Abraham for our father


is

you that God


children to root

able

of these

for I say unto stones to raise up


;

Abraham.
trees
;

Already the axe


tree

is

laid

to

every bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and I indeed baptize you with water cast into the fire. unto repentance ; but he that cometh after me is

of the

therefore

that

mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, he will baptize you with (the [Holy] Spirit and) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will with fire.

thoroughly purge his threshing-floor and will gather


1

The numbers are those


All that
it

of the

of dots preceding a passage

Greek text on pp. 127-146. A line shows that its original position in Q is
is

uncertain.

is

otherwise uncertain

placed in brackets.
of quite short also a doubt in 16, 19, 24,

must be remembered that in the case sayings, whose position in Q is doubtful, there is whether they belong to Q at all. Such are found
In general,
26-28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39-42, 44, 47-55.
253

254
his

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


wheat into the barn, but the chafF he
fire

will

burn up

with

unquenchable.

(The baptism of Jesus, together with the descent of the Spirit and the voice from heaven.)
2.

up by the Spirit into the wilderness tempted by the devil, and when he had fasted forty days and forty nights he afterwards hungered, and the tempter said to him If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread, and
to be
:

Jesus was led

he answered
alone.

It

is

written,

Man

shall not live hy bread

Then he taketh him with him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and saith to him If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down
:

for it

is

written,
thee,

cerning
lest

and

shall give his angels charge conin their hands they shall hear thee up

He

haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.


:

Jesus

said to

him Again it is written. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again he taketh him with him to an exceeding high mountain and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, and All these will I give thee if thou wilt said to him me. And Jesus saith to him It is written. worship Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt
:
:

thou serve.

And
6, 7,
8,

the devil leaveth him.

3, 4,

5,

11,

12, 9, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36,

39, 41, 47, 49, 51, 52.

(He taught his disciples in the presence of the multitude as follows)


:

TRANSLATION OF Q
Blessed are the poor, for theirs
is

255

the kingdom of

God;
Blessed are

they that mourn, for they shall be


they that hunger, for they shall be

comforted
filled

Blessed are
;

when they shall revile you and perand say all manner of evil against you you and be exceeding glad, for great is rejoice falsely in heaven for so persecuted they the reward your which were before you. prophets
Blessed are ye,
secute
;
;

turn to
to

Whosoever smiteth thee on the (thy right) cheek him the other also, and if any man would go law with thee and take away thy coat let him have
also.

thy cloke

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow from thee turn not away.

Love your enemies and pray for I say unto you your persecutors, that ye may become the sons of your Father, for he maketh his sun to rise upon the evil
:

and the good (and sendeth rain on the just and the For if ye love those which love you, what unjust).

Do not even the publicans the reward have ye ? same ? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others ? Do not even the Gentiles Ye shall therefore be merciful as your the same ? is merciful. Father
All things whatsoever ye would that

men

should

do unto you, even so do ye

also

unto them.

256

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


;

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what and with judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you. But why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy
brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye ? Or how wilt thou say to thy

Let be, I will cast out the mote from thine the beam is in thine own eye ? and Thou eye, cast out first the beam from thine own hypocrite, eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote from thy brother's eye.
brother
:

tree is known from the fruit. Do they gather thorns or from from thistles ? Even so figs grapes tree forth excellent but fruit, good bringeth every the corrupt tree bringeth forth bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, neither can a corrupt tree

The

bring forth excellent

fruit.

(Not everyone that saith unto


shall enter into the

me

Lord, Lord

kingdom of God, but he that doeth the will of my Father.) Everyone therefore
that heareth these

my
he

words and doeth them,

I will

shew you to

whom

is like.
:

He

is

like (or in place

of the last twelve words

man who
rain

built his house

came down, and winds blew and beat upon that house, and not; for it had been founded upon the rock.
everyone
that heareth
these

be likened) to a the rock. And the upon the floods arose, and the
shall
it fell

He

And

my

words and doeth

not, shall be likened to a man who built his And the rain came down, house upon the sand.

them

and the

floods arose,

and the winds blew and smote

TRANSLATION OF Q
upon that house, and
thereof.
it
fell,

257
fall

and great was the

If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the
ditch.

(Father, give us this day our bread for the coming day, and remit us our debts, as we also have remitted
to our debtors,

and lead

us not into temptation.)

Ask, and it shall be given you seek, and ye shall For ; knock, and it shall be opened to you. everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh
;

find

and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, of whom his son shall Or if he shall ask bread, will he give him a stone ? If then ask for a fish, will he give him a serpent ? ye being evil know how to give good things (gifts) to your children, how much more will the Father from heaven give good things to those who ask him.
findeth,

not light a lamp and place it under a but bushel, upon a lamp-stand, and it giveth light to
all

Men do

that are in the house.

The light of the body is the (thine) eye ; if then thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light ; but if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall
A

258

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


If therefore the light

be darkened.

which

is

in thee

be darkness, how great will the darkness whole outlook of the soul] then be
!

[soil,

in the

Be not anxious for Wherefore I say unto you shall nor what for your body, what eat; ye your life, Is not the life more than meat and on. shall ye put Look at the ravens (or the body than raiment ? of the the birds heaven), they sow not, neither reap nor gather into barns, and God feedeth them. Are
:

much better than they ? Which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his stature and why are ye anxious about raiment ? Consider the
ye not
;

They toil not, neither do unto you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed as one of these. If then in the field God so clothe the grass which is to-day, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, will he not much
lilies,
!

how they grow


;

they spin

but

I say

more you, O ye of little faith ? Therefore be not What shall we eat ? or What shall anxious, saying we drink ? or Wherewithal shall we be clothed ?
:

For

after all these things do the nations (of the world) seek for your Father knoweth that ye have But seek ye his kingdom, need of all these things.
;

and

all

these things shall be

added unto you.

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth consume, and where thieves but lay up for yourselves break through and steal treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth
:

TRANSLATION OF Q
;

259

consume, and where thieves do not break through nor steal for where thy (your) treasure is, there will thy (your) heart be also.

Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou


art in the

way with him ; lest the adversary deliver thee to the judge and the judge to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. (Verily) I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the last farthing.

Enter in by the narrow gate for wide (is the gate) and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and
;

many

there be that enter by

it.

Because narrow

is

the gate and straitened the way that leadeth to and few there be that find it.

life,

Ye
have

lost its

are the salt (of the land) ; if however the salt savour, wherewith shall it be salted ?
cast out

It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be and trodden under foot by men.

No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to
the one and despise the other.

Ye

cannot serve

God

and mammon.

(Verily I say unto you)

Until heaven and earth

260

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


away

pass away, one iota or one tittle shall not pass from the law.

(I say

maketh her an
that
is

Everyone who divorceth his wife adulteress, and whosoever marrieth her divorced committeth adultery.
unto you)
:

(After he had spoken into Capernaum, and a

these

words), he entered centurion came to him


:

Lord, my servant lieth beseeching him and saying in the house sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. He saith to him I will come and heal him. But
:

the centurion answered and said Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter beneath my roof;
:

but only say the word For I also am healed.

and
a

my

servant

shall

be

man under
:

authority,
:

having soldiers under me, and I say to this one and to another Go, and he goeth Come, and and to my slave he cometh Do this, and he When Jesus heard he marvelled and doeth it.
; ;
:

said to those that followed

(Verily) I say unto you,


faith.

Not even
hast

in

Israel

have I found such


:

(And
as

Jesus said to the centurion


believed,

[Go thy way]


unto
thee.

thou
the

be

it

done

And

servant was healed in that I'ery hour.)

17, 18, 16, 20, 21, 22, 19, 34^,

34^

38, 45,

46, 57, 10, 24.


I will follow thee whither(One said to him) thou goest and Jesus saith to him Foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests
:

soever

TRANSLATION OF Q
but the Son
head.
:

261

of man hath not where to lay his Suffer me first to Another said to him but he saith to and father go away bury my him Follow me, and let the dead bury their own
;
:

dead.

He
harvest

saith
is

to

them

(or

to

his

disciples)

The
pray send

great but the labourers are few therefore the Lord of the harvest that he
;

forth labourers into his harvest.

Go and
is

preach, saying, that the

kingdom of God

at hand.

(Carry no purse, no one by the way).


.

scrip,
.

no
if
it

shoes,

When
;

and greet no however ye enter


is

into a house, salute


let

it and come your peace upon


;

the house

but

if

it

worthy, be not

worthy,

let

your peace return to you again.

(Abide in the same house, and eat and drink for the labourer is worthy what they give you)
;

of his meat.

(.

Into whatsoever

city
is

ye
set

enter

and they

receive

you, eat that which


:

before you and

say

The kingdom of God is at hand. to them But into whatsoever city ye enter and they receive you not, go out into its streets and say Even the dust of your city which cleaveth to our feet do we shake off and leave it to you). (Verily) I say It will be more tolerable for the land unto you of Sodom and Gomorrha (or in place of the last
:
:

262
six

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


words
:

Sodom)

in

that day (or

in

the

day

of judgment) than for that city.

Behold
of wolves.

send you forth as sheep in the midst

Nothing is secret which shall not be revealed, and hidden which shall not be made known. What
I say unto you in darkness speak forth in the light and what ye hear in the ear publish upon the house;

tops.

And
but
of

be

not afraid of those that


kill
is

kill

the

body
afraid

cannot

the
able

soul

but

rather

be
soul

him who
in

to

destroy
?

both

and body
sold
for

Gehenna.

Are not two

(five)

one farthing (two farthings)

And

sparrows not

one of them shall fall to the earth without God. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Be not (therefore) afraid, ye are of much more value than sparrows. Everyone therefore who shall confess me before men, him will the Son of man (or I)
:

also confess before

ever shall deny me before the angels of God.

And

whosoever
it

the angels of God; but whosobefore men, him will I also deny

shall

the

Son

of man,

shall

speak a word against be forgiven him but


;

whosoever shall speak (a word) against not be forgiven him. Spirit, it shall

the

Holy

Think ye that

came to send peace on the earth

TRANSLATION OF Q

263

I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughterin-law against her mother-in-law. (And a man's
foes are those of his

own

household.)

father or mother more than me, not worthy of me and he that loveth son and daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.)

(He that loveth

is

Whosoever doth not take


after

his

cross

and follow

me

is

not worthy of me.

He

that findeth his

life shall
it.

lose

it,

and he that

loseth his life shall find

The
servant
disciple

disciple

is

not above his master, neither the


lord.
It
is

above
that

his

sufficient

for

the
the

he become

as

his

master,

and

servant as his lord.

(Whosoever receiveth you receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth

me

receiveth

him that
15.

sent me.)

14,

50,

But when John heard

in the prison the

works of
:

the Christ, he sent by his disciples and said unto him Art thou he that cometh, or do we look for another ?

564

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


he answered and said unto them
:

And

Go

tell

John

what ye hear and see, the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have

and blessed is he good tidings preached to them no of find cause whosoever shall stumbling in me. on their he were And as these began to speak way, What went ye John to the multitudes concerning
;
:

out into the wilderness to behold

reed shaken
?

by the wind

But what went ye out to see


!

man clothed in soft raiment ? Behold they that But why wear soft raiment are in kings^ houses went ye out ? To see a prophet ? Yea, I say unto This is he of whom you, and more than a prophet Behold I send my angel before thy face^ it is written
!

who

shall prepare thy

way

unto you, there hath but of women a greater than John (the Baptist) he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater
;

before thee, (Verily) I say not risen among those born

than he.

The prophets and the law were until John ; from then until now the kingdom of God suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force (or From the days
:

of John until

now the kingdom of God,

&c.

for all
. . .

the prophets and the law prophesied until John).

To what
is it

like)

shall I liken this generation (and to what It is like unto children sitting in the
:

market-places, which cry unto their fellows, saying

We

piped unto you, and ye danced not we mourned For John unto you, and ye beat not the breast. came neither eating nor di'iuking, and they say He
;
:

TRANSLATION OF Q
hath a devil
!

^65

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners And wisdom is justified of her children.
!

23.

Woe
saida
!

unto thee, Chorazin woe unto thee, BethFor if the mighty works which were done in
!

you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would Yet long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes. for unto it will be more tolerable (I say you) Tyre and Sidon (in the day of judgment, or in the judgAnd thou Capernaum shalt ment) than for you. thou have been exalted to heaven ? To hell thou
:

shalt be cast

down

25.
I thank thee, Father, Lord and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and prudent, and didst reveal them unto babes yea [I thank thee] Father, for so it All [all knowledge] has seemed good in thy sight. been delivered to me by my Father, and no one hath known (the Son except the Father, neither hath any one known) the Father except the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.

At

that time he said

of heaven

26.

for they hear

Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and (your) ears, ; (for verily) I say unto you that many

^66

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

prophets (and kings) desired to see the things which ye see and have not seen them, and to hear the things which ye hear and have not heard them.
29.

(He healed) a dumb man possessed with a devil, (so that) the dumb spalce and the multitudes (all)
every kingdom which is divided cometh to desolation and if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out ? therefore they shall be your judges. But

marvelled

against itself

if I
is is

the

by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then indeed He that kingdom of God come upon you. me is and he with that not against me, gathereth
.
. .

not with
is

me

scattereth.

Whenever the unclean


:

he passeth through dry spirit it not, findeth (then) he saith places seeking rest and house I will return unto mine whence I came out;

gone out of a

man

and when he is come he findeth it empty (and) swept and garnished. Then he goeth and taketh to him seven spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there, and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first.
30.

(They
he said
:

said)

We

An

evil

would see from thee a sign. But and adulterous generation seeketh

and a sign shall not be given to it except of For as Jonah became a sign to the sign Jonah. so the Ninevites, shall also the Son of man be to this
after a sign,

generation.

The men

of Nineveh shall stand up in

TRANSLATION OF Q

267

the judgment against this generation, and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of

The Jonah, and behold here is more than Jonah. of the shall in the south stand judgment queen up
against this generation and shall condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the

wisdom of Solomon, and behold here


Solomon.
40.

is

more than

like ? and to unto a grain of what It mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field, and it grew and becometh a tree, and the birds
is

Unto what
shall
I

the kingdom of
it ?
is

God

liken

like

of the heaven nested in

its
:

branches.
shall I liken

(And again he
of

said)
It

To what
like

the

unto leaven which a ? kingdom took and hid in measures of meal until woman three
is

God

the whole was leavened.


44.

that exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
42.

He

you They shall come from the east from the and west, and shall sit at meat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God
I say unto
:

268

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


;

shall be

but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out weeping and gnashing of teeth.
.

there

48.

What think ye ? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them has strayed, will he not leave the ninety and nine upon the mountains, and having set out doth he not seek that which is strayed ? And if
he happeneth to find it, (verily) I say unto you that he rejoiceth over it more than over the ninety and nine which had not strayed.
53.
*

It is necessary that occasions of

come, yet Woe unto the man occasion of stumbling cometh.


54.

stumbling should through whom the

If thy
thee,

brother sinneth, rebuke him


hast
brother.

if

he hear

If my gained thy brother sinneth against me, how oft shall I forgive him ? Until seven times ? Jesus saith unto him I
:

thou

...

say unto thee, not until seven times, but until seventy

times seven.
55.
*

If ye have faith so great as a grain of

Be seed, ye shall say to this mountain hence thither, and it shall be removed.
:

mustard removed from

TRANSLATION OF Q
33, 43.

269

They bind together heavy burdens and them upon men's shoulders, and they themselves not touch them with a finger.
. .
.

lay
will

Woe
dom
in,

unto you, Pharisees

for ye shut the

king-

of

God

before

nor even do

for ye yourselves enter not suffer them that are entering in to ye


;

men

enter.

Woe

unto you, Pharisees

for ye tithe mint, anise,

and cummin, and neglect the weightier matters of the law, judgment and mercy.

Now ye Pharisees, ye cleanse the outside of the cup and platter, but within they are full of extor.
.
.

tion

and

excess.

unto you, for ye are as tombs which appear not, and the men that walk over them know it not. (Woe unto you, Pharisees for ye are like unto tombs that have been whitened which outwardly
!

Woe

indeed appear beautiful, but within are full of dead men''s bones and all uncleanness.)

For ye build the tombs of the If we had been in the days of and say prophets our fathers we would not have been partakers with So that ye them in the blood of the prophets.
unto you
! :

Woe

bear

witness

of

those

who

against yourselves that ye slew the prophets (now

are
fulfil

sons

the

measure of your fathers)!

Wherefore also the Wisdom of God said / send you prophets and wise men and scribes sovie of them ye will slay and persecute ; that there may come upon
:

to

you

all the blood

shed upon the earth

from

the blood

of

270
Ahel

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


to the blood

of Zacharias, whom ye slew between

the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you. All Jerusalem ! these things will come upon this generation. Jerusalem! which Jcilleth the prophets and stoneth those

often zvould I have gathered as a hen (gathereth) her even together, thy chicJie7is under her wings, and ye would 7iot. Behold is left unto you desolate. I house (For) your say unto
that are sent to her
!

How

children

you
(it

Ye

shall

shall not see me from henceforth until come when) ye say Blessed is he that
:

cometh

in the

name

of the Lord.

56.
If then they say to Lo ye not forth.

you
!

Lo

he

is

in the desert

Go

chambers For as the lightning cometh forth Believe it not. from the east and is seen even unto the west, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. Whereis

he

in the secret

soever

the

carcase

is,

there

will

the

eagles

be

gathered together.

As were
the

of the Son of

the days of Noah, so shall be the coming For as in the days before man.

and giving
entered
the
flood

flood they were eating and drinking, marrying in marriage, until the day that Noah

the ark, and they knew not until came and took them all away, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. There shall be two in the field, one is taken and one is left; two women shall be grinding at the mill, one is taken and one is left.
into

TRANSLATION OF Q
37.

271

But know this, that if the master of the house knew in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched and would not have suffered his house
to
also

have been broken through. (Wherefore be ye at an for hour that ye think not the ready, AVho then is the faithful Son of man cometh.)

and wise servant

whom

his lord

hath

set over

his

household to give them their meat in due season ? Blessed is that servant whom his lord when he

cometh
if

shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, But that he shall set him over all that he hath.

that

(evil)

lord

tarrieth,

and

servant shall say in his heart My shall begin to smite his fellow
:

and shall eat and drink with the drmiken, the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth
servants,

not,

and

shall

cut

him asunder and appoint

his

portion with the hypocrites.


58.

To him
and he

(to everyone) that shall have abundance ;

hath it shall be given, but from him that hath


shall be

not, even that

which he hath
59.

taken away.

Ye who
1

follow

me

shall

sit

upon twelve

thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.^


Perhaps the parables of the Great Supper and the Talents
stood in

{vide supra, pp. 119

ff.).

272

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

EXCURSUS
On the
X.

I
xi.

Sayings in St. Matt.


21, 22)

25-27

(St.

Luke

AND

St.

Matt.

xi. 28, 29.

The
in

contents of these sayings justifies us their text, the most ancient history of subjecting their tradition, and their significance, to a minute
peculiar

examination.

This

is

the more necessary

in

that

in the last years it

has been asserted with increas-

ing confidence that these sayings are not genuine. This question cannot be brought nearer to its soluThe exegesis tion without the closest investigation. of these passages, which had come to a standstill,

has been set in motion again by the researches of Schmiedel and Wellhausen, which afford us most valuable hints.^
Beitrage z. Einl. i. d. bibl. Schriften," 1832, i. " Die Semisch, apostolischen Denkwiirdigkeiten des M. *' Kritische Unters. iiber die Justin," 1848, s. 364 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, " Das Ev. Marcions Evv. Justins usw." 1850, s. 201 ff. ; Volckmar, "Canon of N. T.*, "1875, p. 133 if.; 1852," s. 75 if.; Westcott, "Supernatural Religion'," i. p. 401 ff. ; E. Abbot, "The AuthorCf.
1

Credner,
;

**

s.

248

ff.

Zahn, "Tatian," 1881, ship of the Fourth Gospel," 1880, p. 91 ff. " " s. 148 f. ; Evangelienzitate Kanonsgesch." i. s. 555 f. Bousset, Justins d. M., 1891," s. 100 ff. ; Resch, "Texte u. Unters.," Bd. " H. Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. NTliohen Theol.," 10, 2, 1895, s. 196 ff.
; ; ;

i.

H. Holtzmann, "Die Synoptiker," 3. Aufl., 1901, " ff. Matth.," 1904; Schmiedel, "Das 4. s. 238 Wellhausen, the editions of St. Matthew and St. s. 48 f. 1906, Evangelium," Luke by Blass. The verses are treated as a hymn by Brandt (" Ev.
1897, S.-272
;

ff.

Geschichte," 1893, s. 562, 576 f.), Pfleiderer (" Urchristentum," 1902, i.2 s. 435 f., 576, 667 ff.), Loisy, and others.

EXCURSUS

273

in the first place confine ourselves to ascertaining the text of the sayings according to the Greek manuscripts^ there is scarcely any doubt as to the result

If

we

we

arrive at.
St.

The

first

saying runs as follows


St.

Matthew.
croi,

Luke.
o"o<,

j^oiJLo\oyoviJ.aL

'E^OyaoXoyoyyCtai

Trarepf Kvpie rod ovpavov Koi T^s" yrjg, on eKpv\l/a<; ravra cltto (Todywv Kai
o-vvercov

iraTep, Kvpie tov ovpavov Km Tt]9 y^9) OTL aireKpv^a<s

TavTa
(TvveTcov

aTTO

crocpcov

Kai

Kai

ctTre/caXuxf/'a?

Kai

aTre/caXuxJ/a?
vai,

avra

vrjinoi^.

vai,

6 irarrip,

avTa
OTL

v}]7rioi^

6 iraWjp^

OTL ovTcog evSoKia iyivero


e/ULTrpocrOev
crov.
julol

ouTm

iyevcTo evSoKia
/noL

ejULTTpl

Oe. crov. ocruev

iravra
viro

Tov

7raTp6<s

TrapeSoOt] koI [/u-ov],

TTOLVTa

TTapeSoOtj

VTTO

ovSeh 7nyuwcrKL tov vlov ovSe tov el /ULrj 6 iran'ipf


iraTepa ti9
fxr]

TOV TraTjOO? [yao?^], Kai ovSeh yivwcTKeL tl^ ecTiv 6

eTriyivcocTKei
(p

ei

o VL09 Kai

eav povAtj-

/mr] 6 TraTyp, Kai Tig icTiv o iraTrip ei /arj o viog Kai (t) av povArjTai o uiog

VLO^ el

Tai 6 VLO^ airoKaXvy^ai,


fiov

airoK aXvyp^ai,

om.

t?.

iraTep

om. F^

evSo-

Kia eyeveTO offerunt multi et boni testes TrapeSoOtj

juLOL

nonnulli

Codd.

TrapaSeSoTai

pro

VTTO

KII
/uLov

/ulol

airo

om.
.
.

D
.

Ti? ecTTiv o 7raT)]p


vLog

t/? (TTiv

U and one
s

cursive.

274

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

We accordingly see that St. Matthew and St. Luke must have used the same source, namely Q, in a similar The text in St. Matthew, recension and translation.^ in the two places where it differs from that of St.
Luke, seems to be preferable, for
(Kpv\p-a9>a7reKpv\^ag, eTriyivoodKeL cocTKei t/? ecTTiv o Trarijp).
it
is

the simpler

tov

iraTpa>yiv-

Also

the

introduction

to

the

saying

shows

common
St.
^Itjarovg

source.
:

Matthew
elirev
:

'Ei^

eKelvw

T(p

Kaip(p

aTroKptOelg

Luke TTvevjuari tw Here also


St.

Ej^

avTri

rij

copa

t^yaWiacraTO

T(p

ayi(p Kai
it is

CLirev*

certain that St.


avrii

Matthew
is

is

to be

preferred

for {ev)

r^ wpa

a favourite ex-

pression with St. Luke (seven times), and is intended to be more exact than ev cKelpo) rep Kaip^, though it is true that the latter phrase is found again twice in

Likewise ijyaWida-aTO (ayaXXlacri^) is of frequent occurrence in St. Luke (seven times in the lastly, gospel and the Acts, once in St. Matthew) "" is the addition of " tm TrvevjULari rw ay'm genuinely " At this time therefore ran Lukan. The
St.
;

Matthew.

original

Jesus answered and

said.''

But the

situation

pre-

supposed is different in St. Matthew and St. Luke. In the former the thanksgiving stands in contrast

with the denunciation of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Jesus had, after all, found souls symCapernaum
:

pathetic

to

His teaching, and for


In
St.

this

He

offers

thanks to the Father.


1

Luke

also

the de;

evSoKia tyeuero ifxrpoadiv aov is


coi.

a peculiarly obvious Hebraism

i^ofioXoyov/J-ai

also is poor Greek,

EXCURSUS
;

275

nunciation of the Galilean cities comes indeed shortly but in between, this evangelist before (x. 1215) inserts the record which the disciples returning from
their mission give concerning their success, and connects with this the thanksgiving of our Lord.
St.
first,

so that

Matthew connects the second saying with the we must suppose that he regarded it as
first

the continuation of the


in St. Luke.

It is wanting saying. to the Greek According manuscripts it runs as follows


:

Aevre

irpo's

fJ-e

iravTe'i

01 KOTTlCOVTeg Kai 7r(p0pTl(T'

/aevoi,
v/uLa<!.

Kayo)

avairavaca

apare
vfjLa^
eyctoy],

tov
Kai

'C.^yov

juiov
[ctTr'

(p''

fiaQere
ci/ull

otl irpav^

KOI Taireivo^ Ttj


up}j(TeT

Kapha^ kul
raf?

avaircwcriv

y^v^^ah
IJ.OV

vjULwv.

yap ^vyo^

yj)r](yTO<i
jJLOv

TLOV

to (popeXacbpov ecmv.
Kai

TrecpopTLO-fj.,

(Ital.

Vulg.)

ecrre
a7r'

ijULOv

om.

X.'"'

have

the second in higher degree sayings a poetical rhythm, and in their construction remind us of the poetical form of sayings in the

Both

Psalms and Prophets but from this point of view they are not unique among the sayings of our Lord indeed, not a few sayings have a similar form.
;

276

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


II

Is the

form that has been arrived at above

really

the most ancient attainable form of the two sayings, In the so that we may at once proceed to exegesis ?
case of the second saying,
first

and of the

first

half of the

saying, the question is to be answered in the the second saying in the earliest times affirmative

was much less often quoted than one might expect but not in the case of the second half of the first saying; here we are rather led by indirect tradition (partly also by the Versions) to an older form of text, whether it be an older form of the text of St. Matthew and St. Luke or a form which is independent of them.

We

are here in the fortunate position of

knowing the

wording of the saying (the whole or some portion of it) as it was read by Marcion, by the Marcosians,

by Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, the Clementine We have in addition Homilies, and by Eusebius.
the ancient versions.

We
and

shall first consider the first half of the saying,

shall begin

with Marcion.

Here we have certain

knowledge that we have before us in the main, not extra-canonical tradition, but the text of St. Luke ;

though
altered

it

is

true

we

also
in

many

passages
in

accordance with his

know that Marcion has own


:

peculiar tendency.
iv.

25, supported

Marcion read (according to Tert. important points by Epiphanius)

ev')(apL(TTw

Kvpie

((joi Epiph.) (kgi e^ojuoXoyov/mai, Tert.), Tov ovpavov^ otl aTrep fjv Kpvirra (TO(poi9 Kai

crvvero?^, aireKaXvy^ag vrjiriois.

vai,

6 iraryjp,

on

ovTcog

EXCURSUS
eyevero evSoKia

277

aov [the last six words are cjuLirpocrOev attested for not directly Marcion, but follow from the which VOL 6 irartm Epiphanius gives, and from the
silence of

point].
(1)
in

Marcion's text
the addition of

both authorities as to alterations at this differs from the canonical


evy^apia-rw
Kai,

(2)

in

the

absence of Trdrep, (3) in the absence of koI t>/9 yrjg, and avrd (4) in reading direp ^v Kpvina (hence Kal must also have been wanting). Numbers (3) and (4)
are alterations for the God of due to tendency Marcion must not be " Lord of the earth," neither did He hide the true saving knowledge, but it lay On the other hand, (1) and (2) cannot hid of itself. be explained as due to the teaching of Marcion. Of these four variants the first {ev^apLo-roi)^ but without e^ofxoXoyov/jiai) is found once in Epiph. Haer. 40, 7, and perhaps also in Tatian, but never elsewhere. In Tatian, however, the word is doubtful. Ephraem
;

writes

("Evang. Concord.," p. 116, Moesinger): " Gratias in Graeco dicit ago tibi, pater coelestis Gratias ago tibi, deus pater, domine cceli et terrae." In respect to the first word Ephraem therefore noticed

The reading ev-^apia-Tw could no difference of text. was not very because have arisen, easily e^o/uLoXoyovjuiai it seemed even objectionbecause indeed intelligible was a word that naturally sugable. l^v-)(api(TTU) took its place, as in Epiphanius. and itself gested " " De. Orat.," 5 to " e^ojuLoXoyovjuai 'la-ov Cf. Orig.,

ia-rl

Tw "
is

ev-^apicTTw.''^

The second

variant

(om.

found in the canonical Lukan text in irdrep) F^ (vide supra) irdrep is also wanting in Clem Horn,
also
;

xviii.

15

the text there (Simon

Magus

speaks)

is,

278

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

however, a mixture of the canonical text and that of Marcion (vide hifra), so that it cannot count as an

independent witness.
bably only accidental-^

The
it

omission in
is

F^

is

pro-

wonderful that in the

MSS.

has not more frequently fallen out before Marcion thus stands alone with his omission. Kvpie, The third can scarcely assign any weight to it.
irdrep

We

variant (om. t?? 'y^?) is found also in Tatian, who besides omits Kvpie (this very Kvpie but not rrjg yrjg is also wanting in Clem. Hom. viii. 6, where St.

Peter speaks). not accidental "

The
;

absence of t??

ytjg

in

Tatian

is

he has substituted the usual expression " for this was his version for the irarep ovpavie There can be no connection fuller but rarer phrase.

here either with Marcion or with Clem.

Hom.

viii. 6,

where the absence of Kvpie is probably only a mistake. Thus Marcion's Kvpie tov ovpavov may be regarded as due to tendency, while Tatian 's irarep ovpavie may be described as nothing more than a gloss.^ The fourth variant is also found in Clem. Hom. xviii. 15 Simon
;

Magus

quotes

airep

Tjv

Kpvirra

crocpois,

ciTreKaXvyp^ag

avra ktX., and in the context is therefore corrected by St. Peter. Elsewhere in the Homilies Simon Magus adduces elements characteristic of Marcion ; he here
quotes according to the text of Marcion.
ought not to be asserted that Trare/o is wanting in "a" since at this place a small gap (an undecipherable passage?) occurs in "a." [This gap occurs only in St. Luke; in St. Matthew, according to Belsheim, "a" reads "pater." Note by
*

It

(Vercell.),

Translator.]
2

It is possible that Tatian,

whose system required a

distinction

to be

made between God and a Demiurgus, changed


into irdrep oOpdyie,

Trdrep, Kijpte t,

oip. K. T. 7.

EXCURSUS
The
other variants in the
:

279
half of the sa3ing

are as follows

first

e^ojuLoXoyyja-ojUiai

the Marcosians in Iren.


li.

i.

20, 3

(perhaps in accordance with Sirach


portance).^

of no im-

c.e.f.fF.^ i. domine pater (of no importance, because the transposition was one that easily suggested
:

itself).

deus

pater

domine

the

reading which,

accord;

ing to

Ephraem (I.e.), was offered by the Greek but this is most improbable, seeing that none of the manuscripts that have come down to us present this
Yet in Clement of Alexandria (" Paed." i. we read 32) iraTep, 6 Qeo<5 rod ovpavov Koi TtJ9
:

reading.
6,

ytjg,

but this

is

probably only a free quotation.^


:

ovpai'cov
^

Kai

ovpavwv probably
:

the

an

Epiph. I.e., rtjg y>]^ kul tcov 'y>/9 Marcosians (in Epiph. the plural is oversight, but scarcely so with the

Marcosians).

ravTa wanting among the Marcosians, but only in the Greek text (of no importance) ; L. reads avrd.
:

wanting in Syr. Sin. (but only in the " and in Clem. Horn. text of St. Matthew), in e " ^ Confiteor." The Latin translation reads 2 " thus TTcire/) Kvpie" was also understood as an Hendiaduoin ;
Koi (Twerijov
:
:

the heathen in " Macarius Magnus,"


yi]S
TTO.T'fip

iv.

7,

(CTTiv

debs,

virb

rod viov ufioKoyriTai,

writes: Stl ovpavoO kuI " Hdrep Kijpie tou


order.
'.

ovpavov Kal TTjs yT]i^^ Xeyovro^. ^ So in the Latin text the


;

Greek has the usual


D.
iirb JocpCiv Kal

'Atto crvveTuv Kal

cro(pQ>v'.

5vvo.tC}v

1* (both

of

no importance).

280
(bis^
;

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


but in Clem. Horn.

in its place,

and

in

stands viii. 6 irpea-^vrcpcdv^ both places in Clem. Hom. the


prjirioig,
. .

word
ran
:

drjKaCpva-Lv

occurs with
.

so that the text


OtiXa^ova-iv.

aocpcov

The

explained from the circumstance that the following parallel clause has only one substantive ; it is thus due to reflection. This
omission
is

omission of " koi

Trpea-jBuTepcov " is a-vvercov

vrjirioig

tine Homilies;

presupposed by the reading of the Clemenit was felt that in v^tioi crocpol
.

the contrast was not striking enough, and therefore was (in a truly mechanical fashion) added Trpea-jSuTepoi
to a-o(pOh so as to

make the

contrast exact

then

it

was

felt

and
16).^

so

We

drjXd^ovre^ therefore learn nothing here in regard to

that a second word was required with vrjirioi, was chosen (from St. Matt. xxi.

the original text. The formal incongruence only goes to prove that this original text really read Kai crocpoov
crvveTcov
.

vrjiriois.

avrd

wanting in Tatian (of no importance).


:

is

found again
;

the Marcosians in Irenaeus (ova, ova, 6 iraTi'ip julov in the New Testament in St. Mark xv.

29)

they also omit the following


crov

ovrco^,

cfxirpoa-Oev

evSoKia

iyevero.

In

spite

[wanting of these differences we


[jlol

in

reading on the Latin]

may

not

assume a translation-variant in this verse, seeing that We cannot tell how the Marcosians also had evSoKia.
^

(iv,

Only one manuscript prefixes Kal. " Macarius It is noteworthy that the heathen in Magnus" " Kat with St. Matthew: in exact accordance first 9) quotes
avra
vt/tt/ois,"

&rrK6.\v\pas

but then continues:

et

awb

rCjy

aoipCiv

EXCURSUS

281

these readings arose, but as they are quite isolated we can scarcely assign any weight to them.

yiyovev (for eyevero) (of no importance).


Result
:

only

Epiph. Haer. 65, 6

TTie first half

of

the first

saying

is

trans-

mitted hy St. Matthew (and St. Luke) in its most ancient attainable form^ also the address iraTep, Kvpie rod KOI T?9 -yv?? is most probably more ancient ovpavov
:

than

all

other variants.
to the second half of the

Again the introduction


first

It is of imsaying presents a few variants. portance that both Justin (Dial. 100) and Hippolytus
(c.

variant
later

Noet. 6) give This TrapaSeSorai for TrapeSoOi]} lies in a direction which we shall notice

on

it

aims at translating an historical action into


timeless

the sphere

of the

and

transcendental.
avro,

For
"

vtto

{rod irarpos:)
irapa (this
is

(in St.

Luke) reads

Hippolytus

Again, while ij.ov after is in Tov irarpo^ wanting only one of the uncials of St. Matthew and St. Luke (and besides in one cursive of St. Matthew), it is, on the other hand, wanting in
unimportant).
quotations by Marcion, Justin, the Marcosians (Latin), Hilary, and Victorinus. In the versions it is also want-

"

ing in Syr.^^^^- of St. Matthew, and in a.c.l.Syr.^^"of St. Luke. Hence it follows with great probabilitv that this word was originally wanting in St. Matthew

and

St.

Luke, but was inserted in the text already

Here again the motive of at a very early date. insertion may well have been similar to that of
1

So also Codd. KIT, the cursives

60, 254, p^-r,

-v^scr^

and three

Colbertine

MSS.

(all

only in

St,

Luke).

282

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


yrapaSeSorai, which however has not made into the MSS. that have come down to us.

the variant
its

way

part of the saying two main may be distinguished, according as either the aorist or the present (1) eyi'O) yivwo-Kci " to or is used, and olSev) {eiriyivijocTKei (2) either know the Father " or to know the Son " stands
:

In the remaining streams of tradition

first.

Differences, moreover, occur in the last clause


(h

(Kai

dv ^ovXtjrai

/ctX.).^

Irenaeus already noticed

that the aorist point. eyvw was an heretical forgery, vide iv. 1 " Nemo cognoscit JUimri nisi pater ^ neque patrem quis cognosit nisi Jilius, et cui voluerit Jilius revelare. sic et Matthaeus posuit ^ et Lucas similiter et Marcus idem Johannes ipsum
first

the

He

asserts

The remaining
iv.

variants in this verse are not of


ov8els
. . .

much

importalso

ance.
Iren.

Instead of koI
6,
1
;

oid^

ns
13

(St.
[bis],

Matthew, so

Clem.

Hom.

xviii.
.

e.g.

Marcion in Adamant.), or /cai ovSels the Marcosians in Ir^nseus, i.


Epiph.),

Kai (St.
;

the disciple of Luke, and besides,

we
.

also find
.

20, 3

Marcion in Tertullian,
i.

oCre rts

ovt

in the first clause


fjL-)]dls

ad

tls

(Euseb.
v.

" Hist, Eccl,"


"

2)

and, moreover,
i.

(Clem.,

"

Strom.,"
;

84; Euseb.,

De

Eccl. Theol.,"

12.

or Euseb., 'Eclog.," i. 12) ovdels ydpie.fj. "Clem., Strom.," vii. 109 and in the second clause i. 15, 16)
;

Euseb.,

" De Eccl. Theol.,"


iv.
6,

ovdi [without rts] (Justin [ter]

Marcion in Irenosus,
;

Irenaaus

[bis],

Clem. Alex,
rts

[semel], Epiph.' [bis].


xvii.
xviii. 4, 20).
iv. 3, 13),
i.

wi ovdk ...

(Clem.

Hom.
"

oiirw Kai ovSeis (Euseb., H7)8k


/cat
. .

Demonstr.,"

.TLS (Euseb.,

"
;

De

Eccl. Theol.,"

12 [Marcellus]),
:

Euseb., "Demonstr.," v. 1). It is a peculiarity of Eusebius that he writes thrice el /xr] [xbvoi 6 yevv^crai avrbv iraTrjp ("Hist. Eccl.," i. 2; "Demonstr." iv. 3, 13; **De Eccl. Theol.," i. 12). This looks like an amplification originat[ter]

ov8ds (Epiph.

ing in a Syrian text. The Syrians loved such amplifications. * Irenseus here makes a mistake ; St. Mark has not the saying.

EXCURSUS
cnim
praeterit

283

locum hunc.
esse, sic

hi

apostolis

volimt

describunt

autem qui peritiores nemo cognovit


:

nisi Jilius^ nee Jilium 7iisi pate?' et cui voluerit Jilius revelare, et interpretantur, quasi a nullo cog-

patrem
nitus
et

sit

verus deus ante domini

nostri
sit
^

adventum,
Irenaeus
^'

eum deum
non
esse

qui
feels

a
that

prophetis
Christi."

annunciatus,

dicunt
quite

patrem

Here
of

rightly is different from that of " cognoscit {yivwcrKei), {eyvui) but his assertion that the reading eyvuj is an hereti"*"'

the

sense

"

cognovit

cal

corruption
I
shall
eyvco
first,

is

quite

mistaken,

as

will

shortly

appear.
first
is

which
stands
*

give a list of the passages in " found, and " knowing the Father then of the quotations with eyvca
strangely misunderstood by the critics (even " 149; Kanonsgesch.," 1. s. 555 f.), as if the

This passage

is
s.

by Zahn, Tatian,

censure of Irenaeus were directed against the precedence in order of the clause "to know the Father." This was to him a matter of complete indifference (he himself twice quotes in this order) ; he is only concerned with the difference of "cognoscit" and " cognovit." Again, this passage is usually referred to the Marcosians, because Irengeus in Book I. (20, 3) has quoted the
verse in the version of the Marcosians.
iv.

But

in the context {vide

quoting Justin's work against These Marcion) he is dealing with the followers of Marcion. heretics are doubtless in the forefront of his mind though he may also be thinking of the Marcosians, who had in the main the same reading of this passage as Marcion. Moreover, the two quotations, i. 20, 3 and iv. 6, 1, vary somewhat from one another. Where IrenKus gives the Marcosian version of the saying (i. 20, 3), he
1
ff.
;

iv.

6,

here he

is

writes

kolI

rhv vlov
;

ei

/xt)

6 iraTTjp /cat <^ Av 6 vios diroKa\ij\//ri (so

also

the Old Latin)


^^

in

our passage he represents the heretics as

Nee filium nisi pater, et cui voluerit filius revelare.'* reading: This " nee" is also given by the disciple of Marcion in Adamantius.

284

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


with
^
:

and
ning
t

"

knowing

the

Son

*"

at

the

begin-

e-yi^o)

Tov Trarepa

top viov (without a verb)


;

eyvo)

63 [bis^ Marcosians in Iren., Justin, Apol.j i. 20, 3; Marcion in Iren., iv. 6, 1. TOV Trarepa Tatian ^ eypco tov vlov Euseb., Demonstr., iv. 3, 13 Euseb., Demonstr., v. 1 ; Euseb., De Eccl. Theol., i. 12
i.
. . .
:

(probably " novit


.

also
.
.

Orig.,
").

De Princ,
:

ii.

6,

novit
.
. .

kyvoo

TOV iraTepa
ciple of

Marcion

the disyivwcTKei tov vlov in Adamantius (p. 44, ed.


ttotg tov vlov

van de Sande),
cyvo)

TOV Trarepa
Hist. Eccl.,

yvcorj

Euseb.,

i.

2.
.
.
.

hyvijo

TOV Trarepa Horn., xvii. 4


.

ol^ev

rov
[ii<?],

vlov

Clem.

xviii. 4,
. .

13

20.

[eyvdi

TOV Trarepa without the parallel clause Clem. Alex., (thus an imperfect quotation) Protrept., i. 10; Paedag., i. 5, 20 and i. 8;
:

^ A dagger marks the passages in which only one verb is found the passages in which the quotation is imperfect i.e. where only one of the two clauses is given are included within brackets. I have paid no attention to the difference between tov Trarepa and

Tt's

iiJTLv 6 Ttar-qp,

because the more circumstantial phrase practically


quite certain;

never occurs. ^ The order

is

"novit" presupposes ^yvu. The "novit" which is found in a few Old Latin MSS. of St. Luke certainly = ^7'w for the great majority of these MSS. give (in St. Luke) "scit." Codex Veronensis (b) forms one of the minority, it reads here: "Nemo novit patrem nisi filius et que .bit [ = novit] fili nisi pater voluerit,
;
.

it

is

not certain that Moesinger's

(Perhaps for "que" we should read "qui[s]" vide "q.") The reading 'i-^vu is also attested by Cod. Vercell. (a) for the " reading here of this important codex vide infra as well as by q."

&c."

EXCURSUS
Strom.,
V. 81^, vii.

285

58

Origen, Selecta in Ps.


c.

[T. 11, p. 393,

Lomm.];

Cels.,

ii.

71,

vii.

44; on St. John, p. (20), 49, 248, 301, 334, 474 f. (ed. Preuschen), &c. ; ^ Concil. Antioch. Samos. c. Paulum Euseb., Eclog., i. 12. ; De Tertull. adv. Marc, ii. 27 {cognovit)
;

Praescr.,

21

(iiovit)].

'\

eyvw TOP Clem. i. 178

vlov

tov irarepa (without a verb)


Paedag.,
i.

Alex.,
;

9,

88

Strom.,
clause
St.

Orig.,
.

c.
.

Cels., vi. 17.

[eyvci)

TOV vlov

without the

parallel
:

(thus an imperfect quotation)


olSe

Orig. on

John, p. 474]. TOV vlov


.

eyvM

tov

iraTepa

Epiph.,

Haer., Qo-^ 6.

Now
first

follow quotations without eyvw. Again we " " Father the which in those knowing give
:

comes at the beginning t yiv(ioaKi TOV iraTepa


verb)
:

tov vlov (without a


.

Justin, Dial., 100.^


. .

f yivcocTKei t/? ecTTiv 6 iraTy^p


:

Tf? o

vlo<s

(with-

out a verb) Marcion [according to Tertull., iv. 25, but according to Iren. and Adamant. of St. Luke. e'VKt), vide supra]^ Cod.

without the parallel TOV TraTepa [yLvo)(TKeL Clem. clause (thus an imperfect quotation)
.

Alex., Strom.,
1

vii.

109.]

"Eyvio is also

later
2

found in other quotations in Origen and even in Alexandrians {e.g. Alexander and Didymus). Justin here expressly says ev ry evayyeXli^) yiypaTrrai. eliriov.
:

286

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


rov Trarepa
Iren.,
ii.
.

f eiriyLvwa-Kei

verb):

6,

1, iv.

top vlov (without a 6, 3; fragm. Syr.,

XV. (ed. Harvey).


\e7n'yLvw(rKe(,

rov iraTepa

clause (thus an imperfect quotation) Alex., Dives, 8 ; Iren., iv. 6, 6].


OL^e
.

without the parallel Clem.


:

Tov Trarepa olSe rov vlov Epiph., Haer., 69, 43; Ancor., 11. rov vlov (without a verb) t otSe TOV Trarepa 4 Hser., 74, 76, 1, Nr. 29 ; 76, 1, Nr. Epiph.,
.
.
:

32.
[ol^e

without the parallel clause rov Trarepa an Euseb., De (thus imperfect quotation)
. . .
:

Eccl. Theol.,

i.

16.^]

yivijOG-Kei

rU

ecrriv
:

vl6<s

r/j o Trarrip (with-

out a verb)

St.

Luke (with exception of the


.
.

Codd. U, a, b).2 vlov eTnyivuxTKei rov Trarepa: eTriyivaxTKet rov St. Matt, (so also Syr.""-; only one cursive
.

reverses the order)

Iren., iv. 6, 1.
.

t iTnyiv(jo<TKi

rov vlov
olSe

rov Trarepa (without a


:

verb)
olSe

Iren., iv. 6, 7.
. .
.

rov vlov
54,
4.

rov Trarepa

Epiph., Haer.,

t olSe rov vlov

Epiph., Hser., 64, 9

rov Trarepa (without a verb) 76, 1, Nr. 7.


;

^ Variations in Eusebius are also brought about by his use of the text of Marcellus.

" And 2 A who peculiar variant occurs in Syr.^i"- of St. Luke knoweth the Son save the Father, and who knoweth the Father " save the Son?" Et quis novit Cf. the Latin codex "q": " and perhaps also " b/* patrem ?
:

EXCURSUS
Codex
In
the
the text

287

Vercellensis (a) here stands quite by itself. St. Matthew) it omits of St. Liike {not

"

knowing

the Son^'' altogether^

and reads : " Omnia

mihi tradita sunt a patre, et nemo novit quis est pater nisi filius et cuicumque voluerit filius, revelavit."
Before
let us

we give our
:

verdict

on

these

readings,

bring together the

the concluding clause 1 Km w dv /SovXijTai 6 vlos aTroKoXvy^ai St. Luke, St. Matthew, Iren. iv. 6, 1, &c. &c. (Syr."- in St. Matthew does not read otherwise).
. :

variants

which occur in

2.

KOI

virrei

Syr.^^^-;

dv ^ovXrjraL aTroKoXvy^ai avTO^ olttokoX Et cf. cuicumque voluerit filius

revelavit"
3.
KCLL

(a).

dv

VLo^

aTTOKaXvy^i]

Marcion
Origen
;

the

Marcosians;
Tert.
i.

De
;

Clem. Alex, (septies); Praescr., 21 (" revelavit ")


;
:

(scepe);

Euseb., Eclog.,

Epiphan. (nonnull. loc). dv aTTO/caXvxf/^; 4. KOLL M Epiph. [s^&pius], both " and " knowing the Son.'' after " knowing the Father Nicetas (after 5. Koi. w dv avTO^ airoKoKv^n knowing the Son ").
:

12

Concil. Antioch.

6.

KOL

w dv

VLo<i

aTroKaXvTTTet

Epiph., Haer.,
:

74, 4.
7.

KOI

oh dv Pov\i]TaL 6
oh

fto? a7ro/caXJ\f/ai

Clem.,
6

Hom.
8.

[quater]}
Koi

vlog:
1

vcl (dv) 6 VLO^ a7ro/caXJ\|/^ a7ro/caXJ\|/^ Justin [te?-], Iren. [ter].


xviii.

The passage, Clem. Hom.

7:

Kal

gives it) hv ^ovKifrai 6 vibs dTroKoKv-rrTei, ought consideration, because it is a free quotation.

oh (not y as Blass not to be taken into

288

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


A

1. section of the Marcionites,^ the Marcosians, Justin (in the " Apology "), (Tatian), the Alexandrians

(Clement, Origen [both practically always], and still and Eusebius (practically always) later writers),
agree in

reading eyva). Accordingly eyvoo is the reading which has in its favour the most ancient
testimony.
is

" the hypothesis is supported by the " novit of the ancient codices Vercellensis Latin and very (a) Veronensis (b) in St. Luke, while the remaining Old

stood in St, Luke;^ for this TTie reading eyvto the reading in Marcion's gospel, and suggested by
2.

Latin codices (with the exception of " q ") read "

scit.''

The

hypothesis finally in the other aorists

receives very strong


eKpv^p-a?,

support

aTre/caXu-vJ/a?, e-yeVero,

TrapeSoOr].^
^

According to the testimony o Irenjeus (and Adamantius).


;

We

well believe that Tertullian read yivwaKei ("scit") in his exemplar of the gospel of Marcion but there is no difficulty in

may

supposing that this reading also found its way into exemplars of Marcion's gospel, although ^yvio was welcome to them. The same thing, therefore, happened with them as with Justin, who also gives
both readings.
If,

however, any one feels bound to take up the

position that Tertullian alone presents the genuine and unique still the number text of Marcion who accordingly read yivuicxKei,

of ancient witnesses for

^71/0;
^71*0;.

is

great enough to compel us to

decide that
2

St.

Luke wrote

the opinion of Blass, Keim, Meyer, and Schmiedel. ^ Weiss, on the contrary, asserts that ^yvu) arose from conformaBut why is it that this conformation takes tion with irapedoOrj.

This

is also

place only in the text of St.

That

Luke and not also in St. Matthew ? was supplanted by yivwa-Kei may however also be exciv airoKa\{i\pri, plained from the fact that the following clause w seemed to demand the present tense in the preceding verb.
^yvo)
:

EXCURSUS

289

3. how it was. can, moreover, conjecture that the reading yipwa-Kei arose in St. Luke, from the remarks of Irenaeus in the passage quoted above ; the present made its way from St. jMatthew into St.

We

Luke and estabhshed

itself

there

as

an anti-

It is ah'eady attested by Justin Marcionitic reading. but in a later work (the Dialogue), and it pre-

dominates in
In

ecclesiastical

the

West

eyuco

manuscripts of Irenaeus. disappeared at an earlier date

than in the East.


4.

The

persistence of eyvco
in the East
is

and

its

correct inter-

pretation

quotations
as

where this

especially manifest in those historic aorist was regarded

when applied to the knowledge of the Father (on the part of the Son), and was accordingly preserved, while a present (in accordance with St. Matthew, vide infra) was inserted into the Lukan
suitable

text

as applied to the knowledge of the Son (on the part of the Father), as in A dam an tins (ywcoa-Kei)

and
5.
Ki,

in

Clem.

Hom.

[five

times] and Epiph. Haer.,

65, 6 (olSep).

In the text of St.

Matthew the

present, eTriyivcocr-

stood from the beginning (eireyvoo does not occur in any authority) it was also from the beginning
;

repeated in the second clause, while the cyi/oy in This formal difference St. Luke was not repeated.

between the two gospels explains those instances of mixed text wherein sometimes the eyvco is repeated (vide Eusebius), sometimes the eTnyu'coa-KeL is not repeated (Irenaeus), while the clauses are sometimes conjoined by Kai, sometimes by ovSe. 6. The reading olSev is found only in the T

290

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


;

Homilies and in Epiphanius,^ somesometimes times once, repeated in the two clauses thus confined to was it Syria and need not therefore is It be considered. probably to be explained from

Clementine

the influence of the Johannine vocabulary.

B
The
first

clause concerning "

in

" knowing the Father stood Marcion (according to Iren., TertuU., and

Adamant.), in the version of the Marcosians, in Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus (but not always), the Clementine
Homilies, Eusebius, in
in

Codex U of St. Luke (and Codex Veronensis), while the clause concerning " " stood first in the text of St. knowing the Son Matthew (with the exception of one cursive, which means nothing), in the remaining authorities for St. Luke, and in Clement of Alexandria. Irenaeus, Origen, the later Alexandrians and Epiphanius,
attest both

tion of the

The soluarrangements of the clauses. these facts seeing problem presented by ^ is that Marcion had the Lukan text before him

knowing the Father" certainly stood first, and that the conWe trary was probably the case in St. Matthew. cannot be quite certain about the passage in St. Matthew, only because we have no instance of quotation of the text of St. Matthew before Irenasus and
that in St.
.

Luke the

clause concerning "

1 The one place in Eusebius is an imperfect quotation, which has no weight. 2 For this very reason it is not permissible to explain the precedence of this clause by the influence of oral tradition or of an

apocryphal gospel.

EXCURSUS
Clement of Alexandria
ever,
is
;

291

the witness of Irenaeus, how-

divided.

In regard to the concluding clause 1. It is certain that 6 vlog was repeated in


:

it

for

the omissions in Syr. ^^^^' in Epiphanius (often) and Nicetas (who substitutes avro^), are of no account in
the criticism of the text.
2.

The

short form a7ro/caXJ\|/>; (for ^ovXfjraL airo-

KaXv^ai) has earlier attestation than the other, seeing that it occurs in Marcion, in the Marcosian version, a rule), Clement of' Justin (thrice), Irenaeus (as
Alexandria, Origen (often), &c. 3. The form oh av has excellent
Justin,

sponsors

in

Irenaeus

(except

in

one passage), and the

Clementine Homilies, but Marcion cosians do not give it.


4.

and the Mar(^aireKaXv^ev)


in

The
^^^'',

indicative

airoKaXvirTei

Cod. Vercell. (" revelavit ; so also TertulL, Syr. De Prsescr.,"" 21, but this does not say much), and
once in Epiph.,
this reading.
is

"

too weakly attested for us to follow

Result We have now no means of determining co av o vlog which of the three forms ^ airoKoXv^i]
:

oFy

av 6

KaXvyj/ai had different

vlo<i

aTroKaXvyp-rj


ch

dv jSovXtjTai o vio^ airofirst this

is

the original, whether at

clause

forms in St. Matthew and St. Luke, and how these readings were distributed between the two
evangelists.
^

On

the strength, however, of the


is

testi-

the Clementines,

The reading oh av ^ovXrjTaL 6 vlbs aTroKaXurJ/ai and thus falls out of account.

only attested by

292

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

mony

of Marcion, it is probable that S> dv 6 V169 airostood in St. Luke, especially seeing that the Ka\v>\rii Marcosians also give this reading, and that they also (vide supra) have followed the Lukan text.^

D
The
that in St.
iravra
T19
jULt]

result of our investigations up to this point is Luke the saying read as follows
:

julol

irapeooQr)
ei

viro
jutj

ecTTiv

o iraTrjp
Kal
(h

kcu ov^e\<s TraTjOo?, eyvta o fto?, Kai ti? icmv 6 vlo9 el

tov

6 warrjp Matthew iravra


:

dv o vlog airoKaXvy^Uj but in St.


TrapeSoOt] viro
el
jmrj
.

juoi

tov Trarpog,

Koi.

ovSeig 7riyiv(jO(TKei

tov vlov
el

juli]

o TraT^o, ovSe tov

iraTepa
.

tl<s

eTriyivcoa-Kei
.
.

o uio?

TOV vlov

6 viog [vel : tov waTepa o iraTrjp'] kcu w \oLii\


.

dv ^ovXfjTai o viog airoKaXvy^ai [vel: dv 6 vlog airo-

But can we remain


is

satisfied

with this result

It

impossible, for the following reasons. first consider the Lukan text)
:

(Let us at

do not at all expect to find the clause 1. " " in this connection concerning knowing the Son of it course cannot be said to be a discrep(though
ancy) for this ascription of praise is concerned both at the beginning and the close with the Tcnowledge of God.
;

We

%
*
b.v

The

historic aorist "

"
eyvoo

suits

excellently the

It is possible to suppose that the original form read : <^ (ofs) ^ov\T]Tai 6 vlbs aTroKa\6irTiv diroKaXuTrrei, and that from this the
;

two shorter forms were derived but this cannot be proved. AiroKoKv-^rj and ^ovXTjrai airoKokvypai, may, besides, be taken as
^

translation-variants, if ov\rjTaL oTro/caXt/^at a periphrasis for the future.

is

regarded as simply

EXCURSUS

293

Son's knowledge of the Father, hut it does not suit so well the Father's knowledge of the Son ; this has been

noticed by thoughtful copyists, who have tried to overcome the difficulty in various ways {vide supra). 3. The clause Kai w av 6 vlo9 airoKa\v>^i] only

eyvco tU e<TTiv 6 irarrip el /urj 6 uto?? but not the other clause with which it is connected above in St. Luke (the Son is God^s interpreter and not
suits the clause ov^e\<s

His own). This also has been correctly copyists, who have accordingly overcome the

seen by the
difficidty

by

transposition^ (or even by changing vlog into which then refers to the Father).
4.

avros,

In Cod.

Vercell.

of

St,

Luke we even now read

(vide supra) the saying, without the clause concerning " ^ knowledge of the Son.'^

In

my

opinion,

we are simply forced


the zvords
^'

to the conclusion

that in St.
jjit]

Luke

Ka\

tU

ccttlv 6 vlog el

6 irarrip'''' were wanting.^ If they were xvanting in St.

wanting in
however, it whether the

Q;*
is

this

Luke, they were also without Then, goes saying.

relatively insignificant question evangelist is to be regarded as or whether originally responsible for their insertion,
first
1 But the transposition creates a new difficulty, seeing that "the knowing of the Son" now comes before "the knowing of the Father," which is very strange both in itself and in its context. 2 The readings of this codex elsewhere are of great weight. 3

On

behalf of the originality of the words an appeal

is

nciade

rhythmic structure of the saying, which it is said demands them. But even without these words a rhythm is present, and I do not see that with their addition the rhythm is a better one. * This is also Wellhausen's opinion ; but he does not enter
to the

closely into the history of the text.

294

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


On
this

they were also wanting in the first gospel.^ point one cannot arrive at any definite

decision.

At
all

all

our

events the interpolation is very ancient ; for authorities for St. Matthew and all our

authorities,

except

one,

for

St.

Luke

have

it.

The most
is

that
text

probable, because the simplest, hypothesis " St. Matthew " himself brought it into

the

the

historic
(xxviii.

aorist

into

same evangelist who changed the the present and who wrote

power is given unto me in It is not quite certain what heaven and in earth." it is, however, to the he gave position interpolation first it the that he gave place extremely probable for this is in accordance with the testimony of the
18)
:

" All

MSS., and the history of the text is most simply explained on such an hypothesis. If Greek Christians possessed from the beginning the two forms ou^el? eyvoo rig ea-TLv 6 oJf^el? eTnyivixxTKei irarhp /x>7 6 f/o?, and
: :

TOP vlov
el
/mr]

el

jULt]

VLO^

6 Traryyo, ovSe tov Trarepa T19 eiriyivoiorKet then all the mixed forms of text,

together with their early appearance, are explained in the simplest way.^ The interpolation into the Lukan text of the words " The Son no one save
^

So far as the content


in St.

is

concerned, the clause shows


;

itself as

an interpolation
is
is

Matthew
it

placed at the beginning

as clearly as in St. Luke for if it conflicts with the natural order (it

to the Son that the knowledge of the Father is delivered, and the knowledge of the Son ought not to stand before the knowledge
of the Father) clause is out of
2
;

if it

is

placed at the end, then the concluding


it.

harmony with

have therefore no need to have recourse also to the influence of a distinct oral tradition different from that of the Of course such an influence gospels, or to an apocryphal gospel. remains possible.

We

EXCURSUS
the Father," marks the
at once, while

295

first important step towards been taken almost which must have intermixture,

the

change of the aorist


St.

'iyvdi

into

the present marks the second step.^ The saying thus ran in Q as in
nearly as in
Kvpie
St.

Luke

(or
oltto

Luke)

i^o/uLoXoyovjuiaL
"y^?,

croi,

Trare/o,

Tov ovpavov Kai

rrjg

on

Kpv\^ag ravra
vrjirloL^'

Kai crvveTOdv Kai a7r/caXi'\{/-a? avra crocpoov 6 on ovrcog iyevero evSoKia Trarrjp,

vai,

e/ixTrpocrOev

crov.

Travra

julol

TOV iraTepa
(p

7rapeS60>j viro tov irarpo^, kou oJ^el? eyv(a \yel: ri? eaTLv 6 iraTrip^ ei fj-rj 6 vioi koi

av o vio^ air OKaAvyj/yj.


Ill

The
for
says
<'

source gave
in

situation

which

this

iv cKelvo)

nothing.

rw Kaipcp aTroKpiOeh ^Itjcrovg eiirev Nor may we draw any conclusion


the

no information concerning the thanksgiving was spoken, " 6


thanksgiving

from the
1

fact that in the source

In quotations of the passage torn from its context the Lukan form t/s iaTiv 6 irari^p (and rls ianv 6 vl6s) almost everywhere disappears. No weight is, however, to be assigned to this circumThat the original readings should have entirely disappeared stance. in the Greek MSS. of St. Luke, and almost entirely in the Latin
:

is unfortunately by no means exceptional. Compare, e.g., the true Lukan text has disappeared in the Lord's Prayer " {vide Sitzungsber. d. Preuss. Akad., 1904," s. 195 ff.), or how (bpeldiaas in St. Mark xv. 34 has been deleted from the whole tradition of the East (id. 1901, s. 261 S.). The Lukan text has been far more thoroughly corrected from that of St. Matthew than our textual critics are inclined to admit. Our passage also bears

MSS.,

how

witness to this fact.

It is

worthy of note that

St.

John

i.

18 (Oedv

oiSels U}paKev TrcoTrore* 6 fJLOvoyev7]% vlbs 6 ibv els rbv KbXirov tov iraTpbs, cKeivos i^Tjy^aaTo) has had as good as no influence upon the textual

history of our saying.

^96

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


Galilean
(or soon after) the condemnation of that the passages are cities, seeing

followed after
the

in a contrary sense.-^ have thus to deal with which an isolated saying has, however, been torn from

We

shown hy the "rayra" at the This fact of itself speaks against the " Christian hypothesis that our thanksgiving is a " such an hymn ; in independent composition this " ravra " would have been avoided.
a
definite context, as is

beginning.

retrospective

The
occasion

first

half of

the

first

saying presents

no

for

giving to that this


addresses
as
act

Our Lord offers thanksthe Father openly are we perhaps to say


objection.

Lord
for

inconsistent with St. Matt. vi. 6 ? He " as Father Father ") and (not of heaven and earth so great is the Divine
is

Him

My

which praise

is

given

the context plainly

shows that the thanksgiving is for something connected with our Lord'*s teaching i.e. His revelation of

God (not with miracles, &c.) ; for it only in regard to teaching that men are called and prjirioi} This distinction, and the statearocpoL
the knowledge of
is

ment that the


^

i/y]7rioi

show themselves

receptive,^

is

Luke, very suitably so far as the thought is concerned, places the thanksgiving directly after the return of the disciples from their missionary journey, but it is quite improbable that this order rests upon tradition, because this evangelist also gives the condemnation of the cities just beforehand.
St,
2

Whether we are

to lay

any
is

stress

article before ao(pol

and

vrjTLoi

questionable.

be interpreted as a limitation (not all simple) its force can, however, also be rendered by the paraphrase " " " from such to such people as are simple." people as are wise
;

upon the absence of the The absence can the wise and not all the
:

The

different
K^TTioi

significance of priinoL (" Peta'im," as in Ps. xix. 8, cxvi. G) is from that of the word with St. Paul. In St. Paul the

are always Christians

who

are

still

undeveloped like children.

EXCURSUS

297

quite in accordance with other sayings of our Lord, and is therefore not peculiar. He, however, praises

the Father, not only for the revelation vouchsafed to the vi^iTLoi, but also because the Father has hidden

There is knowledge from the wise and prudent. a hai'sh note here which already sounded intolerable
this
it is also heard in other sayings and an indication of genuineness. Moreover, we must here notice the aorists not what God always does, but what He had done on the present occasion in the success of the ministry of Jesus was the subject
is
:

to Marcion, but

of the thanksgiving. Hence some instance of success of this kind, notorious to all, which has not however been transmitted in history, must have preceded the
thanksgiving.

The

val takes

up the

ePojuoXoyovjuLai,

and the
(Tov

The
soul

eyepero ejuLTrpoaOev takes up the thought of the preceding clause.^ overpowering glory of the experience in the

clause

on

ovrcog evSoKia

most naturally constrained the tongue to such


dominates and dethe first half our

repetition in the thanksgiving.^ The first half of the saying

termines

the

second

half.

In

Lord gives thanks for that which had happened (the revelation of the knowledge of God), in the second
half

He gives clear expression to the fact that this revelation had been vouchsafed throiigh Himself; for it was just the success of His own ministry that incited
*

Cf. St. Matt, xviii. 14


v/jlQv.

oCtwj {ovk)

Hcxtlv 6^\r]fia

ifxirpoa-Oev

toO

varphs

'Evdoda reminds us of the

evSoK-rjaa at

the Baptism.

' Also the vocative ird-e/o is taken up by 6 Tarrip, but is this " Thou who a simple repetition 7 May not 6 irar-qp here signify, The word oi/rws can only refer backwards, and art the Father." has nothing to do with the introduction of what follows.

298

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


to offer praise.

Him

Thus what

follows necessarily

connects with what goes before. The iravra is exactly determined by what goes before and by what follows,
It cannot mean TrapeSoOtj. but only the whole doctrine (the doctrine is paradosis "), the complete revelation of the know" It has been " delivered to Him by ledge of God.^ the Father, and indeed first to Him the Son He has now learnt to know the Father before Him no one knew the Father ^ then through Him to those who

as well

as

"

all

"

by the verb

things

1 We have no choice but either to give Trdfra an entirely unlimited significance (the government of the world, the Messianic pov^er and authority), or to refer it to the knowledge (doctrine) as

do Grotius, Hofmann, Holtzmann, Schmiedel, Joh. Weiss, WellThe latter alternative is, however, alone hausen, and others. possible, seeing that the passage proceeds at once to speak, and to speak exclusively, of the knowledge of God, and seeing that
the preceding airoKa\v\pii contrast between (ro(f>ol and

by the a revelation of a knowledge. The objection that Trapadidopai can only be used of human transmission of teaching, and that the word therefore cannot have this sense here (Pfleiderer), is perverse. In St. Matt. " " " xxviii. 18, we do not read i566i] yuot irdaa i^ovala Trapedodt]," but
is

unequivocally determined,
to

v-qinoi

which

it

refers, as

ev oupavi^ Kal iirl 797?.


2

The
;

clear

it is

Kal {ovdels ^yvu) after vapedodrj {vTrb toO irarpSs) is not quite easiest to take it as explicative or rather consecutive.

" The knowledge of the Father is included in the delivery of the " complete doctrine," or The knowledge of the Father follows upon this delivery." Weiss, on the contrary, supposes that the clause introduced by Kai gives the essential ground for the iravra /xoi So indeed we are compelled to interpret, if with Weiss wapedSdr].

we accept

the words, "

No man knoweth

the Son save the Father,"

and regard

their position at the beginning as correct; for this clause can be regarded neither as an explanation of nor as giving

But of course we are forced the result of irdvTa fioi irapebbdr}. simply to read into this clause the idea that it gives the ground of what goes before, for no hint of this is given in the passage The words indeed fall quite out of the context. If one itself.

EXCURSUS
:

299

were receptive, of whom it is therefore now true, just as of the Son, that irdvra avroig irape^odrj. In this train of thought, when it is compared with
the utterances of our Lord, which are certainly genuine, there are two elements which might be regarded as first, the abstract distinction that is drawn strange " in the terms " the Father and " the Son," then the
:

assertion that "

No man

has known the Father save


distinction
is

the

Son."

The same
vioi^,

also
xiii.

(according to Wellhausen) in St.


01

Mark

found 32 (pv^e
in

ayyeXoL ovSe 6

el

fxr]

6 Trarrjp),^

and that

a saying which denies our Lord's knowledge of the future, and thus assuredly belongs to the most ancient
tradition.

However, as to the

ovSei^,

it

ought not

to be pressed nor taken as Marcion interprets it, as if it implied a rejection of the prophets of the Old

Testament. Luke X. 24

It
:

says

no more than

is

said in

St.

Kai (Saa-iXei^ jjOeXijcav TrpodytjraL iSeiv d vjueig /SXeVere koI ovk elSav, or in the w^ords

ttoWol

concerning the Baptist and the least in the On the other hand, importance of God.

Kingdom
is

to be

assigned to the aorist eyvco (in distinction from the present). Nothing is said of a relationship of the Son
to the Father that
is

ever abiding

to

say nothing

takes one's stand on the correct text, we should at first expect the passage to run in the following form "All has been delivered to Me by the Father, and I alone have learned to know Him, and
:

he to whomsoever I will to reveal Him." But it is quite intelligible that "the Son" should have taken the place of "I," seeing that " I " showed itself as " Son" in the this very fact of this complete and primary knowledge.
1

Cf. also St.

Luke
of

xxii.

29
'iva

6 irari]p fiov ttjv ^aaCkdav,


iv

^<j6r]Te

ry

^afftXeiq.

/jlov,

which the "antiquity

Kaydi dtariOefxac viitv Kadu:^ Siidero fioi Kai Tii>rjTe iirl ttjs Tpaire^'rjS fiov "
is

unmistakable.

800
of timeless

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

on the contrary, this eyvco also stands ; within the sphere of the e^ojuLoXoyov/mai kt\. at the beginning our Lord offers thanksgiving to the Father because He has delivered to Him all knowledge, because
:

He
the

the Son

because

He

prjirioi,

is the first to learn to know the Father, the Father has revealed this knowledge to and because it will continue to be revealed

The passage throughout only through Him the Son.^ deals with circumstances of actual historic fact.
If the saying belongs to the best

and most ancient

tradition, it can have been spoken by our Lord only during the later period of His ministry, and it further

presupposes that during this period our Lord upon other occasions called Himself " the Son." This connecessarily be disputed by those who themselves bound not to allow our Lord any suppose other self-designation than that of a Teacher, of a
clusion
will

at the close of His ministry of the Prophet, and Messiah. But the transition from the future designations of Teacher and Prophet to that of the future

Messiah demands, both in the self-consciousness of Jesus and also in outward expression, some middle
term, and
the
it is difficult

to see

why
it

tradition must be

supposed to be in error
designation

when
Son.""

" the

presents us here with If this could mean

absolutely

nothing else than "/ am the present but the Messiah," then it would be unintelligible concrete situation in which om* Lord found Himself
;

limited the sphere of significance of the expression At the preboth for Himself and for His hearers.
1 Note how the two halves of the saying are brought into correspondence by dneKaXv^J/as and aroKa\v\f/y.

EXCURSUS
sent

301

He

is

the Chosen One, the Beloved One, thus the

He that is, soon Son, and therefore in the future will come in the clouds of heaven and will receive the
office

of Messiah, whose function

is

essentially active.

If criticism can produce no valid objections against the tradition that our Lord towards the end of His

ministry called Himself the Son of of Daniel), so, in my opinion, there


for

Man

(in the sense

is still less

ground

genuineness of the tradition that our Lord called Himself " the Son,^'
hesitation
in

accepting the

absolutely impossible to imagine how He could have arrived at the conviction that He was the

because

it is

future Messiah without

knowing Himself as standing in an unique relationship to God. What, however, our Lord in this passage says of Himself as the Son, not in goes beyond what is expressed in other sayings,
first

the thought
1

itself,

but only in

its

pregnant form.^

historical witness to the antiquity,

bring forward an even to the genuineness of this saying. I do not share the confidence with which lately countless conceptions and words of St. Paul are traced back to utterances of our Lord ; but whenever I read 1 Cor. i. 19, 21 {yeypairTai ydp aTToXw TTjv (xocpiav tQv aotpuiv, Kalrrjv avveaLV tQv (rvveruv ddeTrjao} iirel yhp iv ry aocpig, toO deov ovk iyvta 6 KSafJLOs 5ta (ro<pias t6u Qebv, evSSKrjcrev 6 debs Sia ttjs fiuipiai rov Ki^piyfiaros (xCxrai Toiis TTtcTTevovTas), I am ever again struck by the coincidence here both in thought and vocabulary with our saying, though all of course has passed through the crucible of the Pauline mind. Nevertheless, imfrom attaining pressions are deceptive, and are in this instance far " Das to the dignity of a proof. Urchristentum," i.' Pfleiderer,

In

conclusion, I

would with

all reserve also

s.

pendent upon

very probable that the saying is devqirioc is not Pauline {vide supra), and " the specifically Pauline thought that the real knowledge of Christ and of God is hidden from the natural man and is only revealed to human perception by the Spirit of God," is simply read by Pfleiderer into our text, which is concerned with a contrast of quite
435
f.,

thinks that

it is

St. Paul.

But

a different nature.

302

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


;

The original version of the saying (in Q) may be defended on good grounds but the canonical version " in both gospels is " Johannine in character and indefensible. the of the clause, " no

By interpolation man knoweth the Son save the Father"

before the

clause concerning " knowledge of the Father," and by the change of the aorist into the present, the whole
so seriously complexion of the saying is altered^ altered that even the significance of the Toura and " the Trdvra in the clause " Travra juloi tends irapeSoOr]

to

become a matter of doubt.^ formal likeness of Father and Son, who are distinguished only by the different names, and a relationship of Father and Son which never had a beginning, but remains ever the

same,

now come

absolutely

to expression. Of course we are not thus to obliged interpret the canonical

saying,^ yet we cannot by any method of interpretation make it much less metaphysical.* If the first
^

Note also that by the interpolation the rhythmic structure of

the saying is emphasised. This is not unimportant in reference to the question whether, and in what measure, the rhythms in the

sayings of Jesus are original. ^ In logical consequence an attempt was now made also to change irapedSdi] into irapadeooTai {vide supra, Justin and Hippolytus),

but this correction is no longer found in the manuscripts. 3 We can also interpret the present eTnyivibaKei in St. Matthew, as if it were determined by the preceding irapedodi], and therefore as if it were not to be understood as timeless but as describing
the result of an historical action.

" The s. 441) expounds the passage as follows {'.' Matth.," thus not only the agent of revelation, who imparts the knowledge of God to those who are receptive, but He is also Himself a mystery, which was at first hidden from man and which needed a revealing. The Son belongs to the objects (raura) which are now opened to knowledge. The knowledge of the Son as the only Son of God, in the full sense of the word, is inseparably
*

Zahn
is

Son

EXCURSUS

303

evangelist himself wrote the passage as we read it, then even with the most cautious interpretation of the
his own Christology approached very passage nearly to that of the Johannine writings in one of the most

important points, and it can therefore be only due to his relatively faithful reproduction of his sources that this characteristic does not more frequently appear in
his gospel.

IV

The second

saying, which in St.


first,

immediately after the


of those

has come

Matthew follows down to us only

connected with the knowledge of God as the Father of Jesus and who become sons because they belong to Jesus. It is, however, significant that the knowledge of the Son is mentioned first. This is the new fact, that which distinguishes the present revelation from all which preceded it the fact of a Man whom to know is the way to attain to the knowledge of God. For this very reason the knowledge of God, which is now attainable, is a new We moderns would say With the personality of Jesus a thing.

While, concernreligion, Christianity, came into existence. ing the knowledge of the Father, it is expressly said that the Son alone imparts it, a corresponding statement in regard to the

new

It is, however, obvious that knowledge of the Son is wanting. this knowledge can only be imparted by Him, of whom it is said that He alone possesses such knowledge namely, the Father. The Father reveals the Son as the Son reveals the Father [I]. As, however, the knowledge of the Father and the knowledge of the Son are only two sides of the same mystery which is now revealed, it folloivs that the Father and the Son in fellowship with one another " are both subject and object of the Revelation [the italics are mine].

This is quite enough to help us to a definite decision concerning the historical character of the saying as given in St. Matthew. It is noteworthy that Zahn's exegesis justifies the placing of the clause " concerning knowing the Sou" at the beginning, while this place was really given to it because it was felt to be absolutely necessary not to separate the clause, *'and to whomsoever the Son will reveal

Him," from the clause concerning "the knowledge

of the Father."

304
in the

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


:

Gospel of St. Matthew. Scarcely any variants found in the versions and quotations (1) In verse 28 Trai/re? is wanting in Tatian (2) in the same author, ^^et qui habetis graves afflictiones (or "onera gravia") was probably interpolated before ^ Koi. (3) in verse 29 Ephraem quotes 7r(popTi<T/uLvoi ;
are
;
*'"'

OTL

i](Tvy6^

eijuii,

Trpav^

Kai

eirieiKrj^

kcu Taireivo^ tii

KapSla, consideration
sm.

The
;

omission of Trdvreg is alone worthy of this omission also occurs in Syr.^"^- and
ejULou

gyj,

'Att'

in verse

29

is,

so far as I

know,

never wanting in the Versions and in quotations ; it is not therefore permissible to delete it on the sole
authority of
fc<

This saying whose Aramaic origin is unmistakis from the able point of view of rhythm still better

(pr. man.).

constructed than the former saying, and is dominated by the conceptions (poprlov and avdiravcrig. It runs
as follows
:

AevTc

TTjOO? jue (Trat/re?)

oi

KOTricovre^ koi

irecpop-

TlCTjULeVOl,
Kctyui)

avairavcrco ujudg'
/mov e<p'
vjulcl^

"A.pare tov 'Qjyov


K.ai

jULaOere

dir'

ejuiou,

on

irpdv's

el/ui

Kal Taireivog

Til KapSla, Ka\ vpri<TTe dvairavcnv raig xj/u^a?? vjulcov

yap ^uyog

julov )(^p^](Tt6<s,

Kai
1

TO (popTLOv

JULOV

eXa(pp6u

(ecTTiv).

variants in Pistis Sophia and Agathangelus are of no In Pseudoaccount, seeing that thej are mere paraphrases; " Venite ad me omnes cyprian adv. Jud. 7, the saying reads qui
:

The

sub onera laboratis, et ego vos reficiam . . est enim iugum meum placidum et onus [the African version read sarcina,' vide Tertullian and Cyprian] levissimum.*'
.
'

EXCURSUS
It
is

305

addressed, not to the circle of disciples, but to those standing outside ; yet it has in view, not the

but those who were suffering under the burden of the heavy yoke of ordinances.^ It should therefore be compared with St. Matt, xxiii. 4.
vriirioL (still less

sinners),

The form

of this saying is similar to that of the preAs there the first thought is for the ceding saying. revelation itself, and then this revelation is described as being brought about by the Son, so here there is " rest,'' and then it first a general proclamation of the is attained rest this that said is through the accept-

ance of His yoke. The conception avairava-i^ reminds us of the Beatitudes and of the conclusion of a saying which is handed down in the gospel of the Hebrews
(/3a(Ti\v<Ta^)

eiravaiTava-eTaL^

the

second

half

is

founded upon Jer. vi. 16.^ The outward form minds us of the saying in St. Mark vi. 31 ^evre
:

re.

avairava-ea-de,

and the

passage which

situation brings to mind the immediately follows in St. Mark (verse

34)

et^ev irokvv o-)(\ov, koI ecrirKayyvLcrQ}] eir^ avrovf,

on

^crav

ft)?

Trpo/Bara

ixrj

e-^ovra Troifxepa.
:

Also the

1 Perhaps this interpretation is too definite ol KoiriCovTe^ signifies " " those who are wearied ; but from the combination in general of TecpopTKTfiivoi and fiddere air' ifiov, it can with probability be deduced that our Lord had in His eye those who stood under the

burden

of Pharisaic teachers

and

of Pharisaic legal observance.


s.

Vide

"

Sitzungsber.

1904,"

175

ff. ;

tw^'^v

avaTravatv,

St.

Matt.
3

xii. 43.

ef.

The whole saying is full of reminiscences of the Old Testament, above all Isa. Iv. 1 (also xiv. 3, xxviii. 12); Jer. xxxi. 25; Note that Jer. vi. 16 is given in an independent Isa. xlii. 2. translation ; for avairavcri.^ is not found in the LXX version of the This is important in connection passage where ayvta/xdi is read.
with the question of the origin of the saying.

306

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

commandments
concerned

compared with the burdens which were imposed by the scribes, they are a "gentle"^ yoke and a light ^ burden. The " " Kal " before " be taken as and the

are a yoke,^ like all deal with doctrine and life, but

of Jesus

for with these the saying

is

commandments that

judOere consecutive, ma?/ should not be taken as casual ; we trans" Thus will late therefore ye learn of Me,* that I am meek and lowly." ^ In these words our Lord assigns

on

to His personality a significance both in relation to the character of His commandments and also indirectly in relation to their appropriation ; in this point, therefore, there exists a distinct connection in

thought with the former saying. It was just this connection in thought and inward " St. Matthew " to relationship that moved place the one saying directly after the other but this can scarcely have been their original relative posi;

tions, for the situation


^

presupposed in each of the


Commandments)
rhv rpdxo^ov tQv
iaxvcafi^v

In Didache

6,

the doctrine (the


Cf.

of Jesus

are called
Treipd^'eTe

"6

^vybs toO Kvplov.^^


9e6v,

also Acts xv.

10: vvv odp rl


ixadrjTQiv,

rhv
oi

iwideLvaL
ijfiQiv

^vyov
is

iirl

8v

oiire

Traripes

the Kabbinic writers, ments.


2

"

yoke

oUre "

"^yuets

fiaaTacrai.

With

a technical term for commandSt.

Xpr)crT6s is

found again in the gospels only in

Luke

v. 39,

vi.

35
1

and

in the latter passage it is used of God, so also in Rom. ii. 4 Pet. ii. 3 (from the Psalms). XprjaT&rrjs is likewise often

used of God. Both the Latin versions and Syr.'''i' translate x/>'?o"r6s in our passage by " suavis." ^ 'E\a0/)6s is only found again in the New Testament in 2 Cor.
iv. 17.
*

Mauddpeiv
iii.

d-irb
i.

Tivoi also in St.

Mark

xiii.

28

(St.

Matt. xxiv. 32)

Gal.
"

Col.
;

Heb.

v. 8.

TaTLv6i

only here in St. Matthew.

EXCURSUS

307

two sayings is different ;^ the first saying is concerned with the knowledge of God and its revelation, the second with directions for the conduct of life besides
;

this,
is

the

first

saying

is

a thanksgiving, the
is

second
derived

it

the cry of a missionary preacher.^ is not certain that the second saying

Moreover,

If from Q, seeing that it is wanting in St. Luke. its inward relationship to the first saying be brought forward as an argument in favour of its belonging to Q, it must not be forgotten that the first saying is unique in Q and does not represent a type of

In favour of its belonging sayings in that source. to Q one might appeal to the fact that while the

beginning of the first saying seems to be fashioned after Sirach li. 1 {e^ofJ.oKoyriaroiJ.al croi, Kvpie /3acriXei/), so also the second saying has parallels in Sirach li.
(verse 23 eyy la- are irpo^ /me, verse 26 toj/ rpayjikov vwo ^vyov, verse 27 Kai eupov ejuavru) vTroOere vjuLU)v
:
:
:

But these parallels are too avaTravaiv). Hence the question, of much to be weight. general from what source the first evangelist derived this
iroWr]];

saying,

must remain open.

to assume that this I see from was derived secondary tradition ? saying no convincing reasons for such a supposition certainly not in the form of the saying, for it is mere the most ancient tradition perversity to assert that

Are we, however, compelled

It is

much more

is

original in St. Luke continuation in xiii. 16, 17

more

probable that the continuation of the saying St. Matthew has this (x. 23, 24) but this also does not admit of

proof.
2

AeCre occurs often in

St.

Matthew

it is

not,

to this gospel

among

the writings of the

New

however, peculiar Testament.

308

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

could not have represented Jesus as speaking in this way, or that Jesus could not have so spoken ; nor
general content, for it cannot be doubted that our Lord regarded those who were plagued with the Pharisaic ordinances as heavy laden, and
in
its

that He promised rest to such persons (the word " souls " Neither, finally, ought not to be pressed).^
tent of the saying

can such reasons be deduced from the specific connamely, that a man after accept-

His yoke would learn of Him that He was for though this peculiar form of self-assertion is unique there is no want of selfassertion elsewhere, even in tradition which is quite
ing

meek and lowly

trustworthy.
^

Here

it

is

probably Messianic,^ and

There was no need to say wherein the rest consisted ; and the question whether it belonged to this world or to the coming Kingdom is not to the point here. If it is certain that our Lord devoted Himself to the relief of the sick and diseased, then these Koiriwvres are covered by the saying. * Isa. xlii. 2 and allied passages probably stand in the background. It is most noteworthy that there is here absolutely no This could scarcely have reference to the cross and the death. been wanting in a Christian hymn of later times. Jesus simply says that meekness and lowliness are to be learned from Him, and

will find rest nothing else. The saying take up their cross and follow Him is at all events later than our saying. Moreover, the seeming discrepancy with those commandments in which great emphasis is laid upon keeping the Law, and with those sayings in which it is said that one must through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God, is rather a sign of genuineness than of the contrary. I know of no proof

that the that

meek and lowly

men must

that the primitive

community

to be light with the exception of 1 John v. 3 {at ivToXal avrou /3ape?ai ovK dalv), a passage which perhaps looks backward to our saying. The solution of the discrepancy in the

and His burden

felt

the yoke of Jesus to be easy

mind of our Lord lies in the thought that by His example, from which men are to learn, the commandments become light.

EXCURSUS
St.
:

309

moreover finds noteworthy support in 2 Cor. x. 1. Paul writes there UapaKoXw vjulu^ Sia r^?
koI
eirieiKela^

tov ^picrTOu. Hence by means of the preaching of the Apostle the irpduTrj<: Koi e-TTieiKeia of Christ had become to the Corinthians something that was not only well known and conTrpavTtjTog

stantly spoken about, but also something that partook If then the even of the nature of a set formula.
7rpavTt]9

KOI

7riiKeia

^piarov had

thus

become

quite a technical term, it is not too much to suppose that St. Paul was acquainted with our saying. The contrary hypothesis that 2 Cor. x. 1 was the
source of the saving would be indeed

adventurous.
is

However, here
sufficient for

also

the

evidence

adduced

not

a proof of dependence.

Of the two sayings the first, which is derived from Q, belongs to the best authority which we our Lord, nor can any valid possess concerning
objections be alleged against its content when once it is restored to its original form. The second say-

ing may come from Q, but it can also come from another source ; it is also most probably not the No proof can be continuation of the first saying.

given that it belongs to secondary tradition. In neither case is the verbal accuracy
tradition

of the

of course guaranteed; but it is decisive for the recognition of the relative genuineness of the sayings that in the first saying the whole emphasis

upon the knowledge of God and its revelathe second upon the yoke of Jesus in the sense of commandments; that, further, in the first
is

laid

tion, in

310

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

saying the primary condition of the knowledge of God is simplicity, while in the second saying *" is meekness the primary condition of the " amiravai^

and

lowliness;

that, moreover, in

(Pharisaic)

"

perfect

ones

""

both sayings the form the contrast and


within
the

everything is horizon ; and,

strictly

confined

Jewish

Jesus finally, that in the first saying is represented as the revealer of the knowledge of God, while in the second He is represented as the

and pattern of the quietistic virtues without a single reference to the Cross and Passion.^ " one understands what If by the word " Gospel St. Paul and St. Mark understood by this word, " and are not " then these
instructor

sayings

gospel

sayings

have nothing in of Paulinism.


assigning them

common

We

with the specific conceptions have only the choice between

to the creation of a later prophet of the primitive Jewish-Christian community who omits all reference to the Crucistrangely enough

fixion,

or

assigning

them

to

our

Lord

Himself.

Given the two alternatives, there seems to doubt about which to choose.

me no

EXCURSUS

II

Concerning the Voice from Heaven at the Baptism (St. Luke iii. 22)

Even in St. Matthew and St. Luke the Baptism of our Lord by St. John presented a certain difficulty
1 This negative element is in itself a proof that these sayings belong to Q, or at least are nearly allied to that source, for in Q also there is no reference to the Cross and Passion.

EXCURSUS
(vide
J.

II

311

Bornemann, " Die Taufe Christi durch Johannes," Leipzig, 1896), and the fourth evangehst by the method of his description of the event has Also from the almost got rid of the Baptism itself. included was not fact that (1) the Baptism among the articles of the ancient Roman Symbol, and that the event much more (2) reference was made to have from its importance we should than rarely see that in later times the inconvenience we expected In this connection the of the tradition was still felt.

behaviour, for example,

of the African

writers

is

instructive: in spite of the multitude of quotations from the New Testament found in Tertullian, Cyprian,

and the more ancient African

writers, it is impossible to ascertain the words of the voice from heaven as

read by either of these writers, because

it

is

never

quoted by any of them (nor by Novatian).^ But by far the most inconvenient version of the
tradition

must have been that which gave the voice from heaven (after Ps. ii.) in the form vlog jmou
1

(TV

'

arjiJLepov

yeyevvrjKO.

ae

for,
it

unless

sophis-

tical reasonings

were called to aid,

excluded the

miraculous Conception. This version of the voice from heaven is nowhere found in the MSS. of St. Matthew ; but in St. Luke
it is

attested

by

and the Old Latin codices

Vercell.,

Veron., Colbert. Paris., Corbei. (ff.^), Rhedig. Vratisl.^ In agreement with these authorities we find, in the

West, Justin
1

(twice),

Acta

Petri

et

Pauli," 29

Neither

is it

quoted by the Apostolic Fathers and the Clementine

Homilies.
*

According to Epiphanius both versions stood in the Gospel

of the Ebionites.

312

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

Lactant., Juvenc, Hilary (five times), the translator of Origen (" Horn, in Ezech." 17, 3),^ the author of the pseudo-Augustinian " Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test.,"

Tychon., Faustus in Augustine, and Augustine.^ After the beginning of the fifth century the reading vanishes
completely ; the Vulgate gave it its death-blow. In the East, omitting Justin, who ought also to be reckoned among Eastern authorities, it is not
attested

by Tatian
the

and

Irenaeus, but

is

given by

Apost." (therefore also by the " Apost. Constit."), and by Methodius. With our present knowledge of textual criticism

Clem.

Alex.,*

Didascalia

we are accordingly safe in deciding that the most ancient exemplars of St. Luke's gospel, which were current in the West, agreed in reading the version of
Psalm
ii.,

while in the East this reading was found

only in a few exemplars.

Was this also the reading of Origen himself ? We may not " Comm. in Joh." p. 37 (ed. Preuschen). appeal with certainty to Also Hom. 27 in " Luc." speaks to the contrary. 2 " Illud vero Augustine writes {" De Consensu Evv.," ii. 14, 31) quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc ilia voce
1
:

hodie genui

Filius meus es tu ego quod in psalmo scriptum est te,' quanquam in antiqiiioribus codicihus Grcecis non inveniri perhibeatur [the Greek codices are ipso facto the more ancient for Augustine], tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus

sonuisse,

'

confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intellegendum est " quolibet verborum ordine de ccelo sonuisse ?
^ This of course proves nothing, as Tatian's Diatessaron is a gospel harmony; but Syr.sin. of St. Luke does not give the version according to Psalm ii., nor does the Peshitto. " Paed." i. * It is remarkable that in 6, 25, he gives the two versions one after another, just as in the Gospel of the Ebionites according to Epiphanius. It is uncertain whether the reading is attested in the Epistle to Diognetus, chap, xi, the version of Celsus in Origen, " Contra Celsum," i. 41, is also uncertain.

EXCURSUS
If
also, after

II

313

we now ask what St. Luke wrote himself; here what we have now learned, there can be no doubt about our decision. We know that conformation of the texts of (St. Mark and) St. Luke to the text of St. Matthew not only began very early
was most actively carried on at the time which our manuscripts^ indeed before the time of the before made hy the Fathers; and that the preqtwtations decessors of the most ancient Western manuscripts did not suffer therefrom so much as those of the East.
hut that
it

lies

It

therefore follows that we must insert the voice from heaven, according to the version of Psalm ii.,

into the text of St. Luke.^

K, however,

St.

Luke

wrote

thus,

we

cannot

possibly suppose that he intentionally, and upon his own authority, altered the tradition which lay before

him

in St.
;

Mark
for

(oru el

o vlo?

julov

6 a-yaTr^yro?, iv

(rot

evSoKrja-a)

he could not but have found the version according to Psalm ii. inconvenient, after what he had narrated in chapters i. and ii. He

thus accepted this reading and substituted it for the of the Markan account, because it was presented by a tradition which he regarded as more

reading

credible than, or at least as credible as the tradition contained in St. Mark.


^ Eecourse to an apocryphal gospel or to the hypothesis of a variant translation in oral tradition is not to be commended here, seeing that in critical problems of this kind one must try to confine oneself to known quantities, so far as these exist, and to

make the

best of them. Here, as a matter of fact, they are quite suflScient for the solution of the problem. The hypothesis of a later intrusion of the reading into the Lukan text is improbable,

because of

Canon

of

its content, and has no analogy in Four Gospels had once been formed.

its

favour after the

314
Seeing,

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

however, that St. Luke directly before directly afterwards follows the source Q, and that it therefore is a priori very probable that an account of the Baptism of our Lord stood in Q,

and

it

is

also not less

voice

from
ii.)

probable that the version of the heaven in St. Luke (according to


derived from

Psalm

is

substituted this version for that of St.

Q, and that St. Luke Mark because

he regarded

it as

more trustworthy.^

From
source

this it follows (1) that St. Luke valued the at a higher rate than, or at least at as high

Mark ; (2) that the story of the Baptism together with the voice from heaven is not an invention of St. Mark, but goes back to a legend which lies behind St. Mark and Q ; (3) that
a rate as he valued St.
this legend had its more origvnal form in Q, for the voice from heaven in the version of St. Mark

(which

is

followed by St. Matthew)

is

clearly seen

to be an attenuated form
version of
^

when compared with the

(St.

Luke).^

that the narrative of the appearance of a light at the Baptism, of which the earliest witness is given in Tatian, also originally stood in St. Luke, and thus also in Q ; but the evidence is not so strong as in the case of the voice from heaven, seeing
It is possible
St. Mark and St. Matthew give nothing which corresponds and that the narrative is wanting in D. * The arifiepov is decisive even though the Markan account may

that

it implicitly. On the other hand, it seems to me scarcely worthy of attention that in Q the Son is spoken of as being "begotten" (as in the first chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke,

contain

there in realistic fashion, but in Q metaphorically), while St. Mark does not give this conception at all. Perhaps the version of the
voice from heaven, according to Psalm ii., has an ancient witness in Heb. i. 5 f ; for this passage perhaps refers to what occurred
.

at the

Baptism

yet this

is

not certain.

INDEX TO THE RECONSTRUCTED

TEXT OF
St.
111. iii.

Q
St.

Matthew.

PAGE
40, 127
1,

Matthew.

PAGE
85, 135,
I

X.
xi.

34-40 2

7-12
l-ll
2-4,
6, 11,

127

iv.
V.
V.

41, 128

.... ....
.

141

146 90 132
14 132,

12

48, 128 53, 137,

xi.

3-13
16-27

13, 15, 18, 25, 26,

5
i
.

144
16,
. .

32
V. 39, 40, 42,
vi.

142, 144
58, 129
63, 136
67,

xi.

133,

44-48
.

vi. 19.
vi.

9-13 20
21-33
1-5,

xii.

22, 23,

25
21,

135 21 136

140

xii.
xii.

27-30, 32

136 140
68 130

4, 137,

140, 144
vii.

xii.
xii.

7-12

8, 130,

33 38-42 43-45
.

vii.

vii.

13, 14 16-18 vii. 21, 24-28 . viii. 5


.

136 67, 142 68, 130


70, 131

xiii. 16,
xiii.

17

31-33
.
.

XV. 14
xvii.
xviii.

22 24 25 26 28

137
137 135

142 130

20
7

71
74, 131
77,
10, 12,

viii.

viii. 11,

5-10, 13 12

xviii. 12,

13

viii.

ix.

19-22 37, 38
.

X.
X.

79,
12,

10
15

X. 12, X. X.

13
.

79,
13, 13,

16

X. 24,
X.

X.

25 26 27-33
.

79,
14,

82,

142 133 133 133 134 134 134 134 130 139 139
315

xviii. 15, 21,

22

xix. 28

xxi. 32.
xxii.

2-11

xxiii. 4, 13, 23,


xxiii. xxiii.

25-3G

12

91 145 28 144 91 143 93 145 95 146 118 119 96, 138 29, 143
29, 143 105, 145

37-39

xxiv. 26-28, 37-41 xxiv. 43-51

31, 141

XXV. 14-30

122
34, 146

XXV. 29

316
St.
iii. iii.

INDEX
Luke.
17
. .

pagb
40, 127
1,
.

St.

Luke.

PAQB
24, 136
53, 137
4,

7
7, 8, 9, 16,

127

iv.
vi.

1-13 20-23

.....
41,

41, 128
48,

128

vi.
vi.

27-30
31

58, 129

vi. 32, 33, 35,


vi. 37, 38, vi.

36 42

129 59, 129 8, 130


9,

vi.
vi. vi.

39 40
44 46-49
43,

28, 130
79, 68,

130
130

70, 131

24-26 .33 xi. 34, 35 X .39,41,42,44,46-52 x 2 X 3-9 X 10 X 22-31 X 33 X 34 X i. 39, 40, 42-46 X i. 51, 53
.

96,
14,

137 138 139

82, 139

vii. 1 vii. vii.


vii.

71, 131

1-10
18, 19

....

74, 131

22-28 vii. 29, 30 vii. 31-35 ix. 2 ix. 67-60 X. 2


20,
X. 3 X.

...

90, 132
14,

132

4
6

X. 5,

X. 7, 8

118 16, 133 79, 133 11, 133 12, 133 13, 134 134 79, 134 12, 134

X X X X X
X

i.

58, 59

ii.
ii. ii.

ii.

18-21 24 28, 29 34, 35


11

.....
... ...

.... .... ....


. .

140 140 66, 140 4, 140 31, 141


21,
4,

85, 141

54,

142

26, 142

67, 142
77,
29,

142 143
119

V.
V.

X X X

16-24
27 35

V. 26,
V. 34,

.... ... ....


.

29, 143

86, 143 53, 143 91, 143


4,

XV. 4-7
xvi. 13 xvi. 16 xvi. 17 xvi. 18
xvii. 1 xvii. 3, xvii.

U4
1-*.

15,

53,
54, 28,

X. 9
X. 10, 11

X.
X.

12
13-15, 21, 22
. .

13,
17,

133 133 134


135

93,
91,

144 144 144 145 145

X. 16
X. 23,
xi.
xi.

86, 135

xvii. 23, 24, 26, 27,

24
.
.

25, 135

34, 35, 37
xvii.

105, 145

2-4.

.63,
23
.

9-13

xi. 14, 17, 19, 20,


xi. 16,

29-32

...

136 8, 136 21, 136 22, 137

33

...
. .

86, 146

xix. 12-27 xix.

122
34, 146 95, 146

26

....
.
.

xxii. 28,

30

TTNTV^"

-^^.

14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED

LOAN
Renewed books are
r-*
t

DEPT.

RENEWALS ONLYTEL. NO. 642-3405 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or
on the date to which renewed. subject to immediate recaU.
f*^.

'^jU

.;-

MAR

Zl-br'i 3 A

'

'i

J^.

'<

li

RK'DL D
^
fj^
y

Jl
r/
k

\%

\lf

-^

^
BBS.

^V
3 1975

SEP
CUb WB3 1

5 8

^
General Library University of California Berkeley

LD21A-60to-3,'70 (N5382sl0)476-A-32

^^^
^tm ^7r~^ff~^
2l-95ni-7,'37

^Q

^-^ftjV^^^'^'^P

i^H79
^

m
TUi'Z

^'^

r>

pHcr -^'
i:

>

>.
:^;