Jesus and the First Three Gospels: An Introduction to the Synoptic Tradition [Reprint 2013 ed.] 9780674731318, 9780674730991

Citation preview

JESUS AND T H E FIRST THREE GOSPELS

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS An Introduction

to the Synoptic

Tradition

WALTER E. BUNDY Professor of Bible DePauw University

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, Massachusetts

1955

© Copyright, 1955, by the President and Fellows of Harvard College

Distributed in Great Britain by Geoffrey Cumberlege, Oxford University Press, London

The Bible text in this volume is from the American Standard Version of the Revised Bible (1901), copyrighted by the Division of Christian Education, National Council of Churches, and used by permission. Permission has also been granted by Henry Holt and Company, New York, for the use of material from Langlois and Seignobos, Introduction to the Study of History, and by Macmillan & Company, London, for C. G. Montefiore, Some Elements of the Religious Teaching of Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 53-10868 Printed in the United States of America

This volume is published with assistance from THE MENDENHALL FOUNDATION DEPAUW

UNIVERSITY

It is Inscribed to THE AUTHOR'S GRANDCHILDREN

FOREWORD The earliest of all Christian writings to survive, the letters of Paul, are not repositories of the primitive traditions about Jesus which were in current circulation in their fragmentary pre-Gospel form. In Paul's letters the reader does not find traditions but sporadic references to tradition in its primitive oral form. Paul speaks of Jesus as "born of a woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4), "of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3), but he tells no birth story and he has no genealogy of Jesus such as are found in Matthew and Luke. Paul cites two words of Jesus as such ( I Cor 7:10; 9:14); otherwise in Paul's letters there are only phrases and figures of speech which may be echoes from sayings of Jesus. Paul records the earliest known text of the bread and the wine on the last night in I Cor 11:23-25 but this passage is the liturgical text of the early Christian sacrament; it is not simple narration. Paul speaks of Jesus having been betrayed, crucified and buried but he gives no account of these traditional events. The earliest Christian traditions about Jesus are deposited in the first three Gospels which together form the so-called Synoptic tradition. In this study the first three Gospels are treated as a body of tradition because of the literary dependence and the use of common sources which hold them together. This study concerns itself exclusively with the literary and historical data of this tradition. The religious values of this tradition, as well as those conventionally associated with it, are left to speak for themselves or to be assumed. The primary aim of the body of this work is to introduce the reader to the Synoptic materials themselves, to acquaint him with the nature, probable origin, and purpose of the Christian traditions deposited in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In his study of this volume the reader should have before him the paralleled text of the first three Gospels which he consults constantly. The analysis of the Synoptic materials followed in this volume is that of the author's own Syllabus and Synopsis of the First Three Gospels (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrili, 1932) to which the present work is a sequel and companion. The tabulated columns of references by chapter and verse on pages ixff. are more than a table of. contents or index to the body of this work. They present a detailed analysis of the actual structure and composition of the Synoptic tradition in its three forms and make clear at a glance the relation of each passage of Matthew and Luke to the Markan framework.

FOREWORD

Parallel passages in non-parallel order will appear at the beginning of each paragraph as it is discussed in detail. This tabulated analysis breaks the Synoptic tradition down into its primitive units of narration, discourse, dialogue, and editorial matter — the fragmentary pieces and heterogeneous bits of which this tradition is composed. Not a few of these units are themselves composite but they are left to stand because the Synoptic writers seem to treat them as units. Some of these units can be broken down into smaller ones (e.g., fl62, Ρ80, j[333, etc.), and this is done in connection with the discussion of each paragraph involved. The U number in each case gives each unit of tradition its own identity and indicates its position and context. Once the reader has accustomed himself to them, he will find that the f numbers are a far better key and guide to the structure and composition of the Synoptic tradition than references by chapter and verse. The body of this work might be called Everyman's, for there are very few critical works in French, German, or English which have not made some sort of contribution to it. A few, as the reader will readily recognize, have contributed a great deal. The numerous footnotes acknowledge the author's indebtedness to, as well as direct the student's attention toward, a great many critical works, major and minor, in the field of Synoptic research from Strauss (1835) and Weisse (1838) down to the present. As these numerous references also indicate the means and extremes, the drifts and trends of modern critical opinion, this work might be regarded as a compendium of criticism in the Synoptic field. The author wishes to express his thanks to Dr. Russell J. Humbert, President of DePauw University, and to Mr. Deward W . Smythe, Comptroller, for the helpful interest they have taken in the publication of this volume. Helpful interest in publication, however, does not mean approval of views published. For the undocumented views set forth in this volume the author alone is responsible. W . Ε. B. Greencastle, Indiana Summer of 1953

viii

CONTENTS

THE STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 1

Mark

Matthew

Luke

Page

1-4

1

1:5-2:52

7

1:

A. THE BIRTH TRADITION 1:1-2:23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1: 5-25 26-38 39-56 57-80 2: 1-7 8-20 21-40 41-52

1: 1-17 18-25 2: 1-12 13-23

7 9 11 14 17 19 20 22 26 29 31 33

Β. THE PUBLIC TRADITION 3:1-27:66

1:1-15:47

3:1-23:56

39

I. THE GALILEAN TRADITION 3:1-18:35 1 2 3 4 5 β 7 8 9 10 11

1:1-9:50

3: 1-6 7-10

1: 1-6

11-12

7-8

13-17

9-11

4: 1-11 12-17

12-13 14-15

18-22

16-20 ix

3:1-9:50

40

3: 1-6 7-9 10-14 15-18 19-20 21-22 23-38 4: 1-13 14-15 16-30

40 47 49 49 52 53 58 59 64 67 70

THE STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION 1

12 13 14 15 16 17

Î18-51

Matthew

Mark

4:23-25

1:21-28 29-31 32-34 35-38 39

4:31-37 38-39 40-41 42-43 44 5: 1-11

Page

73 80 82 83 88 91

T H E SERMON ON T H E MOUNT

5:1-7:29 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Luke

93 96 96 98 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 105 106 106 107 109 110 110 111 115 115 116 116 117 118 119 119 119 120 121 121 122 123 124 124

5: 1-2 3-12 13 14 15-16 17-20 21-24 25-26 27-28 29-30 31-32 33-37 38-42 43-48 6: 1 2-4 5-8 9-15 16-18 19-21 22-23 24 25-34 7: 1-2 3-5 6 7-8 9-11 12 13-14 15-20 21-23 24-27 28-29

X

OF THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 1 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

U66-80

Matthew 8:

1-4 5-13 14-15 16-17 18-22 23-27 28-34 9: 1 - 8 9 10-13 14-17 18-26 27-31 32-34

Mark 1:40-45

2: 1 - 1 2 13-14 15-17 18-22

K81-85

81 82 83 84 85

5:12-16

17-26 27-28 29-32 33-39

Page 125 130 131 132 132 133 134 135 142 144 146 150 152 152

THE ADDRESS TO THE TWELVE AND THEIR MISSION

9:35-11:1 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Luke

...

...

153 154 155 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 161 162 163 163 164 165

9:35 '36 37-38 10: 1 - 4 5 6 7-16 17-22 23 24-25 26-27 28-33 34-36 37-39 40-42 11: 1

JESUS' ADDRESS ON THE BAPTIST

11:2-19

...

...

166

11: 2 - 6 7-11 12-13 14-15 16-19

... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ...

167 169 169 170 171

xi

THE STRUCTURE A N D COMPOSITION U

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

1195-114

H95-106

Matthew

Mark

Luke

Page

11:20-24 25-26 27 28-30 12: 1-β 9-14 15-21 ... ...

... ... ... ... 2:23-28 3: 1-6 7-12 13-19a ...

... ... ... ... 6: 1-5 6-11 ... 12-16 17-20a

171 173 174 175 176 179 183 185 187

LUKE'S SMALL NON-MARKAN SECTION

6:20b-8:3

188

6:20b-49

189

T H E SERMON ON T H E PLAIN

95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

6:20b-23 24-26 27-30 31 32-36 37-38 39 40 41-42 43-45 46 47-49

190 192 192 193 193 194 194 195 195 195 195 196

107 108

... ...

... ...

7: 1-10 11-17

196 198

7:18-35

199

11109-112

JESUS' ADDRESS ON T H E B A P T I S T

109 110 111 112

... ... ... ...

... ... ... ...

7:18-23 24-28 29-30 31-35

199 200 201 201

113 114

... ...

... ...

36-50 8: 1-3

202 204

xii

OF THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION

1[115-124

THE

125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 11150-152

150 151 152

Luke

Page

B E E L Z E B U B ADDRESS

12:22-37 115 lie 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124

Mark

Matthew

1

12:22-23 24 25-26 27-28 29 30 31-32 33-35 36-37

38 39-42 43-45 46-50 13: 1-9 10-15 16-17 18-23

3:19b-30

206

3:19b-21

206 208 209 209 210 211 211 212 213 213

22 23-26 27 28-30

31-35 4: 1-9 10-12 13-20 21 22-23 24-25 26-29

24-30 31-32 33 34-35 36-43 44—16 47-50 51-52

53-58

8: 4-8 9-10 11-15 16 17 18

30-32 33-34

35-41 5: 1-20 21—13 6:

19-21 22-25 26-39 40-56

l-6a

214 214 215 216 218 221 225 225 227 229 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 237 238 239 243 244 247

T H E ADDRESS TO T H E T W E L V E AND T H E I R M I S S I O N

6:6b-13

9:1-6

250

6: 6b 7-11 12-13

9: 1-5

251 251 253

xiii

6

T H E STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION 1

Matthew

153 154 155 156 157 158

14: 1-2 3-4 5-12

U59-176

159 160 161 1162-167

13-14 15-21

Luke

Page

9: 7 - 9

253 257 258 259 261 263

Mark

6:14-16 17-18 19-29 30-31 32-34 35-44

10 11 12-17

LUKE'S GREAT OMISSION

14:22-23a 23b-33 34-36

6:45-8:26

265

6:45-46 47-52 53-56

267 268 270

T H E ADDRESS ON UNWASHEN HANDS

15:1-20

7:1-23

271

162 163 164 165 166 167

15: 1-2 3-9 16-11 12-13 14 15-20

7: 1-5 6-13 14-15

272 274 275 276 276 276

168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176

21-28 29-31 32 33-39 16: 1 2-3 4a 4b-12

24-30 31-37 8: 1-3 4-10 11

177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185

13-20 21 22-23 24-26 27 28 17: 1-8 9 10-13

27-30 31 32-33 34-37 38 9: 1 2-8 9-10 11-13

17-23

278 281 283 283 285 286 287 287 289

12 13-21 22-26

xiv

9:18-21 22 23-25 26 27 28-36a 36b

.. ·

290 296 299 300 302 303 304 308 309

OF T H E SYNOPTIC TRADITION 1

Matthew

Mark

Luke

Page

186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200

17:14-18 19-20 22-23 24-27 18: 1-5

9:14-27 28-29 30-32

9:37-43a

311 313 314 316 317 319 320 321 322 323 324 326 326 326 327

1201-304

6-9 » ·

·

10-14 15-17 18 19-20 21-22 23-35

33-37 38-40 41 42-48 49-50

.. .

43b-45

.. .

46-48 49-50

LUKE'S GREAT NON-MARKAN SECTION (Journey to Jerusalem)

9:51-18:14 201 202 H203-208

... ...

... ...

9:51-56 57-62

328 330 332

T H E ADDRESS T O T H E S E V E N T Y AND T H E I R MISSION

203 204 205 206 207 208

... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ...

209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 XV

10:1-20

332

10: 1 2 3-12 13-15 16 17-20

333 334 334 335 335 336

21 22 23-24 25-28 29-37 38-42 11: 1-4 5-8 9-10 11-13

337 338 338 339 340 342 343 344 345 345

THE STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION H

1J219-226

Matthew THE BEELZEBUB

Mark

Luke

Page

ADDRESS

11:14- 26

346

219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226

11:14 15 16 17--18 19--20 21- -22 23 24--26

346 347 347 347 348 348 348 349

227 228 229 230

27-28 29-32 33 34-36

349 349 350 350

H231-242

T H E ADDRESS AGAINST T H E

PHARISEES

AND L A W Y E R S

11:37-54

351

231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242

11:37 38 39^1 42 43 44 45 46 47-48 49-51 52 53-54

352 352 353 353 353 354 354 354 355 355 356 356

243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252

12: 1 2-3 4-9 10 11-12 13-15 16-21 22-32 33-34 35-38

356 357 358 358 359 359 360 360 361 361

xvi

OF THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION 1

Matthew

Mark

253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 11294-302

Luke

12:39-40 41-46 47-48 49-50 51-53 54-56 57-59 13: 1-5 6-9 10-17 18-19 20-21 22 23-24 25-27 28-30 31-33 34-35 14: 1-6 7-11 12-14 15-24 25-27 28-33 34-35 15: 1-2 3-7 8-10 11-32 16: 1-12 13 14-15 16 17 18 19-31 17: 1-2 3^1

5-6 7-10 11-19

THE

ESCHATOLOGICAL

294 295 296 297 XVII

Page

362 362 363 363 364 364 365 365 366 366 367 368 368 369 369 370 370 371 371 372 373 373 374 375 376 376 377 377 378 379 381 381 382 382 382 383 384 385 385 386 386

ADDRESS

17:20-37

387

17:20-21 22-24 25 26-27

388 388 389 389

T H E STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION 1

Matthew

298 299 300 301 302

Mark

• ·

.

303 304

Luke

Page

17:28-30 31-32 33 34-35 37

389 390 390 390 391

18: 1-8 9-14

391 392

II. THE JERUSALEM TRADITION 19:1-27:66

10:1-15:47

18:15-23:56

393

18:15-19:28

394

1. THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM

305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318

19:1-20:34

10:1-52

19: 1-2 3-9 10-12 13-15 16-22 23-26 27-30 20: 1-16 17-19 20-24 25-28 29-34

10: 1 2-12

35-43 19: 1-10 11-28

395 396 398 398 399 401 402 404 405 406 408 409 411 412

11:1-13:37

19:29-21:38

414

11: 1-10

19:29-38 39-40 41-44

414 419 419 420 420 421 422 423 423 424 426 428

13-16 17-22 23-27 28-31

18:15-17 18-23 24-27 28-30

32-34 35-41 42-45 46-52

31-34

2. THE JERUSALEM DAYS

21:1-25:46 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330

21: 1-9 10-11 12a 12b-13 14 15-16 17 18-19

11a lib

45a 45b-46

...

11c 12-14 15-17 18

xviii

47-48

OF T H E SYNOPTIC TRADITION

1

Matthew

331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341

21:20 21-22 23-27 28-32 33-46 22: 1-14 15-22 23-33 34-40 41-46

11342-357

Mark

11:19 20-21 22-25 27-33 12: 1-12

.. .

13-17 18-27 28-34 35-37

Luke

20: 1-8 9-19

•..

20-26 27-38 39-40 41-44

Page

428 429 430 432 434 436 438 439 441 442 444

T H E ADDRESS AGAINST T H E SCRIBES AND PHARISEES

342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357

358 359 1360-389

23:1-39

12:38-40

20:45-47

446

23: 1 2-3

12:38a

20:45

447 448 448 448 449 450 450 450 451 451 451 452 452 452 452 453

4

5-7 8-10 11-12 13 15 16-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 29-32 33 34-36 37-39

24: 1-2

.. .

38b-40

» ·

.

46-47

•.. .. . ... •..

.. .

...

,,,

,,.

.,.

•*.

12:41-44 13: 1-2

.. .

21: 1-4 5-6

454 455

21:7-36

456

T H E ESCHATOLOGICAL ADDRESS

24:3-25:46 360 361 362 363 364 365

• . «

24: 3 4-5 6-8

9

10-13 14

13:3-37 13: 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-13a 13b

xix

21: 7 8 9-11 12-18 19

...

459 460 460 461 462 463

THE STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION 11 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389

Matthew

24:15-16

. ..

Mark

13:14

17-18 19 20-22

15-16 17 18-20

23-25 26-27 28 29 30-31

21-23

.. .

.. .

23a

,,.

23b-24 ... 25-26 27 28 29-31 32-33

28-29 30-31 32

32-33 34-35 36 37-39 40-41 42

33-37

34-36

43-44 45-51 25: 1-13 14-30 31-46

^

37-38 (Jn 7 : 5 3 - 8 : 1 1 )

Page

463 464 464 465 465 466 466 466 466 467 467 468 468 469 470 471 471 471 472 472 473 473 474 475

476 477

T H E DEATH DRAMA

26:1-27:66 392 393 394 395 1(396-409

396 397 398 399 400 401

21:20-22

24-25 26-27

390 (391) 3.

Luke

26: 1-5 6-13 14-16 17-19

14:1-15:47

22:1-23:56

478

14: 1-2 3-9 10-11 12-16

22: 1-2 3-6 7-13

481 483 485 487

THE SUPPER SCENE

26:20-35

14:17-31

22:14-39

489

26:20 21-25 26-29 ... ... ...

14:17 18-21 22-25 ... ... ...

22:14 ... ... 15-18 19-20 21-23

490 492 493 495 497 497

XX

OF T H E S Y N O P T I C TRADITION 1 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409

11410-416

410 411 412 413 414 415 416

11417—424

Matthew

26:30-32 33-35

11425-435

26:36-56

14:32-52

26:36-46 47-50 51-54

14:32-42 43-46 47

Page

22:24 25-27 28-30 31-32 33-34 35-38 39

498 499 499 500 501 501 502 504

22:40-53

504

22:40-46 47-48 49-5la 51b 52-53

505 508 510 511 511 512 512

14:53-15:1

22:54-23:1

513

14:53-54 55-64

22:54-55

516 517 520 520 522 523 524 524

55-56a 56b

48-49 50 51-52

T H E JEWISH TRIAL

26:57-58 59-66 67-68 69-75

27:

..

1-2 3-10

65 66-72

15: 1

56-62 63-65 66-71 23: 1

T H E ROMAN T R I A L

27:11-31 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433

14:26-28 29-31

Luke

GETHSEMANE

26:57-27:10 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424

Mark

27:11-14

15-18 19 20-23 24-25

15:2-20 15:

2-5

...

6-10 • • «

11-14

23:2-25 23:

2-3 4 5-7 8-12 13-16

,,.

..·

18-23a * , .

xxi

526 527 529 529 529 530 531 531 532 533

T H E S T R U C T U R E AND C O M P O S I T I O N ï

Matthew

434 435

27:26 27-31

11436-448

436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448

Mark

Luke

Page

15:15 16-20

23:23b-25

533 534

27:32-66

15:21-47

23:26-56

535

27:32

15:21

23:26 27-32 33-34 35-39 40-43 44-46

536 538 538 540 542 543 545 546 548 548 549 552 552

THE

CRUCIFIXION

33-35 36-44 45-50 51-53 54 55-56 57-60 61 62-66

22-25 26-32 ,,, 33-37 38 39

47 48 49 50-54 55-56

40-41 42-46 47

C. THE RESURRECTION TRADITION 28:1-20

16:1-20

24:1-53

555

I. THE TOMB TRADITION

1 2 3 4 5 6

28:1-15

16:1-8

24:1-12

556

28: 1-4 5-7

16: 1-1 5-7 8

24: 1-2 3-7 8-10

557 558 560 563 564 564

8

9-10

...

11-12

11-15 II. THE TRADITION OF THE APPEARANCES

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

28:16-20

24:13-53

28:16-17 18-20

.. .

24:13-35 36-43 44-49 50-52a 52b-53

xxii

565 566 567 568 571 572 572 573

OF T H E SYNOPTIC TRADITION 1

Matthew

Mark

Luke

Page

...

574

INGENUINE CONCLUSIONS OF MARK THE

LONGER

ENDING

(16:9-20) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19)

... ... ... ... ... ...

T H E SHORTER

(16: 9-11) 12-13) ( 14 ) ( 15-18) ( 19 ) ( 20 ) (

575 575 575 576 576 576

576

ENDING

T R A D I T I O N AND H I S T O R Y

579

APPENDIX Ι.

583

TAYLOR'S THEORY OF PROTO-LUKE

APPENDIX II. WENDLING'S

THREE-STRATUM THEORY OF URMARK

584

INDEX TO T H E SYNOPTIC TRADITION

589

CRITICAL INDEX

594

xxiii

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

LUKE'S PREFACE Luke's Preface Lk 1:1-4 Luke's preface is unique in the Gospel tradition. Luke is the only Gospel writer who introduces his work in a formal literary fashion. The Gospel of John has an introductory paragraph (1:1-18), but it is more like the prologue to a play which sets the theme for what is to follow. The opening lines of Luke's Gospel, however, are a true literary preface in which the author states clearly and directly his plan and purpose in writing. Luke's preface is the most personal statement from any of the Gospel writers. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark are wholly impersonal; their plan and purpose must be surmised from the nature of the writings themselves. The Gospel of John has only a confessional comment on the author's purpose in writing (20:31). In his preface Luke is conforming to a literary practice of his own day. Prefaces were used by Greek and Roman writers of the Hellenistic period and were prefixed to writings on a great variety of subjects.1 These prefaces were stereotyped in form and content, to some extent even in their wording. Luke's preface exhibits very close similarity with some of these ancient prefaces.2 However, it seems more probable that Luke is conforming to a contemporary literary custom than imitating any particular preface to any particular work. The Gospel of Luke is the most ascetic and other-worldly of the Gospels, and yet a pure piece of the pagan world appears in its very first lines. It is often the case that the preface to a pagan writing will differ greatly in style from the body of the work it introduces.3 Luke's preface has a stiffness and formality that appear at no other point in his Gospel. From the literary point of view, the preface is external to the Gospel as a whole. It is a conscious effort at literary excellence in Greek prose and it is one of the finest examples of such in the New Testament. At the head of the Gospel Luke's preface leaves the impression of a highly polished marble cap set on a heap of gray, weathered, and rough-hewn stones. Its style is wholly different from the simple style of writing in the main body of the Gospel 1 W i t h later writers the preface fell into disrepute; cf. Lucían Way 23; Polybius Histories xi. 1. 2 Cf. Erich Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (2. Aufl.; Tübingen: Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr, 1 9 2 9 ) , V. Iff. 3 Cf. Henry J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (New York: The Macmillan Co.,

1927), p. 196.

1

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

LK 1 : 1 - 4

where stories seem almost to tell themselves and sayings find their own natural wording.4 In his preface Luke is writing with a free, creative hand; but in nearly every passage that follows, Luke is simply the compiler and transmitter of an older tradition that has already formed itself and, wisely, he allows this tradition to speak for itself in its own natural way. The prefaces to ancient historical and biographical works often contain statements relative to predecessors and sources. These statements usually name the earlier authors or give the titles of the earlier works; sometimes they do both. Some ancient authors even catalogue the authors and writings which they have known and consulted.5 Luke names no particular authors and he specifies no particular sources, for the simple reason that the Christian writings which he used were anonymous and without title. Luke refers to his predecessors as "many." However, the language of ancient prefaces was often rhetorical and high-sounding rather than strictly factual. 6 This is probably the case with Luke's "many" which actually may not mean more than "others." Luke says nothing of the scope and content of these earlier writings beyond the fact that they deal with "those matters which have been fulfilled among us." He does not speak of them in the specific terms he uses in the first verse of Acts in which he refers to his own Gospel as "the former treatise I made . . . concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach." Furthermore, in the course of his Gospel, Luke does not indicate when he is using one source or when he is leaving one for another. In using these earlier documents, two or three at the most, Luke does not think of them as individual works or as products of particular authors to whom literary obligation must be acknowledged. He thinks of them rather as a body of traditions which are the common property of the Christian community and available for use in the interests of the Christian cause. Prefaces to ancient historical writings often devote considerable space to adverse criticisms of predecessors.7 The very fact that Luke writes at all may, in itself, constitute a criticism of the "many" earlier narratives.8 However, Luke does not indulge in the "odious comparisons" so common in prefaces to ancient writings. He seems rather to mention the earlier writings as precedents and justification for his own effort. When one observes Luke's extensive and conscientious use of the basic sources in the body of his Gospel, it is evident that his judgment of them is favorable. There are no 4 5

Cf. Cadbury, Luke-Acts, p. 198.

C f . Philostratus Life of Apollonius

of Tyana

i-iii.

Cf. Cadbury, Appendix C in The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (London: Macmillan & Co., 1922), II, 492. β

* C f . T h u c y d i d e s Peloponnesian

Wars

i. xx. 3 ; ii. viii. 3 ; J o s e p h u s Against

Apion

i.

15-32; Life 65. 336-337; Polybius Histories i. 14; xii. 26. See also F. J. Teggart, The Theory of History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925), p. 5. 8 Cf. Klostermann, Lukas, p. 2.

2

LK 1:1—á

LUKE'S

PREFACE

traces of skepticism on Luke's part of what his sources report in what he reproduces from them. What Luke reports he seems to do so with complete credulity. Luke's preface confronts the reader with the obscurity and uncertainty that surround the beginnings of the early Christian story of Jesus.9 Only a dim outline of the rise and growth of the story of Jesus is clear in Luke's preface. Back of Luke's Gospel were earlier writings ("many"). Back of these earlier writings was the oral story, that of the "eyewitnesses." This oral story had its inception in the early Christian sermon with the "ministers of the word," in the course of which, words of Jesus were quoted, or isolated incidents from his life were introduced. Early Christian preaching produced the first fragmentary reminiscences from the life and work of Jesus. 10 The Synoptic materials still exhibit the plain fact that they came into existence as small, single, and separate units whether of discourse or of narrative. Prefaces to ancient histories often expound at length on the author's own careful methods of investigation.11 However, these scholarly claims and pretentions are often only rhetorical flourishes rather than sober statements of fact substantiated by the nature of the work which they introduce. It is not to be supposed that Luke had undertaken patient research when he writes that he has "traced the course of all things accurately from the first." Such a claim, if intended, would have to be regarded as conventional, for it is not substantiated by the nature of the story which follows.12 In the body of Luke's Gospel one finds, in most cases, a faithful transcription rather than a critical reproduction of materials as he found them in his sources. Luke is no more critical of his materials than are Matthew and Mark; if anything, he is less so. Luke shows less independence and originality in his use of transmitted materials.13 Mark selects, arranges, and treats materials in such a way that they serve his dogmatic purposes and dramatic designs. Matthew conflates and assimilates his sources to such an extent that the result is often something new and different. Luke is dominated by his sources to an extent that Matthew and Mark are not. For the critical student, this is a fortunate circumstance; for, on the whole, in Luke the * Cf. Johannes Weiss, Die drei älteren Evangelien in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (3. Aufl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917), I, 395; Friedrich Spitta, Die synoptische Grundschrift in ihrer Überlieferung durch das Lukasevangelium (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1912), p. xi; et al. 1 0 Cf. Martin Dibelius, Gospel Criticism and Christology (London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1935), p. 32. 11 Cf. Thucydides Pelop. Wars i. xxii. 2. " C f . Alfred Loisy, L Évangile selon Luc (Paris: Êmile Nourry, Éditeur, 1924), p. 71; Karl L. Schmidt, Die Stellung der Evangelien in der allgemeinen Literaturgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), p. 132. " Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition ( 2 Aufl., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931), p. 392.

3

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

LK 1 : 1 - 4

basic sources have survived with less change and in purer form than is the case in Matthew and Mark. Luke's intention "to write . . . in order" is not to be taken too seriously, for in his Gospel as a whole there is less natural sequence, less narrative progression, less dramatic development, and less systematic treatment than is found in either Matthew or Mark. When Luke deviates from Mark in the arrangement of materials, it is usually because he is following that of one of his non-Markan sources. When Luke does make a change in order, it is not in the interest of correct chronology or of historical accuracy but for the sake of some religious idea he wishes to present. Luke's preface makes it clear that he takes a supernatural view of history. He intends to write about "those matters which have been fulfilled among us." What he is about to report is the realization of a providential plan and purpose. This providential conception of history has dominated the works of historical writers down to modern times. The body of Luke's Gospel also makes it clear that his conception of history includes miracle — the direct intervention of the Divine into the processes of nature and into the course of human events. In this Luke is simply sharing a conception common in the ancient and medieval worlds. Miracle stories were regarded as materials for history writing down to the time of the Renaissance. Luke's preface also makes it clear that he is writing didactic history, that is, history not for its own sake but for the sake of the lesson it contains. This didactic conception and treatment of history began with Thucydides, and this type of history is still being written, read, and taught.14 Luke, then, simply writes with the same practical purpose found in the highly regarded historical works of his own and later days.15 He states his didactic purpose very clearly: "that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed." Luke is writing in the interest of the expansion and propagation of the early Christian faith. In brief, Luke is writing propaganda, Christian propaganda, in the best sense of that term. Ancient writings in their prefaces were often inscribed or dedicated to some individual. The person addressed might have almost any relationship, close or remote, to the author and his work.16 Luke's two-volume work is inscribed to Theophilus (Lk 1:3; Acts 1:1). The relation of Theophilus to Luke and his work is uncertain. The preface assumes Theophilus' interest, an interest aroused perhaps by some knowledge of what Luke is about to narrate. However, the honorific title, the formality, and the effort at style would not suggest that Luke is addressing a fellow Christian.17 It has been 1 4 Cf. Duncker 15 Cf. 16 Cf. " Cf.

Ernst Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode & Humblot, 1889), p. 13ff. Polybius Histories i. 35. Cadbury, Luke-Acts, p. 202. Loisy, Luc, p. 76.

4

(Leipzig: Verlag von

Lk 1 : 1 - 4

LUKE'S

PREFACE

suggested that Theophilus may have been a Roman official.18 He is a person of prominence who must be addressed with propriety. In the Book of Acts (23:26; 24:3; 26:25) only Roman officials are addressed as "excellent" or "most excellent." In both his Gospel and Acts Luke seems to be making a definite bid for Roman favor both for Jesus and for Christianity. Luke's dedication to Theophilus does not limit his intended circle of readers. He is not writing for one man but for a wide Gentile-Christian public.19 This is evident in his selection and treatment of materials, as well as in the universalistic preoccupations which assert themselves throughout his two-volume work. The prefaces to some ancient writings give the name of the author. Luke's preface does not. However, the author of the preface probably had no intention of remaining anonymous, certainly not to Theophilus, and his identity may have been known to others in his intended circle of readers.20 A preface contemplates the prompt release or publication of a finished work. If Luke's preface is intended for his Gospel alone, then it must have been the last bit committed to writing and set at the beginning of the completed story of Jesus.21 However, it is possible that Luke's preface was intended to introduce his completed two-volume work, Luke-Acts.22 The name of Jesus does not occur in the preface limiting it to his story. If the preface were for the Gospel alone, it seems that Luke would have specified — "all that Jesus began both to do and to teach" — as he does in the first line of Acts and not have written so indefinitely "concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us" and "concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed." Furthermore, the phrase "among us" seems to have the perspective of Luke's own later day which looks back on the more recent events narrated in Acts as well as the more remote events of the life of Jesus.23 Only one item in Luke's preface would seem to exclude Acts and restrict it to his Gospel. The reference to the earlier writings ("many") seems better suited to the literary antecedents of the Gospel than to the fragmentary written sources incorporated in the Book of Acts. 18 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 395; Κ. H. Rengstorf, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1937), p. 11; et al. 19 Cf. Maurice Goguel, Les Evangiles Synoptiques in Introduction au Nouveau Testament (Paris: Éditions Ernest Leroux, 1923), I, 525f; Eduard Meyer, Die Evangelien in Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums (Berlin: J. G. Cotta'sche Buchhandlung Nachfolger, 1921), I, 7ff. 20 Cf. Cadbury, Luke-Acts, p. 348; Burnett H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: a Study of Origins (New York: Macmillan, 1925), p. 558. " C f . Ernest Renan, Les Évangiles et la seconde Génération chrétienne (Paris: Ancienne Maison Michel Lévy Frères, 1877), p. 436: Alfred Loisy, Les Évangiles Synoptiques (2 tomes; Haute-Marne: chez l'auteur, 1907-1908), I, 270; et al. 22 Cf. Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas in Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (3. u. 4. Aufl.; Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1920), III, 50; Cadbury, Luke-Acts, p. 198; et al. 23 Cf. Cadbury, Beginnings, II, 496; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 11.

5

A. THE BIRTH TRADITION Matthew 1:1-2:23 Luke 1:5-2:52 Matthew and Luke are the only Gospel writers who report stories of Jesus' birth. However, they give wholly different accounts which agree only on the most general points. Both have double contradictory traditions, the natural and the supernatural birth. They agree on the names Joseph and Mary, Jesus' parents or supposed parents. They agree that Jesus through Joseph descends from David. They agree on the birthplace, Bethlehem. However, the materials in which these general agreements appear are so different that Matthew and Luke represent wholly independent cycles of tradition with no possibility of even a remote common source. They do not agree on even one particular incident in connection with Jesus' birth. The birth tradition really begins with Luke, whose account is not only twice as extensive as that of Matthew in space and in number of narrative units, but is also much more ambitious. Luke's tradition reaches farther back, giving an account of the birth of the providential predecessor, John, and taking up the story when the birth of John as well as that of Jesus is still a promise for the future. Furthermore, Luke's birth traditions generally are more primitive, naive, and undesigning than those of Matthew. Luke 1 : 5 - 2 : 5 2 p - 8 Luke's birth story falls into two parts: l:5-80(fll-4) and 2:l-52(fl5-8) with the first part a sort of prelude to the second. Beyond this superficial literary relationship, the two parts are so different that they must have been originally independent of each other. ( 1 ) Events in chapter 1 of Luke are dated during the reign of Herod the Great, and the latest possible date would be 4 B.C., the year of Herod's death. Events in chapter 2 are dated eight to ten years later; Jesus was born at the time of the census, 6-7 A.D. (2) Half of the space in chapter 1 is devoted to stories of the birth of John who is not even mentioned in chapter 2. ( 3 ) Chapter 1 of Luke is dominated by the idea of the virgin or supernatural birth of Jesus; Mary is betrothed to Joseph. Chapter 2 assumes only a natural, normal birth of Jesus; Joseph and Mary are man and wife and the parents of Jesus. (4) Chapters 1 and 2 of Luke have altogether different pictures of Mary. (5) In their materials,

7

JESUS

AND THE

FIRST

THREE

GOSPELS

A. f 1

chapters 1 and 2 of Luke are entirely independent of each other. Not one item in chapter 1 is a necessary antecedent to the stories in chapter 2. If two clauses be deleted from chapter 2, there is not a single reference or allusion to anything in chapter l. 1 Lk 1:5-80 If 1-4. The first part of Luke's birth story combines two originally separate and independent strains of tradition: a purely Jewish strain about the birth of John (1:5-25 fll; 57-80 and a purely Christian strain setting forth the supernatural birth of Jesus (1:26-38 In the story of Mary's visit to Elisabeth (1:39-56 |f3) the two strains cross. 1. The Promise of John's Birth Lk 1:5-25 This first story of Luke confronts the reader with the full contrast between the involved Greek prose of the preface and the simple Semitic type of folk-narration which begins here. There is no "easy natural transition" from the preface to the narrative such as Lucían recommended ( Way, 55 ). This first story is Jewish in every respect. It has the local color of Jerusalem and the temple, with which the author is thoroughly familiar, possessing even a technical knowledge of how the priests are chosen and how they serve at the altar. In its theme, treatment, and style the story reads like an extract from Genesis, the Samuels, or Judges. 2 The story is unusual only in one respect: ordinarily in Jewish history it was the prophets, not the priests, who had religious visions.3 Most important of all, this story is Jewish in its religious thought, feeling, and outlook. Religious interest and hope attach themselves exclusively to John and his work. He is an independent prophet with a mission and message of his own. He is to appear in fulfillment of Mai 4:5. The religious horizon in this story does not extend beyond John. There is not a single hint that he is to be succeeded and surpassed by another. His commission is from God to prepare His people for Him; he is not preparing the way for any human, historical successor. The religious perspective does not in any way involve Jesus' appearance in history. This story does not name the home of Zacharias and Elisabeth, but it has the background of Judea where it must have had its origin and earliest circulation. It begins as a piece of family tradition, a childless couple in old age, and yet the angel's message makes it clear that the interest in this ' " W h o was betrothed to h i m " ( 2 : 5 ) ; "which was so called by the angel before he was conceived in the w o m b " ( 2 : 2 1 ) . 2 Cf. Hermann Gunkel, Das Märchen im Alten Testament ( T ü b i n g e n : Mohr, 1 9 1 7 ) , 112f; Daniel Völter, Die evangelischen Erzählungen von der Geburt und Kindheit Jesu kritisch untersucht (Strassburg: J. H. Heitz, 1 9 1 1 ) , p. 14; et al. 3 For p a g a n parallels, see O. Weinreich, Antike Heilungswunder: Untersuchungen zum Wunderglauben der Griechen und Römer (Glessen: Verlag von Alfred Töpelmann, 1 9 0 9 ) , pp. 22fF, 189ff.

8

THE BIRTH

TRADITION

child extends beyond the family to a group which seems to look upon John as Elijah returned ( 17 ). This story, then, is a piece of community tradition with John as the head and founder of a religious movement. Such a story can have originated and circulated only within a restricted Jewish group, among John's own followers and disciples, and wholly independent of the story of Jesus' birth with which it is now associated. It has, then, the nature of a sect or cult legend.4 There is one striking omission in this piece of primitive Baptist tradition. There is no reference to John's rite of baptism which, from the popular point of view, was the most distinctive element in his public work. This story has its conclusion in 1:57-80 which tells of the birth of John in fulfillment of the promise made here. In the primitive Baptist tradition, before being interwoven with the story of Jesus' birth, 5-25 and 57-80 were the beginning and end of a larger narrative whole telling of the birth of John. Beginning and end accord well except for one item: in 20 Zacharias is punished with temporary loss of speech, but 62 assumes a loss of hearing as well. 2. The Promise of Jesus' Birth Lk 1:26-38 The materials and style of writing in this new story are still Jewish. It begins ( 26 ) as though it were the direct narrative continuation of the preceding story with the angel Gabriel on another errand, but in this story he is drafted into the service of a new and different religious faith. This story is a piece of Jewish-Christian tradition modeled after the one which precedes it. The parallelism between this story and the preceding one is obvious to any reader. In fact, this parallelism is so close that one of the two must have inspired the other. It is the Baptist story ( 5-25 ) which possesses originality, for the author of that story did not prepare the way for this new development, the birth of Jesus, but for the birth of his own hero, John (57-80). The author of the story of Gabriel's visit to Mary knows the story of Gabriel's visit to Zacharias; he refers to it (36) and patterns his own story after it, using the same theme and treatment, even borrowing details. The story in 5-25 may once have existed in oral form and was only later committed to writing, but the story in 26-38 never existed in oral form, for it is obviously a deliberate literary imitation of the older Baptist story in 5-25. The best proof that this second story is derived from the first is the fact that the same angel, Gabriel, who associated all religious hope with John ( 5-25 ), now associates it with Jesus — a very strange angel! The author of this second story is not satisfied with mere imitation; he * Cf. Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, trans, from revised 2nd German edition by Bertram Lee Woolf (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1935), p. 124.

9

JESUS AND T H E

FIRST

THREE

GOSPELS

A. 1 2

wishes to improve on the first. John is to be born of natural parents by a miracle in old age. Jesus' birth is to be still more miraculous; he is to be born of a virgin mother without the agency of a human father. In the preceding story Gabriel promised the birth of a great prophet, John; now he promises the birth of Jesus, the long-awaited Messiah. Now the religious horizon extends beyond John, and a greater figure begins to overshadow him. This second story introduces the reader to new persons (Joseph and Mary ), to new places ( Nazareth of Galilee ), and to a new body of religious hope and faith —that associated with Jesus' appearance in history. This story is as thoroughly Christian in its piety as the preceding one is Jewish. In this story of Luke the Christian tradition of the supernatural or virgin birth appears in its purest and most primitive form. Here it is simply proclaimed. There is no hint of earlier circulation in the course of which the story has been questioned. Here there is no disposition to defend the tradition or to remove implications such as is found in Matthew (1:18-25 110). In the New Testament as a whole the tradition of the supernatural or virgin birth is a very weak strain; it was not one of the cardinal beliefs in New Testament times. It is not found in Paul, Mark, or John. It is explicitly set forth in only two places in the New Testament ( Lk 1:35 and Mt 1:18-20 ). In New Testament times it was a purely local tradition confined to the Christian circles represented by portions of the birth stories of Matthew and Luke. In this story of Gabriel's visit to Mary there is the definite possibility that the whole idea of the supernatural or virgin birth has been superimposed on a simpler, less pretentious Jewish-Christian story. Verses 34-35 are the only element in the story involving a supernatural or virgin birth, and these two verses are commonly regarded as a later insert.1 If these two verses be deleted, the narrative connection between 33 and 36 is good, and there still remains a continuous, complete, and coherent narrative according to which Jesus is to be the natural son of the approaching marriage of Joseph and Mary. The story as it now stands confuses two opposed conceptions of Jesus' sonship. In 32 the son to be born of Mary's approaching marriage is to be the "Son of the Most High" in the popular Jewish sense. In 35, however, Jesus is to be the Son of God in the sense of physical generation, born of a virgin mother without the agency of a human father.2 It might be even better if the deletion were still more severe and four 1 Cf. Otto Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum: seine Schriften und Lehren in geschichtlichem. Zusammenhang beschrieben ( 2 Bde.; 2. Aufl.; Berlin: Druck u. Verlag von Georg Reimer, 1902), I, 408; C. G. Montefiore, The Synaptic Gospels ( 2 vols.; 2d ed., London: Macmillan, 1927), II, 367; et al. 2 Cf. Heinrich J. Holtzmann, Die Synoptiker in Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament (3. Aufl.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1 9 0 1 ) , Bd. I, Abt. 1, p. 310; Karl Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments (Glessen: Töpelmann, 1 9 0 9 ) , p. 225; et al.

10

THE BIRTH TRADITION

full verses (34-37) were removed.3 The story as it now stands lacks unity. There are two very different promises of the angel ( 31-33 and 35 ) and two very different responses from Mary (34 and 38). Her skeptical reply in 34 is an unnatural response to Gabriel's confident assurance in 31-33. Verse 34 is designed entirely to provoke the new proclamation in 35. Mary's reply in 38, a devout submission, is a wholly natural response to Gabriel's announcement in 31-33. If 38 be joined to 26-33, the result is still a complete, coherent, Jewish-Christian story.4 The idea of a supernatural or virgin birth is pagan,5 and it must have found its way into the story of Jesus through Gentile-Christian channels.6 In this story Luke presents the first of his five nativity hymns, the Ave Maria (28-33). This hymn is organic to the story of which it is a part; in fact, the whole story is built up around it. In this story Luke also gives the reader the special picture of Mary which dominates the first half of his birth tradition. By divine disclosure Mary is fully informed in advance of the future greatness and destiny of her son and, like a devout daughter of Israel, she submits herself to the divine will and way. This portrayal of the mother of Jesus is the heart of the later cult of the Virgin Mary.7 The story of Gabriel and Mary ends abruptly. The reader expects to be told how Gabriel's promise went into fulfillment, a conclusion similar to that of the preceding story (24-25). 8 3. Mary's Visit to Elisabeth Lk 1:39-56 Thus far in Luke the Jewish tradition of John's birth and the Christian tradition of Jesus' birth have run parallel. In this new episode the two strains cross and fuse. The first part of this story (39-45) is distinctly Christian; the second part, the hymn ( 46-55 ), is purely Jewish. The stories of Jesus and John are joined by the simple device of bringing the two mothers together. The Christian author was preparing the way for this in the angel's reference to Elisabeth's condition (36). This reference, however, does not render Mary's visit necessary; in the story itself there is no clear reason or motive for the visit. Mary remains with Elisabeth three 'Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 322; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 369. * Cf. Hugo Gressmann, Das Weihnachts-Evangelium auf Ursprung und Geschichte untersucht (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914), p. 40. 6 For pagan parallels, see Shirley Jackson Case, Experience with the Supernatural in Early Christian Times (New York: The Century Co., 1929), p. 133ff. • Cf. P. Wendland, Die urchristlichen Literaturformen: Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr, 1912), Bd. I, Tl. 3, p. 222; Hermann Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments (2. Aufl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), p. 66; et al. 7 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 308. 8 Cf. Gressmann, Das Weihnachts-Evangelium, p. 39; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 15.

11

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

A. 13

months (56), and yet the author reports nothing beyond the exchange of greetings when the two mothers first meet.1 In this exchange of greetings the author accomplishes his whole purpose: the subordination of Elisabeth and her son to Mary and her son. This is made as emphatic as possible: it is a self-subordination from Elisabeth herself. Verses 39-56 contain a minimum of narrative, two verses at the beginning ( 39-40 ) and one at the end ( 56 ), which furnish a skeleton framework for the "lyric effusions" 2 which constitute the body of the passage and on which it centers. The scene is fanciful, wholly literary, and imaginative. The two mothers converse in hymns, not in ordinary dialogue such as is natural between kin and friends.3 The text of Mary's initial greeting (40) is not given, and yet it has a most remarkable effect on Elisabeth and her unborn son (41). The scene reaches its highpoint at once, in Elisabeth's reaction and response in 41-45. She recognizes in Mary her superior, the mother of the Messiah. How Elisabeth knows this the reader is not told. No angel has appeared to inform Elisabeth about Mary and her son as Gabriel informed Mary of Elisabeth's condition in 36. The story assumes more than it tells; the reader's knowledge fills in the gap.4 The author's purpose is accomplished in 39-45 and, if 56 be joined on as the narrative conclusion, the story is complete. Verse 56 joins well with 45, for the pronoun "her" in 56 refers to the last speaker (42-45), namely, Elisabeth. The lyrical passage in 4β-55 is not organic to the story in which it is set; it is plainly an insert. In 46-55 we have Luke's second nativity hymn, the Magnificat. Such poetic passages are quite common in all forms of ancient writing. In fact, such compositions were one of the earliest forms of historical narration.5 Ancient epic narratives are often interspersed with odes, ballads, canticles, hymns, and so forth. They were regarded as decorative matter which added elegance to the narrative. Numerous lyrical passages are found in Old Testament narratives which are very similar to Luke's cycle of hymns in his birth story. The Magnificat is general and national rather than personal in character. It celebrates God's deeds in behalf of His people rather than His mercies to an individual like Mary or Elisabeth. The closest parallel to the Magnificat is the song of Hannah in I Sam 2:1-10 of which it may be an imitation.6 1 Cf. Κ. Bornhäuser, Die Geburts- und Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu (Gütersloh: Druck u. Verlag von C. Bertelsmann, 1930), p. 93. 2 David F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, trans, from 4th German edition by George Eliot (2d ed; London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1892), p. 106. 3 Strauss, Life of Jesus, pp. 89, 150. * Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 125. 6 Cf. Ernst Bemheim, Einleitung in die Geschichtswissenschaft (Berlin und Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter Co., 1920), p. 98: Martin Dibelius, Die urchristliche Überlieferung von Johannes dem Täufer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), p. 73. 6 Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 106; Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 408.

12

THE BIRTH

TRADITION

The present text of Luke ascribes the Magnificat to Mary, but there are excellent reasons for regarding it as originally the song of Elisabeth.7 ( 1 ) The hymn is Jewish in every respect —in materials, style, and structure. It has no originality, for it is composed entirely of lines borrowed from the Old Testament. (2) The Magnificat is retrospective; it celebrates God's mercies in the past. It does not look forward to the Messiah in general or to Jesus in particular. (3) The only personal note in the song, "the low estate of his handmaid" (48), fits better the barrenness of Elisabeth in her old age than the situation of Mary in her youth. (4) Verse 56 really points to Elisabeth as the singer, "And Mary abode with her," with the pronoun referring to the last speaker. If the song were that of Mary, 56 would read: "And she abode with Elisabeth." (5) A few Latin versions (a,b,l) do ascribe the Magnificat to Elisabeth; 46 begins, "And Elisabeth said," a natural ascription in the primitive Baptist tradition. The Magnificat leaves the impression of being older than the context in which it is set, and it can be lifted without disturbing the story of Mary's visit to Elisabeth. It probably belonged to the primitive Judean stories of John's birth and was the song of Elisabeth. The strangeness of this song on the lips of Mary and its naturalness as a song of Elisabeth raises a problem in connection with Luke's conflation of the stories of the birth of John and Jesus in 1:5-80. The reader of chapter 1 of Luke feels that he has the beginning of the story of John's birth in 5-25 and its conclusion in 57-80, but he also feels that something is missing in between. In the conclusion Elisabeth knows that her son is to be named John ( 60 ), and yet the reader has not been told how she learned about this new name in the family. The story assumes that she has not learned it from Zacharias who discloses it for the first time in 63. Consequently, it has been suggested that a central episode has dropped out of the story of John's birth in which Gabriel appeared to Elisabeth stipulating the name of her unborn son, in response to which Elisabeth sang the Magnificat.8 This would give balance to the full story of John's birth: an appearance of Gabriel to each of the parents and a response from each, the Magnificat (46-55) from Elisabeth and the Benedictus ( 68-79 ) from Zacharias when he regains his speech.9 In Christian revision, Gabriel's visit to Elisabeth and Elisabeth's song became Gabriel's visit to Mary and Mary's visit to Elisabeth, with Mary the singer of the Magnificat.10 Remnants of this suppressed visit to Elisabeth are still discernible in the Christian revision: * Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 100; Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, p. 24. 8 Cf. Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, pp. 16, 26. "Cf. J. M. Creed, The Gospel according to St. Luke (London: Macmillan, 1930), p. 2 2 . 10 Cf. Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, p. 15ff; Eduard Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes: Geschichte einer religiösen Idee (2. Aufl.; Leipzig und Berlin: Teubner, 1931), p. 103; et al.

13

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

A. |4

26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God . . . 39 into a city of Judah; 40 and entered into the house of Zacharias and saluted Elisabeth. 41 And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard the salutation . . . , the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit; 42 and she lifted up her voice with a loud cry, and said, Blessed am I among women, and blessed is the fruit of my womb

and so on through the Magnificat (46-55). 11 Verse 56 may be the work of the Christian hand that wove the birth traditions of Jesus and John together. After an exalted passage like the Magnificat it is a weak ending.12 It should be joined on to 39-45, of which it is the natural conclusion. The reader is not told whether Mary remains until Elisabeth's son is born; he is not told of Mary's marriage to Joseph. 4. The Birth of John Lk 1:57-80 This story concludes the longer narrative which began with 5-25; the promise made there is now fulfilled. This story, however, ignores entirely the materials that have intervened ( 26-56 ) ,1 The author makes no reference to Gabriel's appearance to Mary or to Mary's visit to Elisabeth. The Christian author of what has intervened (26-56) knows the stories of John's birth (5-25; 57-80) and incorporates them into his stories of Jesus' birth, but the Jewish author of the Baptist tradition has no knowledge of the stories of Jesus' birth now associated with them. The interest in this story centers on the name John. Its main point depends on the parents having arrived at this name independent of each other. It is the coincidence of their separate agreement on this new name in the family that constitutes the providential element in the story. Elisabeth's knowledge of this name must have come by divine disclosure in a vision parallel to that of Zacharias; otherwise, there would be no providential coincidence. The birthplace of John is not named; it is a "city of Judah" (39^40). The extremely local origin and circulation of this Baptist tradition is clear in the fact that only "neighbors and kinsfolk" (58) and "all that dwelt round about" (65) are involved, and the news spreads "through the hill country of Judea" (65). The narrative portion of the passage ends with 64. Verse 65 does not depict anything concrete; it generalizes on the situation, giving the aftermath which would require an interval of time. Verse 66 is an incidental comment rather than narration. In 68-79 Luke presents his third nativity hymn, the Benedictus. This hymn is even more loosely set in its context than the Magnificat.2 Above all, Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, pp. 19ff. Cf. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes, p. 105; Karl L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen Geschichte Jesu (Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1 9 1 9 ) , p. 312. 1 Cf. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes, p. 103. 2 Cf. Dibelius, Johannes der Täufer, p. 74; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 24; et al. 11

u

14

der

THE BIRTH

TRADITION

it is not introduced at the one most natural point in the story, after 64 where Zacharias regains his speech.3 If the hymn were organic to the story (57-64), it would not be cut off from it by the aftermath (65-66). Here the reader encounters the clearest of all evidence that most of Luke's nativity hymns are later decorative additions. This hymn might very well be regarded as an expansion upon the simple notice at the end of 64: "and he spake, blessing God." In its language, style and structure, in its lack of originality and direct borrowing from the Old Testament, the Benedictus is a companion-piece to the Magnificat. However, the Benedictus introduces the messianic theme (69) and there is a possible trace of Christian color (76-77), neither of which appeared in the Magnificat. The Benedictus falls into two parts. ( 1 ) Verses 68-75 are nationalistic in that they celebrate the providence of God in the past. (2) Verses 76-79 are prophetic, opening up the perspective of the future; they are an apostrophe to the child John. The question of the unity of the Benedictus hinges on 69-70 and 76-77. Verses 69-70 could well be a part of an older messianic psalm,4 for they speak of the Messiah in general, not of Jesus as the Messiah in particular. However, appearing as they do with Luke's total birth story as a background and referring as they do to the Messiah as already come, they may be a later Christian addition. The Christian reader of 69 involuntarily thinks of the coming of Jesus promised in 31-33. There is less reason for the deletion of 76-77 as a part of a hymn in the Baptist tradition. These verses depict John in the role of a precursor who prepares the way for God's coming to His people,5 not for the coming of Jesus as the Christian i^ads it. The mission of John as set forth in 76-77 is in substance identical with that announced by Gabriel in 16-17. The Benedictus was not composed originally for the purpose it now serves; it has been adapted.6 It is not a hymn that sprang spontaneously from a concrete situation as depicted in 57-63, or from an inspired moment like 64. It does not express the elation of an individual (Zacharias) but the religious sentiments of a group. Verse 75 reads like the ending of a psalm, and 68-75 may have been an older Jewish messianic psalm which the Baptist author rendered suitable to his story by adding the apostrophe to the child John in 76-79.7 Verse 80 marks the first period, the first full pause, in Luke's birth story thus far. It does not conclude the story of the events of the eighth day (57-79) but the whole of his birth story down to this point. Verse 80 cuts off the first half of Luke's birth tradition (1:5-79) from the second half 3 4 5 6 7

Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.

Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 309; Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, p. 29. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 314. Klostermann, Lukas, p. 28. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 310; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 373. Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, p. 29; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 22.

15

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

A. 11-4

(2:1-52). It is ultra-Jewish, and it may have concluded the story of John's birth in the primitive Baptist tradition.8 It is a transition on a grand scale — from birth to public appearance as a mature man. The vagueness of the notice simply highlights the non-existence of either historical data or sectarian tradition for filling in this great gap. It is a stereotyped biographical notice similar to those about the child Sampson (Jud 13:24-25) and the child Samuel ( I Sam 2:26). 9 However, 80 could be the contribution of the Christian compiler of Luke's birth story, his way of integrating the story of John's birth into the beginning of the public story.10 Verse 80 leaves the child John in the wilderness where he appears as a mature man in 3:2. The stories and remnants of traditions about John's birth in chapter 1 of Luke are older than the stories of Jesus' birth with which they are now combined. They are strictly pre-Christian Jewish traditions and, originally, they circulated wholly independent of the story of Jesus. 11 These stories of John's birth betray their local origin and limited circulation; they are tales and hymns from the "hill country of Judea." 1 2 These traditions are highly sectarian in nature. They reflect clearly the sentiments, not only of the religious movement headed by John, but also of the inner'esoteric group of disciples that once gathered about him and later treasured his memory. It seems strange that a Gentile Christian like Luke, who twice in his Gospel sweeps the broad expanse of the Roman Empire (2:1-2; 3:1-2), should use such extremely local and highly sectarian Jewish materials. However, it is evident in the Book of Acts and in the Gospel of John that the Baptist sect had spread beyond the borders of Palestine as far as western Asia Minor. Luke, then, could have come into possession of these traditions in the Gentile mission fields, and they probably came to him in written form.13 Luke probably did not reproduce the full story of John's birth as he found it. He seems rather to have selected and revised, using only those portions best suited to his own plan and purpose. It has been suggested that there may have been a Baptist literature which contained not only stories and hymns about John's birth but also some account of his public work and message, of his arrest and death.14 All four Gospels associate John and Jesus at the beginning of the public story as forerunner and Messiah. This later Christian conception of their Cf. Völter, Die Ceburt Jesu, p. 30. Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 315. 10 Cf. Κ. L. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 312. 11 Cf. Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, p. 34f; Gressmann, Das Weihnachts-Evangelium, p. 2; et al. 12 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 398. 13 Cf. Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, p. 59f; Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1. Aufl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921), p. 177. 14 Cf. Maurice Goguel, Au seuil de l'évangile Jean-Baptiste (Paris: Pavot, 1928), p. 74f. 8

9

16

Α. 15-8

T H E BIRTH TRADITION

providential relationship led to the interweaving of the stories of their birth in chapter 1 of Luke, in which the subordination of John to Jesus is emphatically accomplished. Religious interest in the first half of Luke's birth story reaches its highpoint in the Ave Maria (28-33). The stories of John's birth serve simply and solely to highlight and enhance the story of the promised birth of Jesus. Lk 2:1-52 fl5-8. The independence of the second half of Luke's birth story over against the first half (1:5-80) has already been pointed out (p. 7f). Chapter 2 of Luke makes a fresh start as though nothing had preceded. It is a new and formal beginning, as new and formal as the beginning of the public story (3:1-2). The opening verses of chapter 2 read like the beginning, not the continuation of a story. There is, then, the definite possibility that Luke's birth story once began with chapter 2 without the prelude in chapter 1. The second half of Luke's birth story falls into two parts. (1) Chapter 2:1-20 (1J5-6) forms a larger unit of narration which presents a mixture of profane history with sentimental religious legend. (2) Verses 21-52 (|f7—8) present two separate but very Jewish stories which are closely related in the particular strain of tradition which they represent. 5. The Birth of Jesus Lk 2:1-7 From the analytical point of view, Lk 2:1-7 falls into two parts. (1) Verses 1-5 are written in a stiff, stilted style; they are academic in tone and they introduce data from profane history. This formal linking of the story of Jesus with Roman history also appears at the beginning of the public story (3:1-2), and both instances must be the work of the same editorial hand.1 (2) Verses 6-7 are written in the simple, naïve manner of folklore. They reflect the warmer feelings which seek expression in religious legend.2 Verses 6-7 may be a remnant of a primitive birth legend continued in 8-20, the original beginning of which has been suppressed by the historical introduction in 1-5. 3 When Luke links the birth of Jesus with the history of the Roman Empire, as he does in 1-3, he is not writing out of historical interest but with a didactic motive. For Luke, the birth of Jesus is not just an item in Jewish history but a world event.4 Caesar Augustus, Quirinius, the census — 1 Cf. Paul Wemle, Die synoptische Frage (Freiburg i. Β.: Mohr, 1899), p. 104; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 323. 2 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 410; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 312f. 8 Cf. Gressmann, Das Weihnachts-Evangelium, p. 27; Martin Dibelius, Die Botschaft von Jesus Christus: die alte Überlieferung der Gemeinde in Geschichten, Sprüchen und Heden (Tübingen: Mohr, 1935), p. 163f. * Cf. Adolf Hausrath, Jesus und die neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller, (2 Bde.; Berlin: G. Grote'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1908-1909), II, 89.

17

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

A. 1 5

all are a part of Luke's dramatization of the universal significance of Jesus' appearance in history.5 Luke sets the whole world in motion with the birth of the One destined to be its Savior. That Luke is writing out of religious conviction, not out of a sense of obligation to history, is clear in the confusion involved in his three sentences on Roman history.® Luke's census seems to be the same one to which he refers in Acts 5:37 and which is mentioned by Josephus several times.7 According to Josephus, this census came in 6-7 A.D. at the order of a Syrian governor when Palestine came under Roman rule ( 6 A.D. ). It was the first census of the Jews by Rome. It struck Judea and parts of Samaria. Luke's statement "that all the world should be enrolled" is rhetorical as in Acts 17:6. Luke's notice, "every one to his own city," has provoked skepticism for two reasons. ( 1 ) A Roman census was based on residence. There is no evidence that a census by households and place of ancestral origin was ever conducted in Palestine.8 ( 2 ) This notice has a legendary flavor. The mother of Buddha returned to her ancestral home for the birth of her son. The journey to Bethlehem has a religious motivation even in Luke: it brings Joseph and Mary to the prophetic birthplace of the Messiah, but without the aid of Mie 5:2 (Mt 2 : 5 - 6 ) . In linking this journey with the census, Luke is making profane history serve providential ends.9 The birth in Bethlehem in Luke is just as much a matter of religious dogma as it is in Matthew. In the first half of Luke's birth tradition (1:5-80) there is no interest whatever in the birthplace either of John or of Jesus. Luke introduces Joseph and Mary and Nazareth as though they were being mentioned for the first time and were not already familiar to the reader of chapter l. 1 0 This is additional evidence of the independence of the traditions in chapter 2 over against those in chapter 1. When Luke speaks of Mary as betrothed to Joseph ( 5 ) , he is thinking of 1:27 —one of the only two allusions in all of chapter 2 to anything in chapter 1. The clause, "who was betrothed to him," must have been added in the final redaction of Luke's birth story by the compiler and editor who thus seeks to harmonize this story with the tradition reported in 1:26-38. This clause is to be rejected for the following reasons. ( 1 ) It is out of harmony with the larger narrative of which it is a part; 2:1-20 as a whole assumes that Mary is Joseph's wife.11 ( 2 ) The fact that Joseph shows no consternation 6 Cf. Bultmann, The Study of the Synoptic Gospels, trans. F. C. Grant in Form Criticism (Chicago: Willett, Clark & Co., 1934), p. 70. 6 Pointed out by Klostermann, Lukas, p. 32f. 7 Cf. Antiquities xvii. 13, 5; xviii, 1, 1 : Wars vii. 8, 1. 8 Cf. Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, trans. Lionel R. M. Strachau (New York: George H. Doran Co., 1927), p. 270f. 8 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 409; Gressmann, Das Weihnachts-Evangelium, p. 12. 10 Cf. Klostermann, Lukas, p. 35. 11 Cf. Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, p. 47.

18

A. U6

THE BIRTH

TRADITION

at Mary's condition would indicate that she is his wife. ( 3 ) The reference to Jesus as "her firstborn son" ( 7 ) pictures Mary as the mother of a family, and it assumes the same sort of birth for the firstborn as for her later children.12 ( 4 ) Two Latin (b, c) and one Syriac version 13 read simply "Mary his wife" in verse 5, which reading conforms to the assumptions in 2:1-20 as a whole. The swaddling clothes, the manger, the crowded inn — all serve to highlight the humble and lowly circumstances of Jesus' birth. They are a sentimental touch characteristic of legend and calculated to appeal to the reader's emotions. However, the swaddling clothes and the manger are also a part of a literary design: they provide means of identification of the child for the shepherds (12 and 16). 6. The Visit of the Shepherds Lk 2:8-20 Luke's story of the shepherds is not a new narrative unit; it is the continuation and conclusion of the story begun in 2:1-7 — especially in 6-7. This story introduces the supernatural, the appearance of the angel and the heavenly host, but it assumes nothing miraculous in the nature of Jesus' birth. With the deletion of the clause "who was betrothed to him" (5) Lk 2:1-20 as a larger narrative unit allies itself with the tradition of the natural birth. The independence of this story is also clear in the appearance of an unnamed angel. If the author had been thinking in terms of chapter 1, he would have introduced the angel Gabriel. The story of the shepherds is a pastoral idyll almost proletarian in sentiment, glorifying the plain and the poor. The shepherds are admirably suited to the social status of the holy family in Luke — an ordinary, perhaps poor, family of Nazareth — and also to the humble circumstances of the child's birth, the swaddling clothes, and the manger. Back of the story is the prominence of pastoral life in the ancient world whose myth and legend often bring shepherds into the life-story of its gods, heroes, and royal personages.1 The interest and action of the story center around the angel and the shepherds. The divine disclosure is made to the shepherds, not to the parents.2 Joseph and Mary play a secondary, passive role. The conduct of the shepherds is rather strange: they come, they find, they behold, they tell; in view of all that they know of this child ( 10-11), it seems that they would worship — all the more so because of their humble social station. The heart Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 410. Cf. Adalbert Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte (3 Bde.; Berlin: Reimer, 1897-1911), II, 2, 189. l C f . E. Petersen, Die wunderbare Geburt des Heilandes (Tübingen: Mohr, 1909), p. 21f; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 410. 2 Cf. Gressmann, Das Weihnachts-Evangelium, p. 14. 12

33

19

JESUS AND T H E

FIRST

THREE

GOSPELS

A. f 7 - 8

of the shepherd story is found in 10-11, the angel's proclamation of the child's mission and destiny — a Savior, Christ the Lord. These are pure predicates and titles, and the name Jesus does not appear here or anywhere in 2:1-20. The name and naming, so emphatic in the prelude (1:5-80), plays no part in this piece of tradition. The fact that the child in 2:1-20 is nameless has led to the suggestion that this story is a Christian adaptation of a pre-Christian pagan myth about a foundling discovered and brought up by shepherds.3 In 14 Luke presents the briefest of his nativity hymns, the Gloria in excelsis. It is not organic to the story. The heavenly host and the hymn (13-14) can be deleted without disturbing the action4 or minimizing the mission and destiny of the child. It may have been added as a decorative detail. It is a liturgical response, a celestial amen, to the angel's announcement in 10-11. The hymn praises God in general and celebrates the good fortune of mankind. In fact, it is so general that it might have a Jewish background,5 or even a pagan origin.6 It is not necessarily a Christian composition. The only personal element in the shepherd story appears in 19: "But Mary kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart." This is a notation which breaks into the story of the shepherds, and it may be a later addition. It is repeated almost verbatim in 2:51; thus it draws the whole of 2:1-20 closer to what follows (21-52) and away from the traditions in chapter 1 with their wholly different picture of Mary. This notice in 19 keeps Mary visible in the background of the story. Such a trait belongs to the legendary mother of the Messiah rather than to the historical mother of Jesus.7 Lk 2:1-20 Tf5-6 is in itself an adequate birth story. It is the one element in Luke's total birth tradition that has completeness and unity. It is the primitive nucleus about which the other birth traditions have gathered — the prelude in 1:5-80 and the stories which follow in 2:21-52. 8 From the standpoint of purity of conception and beauty of depiction, it is a masterpiece of creative writing, the literary gem of the birth stories. Religiously, it reflects the early Christian spirit at its best. It is the gospel of Christmas in its finest and most impressive form. Lk 2:21-52 tf7-8. These last two stories in Luke's birth tradition are companion-pieces. Both are written in the same cumbersome Jewish style of narration. Both have to do with journeys of the holy family to Jerusalem Cf. Gressmann, Das Weihnachts-Evangelium, p. 17; Gunkel, Das Märchen, p. 117. Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 352. 5 Cf. Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, p. 53f. 6 Cf. Wilhelm Soltau, Die Geburtsgeschichte Jesu Christi (Leipzig: Dieterich'sche Verlags-Buchhandlung, 1 9 0 1 ) , p. 18f. 7 Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 161. 8 This is the special thesis of Gressmann in Das Weihnachts-Evangelium. 3 4

20

THE BIRTH

TRADITION

to meet requirements of the Jewish law. Both assume only a natural, normal birth of Jesus; he is the son of Joseph and Mary who are spoken of without qualification as "his father and his mother" and as "his parents." In both stories they are astonished at the things that are said and done as though these were the first intimations that a unique destiny awaits their son. Both stories end with almost identical statements about the growth and development of the child Jesus. Except for one clause (21b), neither story takes account of anything that has preceded in Luke's birth tradition. These two stories probably circulated separately and independent of each other, but their present form seems to point to one and the same author. Both stories might be regarded as expansions of the primitive vague tradition, "born of a woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4). 7. The Eighth and Fortieth Days Lk 2:21-40 This story stands in sharp contrast with 2:1-20. The narrative descends from the heights of celestial manifestation to routine requirements of the Jewish law. Divine disclosures through angels give place to the religious inspiration of gifted persons, their prevision and prophecies. This story, however, is neither more historical nor less legendary because it remains on the level of ordinary life without flights into the miraculous and supernatural. The eighth day, which loomed so large in the story of John's birth (1:57-80), is passed over in a single sentence. There is no family scene, no debate, no unusual coincidence in the christening of Jesus as there was in the case of John. Verse 21 is so brief, so barren of narrative substance, that it may be only an editorial transition from one story to the next. The clause, "which was so called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb," comes from the compiler and final redactor of Luke's birth story as a whole. The editor who contributed this clause is conscious of other earlier elements in the total story (1:31). The "lyrical effusions" in connection with Jesus' birth are dwarfed in comparison with the ambitious compositions in connection with John's birth.1 The Nunc Dimittis in 29-32, the fifth and last of Luke's nativity hymns, is pale and weak compared with the Magnificat and Benedictus. The song of Simeon is impressive only on the assumption that it is the first such outburst concerning the child Jesus, and it may have been the first in the strain of tradition which this story represents.2 If these hymns are later decorative additions, as they may well be, it seems strange that the more magnificent ones should be introduced into the stories of John's birth and the lesser ones into the story of Jesus' birth. This may constitute new 1 2

Cf. Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, p. 58. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 327.

21

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

A. 18

evidence for regarding the Magnificat as originally the song of Elisabeth which, in Christian tradition, was ascribed to Mary in order to dim the lyrical luster of the stories of John's birth and brighten that surrounding Jesus' birth. Verse 33 seems out of place; it breaks into the flow of Simeon's message.3 It would be more natural after 38, after both Simeon and Anna have spoken. This amazement of the parents is natural only on the assumption that it is their first intimation about the future greatness and destiny of their son, and it precludes Gabriel's announcement to Mary in 1:31-35. A resumption of Simeon's speech after the notice in 33 is not expected. This second utterance (34-35) is not a unity. Verses 34 and 35b deal with the future mission of the child. Verse 35a is an apostrophe to Mary and belongs to a wholly different circle of ideas. It has the obscurity and foreboding nature of an oracle. It reads the tragic end back into the beginning. It is a preview of the mater dolorosa who does not appear at the cross in Luke (Jn 19:25-27). Verse 35a is quite generally regarded as a later insert.4 The role of the prophetess Anna (36-38) is not clear. More is said of her than of Simeon. After the elaborate introduction the reader would expect a song, but the author makes "no poetical use" of her. She may be simply a dramatic counterpart to Simeon; the association of prophet and prophetess provides the balance which legend ordinarily loves.5 Verse 40 repeats almost verbatim the concluding notice about the child John ( 1 : 8 0 ) . It may be an ancient Hebrew biographical formula (Jud 13:24; I Sam 2:26), 6 or it may be an editorial contribution providing a transition to the story which follows.7 8. Jesus at Twelve Years Lk 2:41-52 This story exhibits the same literary characteristics and makes the same general assumptions as the preceding one (21^10). Otherwise, it stands isolated, unconnected with what precedes and what follows.1 An episode from Jesus' boyhood would naturally come between the birth story Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 122. Cf. Bernhard und Johannes Weiss, Das Evangelium des Lukas in H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch exegetischer Kommentar über das 'Neue Testament (8. Aufl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892), Abt. 1, 2. Hälfte, p. 338; Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 359: et al. 6 Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 184. 6 Cf. David F. Strauss, A New Life of Jesus, (authorized translation, 2 vols.; 2d ed.; London: Williams and Norgate, 1879), II, 90. 7 Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 314. 1 Cf. Christian H. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet ( 2 Bde.; Leipzig: Druck und Verlag von Breitkopf und Haertel, 1838), I, 213; Wilhelm Soltau, Unsere Evangelien: ihre Quellen und ihr Quellenwert vom Standpunkt des Historikers aus Betrachtet (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1901), p. 24; et al. 3 4

22

THE

BIRTH

TRADITION

and the public story. Luke may introduce it here as a sort of stepping-stone to help the reader over this great gap.2 The episode itself begins with 42; verse 41 is a general statement which supplies background and perspective.3 The story springs from the arrival in Jerusalem (42) to the departure (43); it passes over the observance of the festival entirely. In 43—45 the narrator is not thinking of negligence on the part of the parents or of caprice on the part of the boy Jesus but rather in terms of the designs of Providence which human elements may have furthered.4 The story reaches its highpoint in the key-utterance ascribed to the boy Jesus (49), making the whole a piece of didactic narration. This first utterance attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic tradition is probably of later Christian origin.5 Its bold tone is subdued somewhat by the assertion in 51, "and he was subject unto them." The addition at the end of 51, "and his mother kept all these sayings in her heart," is probably an insert. It practically repeats 2:19 and it completes the picture of Mary which dominates the second half of Luke's birth story. In chapter 2 of Luke there are no divine disclosures to Mary and she must learn from natural sources. She is astonished and does not understand the unusual things that are said and done, yet from these things she gathers her first premonitions that some great destiny awaits her son. Verses 51 and 52 are a sort of double ending for the story.6 Verse 51 alone is an adequate ending. Verse 52 is a generalization based perhaps on the boyhood episode to which it is attached. It lifts the reader's perspective and carries him over a period of years in a single sentence. It betrays the author's awareness of the great gap in the story, from birth to public appearance. He attempts in 52 to say at least something about this obscure period, but it has no actual value as a bit of tradition.7 Verse 52 repeats 40 which, in turn, repeated 1:80. All three of these notices may go back to the Old Testament patterns in Jud 13:24 and I Sam 2:26. This story of the boy Jesus in the temple has been accepted as historical by many critics.8 The precociousness depicted is not at all unusual in the history and psychology of genius. However, the story does have a legendary flavor.9 The "twelve years" and the "three days" are favorite round numbers in legend. The story may be one of many examples of the operation of the 2 Cf. Loisy, Les Evangiles, I, 145; Chas. Guignebert, Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1 9 3 5 ) , p. 144. 3 Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 314. 4 Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 127. 5 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 415. ' Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 195. 7 Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 314. 8 Cf. Oskar Holtzmann, Des Leben Jesu (Tübingen: Mohr, 1901), p. 76; Rudolf Otto, Leben und Wirken Jesu nach historisch-kritischer Auffassung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1905), p. 27; et al. ' Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 196; H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 323.

23

JESUS AND T H E

FIRST THREE

GOSPELS

A. f l - 8

"law of biographical analogy." 10 Very similar boyhood anecdotes appear in the life-story of other famous men of antiquity: Cyrus, Alexander the Great, Apollonius of Tyana, Philo, and others.11 Luke's story of the boy Jesus has a very close parallel in the story of Buddha 1 2 and in the life of Josephus.13 In particular, this pilgrimage of Jesus' parents to Jerusalem may have been suggested by the pilgrimage of Samuel's parents to Shilo (I Sam 1:3, 21; 2:19). Luke is the only Gospel writer who reports anything from Jesus' boyhood or youth, and it is from this one story that most of the later apocryphal stories for this period stem.14 In comparison with the stories in the apocryphal Gospels, Luke's story is sober and restrained, but it nevertheless has an apocryphal atmosphere about it. The apocryphal Gospels delight in depicting the intellectual advancement of the boy Jesus, not only beyond his years, but even beyond his mature teachers. They endow him with a feeling of superiority to his human environment generally, and they feature his submission to situations which, consciously, he transcends. In this episode there is a suggestion of a lack of understanding between the boy Jesus and his parents such as appears between Jesus and his immediate family in the public story. There is the possibility that this story in Luke is a sort of compensation for some of the traditions on Jesus' relations with his family which Luke found in his sources and which he suppresses or treats in a delicate manner.15 Luke suppresses Mk 3:19b-21 entirely. In his own 8:19-21 Luke removes much of the harshness from Mark's bolder story in 3:31-35 where natural and spiritual kinship collide. In Luke's Nazareth story (4:16-30) there is no reference to Mary or to Jesus' brothers and sisters as in Mk 6:3. In the proverb (4:24) there is no reference to a prophet being without honor "in his own house and among his own kin" (Mk 6 : 4 ) . Luke's total birth story is plainly composite. Strauss 1 6 described it as a "mosaic"; Dibelius,17 as an "anthology of legends." Three different times the narrative is brought to a full stop by a general notice about the growth of the child John (1:80) and the child Jesus (2:40, 52). Each of these notices marks a period and reads as though no more were to follow. Nothing in the Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 108. For numerous examples see Gunkel, Das Märchen, pp. 121-129. 12 Cf. Rudolf Seydel, Oie Buddha-Legende und das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien: eine erneute Prüfung ihres gegenseitigen Verhältnisses (2. Aufl.; Weimar: Verlag von Emil Felber, 1897), p. 24f. 13 Cf. Life 2. 1. 14 Cf. Soltau, Unsere Evangelien, p. 69. ™ Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 323; Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, p. 78f; et al. 18 A New Life of Jesus, II, 49. " Martin Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (New York: Scribner, 1936), p. 50f. 10

11

24

A. líl-8

THE BIRTH TRADITION

first two chapters of Luke demonstrates more clearly their composite character. The various elements in Luke's birth story, with the possible exception of one purely literary piece (1:26-38), have the quality, color, and general nature of primitive folklore. They have the freshness and spontaneity that come from their closeness to the life of plain people. The original narrators of the single stories, each of which is meant to be told or read for itself, were gifted with poetic imagination. In them there is no formal religious reasoning, no dogmatic deductions, such as are found in Matthew's birth tradition. In Luke's birth stories simple religious assumptions, sentiments, and hopes express themselves in flights of fancy. These stories had a humble, homely, human origin, and throughout they manifest the love and delight of ordinary people in heroic tale and story. Luke's birth stories have an extremely local quality, reflecting the special interests of the smaller group. The stories of John's birth involve the parents, neighbors, and kinsfolk; those about Jesus' birth involve the parents, especially Mary, the shepherds, and saintly persons like Simeon and Anna. The local quality of Luke's birth tradition is also clear in the geographical centers of the narrative. The stories of John's birth center in the hill country of Judea (1:65); those of Jesus' birth, in the villages of Nazareth and Bethlehem and in the temple in Jerusalem. These local traditions were collected and compiled by Luke to form the opening section of his Gospel ( 1 : 5 - 2 : 5 2 ) , and thereby they were given to the general Christian public for the first time. The various elements in Luke's birth story have only one thing in common — the poetic impulse that expresses itself in song. Luke's hymns pervade his birth story as a whole just as Matthew's proofs from prophecy dominate his story. Four of the five hymns may be later additions, for they are not organic to the stories of which they are a part. As noted in particular instances, they may be decorative matter superimposed upon older epic and historical narrative. Luke's birth stories have a definite Hebraic quality and color that set them off from the Greek preface and the un-Jewish treatment of materials in the body of his Gospel. They are written in the Biblical style of the Greek version of the Old Testament. They are full of Old Testament lines and reminiscences. The stories center around the temple and its worship, the requirements of the Jewish law, and the festival of the Passover. The dramatis personae are equally Jewish: a priest and his wife, a devout maiden, a prophet and a prophetess. Such ultra-Jewishness in materials, conception, and depiction point definitely to a Jewish-Christian, Palestinian origin for Luke's birth tradition. Some critics 18 have ventured the suggestion that the 18 Cf. F. Bleek, Synoptische Erklärung der drei ersten Evangelien (2 Bde.; Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, 1862), I, 131; Paul Feine, Eine vorkamnische Über-

25

JESUS A N D THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

A. 19-12

first two chapters of Luke go back to a little Jewish-Christian writing which Luke employed or perhaps even incorporated bodily into his Gospel. Luke's birth story is not integrated into his Gospel as a whole. The public story carries on the Nazareth tradition, but the Bethlehem tradition disappears entirely. In the body of Luke's Gospel there is only one echo, a false echo, of the supernatural or virgin birth (3:23). The question in Lk 4:22, "Is not this Joseph's son?" would agree with his traditions of the natural birth in 2:1-52. The name Mary, mother of Jesus, so prominent in the birth story, never appears in Luke after chapter 2. At only one point is the same mind and hand at work in the birth story and in the public story — in the digression into profane history in 2:1-2 and 3:1-2. Luke's birth story is so external to the body of his Gospel that a number of critics 19 are convinced that it is a later addition and that originally the preface (1:1—4) was followed immediately by the public story (3:Iff). If three words, "as was supposed," be deleted from Luke's genealogy (3:23), the whole of his birth story could be removed bodily and not one line in chapters 3-24 would have to be rewritten. Matthew 1:1 - 2:23^9-12 Matthew's birth story is much briefer than that of Luke, 48 verses over against 128. Matthew's story confines itself strictly to the birth of Jesus and includes nothing on the birth of John. Matthew has no parallels to the first half of Luke's birth tradition (1:5-80), but he does agree with that section of Luke on the general tradition of the supernatural birth and he dates events as Luke does in the reign of Herod the Great. Both Matthew and Luke have genealogies of Jesus, but Luke's is not a part of his birth story. Matthew has rough parallels to the nucleus of Luke's birth tradition (2:1-20). Like Luke, he reports the birth of Jesus, and he has visitors to the newborn child —but very different visitors, and under very different circumstances. The birth tradition of Matthew in chapters 1 and 2 constitutes Book I of the seven books into which his Gospel seems naturally to divide itself. 1 Book I consists of three major literary units of very different nature. The first unit (1:1-17 |f9) is a compilation with an obvious purpose, the genealogy. The second (1:18-25 |[10) is a paragraph of expository writing, lieferung des Lukas in Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte (Gotha: Friederich Andreas Perthes, 1891), p. 19; et al. 19 Cf. L. Ragg, St. Luke (London: Methuen & Co., 1922), p. 3; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 361. Streeter and Taylor exclude both the preface and the birth tradition from Proto-Luke. 1 Benjamin W. Bacon recognized this sevenfold division, but as preamble, five books, and epilogue in his Studies in Matthew (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1930), p. xx ff.

26

THE BIRTH TRADITION

apologetic in character. The third unit is a longer piece of narration with a definite dogmatic design (2:1-23 flll-12). 9. The Genealogy of Jesus Mt 1:1-17 Lk 3:23-38 Β. ψ Matthew and Luke are the only Gospel writers who present genealogies of Jesus. However, their genealogies are so different that they are wholly independent of each other with no common source except as both draw from the Old Testament genealogies.2 Luke introduces his genealogy early in the public story, between his accounts of the baptism and temptation of Jesus. Matthew uses his genealogy to introduce his Gospel as a whole and his stories of Jesus' birth in particular. When Matthew places his genealogy at the very beginning of his story of Jesus, he is not thinking or writing as a biographer who turns to ancestry and heredity for a better understanding of his hero.3 In his genealogy Matthew appears in the role of a Christian apologist. His genealogy is an erudite product of study and reflection, a dogmatic composition designed to substantiate the Christian belief in Jesus as Messiah.4 The Christian conviction that Jesus was the Messiah is older than the assumption that he descended from David, and the idea that he was the son of David is older than the genealogies of Matthew and Luke where Jesus' messiahship assumes the proportions of a myth in tabulated form.5 As a matter of history, it is doubtful whether a plain Galilean family like that of Jesus could have traced its ancestry back through so many centuries to such a remote progenitor. It is equally open to doubt that the early Christian community possessed any authentic tradition on the actual ancestry of Jesus. Even the name Joseph, father of Jesus, does not occur in the earliest Gospel, Mark. Historical skepticism strikes the genealogies of Matthew and Luke in particular, because both borrow from the Old Testament; because the two are so different, even contradictory; and finally, because both are dominated by religious dogma —the Messiah's (Jesus') descent from David. Independent of the issue of its historical worth, Matthew's genealogy is no careless composition. It is a literary unit with a structural plan designed to suit its dogmatic theme and purpose. Verse 1 sets the ancestral line and limits: "Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Verses 2-16 fill in this outline. Verse 17 rounds out the whole with a mathematical scheme based on the ancient idea of the mystical value of numbers. Such balance and precision suggest the mysterious but sure workings of Provi2

For a comparison of the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, see Lk 3:23-38 B. U7. ' Cf. James Hardy Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934), p. 45. 4 Cf. Strauss, A New Life of Jesus, II, 10; Ed. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 61. 5 Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, I, 169f.

27

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

dence. That Matthew attaches great importance to his numerical scheme is clear at the end where he highlights his threefold two-times-seven.® For the sake of this formula Matthew sacrifices accuracy. The Old Testament does have fourteen generations for the first division (Ruth 4:18-22; I Chron 2:1-15), but I Chron 3:10-19 has eighteen generations for the second, from David to the exile, where Matthew has only fourteen. Matthew has omitted the names of four kings. In the third division only two names are drawn from the Old Testament (Ez 3:2). The other names are improvised with no known records for check or control 7 and with no thought for the length of the period covered, leaving thus the greatest uncertainty concerning the immediate ancestry of Jesus. In this third division where he has the greatest freedom Matthew makes an error in counting: he has 13 instead of 14 names which results in the sum of 41, not 42, generations in his table. Strauss 8 suggested that Matthew may have counted the name of David twice since it appears both at the end of the first division and at the beginning of the second. This, however, would spoil the scheme of two-times-seven, for the second division would list 15 names and the third only 13. Matthew's genealogy is certainly a Jewish-Christian product. The materials, the reasoning and logic, even the mathematical structure, would indicate this. Three things might suggest that the genealogy is the work of the man who wrote the First Gospel.9 ( 1 ) It harmonizes with the deep Jewish coloring in the Gospel as a whole. (2) It shows the same predilection for the use of Old Testament materials that appears often in all that follows. ( 3 ) It exhibits the same liking for round numbers, particularly 3 and 7, evident in compositions and compilations in the body of the Gospel. However, Matthew may have found the genealogy already compiled, and he simply adopted and adapted it. 10 Matthew's genealogy, most certainly, was conceived originally as a separate and independent unit with no reference to the contradictory tradition which follows in 18-25. 11 Any genealogy, tracing the ancestry of Jesus from David through Joseph, assumes a natural birth: Jesus was the son of Joseph. The original compiler cannot have contemplated that his β Cf. H. L. Strack und P. Billerbeck, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus in Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (München: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1922), I, 43. 7 Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 117; Georg H. A. Ewald, Die drei ersten Evangelien (Göttingen: Dieterich, 1850), p. 170; et al. 8 Cf. Life of Jesus, p. 109. 9 Cf. W. C. Allen, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, in The International Critical Commentary (New York: Scribner, 1907), p. 5. 10 Cf. Hermann Usener, Das Weihnachtsfest (2. Aufl.; Bonn: Verlag von Max Cohen & Sohn, 1911), p. 129f; M. Maurenbrecher, Weihnachts-Geschichten (Berlin: Vorwärts, 1910), p. 20f. 11 Cf. Wilhelm Bousset, Jesus (3. Aufl.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1907), p. 2.

28

A. iflO

THE BIRTH

TRADITION

genealogy would be followed by a piece of tradition (18-25) according to which Jesus was not the son of Joseph but born of a virgin mother through the agency of the Holy Spirit. This joining of mutually exclusive traditions may explain a peculiar change where the genealogical table reaches Joseph. At this most vital point the compiler deserts his "begat" formula. He does not state that "Joseph begat Jesus" but that "Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ" (16). The original table must have ended with "Joseph begat Jesus." 12 The present reading in 16 may be a concession to the tradition of the supernatural birth which follows. If this is the case, then the genealogy is pointless, for the one link ( Joseph ) connecting Jesus with the line of David is removed. Some critics 13 feel that originally Matthew's genealogy was followed by 3:Iff and that 1:18-2:23 (the birth story proper) is a later addition. 10. The Birth of Jesus Mt 1:18-25 This passage of Matthew is also an isolated, independent unit which was conceived and composed originally with no thought for its present context. This tradition of the supernatural birth stands in open contradiction with the preceding genealogy which is pointless if Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph. The longer narrative complex which follows in 2:1-23 introduces the supernatural, but it does not assume anything miraculous in the nature of Jesus' conception and birth. In fact, this paragraph of Matthew could drop out entirely without disturbing the continuity or completeness of Matthew's birth story.1 The beginning of chapter 2 joins well on to 1:1-17. The genealogy ends with the birth of Jesus; 2:1 gives the necessary data on place and time: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king." If chapter 2 were joined to the genealogy, then Matthew could have preserved his "begat" formula at the end of 16: "and, of Mary, Joseph begat Jesus, who is called the Christ." In this paragraph the reader encounters Matthew's form of the tradition of the supernatural or virgin birth which is very different from Luke's earlier narrative form (1:26-38) with the disclosure to Mary. Apart from a comparison with Luke, it is evident in Matthew's account that this tradition has had a history and that Matthew's form represents a later and more advanced stage. 2 From Matthew's version it is clear that the primitive u Cf. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, I, 2. " C f . Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 121; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 3; et al. 1 Cf. A. Bolliger, Markus der Bearbeiter des Matthäus-Evangeliums: Altes und Neues zur synoptischen Frage (Basel: Friederich Reinhardt, Universitäts-Buchdruckerei, 1902), p. 15; J. Warschauer, The Historical Life of Christ (New York: Macmillan, 1926), p. 24; et al. 2 Cf. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 190.

29

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

A. I f l O

tradition of the supernatural birth has been questioned. It has given rise to misgivings, and Matthew's version here is designed, to allay any apprehensions which the primitive tradition has aroused. It does not seem to be intended to refute virulent Jewish aspersions cast on the Christian tradition of the supernatural birth,3 but rather to quiet milder misgivings which the tradition has provoked within the Christian community itself. Evidently, some Christians have felt that this tradition involved an injustice to Joseph. Matthew writes to reassure those who are apprehensive, by showing how Joseph himself, consciously and actively, played his part in the providential plan as the divinely appointed guardian of mother and child. The very first line of this paragraph makes it clear that the author's point of view is retrospective, that he is explaining: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." He is looking back on an older tradition on which he expands and expounds. Matthew 1:18-25 is not narration; it is expository writing. It has been suggested that this passage of Matthew is a later exegetical composition based on an earlier, simpler story which had nothing to do with a virgin or supernatural birth. In its primitive form the story told how an angel promised Joseph that his son would be the Messiah. One famous Syriac version (Syr sin ) would confirm this suggestion. At key-points it reads: "She shall bear thee a son. . . And he took unto him his wife, and she bore him a son, and he called his name Jesus." 4 Just where and when and how the tradition of the virgin or supernatural birth of Jesus originated, how widely it was circulated, believed, and questioned when Matthew committed this exposition to writing, there is no way of knowing. The very idea of such a birth is fundamentally unJewish. The mere suggestion of a union of the divine Spirit with a human mother for procreation would be revolting to Jewish religious thought and feeling; it would amount to the profanation of the Holy. The term Spirit in Hebrew is feminine gender, and yet this Christian tradition has the Holy Spirit appearing in an un-Jewish, masculine role. In Matthew's exposition a pagan conception assumes a Christian form; only the necessary materials, situation, characters, and colors are Jewish. Matthew even resorts to the Jewish Scriptures in support of this unJewish tradition, to Isa 7:14. This Isaiah passage belongs to the defenses of this Christian tradition; it is not its source or inspiration. The legend was already in circulation, perhaps already questioned, when Isa 7:14 was discovered as scriptural substantiation.5 This Isaiah passage is torn from its context; its original meaning is ignored. It has nothing to do with the birth H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 190; Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels, p. 44; et al. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 317; Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 1, 24f. 5 Cf. Wilhelm Heitmüller, Jesus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1913), p. 45; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 175. 3

4

30

Α.111-12

T H E B I R T H TRADITION

of the Messiah. It concerns the birth of a child within a year, not the birth of a Redeemer centuries later.® In all Jewish literature there is no evidence for the idea that the Messiah would be born of a virgin or of a miraculous union of the human and the Divine. Furthermore, the original Hebrew text of Isa 7:14 has nothing to do with a virgin birth. The original text does not use the Hebrew term for virgin (bethulah) but the term almah which denotes a young woman of marriageable age.7 Matthew's quotation here approximates the text of the Greek version which does use the Greek term for virgin (parthenos). In 22-23 the reader encounters the first of Matthew's numerous proofs from prophecy which give his Gospel as a whole the appearance and impression of unity. Five of these Old Testament proof-passages occur in Matthew's birth story alone. In this first instance it is not clear whether the angel is still speaking or whether these two verses are an aside from the writer to the reader. The latter possibility seems more probable. There is an awkward element in Matthew's use of this Isaiah passage. The child in Isa 7:14 is to be named Immanuel, yet Matthew is undisturbed by the fact that the child to whom he applies the prophecy is named Jesus. Mt 2:1-23 (ífll-12) has only two things in common with the exposition which precedes: Joseph as the leading character to whom angels appear in dreams and the appeal to Old Testament prophecy. Chapter 2 of Matthew is a birth story complete in itself without the exposition in 1:18-25. Chapter 2 of Matthew can be regarded as a larger narrative unit: the theme of the fulfillment of prophecy is consistent throughout, and Herod appears in the role of villain from verse 3 to 19. Furthermore, it requires the full 23 verses to accomplish Matthew's purpose. Chapter 2 of Matthew is not a piece of naïve narration. It is a problem-play designed to reconcile two conflicting traditions, the birth in Bethlehem with the older tradition that Jesus was a native of Nazareth. The very fact that each phase of the story is anchored in prophecy shows that it is a product of study and reflection, a piece of creative writing ill-adapted to oral transmission. The unity of chapter 2 of Matthew has been questioned on the ground that two originally separate stories have been joined: one in 1-12, another in 13-23. 8 The story in 1-12 centers on the Magi who disappear entirely after the first line of 13-23. Joseph is not even mentioned in 1-12, yet he is in the foreground of the action in 13-23. The star is the means of divine direction in 1-12; in 13-23 angels appear in dreams. Verses 13-23 are written in epic style with solemn refrain-like repetitions (13-14, 20-21), a style ° Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 128; Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 551. 7 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 337. 8 Cf. Α. Dieterich, Die Weisen aus dem Morgenland ( Sonderdruck aus der Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Jahrgang III, 1902), pp. 1-14; Dibelius, Die Botschaft, p. 163; et al.

31

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

A. I l l

that does not appear in 1-12. Finally, 1-12 and 13-23 are built up around different lengendary themes. 11. The Visit of the Magi Mt 2:1-12 Matthew dates Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod the Great (d. 4 B.C.). However, this date may be mere surmise, as legendary and fictitious as the role Herod plays in the story. The birth of Jesus is not narrated; it is merely mentioned in a subordinate clause ( 1 ) . Matthew doubtless had no traditions on the actual circumstances of Jesus' birth. The story itself assumes an interval of time between the birth of Jesus and the arrival of the Magi, judged in the light of the age of Herod's victims, "two years old and under" ( 16 ). The interest in 1-12 centers exclusively on Bethlehem as Jesus' birthplace. This interest is religious rather than historical. The tradition of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem never gained the general acceptance in New Testament times that its corollary, the descent from David, found. Within the New Testament this tradition is confined to the birth stories of Matthew and Luke. It is opposed by two obvious facts in the New Testament tradition: Jesus was a Galilean, not a Judean; in mature life he was known as a native of Nazareth, not Bethlehem. Jesus' birth in Bethlehem is a religious inference drawn from the Christian belief that he was the Messiah. It is simply a variation of the old Jewish tradition that the Messiah would be born in the village of David. The use of a particular prophecy (Mie 5:2) to support this tradition is probably the work of Matthew, and it marks the final stage in the development of this tradition in its Christian form. Mt 2:1-12 is not a simple story; it is a dogmatic piece intended to substantiate the religious idea that inspired it, and thus lend support to Christian belief. The star, the Magi, and Herod are only imaginative accessories in the dramatization of a dogma. The three gifts — "gold, frankincense and myrrh" (11) — furnish no clue to the number of the Magi or to the land of their origin. Matthew is not thinking of any particular land but in terms of ancient folk-psychology generally, according to which the East is the seat and source of wisdom. Some critics 1 have felt that Matthew's Magi have an Old Testament background and inspiration (Isa 60:1-6; Ps 72:10-11). Others 2 have felt that they had a pagan origin with possible touches of Old Testament color added to their story. One critic 3 traces Matthew's story of the Magi back to an historical incident reported by various Roman writers: the pilgrimage of the Parthian king Tiridates and his Magi to Rome in 66 A.D. to pay homage 1 Cf. Strauss, A New Life of Jesus, II, 77; Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, p. 93. - Cf. Soltau, Die Geburtsgeschichte Jesu Christi, p. 34ÉF; Gunkel, Das Märchen, p. 118f. 8 Cf. Dieterich, Die Weisen aus dem Morgenland, pp. 1-14.

32

Α. 1 1 2

THE BIRTH

TRADITION

to Emperor Nero. In any case, Matthew's Magi are as legendary as the story built up around them. Their primary function is to enhance the circumstances of Jesus' birth: their journey, wealth, wisdom, and worship add splendor to the story. The strange conduct of the Magi points to legend also: they pay their homage to the newborn child but they never appear in the subsequent story when this child as a mature man is accomplishing his providential destiny. The star that guides the Magi is the outstanding supernatural element in chapter 2 of Matthew. No real star could do what Matthew's star does; hence, it must be assigned to the field of fiction. That this star is purely literary and imaginative is clear in its capricious action: it brings the Magi to the right land and eventually to the right house, but they must learn by natural means, by inquiry in Jerusalem, where the Messiah is born. Strauss 4 complained that the star should have led the Magi straight to Bethlehem, and thus have avoided Jerusalem, Herod, and the tragedy that follows. This, however, would have spoiled Matthew's story. That the star should desert the Magi at the half-way point, that they must inquire in Jerusalem, enables Matthew to fulfill an Old Testament prophecy, to introduce Herod in the role of villain, and to prepare the way for the holy family's eventual residence in Nazareth. The idea that Matthew's star had an Old Testament inspiration in the "star out of Jacob" (Num 24:17) is not convincing. The "star out of Jacob" is the Messiah, not just a herald of his appearance.5 Furthermore, if Matthew had had this Numbers passage in mind, he probably would have introduced it as a formal proof from prophecy.® It is more probable that Matthew's star had a pagan origin. It was a common belief in the ancient world that the heavenly bodies are sensitive to the course of human events. They brighten or darken in response to the good or ill that befalls mankind. Ancient myth and legend tell of the appearance of strange stars, constellations, and lights in the heavens in connection with the birth of great heroes.7 The Roman naturalist Pliny 8 says that, with the birth of each human being, a new star takes its place in the heavens, bright or dim, according to his future significance, great or small. Matthew's star belongs to ancient folk-psychology. 12. The Flight into Egypt and the Return Mt 2:13-23 In this passage Matthew is just as intent upon effecting the removal to Nazareth as he was in establishing the birthplace as Bethlehem in the 4 Cf. Strauss, A New Life of Jesus, II, 73. ' Cf. Erich Klostermann, Das Matthäusevangelium: Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (2. Aufl.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1927), IV, 12. 8 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 234f. 7 Cf. Soltau, Die Geburtsgeschichte Jesu, p. 26. 8 Cf. Natural History ii. 28.

33

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

Α. T12

preceding. The evident fact that Matthew extends himself to accomplish this only shows how fully aware he was of that older, stronger tradition that Jesus was a native of Nazareth. The theme in this final phase of Matthew's birth story is the danger that threatens the young child's life and the providential protection that preserves it — a common legendary theme in the ancient world.1 In general, it is the story of the aged king who seeks to destroy the newborn child who, the oracles say, will depose and succeed him. This theme, in various dress, appears in the myths, in historical and quasi-historical writings of antiquity. Such stories are so common and so similar that they are best explained by the "law of biographical analogy." 2 Each phase in the development of Matthew's story is anchored in a proof from prophecy. Again, it is not certain whether the Old Testament passages inspired the story built up around them, or whether the story is older and the Old Testament passages brought in to verify it. Matthew makes a strange use of Hos 11:1 and Jer 31:15. Both passages are in the past tense; in each case the prophet is referring to something that belongs to the remote past. Yet Matthew turns these retrospects into prospects and makes past tenses predict the future. The role played by Herod is made as odious as possible, and it is obviously a literary fabrication based perhaps on his known cruelty and barbarism. Josephus is very assiduous in blackening Herod's memory by recording his criminal deeds, but he never mentions the slaughter of the children of Bethlehem. If Herod had been guilty of such an atrocity, it certainly would not have escaped Josephus and other Jewish writers. Besides, such a deed would have been unnecessary, for, after the appearance of the star and the Magi, the identity of the family and the child could hardly have remained a secret in the village of Bethlehem. Matthew makes the providential protection as miraculous as possible by a series of divine disclosures in dreams which direct the movements of the holy family step by step. The first in the rescue of the child is the flight into Egypt, which is named in the Hosea passage associated with it. The period in Egypt is hazy and indefinite, even in the narrator's mind, for he knows nothing to report about it. Moreover, such a journey seems to be superfluous. Bruno Bauer asked, "Why was not Joseph told at the very beginning . . . to go to Galilee and settle in Nazareth?" 3 If Nazareth was a safe refuge in 23, it must have been in 13 also. The third dream ( 2 2 ) is a supplement to the second ( 1 9 - 2 0 ) , but between the two there is an interval without divine direction. The angel in 19-20 does not warn Joseph in advance about Archelaus, but he learns Cf. Dibelius, Gospel Criticism, p. 94. Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 130. 'Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker (3 Bde.; 2. Aufl.; Leipzig: Otto Wigand, 1847), I, 115. 1 s

34

Α. 19-12

T H E BIRTH TRADITION

of this new danger by natural means and responds to human fear. As Dibelius has pointed out,4 22-23 are not narration or a part of the preceding legend; they are comments from the evangelist. When Matthew's story ends at Nazareth, it is like a sudden return to the realm of reality after the unrestrained flight of fancy in the story of the star, the Magi, and Herod. Matthew's final proof from prophecy in his birth story (23) is a puzzle, perhaps even pure invention. There is no such prophetic passage. Matthew himself seems aware of this, for he ascribes it to the prophets (plural). This practice of citing a non-existent passage and ascribing it to the prophets collectively also appears in the rabbinical literature.6 At the end of his birth story Matthew again extends himself, in this instance to justify for Jesus the title of Nazarene, and yet in the remainder of his Gospel Matthew never once has this title applied to Jesus. Matthew's birth story has unity from only one point of view: it is dominated entirely by the idea of the fulfillment of prophecy. Each unit is built up of Old Testament materials or around Old Testament passages. The author knows the Old Testament in the original Hebrew and in the Greek translation ( L X X ) , and he uses either or both as they best suit his purpose. Matthew's single stories about Jesus' birth do not read like folktales that originated with and circulated among plain people. Rather they impress the reader as the product of sober reflection and speculation, of scholarship and study. Religious reasoning rather than poetic imagination expresses itself in them. Matthew's birth story moves in the realm of ideas which are expressed in a "series of exegetical compositions."6 The sequence of the narrative is determined by the development of ideas; one after another, a series of oracles are fulfilled. To be sure, these ideas are dramatized, clothed in narrative dress. However, the lack of spontaneity in the narrative shows that it is secondary, deliberately designed to demonstrate and defend the religious ideas set forth: the descent from David, the supernatural birth, the birth in Bethlehem, and the residence in Nazareth. From the literary point of view, Matthew's birth story is composite. Whether any of these heterogeneous materials are earlier than Matthew and came down to him by transmission or are all sheer inventions, cannot be definitely determined. Whether received as tradition or produced by invention, Matthew has placed the indelible stamp of his own religious mind so firmly upon them that they have become his very own. Matthew's birth story seems to come from the same hand that produced the body of the Gospel. Certainly, the birth story is homogeneous with the rest of the Gospel in the inevitable fulfillment of prophecy. Matthew's single stories do not leave the impression of having been at one time local oral traditions of Cf. Tradition to Gospel, p. 129. Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 92f. β Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 259. 4 5

35

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE

GOSPELS

A. | 1 - 1 2

limited circulation, but rather of having been conceived and composed for the same Christian public as the body of the Gospel and for the place they now occupy as its opening section. The great differences, disagreements, and contradictions between Matthew and Luke in their accounts of Jesus' birth bring the diversity of their origin and nature into sharp relief. Matthew and Luke disagree on the home of Joseph and Mary. In Luke their home is Nazareth. Luke's problem is to bring the holy family from Nazareth to Bethlehem; this he does by means of the census. In Matthew Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem. Matthew's problem is to bring the holy family from Bethlehem to Nazareth; this he accomplishes by the danger that threatens the child from Herod and Archelaus. Matthew and Luke have different conceptions of the social status of Jesus' family. In Luke it is a plain, perhaps poor, family of Nazareth. This is suggested by the humble circumstances of Jesus' birth, the swaddling clothes, the manger, the lowly shepherds, and in 2:24 Luke has Mary offer up the sacrifice of the poor woman. In Matthew the social standing is higher. Jesus, through Joseph, descends from David through the line of kings; he has royal blood in his veins. No lowly circumstances surround Jesus' birth in Matthew. He is born in the home of his parents in Bethlehem, and he is visited by the wise and the rich who worship him as befits this higher social station. Matthew and Luke disagree on the leading character in the story. In Luke Mary is in the foreground and plays the principal role. In Matthew Joseph is the leading character with Mary in the dim background. Both Matthew and Luke have divine disclosures by angels. In Luke the angel Gabriel appears to Zacharias and Mary, and an unnamed angel to the shepherds in visions. In Matthew angels (unnamed) appear to Joseph alone and in dreams. Matthew and Luke disagree on the publicity attending Jesus' birth. In Matthew there is wide publicity; it involves the Jewish authorities, the Jerusalem public, and Herod, and with tragic consequences. In Luke there is no attempt to suppress the news of Jesus' birth, and yet it attains only a local publicity; the news brings the shepherds from the near-by hills, and there is no threat to the child's life. The birth stories of Matthew and Luke have a different theme and tone. In Matthew the theme is the fulfillment of prophecy with a corresponding sombre and serious tone. Luke's stories have no one clear theme. Luke seems to intend to depict the wondrous events that preceded and attended Jesus' birth. A glad and joyous mood pervades Luke's stories and expresses itself in the nativity hymns. Christmas as a Christian festival celebrating Jesus' birth has a better basis in Luke than in Matthew.

36

Α.11-12

THE BIRTH TRADITION

Matthew and Luke disagree on the date of Jesus' birth. In Matthew Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, and the latest possible date would be 4 B.C., the year of Herod's death. According to Luke, Jesus was born around ten years later at the time of the census, 6-7 A.D. There is no way of determining the date of Jesus' birth, the year, the month, or the day — only the approximate decade. From the literary point of view, the birth stories of Matthew and Luke belong to the field of fiction. Fiction, in the form of myth and legend, played a vital part in the life of ancient peoples. Myth and legend might concern the life of a whole people, that of a smaller group, or that of an individual. They might be political, patriotic, social, moral, or religious in nature. National and racial beginnings, social customs, legal regulations, moral codes and practices were often traced back to some mythical or quasihistorical hero or event. Wherever they appear, myth and legend are a group product, even though it is some individual who eventually gives them narrative dress in writing. 7 Myth and legend do have an actual historical value for the knowledge of the human group in which they appear. In nearly every case, they concern the serious side of the life of the group that creates, believes, preserves, and fosters them. 8 Myth and legend of this type may be regarded as "remains," as evidence from the psychic side of the group life from which they came.9 They can register the thoughts, feelings, beliefs, convictions, hopes, and ideals of the group, large or small. These psychological factors transcend reality; often they are a protest against it. Consequently, they resort to the realm of fiction and fancy and express themselves in poetic, imaginative narrative in oral or written form. 10 The amount of historical fact to be gleaned from the birth stories of Matthew and Luke is negligible. The names Joseph and Mary, the parents of Jesus, may be historical. The birthplace as Bethlehem is probably pure dogmatic assumption, what Bruno Bauer called "prophetic geography." 11 In all probability Jesus was born in Nazareth. Critical contempt may dismiss the birth stories as pure and worthless fabrications. Julius Wellhausen, in his little commentaries on Matthew and Luke, begins with chapter 3 of each, ignoring the birth stories entirely. Ernest Renan had truer feeling. He wrote of the birth stories as a "cycle of legends" but he granted them their rightful place in what he called "the eternal poetry of the religious spirit." 12 7

Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 82; Gunkel, Das Märchen, p. 3. Cf. G. L. Gomme, Folklore as an Historical Science (London: Methuen & Co., 1908), p. 148. * Cf. Bemheim, Einleitung, p. 105. 10 Cf. Gunkel, Das Märchen, p. 6. 11 Kritik, I, 14. 12 Vie de Jésus (9 e éd.; Paris: Michel Lévy, 1863), pp. 11, 14. 8

37

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

A. ^1-12

As history, the birth stories are simply impossible; as fiction, they are admirable and merit careful study. Imagination and sympathy with the spirit of the birth stories of Matthew and Luke are required of the reader, if he is to understand their true nature.13 Apart from their religious purity and literary beauty, the birth stories give the reader a clear insight into the piety of the early Christian circles that produced and preserved them. They belong to the history of Christianity, to the growing and expanding belief in Jesus.14 These simple stories are nothing more than dramatizations of the religious hopes, feelings, and faith which Jesus' appearance in history aroused in certain circles of those who believed in him.15 The stories of Jesus' birth, the opening section of Matthew and Luke, were the latest element of the total Synoptic tradition to come into existence and to be committed to writing.16 Earliest Christian interest centered on Jesus' death and resurrection. Later this interest extended backward to include Jesus' public work, with utter silence on his pre-public life. Little or nothing was known in Christian circles about Jesus' birth, certainly nothing in the way of actual facts and circumstances. The elaborate birth stories of Matthew and Luke are probably only later narrative expansions of primitive statements about Jesus' parentage: "born of a woman" ( Gal 4:4 ), "the son of Mary" (Mk 6:3), "Joseph's son" (Lk 4:22) " - a l l designed to express and support the Christian belief that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of the world. Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 397f. Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 169. M Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. xvi: Alfred Loisy, The Gospel and the Church, trans. C. Home (New York: Scribner, 1912), p. 50. 16 Cf. Gustav Volkmar, Die Evangelien (Leipzig: Fues's Verlag, 1870), p. 9; William Wrede, Die Entstehung der Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr, 1907), p. 49f; et al. 17 Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 657. 13

14

38

Β. THE PUBLIC TRADITION Matthew 3 : 1 - 2 7 : 6 6 Mark 1:1-15:47 Luke 3 : 1 - 2 3 : 5 6 In their birth stories Matthew and Luke each went his own independent way but, beginning with the public story, to which the Gospel of Mark devotes itself almost exclusively, Mark becomes the (or a) 1 basic source of Matthew and Luke. From chapter 3 of each on, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are simply expanded versions or editions of Mark. The extent of this expansion of Mark by Matthew and Luke is in some measure clear in the relative length of the public story. Mark devotes 15 of his 16 chapters to the public story; Matthew, 25 of 28; Luke, 21 of 24. Matthew does not reproduce some of Mark's materials, and Luke makes extensive omissions from Mark. Nevertheless, Matthew and Luke together incorporate almost the entire body of Mark into their own later Gospels. Less than a halfdozen narrative and discourse units of Mark fail to reappear in Matthew or Luke. Matthew and Luke not only reproduce Mark's materials but, in the great majority of cases, they reproduce them in Mark's order, sequence, and arrangement. Matthew makes frequent transpositions of Markan matter, especially in the first half of the public story. Luke makes important deviations from the order and arrangement of Mark, but these instances appear, for the most part, in units and sections of doubtful Markan origin. The sequence of materials in Matthew and Luke conforms so closely and constantly to that of Mark that it is obvious that Mark has furnished Matthew and Luke with the general plan and framework for their stories.2 The same twofold division appears in all three Gospels: Jesus' work in Galilee is followed by his brief work, his arrest, and death in Jerusalem. Matthew and Luke not only reproduce Mark's materials in Mark's arrangement but in instance after instance they reproduce Mark's text verbatim or practically so. The evidence for the literary dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark is cumulative and conclusive: Markan matter 1 If one accepts the Proto-Luke hypothesis, Mark is a, not the basic source of Luke. For the best discussion and presentation of the Proto-Luke hypothesis, see Vincent Taylor, Behind the Third Gospel: a Study of the Proto-Luke Hypothesis (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 192Θ ). See Appendix I, p. 580. 2 Unless one accepts the Proto-Luke hypothesis according to which the non-Markan sections of Luke's public story are basic and the Markan sections are later inserts.

39

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 1 - 9

in the Markan sequence, even in the Markan wording. Matthew and Luke, however, are not mere copyists of Mark. In many instances they take liberties with Mark's text. They feel free to omit, add, or alter; thus they appear as editors, revisers, and redactors of Mark. In connection with the use of Mark by Matthew and Luke, a secondary problem arises. There are numerous instances in which Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in reproducing Markan matter. This suggests that the Mark known to Matthew and Luke was not identical with the present Mark but differed from it somewhat in content and text. The Gospel of Mark as it now stands seems to contain some few late additions, and its present text, in not a few instances, seems to be the result of a process of revision — both subsequent to its employment by Matthew and Luke. 3 Such facts and impressions have led to the revision form of the theory known as Urmark (primitive Mark). I. T H E GALILEAN TRADITION Matthew 3 : 1 - 1 8 : 3 5

Mark 1 : 1 - 9 : 5 0

Luke 3 : 1 - 9 : 5 0

Mark devotes the first and longer half of his Gospel, both in space and in time consumed, to Jesus' work in Galilee, chapters 1-9. Matthew, by various literary devices which will be evident as they appear, expands the Galilean story to 16 chapters (3-18). In spite of the extensive non-Markan matter added by Luke, his Galilean story ( 3 : 1 - 9 : 5 0 ) is shorter than that of Mark due primarily to his omission of a long Markan section (6:45 - 8:26). Luke's great expansion of the public story begins with the end of the Galilean period ( 9:51 - 18:14 ). P-9

Mt 3 : 1 - 4 : 1 7

Mk 1:1-15

Lk3:l-4:15

Mk 1:1-15. The opening section of Mark's Galilean story does not introduce Jesus to the reader at once or bring Jesus immediately into his public work. Mark begins with a sort of preliminary, pre-public section devoted to John the Baptist ( 1 : 2 - 8 ) , Jesus' baptism (9-11), his temptation (12-13), and his return to Galilee (14-15). This same scheme reappears in Matthew and Luke, but the space devoted to its development is more than doubled in Matthew ( 3 : 1 - 4 : 1 7 ) and more than trebled in Luke ( 3 : 1 - 4 : 1 5 ) , by the introduction and use of non-Markan materials. All three Synoptic writers open the public story with a brief account * This position has been well established for almost a century. Typical representatives are: Karl Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen über die evangelische Geschichte: ihre Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung (Gotha: Verlag von Rud. Besser, 1864); Johannes Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium: ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markus-Evangeliums und der ältesten evangelischen Überlieferung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903); Benjamin W. Bacon, The Gospel of Mark (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925).

40

Β. 11-5

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

of John the Baptist, his message and work. The very nature of the situation virtually forced them to do this. John and Jesus were contemporaries. John was on the scene of action first. His work has reached an advanced stage when the Synoptic writers take up his story. All three report Jesus' baptism by John; this one fact alone would require that they tell at least something about John and his mission. Finally, in the course of the subsequent story, Jesus himself makes frequent public and private references to John. These allusions in themselves would demand some introductory space devoted to John. The Synoptic writers show no reluctance in beginning with John. In fact, they turn historical necessity into a dogmatic advantage. They have a place of honor for John in the Christian scheme of things: he is a part of the divine plan which brought Jesus upon the stage of history. The Synoptic writers are simply clothing an older Christian dogma in narrative dress when they portray John in the role of providential forerunner to Jesus the Messiah. P-5

Mt 3:1-12

Mk 1:1-8

Lk 3:1-20

Mk 1:1-8. The Gospel of Mark begins as abruptly as it ends; it is as unsatisfactory and incomplete in 1:1-8 as it is in 16:1-8. 1:1-8 is not a proper narrative beginning for a story. This is evident in the confusion of heterogeneous materials presented. Verse 1 is the title or superscription for the whole writing. Verses 2-3 are a piece of partisan religious reasoning. Verses 4—6 are narrative epitome and depiction. Verses 7-8 present a discourse summary. The author moves rapidly through this opening section on John; he merely sketches. It is only in verse 9 that he finds solid historical and narrative footing. Mark's interests in this opening section are entirely dogmatic. He has no actual interest in the past, in history as such; he is interested in it only to the extent that it admits of dogmatic treatment and interpretation. Mark views John from a single angle and he sketches him in a single light — that of providential forerunner. Mark's sketching and summarizing result in a highly sectarian silhouette with no thought for doing John historical or personal justice. Mt 3:1-12; Lk 3:1-20. In the parallels of Matthew and Luke to Mark's Baptist section there is less editorial summarizing and a fuller presentation of traditional materials, especially discourse. The result in Matthew and Luke is a better and fuller tradition on John, especially his message, and consequently a closer approach to history. Matthew and Luke share Mark's conception of John as forerunner but they, perhaps unwittingly, show less Christian bias. They preserve extracts from John's message which throw an authentic Jewish light on John and which, to some extent at least, lead the reader to suspect that this relationship of forerunner and Messiah was a later Christian conception which never crossed the mind of John or that of Jesus .

41

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B.

1. John the Baptist Mt 3:1-6 Mk 1:1-6 Lk 3:1-6 Mark begins with the formal title or superscription for the whole Gospel: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." This first line seems to be a separate literary unit and yet it leaves the impression of being incomplete. It reads like the beginning of an unfinished sentence, an involved subject stranded without a predicate. There is no grammatical connection with the lines which follow. Mark does not state what "the beginning of the gospel" is — whether it is the mission of John (2-8), the preliminary pre-public section (2-13, or 2-15), or the whole story as the beginning of a religious movement with a world-wide destiny. The term beginning cannot have a genetic meaning, for Mark never tells how anything began. The term may have purely dramatic force, something of the meaning as defined by Aristotle in relation to tragedy: "A beginning is that which is not itself necessarily after something and which has necessarily something else after it" ( Poetics vii ). Mark can begin absolutely, in a precipitate and ungenetic manner for, in his mind and that of his group, what he is about to narrate does not emerge from the stream of history. The term gospel is a technical term from the early Christian mission.1 Wherever it appears in Mark it is used in the absolute sense (the gospel), and it occurs only in editorial passages or in those of later, secondary origin. The original gospel was oral, the primitive Christian message, a spoken proclamation. Jesus did not preach the gospel; he was the gospel preached.2 The term gospel passes a religious judgment on history — on the life, work, and death of Jesus. Thus, in his very first line, Mark discloses what may be expected in his writing — not history and biography but a religious treatment of both. Mark's superscription confronts the reader with the monumental subjectivism which pervades his Gospel as a whole. The titles Jesus Christ and the Son of God are synonymous and are used in apposition. Both come from the confessional language of the early Christian cult. The first is the briefest and simplest summary of the primitive Jewish-Christian confession: Jesus is the Christ, or the Messiah. The term Son of God is un-Jewish; it comes from the Gentile-Christian community. It has a pagan background, and it casts a mythical light on the figure of the historical Jesus. The term is not found in some Greek manuscripts of Mk 1:1. However, it belongs in the superscription for two sound reasons. ( 1 ) This term is an authentic part of the text in the body of Mark's Gospel in contexts from which it cannot be deleted. (2) It is organic to the plan and structure of Mark's Gospel as a whole. It sets the second of the two 1 Cf. Erich Klostermann, Das Markusevangelium: Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (2. Aufl.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1926), III, 4f. 2 Cf. J. Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Marci (2. Ausg.; Berlin: Reimer, 1909), p. 3.

42

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

themes which dominate this Gospel from beginning to end: Jesus is the Christ; Jesus is the Son of God. The literary task to which the author of the Second Gospel sets himself is the demonstration of this double dogma. He accomplishes this by means of dramatization. Wherever the title Christ comes close to Jesus in Mark's story, it is in every case in scenes developed by dialogue, the basic medium of all drama — dialogues with demons, the disciples, and the high priest in Jerusalem. The title Son of God, applied to Jesus in the absolute sense, highlights Mark's story at three key-points: the baptism, the transfiguration, and the cross — at beginning, middle, and end — the basic threefold structure of ancient drama. The Gospel of Mark is primarily a dramatization of the double dogma set forth in the very first line, on the basis of transfigured and sublimated traditions about a fragmentary and uncertain history. For Mark, history is simply the stage-setting for a divine drama of cosmic proportions. Mark's title, then, is vital and organic to all that follows. It may have been the last line written, or even added by a later hand, but whoever composed it had a true understanding of Mark's plan and purpose in writing. The body of Mark's Gospel begins ( 2-3 ) with a conflation of lines from the Old Testament: Mai 3:1; Isa 40:3. This is a strange beginning for a writing devoted primarily to narration, action, and drama. Furthermore, such a use of the Old Testament is uncharacteristic of Mark. It is the only proof from prophecy in his Gospel, except the ingenuine 15:28. The prophetic passages in 2-3 are torn from the Old Testament context and deprived of their original meaning. Both are made to pass an un-Jewish judgment on a segment of later Jewish history. The text of Mai 3:1 is altered to suit the new application. The term Lord, in Isa 40:3 refers to God; but in Mk 1:3 it refers to Jesus. From Jewish Scripture support is drawn for Christian dogma: John is the providential forerunner of Jesus the Messiah. John is robbed of his original independence and reduced to a secondary, subordinate figure to play, in a theological drama, a role which he never played in history. Mark (2b) erroneously ascribes Mai 3:1 to Isaiah (2a). Such an error would indicate that Mai 3:1 was not quoted directly from the Old Testament. Its altered text would suggest that it is a quotation of a quotation (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:27). It is probably a late addition to Mark, for Matthew and Luke do not seem to have read it in their Mark. Isa 40:3 was a part of Mark at a very early date, perhaps from the first. Matthew and Luke knew it as a part of their Mark and both reproduce it. Furthermore, Isa 40:3 makes itself felt in verse 4 of Mark which transfers the scene of John's work from the Jordan ( 9 ) to the wilderness and in verse 6 which transforms John into a wilderness figure.3 3

Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 21f.

43

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f l

Verses 4r-5 of Mark are not epic narration; they present an epitome, a swift sketch. They generalize on John's work, message, and the public response — all in two sentences. They read like the work of an editor, for the confession and remission of sins sound more like Christian preaching than Jewish prophecy. In 4-5 Mark sets his readers in the midst of an action that is at an advanced stage, without telling of its inception or tracing its development. Mark speaks of John without explanation of any kind. Such abruptness in introducing action and actors makes it clear that Mark is recording tradition of a highly esoteric nature.4 Mark's readers were established believers who knew of John and his work and who also knew how to think of both. Verse 6 of Mark is depiction. Here the Isaiah passage in 3 becomes positively creative: it converts John into an eccentric wilderness figure with the aid of details borrowed perhaps from II Kgs 1:8 and Zech 13:4. The Synoptic tradition generally includes ascetic traits in its picture of John, but the bizarre description in Mk 1:6 reads very much like imaginative writing. Furthermore, Mk 1:6 is a stray notice only loosely joined to its context; it reads like an afterthought. It cuts off John's message in 7 - 8 from its natural audience in 5. In this initial instance where Matthew and Luke join the story of Mark they make more omissions, additions, and changes than in any other Markan passage they employ. In their parallels Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in three items. ( 1 ) Both omit Mark's superscription (1:1), a natural omission, since their stories are already well under way. ( 2 ) Matthew and Luke do not reproduce the Malachi passage erroneously ascribed to Isaiah. This error was probably not in the Mark known to them. They knew Mai 3:1 only in their major non-Markan source (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:27). ( 3 ) Mark quotes the Old Testament ( 2 - 3 ) and then introduces John (4). Matthew and Luke both reverse this order as though such were the arrangement in their Mark. Mt 3:1-6. Chapter 3 marks the beginning of Book II of Matthew which extends through chapter 7. A new division in Matthew is evident here only in the great gap in the story, from birth to manhood. Matthew makes no serious effort to join the public story to the birth story. He spans this great gap with a mere phrase, "And in those days," which highlights its emptiness instead of filling it up. Matthew reproduces about half of Mark's parallel almost verbatim; otherwise, he goes his own independent way. Isa 40:3 introduced confusion into Mark's account of the scene of John's work: the "prophetic wilderness" in 4 and the river Jordan in 5. In Matthew this confusion becomes a 4

Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 128; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 18ff.

44

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

geographical contradiction: John is preaching in the wilderness of Judea ( 1 ) and baptizing in the Jordan ( 6 ) at one and the same time. Mark summarized the theme of John's preaching as "the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins" (1:4). Matthew uses direct discourse, "Repent ye," and then puts a wholly new message on John's lips, "for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" — a message which appears later on the lips of Jesus (Mt 4:17) and still later as the message of the twelve (10:7). Matthew seems to have a Catholic conception of this message: it is always the same, changeless, independent of the messenger — John, Jesus, or the apostles. There are two plausible reasons for this radical change in John's message in Matthew; both are dogmatic. ( 1 ) As a Christian believer, Matthew associated the remission of sins (Mk 1:4) with the work of Jesus, not that of John. ( 2 ) In making this change Matthew is looking ahead to what is soon to come —Jesus' baptism by John (3:13-17). Matthew seems to have been offended at the idea that Jesus, the Sinless One, should submit to John's "baptism of repentance unto remission of sins" (Mk 1:4). Matthew's new message on the lips of John is to be rejected. The theme of the kingdom never appears as a part of John's message in Mark or Luke, and this is the only instance in Matthew. Otherwise in the Synoptic tradition, the kingdom is the special and distinctive theme of Jesus' message. In the few extracts from John's message that have survived, his thought seems to have been dominated by the idea of the impending judgment rather than by that of the impending kingdom. In his Gospel generally, Matthew has a tendency to confuse the messages of John and Jesus as though they preached the same things and had the same objectives in mind. The result of this confusion in Matthew is that both Jesus and John tend to lose their originality and individuality. In 4-6 Matthew reproduces Mark 5-6 almost verbatim, but Matthew reverses the order of these two Markan verses. In Matthew ( 4 ) the description of John's dress and diet does not dangle as loosely as it does in Mark (6), and the great crowds in Mt 5-6 become a part of the audience for John's discourses which follow immediately (7-12). Lk 3:1-6. Except for one verse of the Isaiah quotation (40:3), Luke approaches the text of Mark's parallel at only one point, in the summary of John's message. In fact, it is not at all certain that Mark here is Luke's primary source; Luke may be using a non-Markan version.5 Luke in l - 2 a begins his public story with an elaborate historical orientation which gives both the Roman and Jewish background. It is a sixfold synchronism, a highly circumstantial but not wholly accurate dating of events.® Two of Luke's Roman officials appear in the course of the story in 5 Cf. Β. and J. Weiss, Das Evangelium, des Lukas, p. 193; J. Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Lucae (Berlin: Reimer, 1904), p. 1. * On the accuracy of Luke's historical data, see Klostermann, Lukas, p. 51.

45

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f 1

Matthew and Mark, and Caiaphas appears twice in Matthew's death drama. Matthew and Mark, however, feel no need for such a formal introduction. Evidently they are recording an esoteric tradition familiar to their believing Christian readers, while Luke is writing for those who do not have this familiarity with the materials to be presented. In l - 2 a Luke seems to be conforming to a pattern. These lines might be an imitation of the preamble to the Book of Jeremiah (1:1-3). 7 However, it seems more probable that Luke is using a method for dating events followed by writers of profane history in the ancient world.8 The opening lines of chapter 3 of Luke read like the formal beginning of a book.9 This has helped to lead to the theory that Luke's Gospel in an earlier, briefer form began with chapter 3 and did not include the preface or the birth stories.10 However, the editorial hand that links the public tradition with Roman history in 3:1 must be the same that linked the birth story with Roman history back in 2:1-20 —the germ-cell of Luke's birth story. On first glance Luke in 2b might seem to be joining his public story to the first half of his birth story: "John the son of Zacharias" is in the wilderness where the birth story left him (1:80). However, this is doubtful, for John is introduced in 2b as though he had not been previously mentioned. The Old Testament prophets are usually identified by naming their fathers, and "the word of God came unto" is a typical Old Testament way of describing the call of a prophet. "The word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias" is a good beginning for a Jewish story of a Jewish prophet. Luke is the only Gospel writer who mentions John's call to the career of a prophet. This call comes in the wilderness, and it brings John to the scene of his work, the Jordan valley ( 3 ) . In Luke, then, there is no confusion or contradiction relative to the scene of John's work such as appears in Matthew and Mark. Matthew and Mark quoted only one verse from Isaiah (40:3); Luke, however, quotes three full verses (40:3-5). This fuller quotation Luke may have found in his non-Markan source, or he may have extended it beyond Mark on his own account. These extra verses are very congenial to Luke's own religious outlook — the universal destiny of the gospel. In any case, Luke (or his source) had to turn directly to the Old Testament for these extra verses from Isaiah. Luke has no parallel to 5-6 of Mark. He may have omitted Mk 5 because he has a different conception of John's activity which he depicts as itinerant, Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 3. Cf. Josephus Antiquities xvii. 2, 3f; Thucydides Pelop. Wars ii. ii. 1. * Sir John Hawkins, Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 209. 10 Both Streeter and Taylor have Proto-Luke begin with 3:1. They assign the whole of 3 : 1 - 4 : 3 0 to Proto-Luke, allowing for some later minor borrowings from Mark. Cf. Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 222; Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 145. 7 8

46

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

ranging up and down the Jordan (as in Jn 1:28; 3:23), not stationary as Matthew and Mark seem to conceive of it. Luke may omit Mk 6 because, throughout his Gospel, he seems eager to avoid any suggestion that John is the Second Elijah, or Elijah returned.11 Luke thinks of John in ascetic terms ( 1:15; 7:33) but never as the fantastic figure portrayed in Mk 1:6. However, the absence of any parallel to 5-6 of Mark may be due to the fact that Luke is using a non-Markan source which did not contain this matter. After his introduction of John in 1:1-6 ( fll ), Mark goes directly to John's announcement of the Coming One in 7-8 ( j|4). Matthew and Luke, however, introduce new non-Markan matter in and Luke, special matter of his own in f3, before they report John's announcement of the Coming One in |f4. Here, for the first time, one may observe the literary method of Matthew and Luke in expanding the story of Mark and in introducing their extensive non-Markan materials. Matthew and Luke simply spread the framework of Mark at what they regard convenient or appropriate points and insert their non-Markan matter — in this case, between Mk 1:6 and 7. 12 2. The Baptist's Sermon on Repentance Mt 3:7-10 Lk 3:7-9 In this discourse unit the reader has his first certain contact with the second basic written source of Matthew and Luke — a great mass of materials, chiefly discourse, commonly designated by the symbol Q, the initial letter of the German word for source, Quelle. The document Q seems to have begun in general as Mark does, with an introductory section on John the Baptist — in fact, with more and fuller extracts from John's message than Mark offers, and doing John greater personal and historical justice. This sermon of John must have come toward the very beginning of Q, but it is not certain how Q actually began or led up to this sermon unless the beginning of Q is to be found in Lk 3:1-6 (minus 3b, the summary of John's message which is obviously taken verbatim from Mk 1:4b). In this new unit Matthew and Luke read practically verbatim in the discourse, but they disagree on the audience addressed. Matthew names the Pharisees and Sadducees; Luke, the multitudes. Evidently, the audience was not indicated in the source; otherwise Matthew and Luke would agree on the audience as they do in the discourse. The Q materials generally seem to have come down to Matthew and Luke as pure discourse, very seldom Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 136. In all matters of order, sequence, and arrangement of materials the analysis of the Synoptic tradition in the table of contents should be consulted where all agreements and disagreements in order, all inserts, interpolations, and digressions are clear and graphic. This is not a matter of mere mechanics; it concerns the actual literary composition and structure of each of the Synoptic Gospels. u

u

47

JESUS

AND THE

FIRST

THREE

GOSPELS

B. | 2

with any indication as to when, where, to whom, or why they were spoken. Time and again, Matthew and Luke agree closely in the discourse units from Q, but they disagree on scene, setting, audience, or provocation. This would seem to prove that Matthew and Luke as editors freely invented such circumstances as they felt were appropriate, usually in the form of little introductory notices which gave a touch of life and color to the bare discourse units which came down to them. The audience for this sermon of John is a problem, not only because Matthew and Luke disagree in this matter, but because the sermon itself is not consistent in the audience assumed. It begins with an appellative, 'Te offspring of vipers," which would presuppose a small sectarian group of hostile critics. In this case, Matthew's Pharisees and Sadducees would seem more appropriate. However, the second half of the sermon seems to be addressed to the general Jewish public. "We have Abraham to our father" was the boast of Jews generally, not just that of a small group or sect. In this case, Luke's audience would be more appropriate, especially in view of the fact that the message of the Jewish prophet usually was addressed to his contemporaries in general rather than to a special class. The audiences supplied by Matthew and Luke are conventional with them. Luke is fond of introducing the multitudes as evidence of public favor, and the Pharisees and Sadducees are a favorite combination in Matthew. The sermon as a whole is addressed to the unresponsive, whether the masses or the religious leaders. The body of the Synoptic tradition assumes that the people generally responded to John's call and that the authorities did not, a situation that repeats itself in the public experience of Jesus. The sermon itself may be an authentic extract from the pre-Christian prophetic message of John. It is ultra-Jewish in language, tone, religious thought, and outlook. It is typically prophetic, a piece of sharp continuous invective. John appears here as another Amos or Jeremiah. He is carried away by the conviction of the nearness of the end; he is a preacher of doom, repentance, and the divine judgment. It is a purely religious message with no political coloring. If this is an authentic utterance of John, it is the longest single extract from his message to survive, and it amounts to positive evidence that John was a Jewish prophet in his own right, a man with a message and mission of his own, wholly independent of Jesus. Excerpts and echoes of this sermon of John appear later in Matthew on the lips of Jesus (7:19; 12:34; 13:30; 23:33). One critic 1 feels that it was sheer accident that this sermon was attributed to John and not to Jesus. The word "good" before "fruit" in the last line should probably be deleted (absent in Syr sin ), for the alternative is not so much between good and bad fruit as between fruit-bearing and barrenness.2 x C f . Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 3 1 ) , p. 123. ' Cf. J . Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Matthaei

48

(2. Ausg.; Berlin: Reimer, 1 9 1 4 ) , p. 5.

Β.|3-4

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

3. The Popular Response to John's Message Lk 3:10-14 This is Luke's second non-Markan insert between Mk 1:6 and 7. It begins as though it were a continuation of what precedes: the multitudes indicted in 7-9 respond in 10. However, this responsive dialogue breaks into the flow of John's impassioned speech in j|2 and |[4. As the passage stands it is a piece of tradition peculiar to Luke who has more materials on John and apparently more interest in John, than any other Gospel writer. The three key-sayings may have come down to Luke as utterances which tradition ascribed to John, but the situation in which they are set is probably the literary work of Luke — the question-and-answer form, the various groups, and the whole depicted as an actual episode. The threefold repetition of the same question has the stiffness of didactic composition rather than the flexibility and variety of natural dialogue. The questions are not spontaneous; they are choral questions asked by a group in unison. The whole is liturgy in reverse: the congregation asks the questions, and the leader gives the responses. Such is possible only in the literary imagination of writer and reader. The three key-sayings are proverbial in nature and ill-adapted to spontaneous dialogue. They are Jewish and prophetic to the extent that religious conduct is conceived in terms of social obligation. Their counsel is mundane and prosaic, and it stands in sharp contrast to the sinister sermon which precedes. The portrayal of John in Lk 3:10-14 conforms more closely to that of Josephus who describes John as a preacher of morals.3 4. The Baptist Announces the Coming One Mt 3:11-12 Mk 1:7-8 Lk 3:15-18 This is the first and only piece of discourse which Mark ascribes to John in this opening section, and with it Mark's portrayal of the forerunner reaches its climax and conclusion. It is the final stage in the dramatization of the dogma in 1:2-3. Now John becomes the messenger of Malachi and Isaiah's voice in the wilderness. In 4-6 this dogma was dramatized by means of narrative summary and depiction. Now in 7-8 another instrument of drama is used — discourse, and the forerunner appears in a speaking role. This first piece of discourse in Mark has all the traits of a separate and independent unit. The same matter appears in isolation in the Book of Acts (1:5; 11:16; 13:25) and, as it now appears in Mark, has no organic relation to its context. Its loose connection with what precedes is evident. It is joined to 4-6 by the most artificial of literary links, "And he preached, saying" — a stereotyped formula which usually introduces stray discourse units. In 4 John was preaching the "baptism of repentance," but in 7-8 this theme is not touched 3 Cf. Antiquities xviii. 5, 2.

49

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 14

on at all. If the discourse in 7-8 had been conceived and composed for its present context, it surely would not have been separated so unnaturally by the intrusive notice in 6 from its only possible audience, the multitudes in 5. In relation to what follows the isolation of 7-8 is even greater. Jesus' appearance for baptism in 9-11 does not fulfill the predictions in 7-8. In fact, the effect is the very opposite. In 7 John subordinates himself utterly to the Coming One, but in 9 Jesus submits himself to John. In 8 John depreciates his water-baptism, but in 9 Jesus undergoes this baptism. In 8 the Coming One will baptize in the Holy Spirit, but in 10 Jesus himself receives the Spirit. In 8 water-baptism and Spirit-baptism belong to two different orders,1 but in 9-11 they are brought together as though they were objective and subjective phases of a single religious phenomenon. The effect, on going from 7-8 to 9-11, is almost that of anticlimax. Mk 1:7-8 cannot be regarded as an extract from the historic message of John. It reads like an editorial discourse summary. It is a highly selective and highly subjective Christian version of John's message.2 It is highly selective in that it fastens upon a single item (the Coming One) to the exclusion of all else in John's prophetic message. It is highly subjective in that it takes this one item from its native sphere of Jewish prophecy and gives it a human, historical perspective (the coming of Jesus) foreign to its nature. The Christian origin of Mk 1:7-8 is obvious.3 John is made to speak of his own work in the past tense ("I baptized") as though it were long since completed and were now a subject for speculation. Mk 1:7-8 does not go into fulfillment in the historical mission of Jesus but in the Christian conception of the work of the Heavenly Christ. Such an epitome as Mark gives in 7-8 probably had its origin in the early Christian sermon.4 Its compactness, as well as its evident desire to demonstrate, would point to its use in preaching. The Book of Acts makes it clear that the providential part played by John figured in the early Christian sermon and was treated in epitome form (Acts 10:37; 11:16; 13:24-25). Just where, when, and how this Christian conception of John as providential forerunner of Jesus the Messiah came into existence cannot be determined. It belongs to the pre-Gospel stage of Christian thought, but it seems to be post-Pauline, for it never appears in Paul's letters. John the Baptist seems to have played no part in Paul's conception of the divine drama which culminated in the life, work, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Mk 1:7-8 is a piece of dramatic technique, the spoken prologue to a play. It lacks entirely the impassioned quality of true prophecy in an actual historiCf. Cf. 3 Cf. 4 Cf. 1

3

Wellhausen, Marci, p. 5. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 32. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 261f. Dibelius, Die Botschaft, p. 127f.

50

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

cal situation. It is recited. It has an impersonal quality, a formality, which reflects the agreed mind of a group. It is delivered with the detachment of a monologue. It has no contemporary audience. It is addressed to an unseen audience — to Mark's readers who, in the mind's eye, are ready to move from prelude and prologue to the drama proper. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:16-17. With this announcement of the Coming One, Matthew and Luke return to the order of Mark, Matthew having made one insert while Luke made two. In these parallels of Matthew and Luke to Mk 1:7-8, it is obvious that this announcement of John has survived in two written forms, the briefer form in Mark and the fuller form in which Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark. This is the first of many instances in which Mark and the second source of Matthew and Luke ( Q ) report the same matter, or overlap. In this case, as in nearly every other, the two forms can be identified by their distinctive differences. The Markan form includes three items: the Coming One, the water-baptism, the Spiritbaptism. The Q form has the same three items in different arrangement: the water-baptism, the Coming One, the Spirit-baptism. The Q form is twice as long as the Markan form. The second half of the Q form, the firebaptism and the figure of the threshing-floor, has no parallel in Mark. The Q form of this announcement in Matthew and Luke is not only fuller than that of Mark, but it is more Jewish, more prophetic, more eschatological, and it has the traits of impassioned speech. It is relatively free from later Christian coloring. It may very well be an authentic extract from John's message preserved in its pre-Christian stage and form by his own disciples.6 The Q form of this message is still less suited than the Markan form to the Christian idea of John as forerunner of Jesus the Messiah. In Q John is not announcing any human, historical successor. The powers and functions ascribed to the Coming One transcend the human and historical, and they require the supernatural and divine. John's attitude of utter submission befits only the Divine. There is something fearful and awesome in the aspect of this Coming One who baptizes in fire and flails men as grain. He belongs to the heavenly order, and he bears no likeness to the Jesus of the subsequent narrative. The historical message of John did not point to Jesus, forerunner to Messiah, as in Christian dogma. The messages of Jesus and John ran parallel. John preached repentance in view of the impending divine judgment to be accomplished by the Coming One; Jesus preached repentance in view of the imminent kingdom of God to be inaugurated by the Son of man. The Coming One in John's thought and message was an eschatological figure, a supernatural divine agent, very like Jesus' apocalyptic Son of man. Mt 3:11-12 is continuous discourse with 7-10 as it probably was in Q. Thus Matthew has no new audience for this announcement. His last named s

Cf. Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 6.

51

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 15

audience, the Pharisees and Sadducees ( 7 ) , is not appropriate, for this message would strike the whole Jewish people, not just special sectarian groups. The message itself Matthew seems to give in its pure Q form with no influence from Mark beyond order. Lk 3:15-18. In Luke this announcement is cut off from its companionpiece ( 7-9 ) by the insert in 10-14 which breaks into the flow of the Q discourse. In 15 and 18 Luke, or his source, supplies an editorial framework for this announcement.6 According to Luke (15), this announcement is provoked by messianic speculations, and it appears as an express denial of the unexpressed public speculation about the possibility of John being the Messiah. In Matthew and Mark no messianic rumors attach themselves to John. Verse 15 of Luke is one of several points of affinity between the Third Gospel and the Gospel of John, where the Baptist's denial that he is the Messiah is developed into an elaborate scene and dialogue (Jn 1:19-27). In the announcement itself Luke shows influence from Mark's text at two points, "the latchet of" and "unloose". Verse 18 is an editorial summary on the preceding eleven verses. Luke is rounding out his section on John's message. He has given only a few extracts from what may have been a "complete body of teaching." 7 5. The Imprisonment of the Baptist Lk 3:19-20 Mt 14-.S-4 = Mk 6:17-18 fll54 Luke brings his section on John (3:1-20) to a quick conclusion and thus completes the background for his public story. Luke has a strange place for this notice — for it is a notice, not an account of an event. It could be an insert between Mk 1:8 and 9; or it may have occurred here in Luke's nonMarkan source. In either case the cart is ahead of the horse: 19-20 report John's arrest and imprisonment, and yet in the very next verse (21) John is a free man still, active on the Jordan where he baptizes Jesus. This notice would be more natural if it came later, perhaps just ahead of 7:1s. 1 Matthew and Mark report this matter much later where the Galilean story is beginning to turn toward its close. Luke may anticipate events here because he is ending his story of John once for all. In the next verse of Luke ( 21 ) Jesus makes his first personal appearance, and once Luke takes up the story of Jesus proper he never digresses to complete the story of John as Matthew (14:3-12) and Mark (6:17-29) do much later (fil54-155). Luke's source for 19-20 is not certain. The passage could be a violent transposition and free revision of Mk 6:17-18 (|J154),2 for Luke agrees Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 27. Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 141. 1 Cf. W. Bussmann, Synoptische Studien (3 Hefte, Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1925-1931), I, 125. ' Cf. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 8 ; et al. β 7

52

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

rather closely with Mark in the substance of what is stated. However, Luke has virtually no textual agreement with Mark, and within the passage the materials are in reverse order. Mark tells of the arrest and imprisonment and then gives the reason; Luke begins with the reason and ends with the imprisonment. Luke could be using a non-Markan source here,3 or the notice could be his own free composition.4 It is written in a rather careless fashion,5 and it would not be clear without the parallels in Matthew and Mark. Its comment on Herod's administration as a series of evil deeds is new and gives the passage a Jewish, Josephus touch. 6. The Baptism of Jesus Mt 3:13-17 Mk 1:9-11 Lk 3:21-22 In Mk 1:9-11 the story of Jesus' baptism follows directly on John's announcement of the Coming One ( 7 - 8 ) , giving the sequence a highly dramatic effect: John has hardly finished his announcement when Jesus appears before him as though in direct fulfillment. In 7-8 John did not say that the Coming One was Jesus, and in 9-11 he does not recognize Jesus as such. Nevertheless, this dogmatic inference is intentional on the part of the writer and inescapable for the reader simply because the two passages are brought together. In Mark Jesus comes to John from Nazareth, the only locality with which Mark associates Jesus as a native or resident. Mark betrays no knowledge of the tradition of the birth in Bethlehem. Mark's account of the so-called vision (10-11) is consistent throughout. Jesus is the only human subject involved. It is he who sees, and the voice addresses itself to him in the second person singular: "Thou art"; "in thee." Mark presents his story of Jesus' baptism as though it were an organic unit. However, there is a tremendous difference in the nature of what is reported in verse 9 over against verses 10-11, as will be clear a little later. Lk 3:21-22. In Luke the dramatic connection between John's announcement in 3:16-17 and Jesus' appearance in 21-22 is broken. The grand effect of forecast flashing into fulfillment is weakened by the notice about John's arrest which intervenes in 19-20. In his account of the baptism Luke differs considerably from Mark in conception and depiction, and some critics would assign Luke's version directly 1 or indirectly 2 to Q. Luke used Q in the preceding section on John (7-9, 16-17) and he uses the Q form of the Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 19f; et al. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 403: Β. S. Easton, The Gospel according to St. Luke (New York: Scribner, 1926), p. 42. 5 Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 141. 1 Cf. Β. and J. Weiss, Lukas, p. 191; Adolf Hamack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu: die zweite Quelle des Matthäus und Lukas (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907), p. 136. 2 Assigned to Proto-Luke by Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 276, and Taylor, The Third Gospel, pp. 77, 219. 3

4

53

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

B. |6

temptation story (4:1-13). Q, then, may have contained the story of Jesus' baptism, and Luke may be giving the Q form. Luke's form of the story begins in an awkward manner, perhaps because the thread of the narrative was cut by the notice about John's arrest (3:19-20). Luke does not mention Nazareth here, but it was the home of the parents in Luke's birth story, and Luke has Jesus begin his public work there (4:16-30 jîlO). Luke does not mention the locality, the Jordan; he does not even name John as the one who baptizes Jesus. The reader carries both items over from what precedes. In reality, Luke does not give an account of Jesus' baptism. The baptism itself is relegated to a mere clause, "Jesus also having been baptized"; it is merely mentioned in passing. Luke seems almost to wish to suppress Jesus' baptism by John; at least his interest centers elsewhere, on the supernatural manifestations — the ruptured heavens, the dove, and the voice. Luke agrees with Mark on one important item: John does not recognize Jesus as the One he has been announcing. Jesus is just one of many; his baptism is lost in the mass of baptisms given. Luke alone introduces a notice about Jesus praying. This is the first of five such notices which Luke introduces at highpoints in the course of the Galilean story (3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 28). Throughout his Gospel Luke features the praying of Jesus to an extent that Matthew and Mark do not. These passages are freely supplied by Luke, who thus endows his hero with traits of human piety. Such portrayal belongs to the field of personal legend.3 The professional historian would describe this praying in Luke as rhetorical distortion.4 This particular notice in Luke separates the baptism from the heavenly disclosure which is thus associated with the praying, as though the result of it, rather than with the baptism.5 Luke's account of the so-called vision is even less subjective than that of Mark. Luke retains the voice in the second person singular ("thou art"; "in thee"), but he speaks of all the people being baptized and of the Spirit descending "in a bodily form" as though others were witnesses. Luke is not describing a vision, for the elements are objectified; rather a miracle witnessed by all present. One famous MS ( D ) has a different reading for the utterance of the voice. It quotes Ps 2:7: "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." This might be regarded as further evidence for the nonMarkan origin of Luke's version of the baptism story.6 Mt 3:13-17 preserves the dramatic effect of Mark's sequence: Jesus' appearance in 13 follows at once upon John's announcement of the Coming Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 272. "Rhetorical distortion consists in attributing to persons noble attitudes, acts, sentiments, and above all, words." C. V. Langlois & Charles Seignobos, Introduction to the Study of History (New York: Henry Holt, 1898), p. 170. 6 Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 6; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 55. " Cf. Goguel, Jean-Baptiste, p. 155; Welhausen, Lucae, p. 6. 3 4

54

Β. 16

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

One in 11-12. Like Luke, Matthew makes no mention of Nazareth at this point, but his birth story ended with the holy family in Nazareth (2:23) and Jesus comes from Nazareth to Capernaum before beginning his public work (4:13). There seems to be no doubt about Matthew having taken his version of the baptism story from Mark. Matthew makes an addition in 14^15, however, which alters the nature of the story entirely. In Matthew, Jesus arrives at the Jordan fully conscious of the fact that he is the Messiah; John recognizes him as such and hesitates to baptize him. In Matthew, in contradiction to Mark and Luke, Jesus and John acknowledge each other as forerunner and Messiah. How they came to this knowledge Matthew does not state. This recognition scene in 14-15 makes it clear that Matthew was offended at the implications of Mark's baptism story. Matthew had two choices: either to suppress the story entirely, or to revise it in such a way as to remove the offensive elements. Matthew chose the latter alternative; he leaves the baptism, but the new dialogue in 14—15 virtually explains it away. With this addition Matthew accomplishes three things. (1) It emphasizes the utter subordination of John who is as unworthy to baptize Jesus as he was to bear the shoes of the Coming One (3:11). (2) This exchange removes the offense of Jesus, the Sinless One, submitting to a baptism for the remission of sins (Mk 1:4). Matthew was preparing the way for this back in 3:2 when he ignored Mark's summary of John's message. (3) This new dialogue harmonizes the baptism story with Matthew's tradition of the supernatural birth (1:18): Jesus, conceived by the Holy Spirit, has no need of this endowment with the Spirit reported by Mark. Matthew introduces confusion into his version of the so-called vision. It is Jesus who sees but the voice speaks, not to him, but about him in the third person singular: "This is"; "in whom." The third person singular in Matthew is a closer approximation to the Old Testament passage (Isa 42:1) which inspired the utterance, and it conforms to the third person singular used by the voice at the transfiguration (Mt 17:5). In Matthew the voice makes a public proclamation which falls on the empty air. There is no public present to hear it; Jesus and John seem to be alone at the Jordan. After the exchange in 14—15, neither can have any need of this declaration. In reality, the voice in Matthew is addressing the readers of his Gospel. The story of Jesus' baptism by John has had a history. Three separate stages are clear in its growth and development: (a) the simple notice of Jesus' baptism in Mk 1:9; (b) the vision and the voice in Mk 1:10-11; (c) the recognition scene in Mt 3:14-15. (o) Mk 1:9 is the original and primary tradition on Jesus' baptism. It is an independent statement, complete in itself. It is a simple, sober statement of fact without qualification or apology. There is no reason to doubt that

55

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. H6

Jesus was baptized by John. That it is not an invention of the Christian imagination is clear in the fact that later tradition was embarrassed by it (Matthew and Luke) or suppressed it entirely (John). Mk 1:9 is about as realistic and undogmatic a notice as one could hope to find in a document devoted to the interests of Christian propaganda. The scene of John's work is the Jordan, not the "prophetic wilderness" (1:3—4). In 9, Mark singles out Jesus for the reader, but Jesus does not emerge from contemporary obscurity. He is lost in John's audience, one of the many responding to his summons and unrecognized by him — the very opposite of what dogma required (Mt 3:14—15). The Jesus-John tradition of 1:9 is resumed in 1:14a; what intervenes ( 10-13 ) belongs to the supernatural and mythical. ( b ) Mk 1:10-11 is a piece of secondary tradition. It cannot stand alone; it requires support. The account of the vision and the voice is a parasitical growth that has attached itself to the solid statement in 1:9. Verses 10-11 never existed as a separate, independent unit of tradition but were conceived and composed for the very place they now occupy. This appendage transports the reader from the real world of verse 9 into the realm of the supernatural. In form, 10-11 tells of an ecstatic experience of Jesus, of a divine disclosure made to him personally. However, there is nothing of a psychological nature in what is reported. Jesus is only nominally the subject of the vision. He is entirely passive; there is no reaction on his part now or later. In 10-11 Heaven is speaking and acting; all that is human and historical is in suspension. Actually, Jesus is the object of the divine disclosure. The voice makes a pronouncement about him, not for the benefit of any potential witnesses in the scene itself but for Mark's readers. The account of the vision and the voice is also barren of biographical data. Nowhere in the subsequent story is there the faintest hint from Jesus himself that he had ever experienced such an ecstatic moment. The idea of the Spirit as the active agent in Jesus' person and work is confined to the baptism and the temptation, "an erratic block'" 7 of four verses (10-13) which breaks into the Jesus-John sequence (9 + 14a). The dogmatic nature of 10-11 is clear in the unoriginal utterance of the voice. It is borrowed from the Old Testament and seems to be a combination of Isa 42:1 and Ps 2:7. It might, at first, seem strange to observe how, in so many dramatic instances in the Gospel story, the early Christian imagination is satisfied with materials drawn from the Old Testament, even crucial utterances ascribed to Jesus.8 The devout Christian took no offense at this lack of originality, for the Scriptures are the Word of God. Hence, it was only natural that the heavenly voice should use its own language in adopting Jesus as the Son of God. 7 8

Goguel, Jean-Baptiste, p. 201. E.g., in the threefold temptation and the words on the cross.

56

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Mk 1:10-11 confronts the reader with the thought and theory of the early Christian church. It is simply a piece of religious fiction9 which has no historical value except for the nature of the religious faith from which it came and which found expression in it. Like all legendary creations, 10-11 seeks a point of contact with established history in order that it may acquire the necessary air of reality. This it finds in Mark's historical statement in 9. Mk 1:10-11 is dramatic in technique. In verse 9, the hero makes his initial appearance, upon which, with startling suddenness, the unseen forces actually operative in the destinies of the actors on the stage of history are introduced. The reader is given a glimpse behind the scenes. He is allowed to see what the action itself does not disclose until later. It is a sort of aside which, at the beginning, lets the reader in on the secret of the hero's true nature and identity: he is the Son of God.10 The Christian conviction that Jesus was the Son of God dominates the Gospel of Mark from beginning to end. Mark dramatizes this cardinal conviction by means of three voices which bear witness with cumulative effect at the baptism, at the transfiguration, and at the cross — at what Johann Herder called "the three luminous points in the life of Jesus." 1 1 Verses 10-11 are simply the colorful first act in the dramatized version of the Christian dogma of Jesus as the Son of God. ( c ) Mt 3:14-15 is the third and final stage in the growth of the baptism story, the recognition scene found only in Matthew. This dialogue seems to be the outright invention of Matthew, and wholly fictitious. In substance, however, it is a piece of early Christian apologetics. The scruples which inspired it are those of Matthew and his readers, not those of John or Jesus. In making this new addition, Matthew has unwittingly compromised the character of John who recognizes Jesus, yet does not take the logical steps that should follow: he does not introduce Jesus to the public; he does not abandon his own work in Jesus' favor, nor does he become Jesus' disciple. This faith, which John possesses at the Jordan (Mt 3:14), seems later to have been assailed by doubt (Mt 11:3). This new dialogue by Matthew does not leave Jesus himself unscathed. Matthew represents Jesus as participating in what he must have regarded as a sacred religious rite (Mt 21:25) as a mere formality and for the sake of appearances. There is an apocryphal touch in this concession, a suggestion of superiority even to the obligation of sincerity. Matthew introduces his recognition scene at the expense of history; nevertheless, it is an instructive example of how the early Christian faith revised and altered traditional materials to suit its needs, purposes, and prejudices. '"Eine Glaubenslegende," Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 152. Dibelius regards Mk 1:10-11 as an "epiphany," Tradition to Gospel, p. 231. nVom Erlöser der Menschen: nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien (Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, 1796), p. 114. 10

57

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 17

7. The Genealogy of Jesus Lk 3:23-38 Mt 1:1-17 A. Matthew set his genealogy at the very beginning of his Gospel, a sort of introduction to his story in general and to his birth story in particular. Luke's genealogy comes early in the public story. He inserts it between the baptism and the temptation stories by spreading the Markan framework between 1:11 and 12. Luke's genealogy follows immediately on Jesus' first personal appearance in the story. Thus it has the force and function of an introduction: it tells who Jesus is. Luke's genealogy begins in an awkward fashion (23), suggesting that it was not designed originally for the place it now occupies. However, if the Gospel of Luke in an earlier briefer form began with 3:1 and contained no birth story (Proto-Luke), then the appearance of the genealogy at this particular point is more natural.1 The genealogies of Matthew and Luke have so little in common that they must be regarded as separate and independent compilations, with no mutual source except the genealogical tables of the Old Testament. Apart from the names Joseph and Jesus, they agree only on the names which both borrow from the Old Testament and in the main point of the compilation: Jesus' descent from David. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke differ in a whole series of items. They differ greatly in length and extent. Matthew has 42 (41) generations; Luke has 77. Matthew gives Jesus a purely Jewish genealogy traced back to Abraham, the traditional father of the Jewish people. Luke traces Jesus' ancestry back beyond Abraham to Adam, the legendary father of the human race. In Matthew, Jesus is the Messiah of Jewish hope with emphasis on the descent from David. In Luke, there is less emphasis on Jesus' messiahship, even on his descent from David, and more interest in his descent from Adam. This fits in with the religious universalism in Luke's Gospel as a whole. Luke's genealogy relates Jesus to the whole human family as the Savior of the world. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke move in opposite directions. Matthew begins with the remote past, with Abraham, and comes down to Joseph and Jesus. Luke begins with Jesus and Joseph and moves back through antiquity to Abraham and Adam. Matthew and Luke disagree on the number of generations for a given period. From David down to Joseph, Matthew has 26 generations; Luke has 41, a number better suited to the length of the period. Matthew and Luke give Jesus very different ancestors from David down. In Matthew Jesus descends from David through the line of kings; he has royal blood in his veins. In Luke Jesus descends from David through an obscure, unknown line. Thus in Luke there is less desire and design to glorify Jesus and his ancestry than in Matthew. Between David and Joseph, 1

Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 2f; Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 149; et al.

58

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Matthew and Luke have only two names in common. They do not agree even on the name of Jesus' grandfather: Matthew, Jacob; Luke, Heli. Luke's genealogy, when it leaves the Old Testament tables, contains repetitions, and the new names are probably improvised. Matthew highlights the mathematical structure of his genealogy, a threefold two-times-seven. There is no obvious mathematical scheme in Luke's genealogy; however, his total of 77 generations is a round number in ancient thought and a multiple of seven.2 It is possible that Luke's genealogy exhibits some degree of historical interest,3 for it is less like those of Matthew and the Old Testament and more like the ancient Greek genealogical tables, especially those of Herodotus ( i. 7 ), which were the earliest form of chronological records. "The Son of God" at the end of Luke's genealogy may be a later addition, but in the ancient Greek genealogies the ancestry of families was traced back through the heroes to the gods.4 The parenthesis, "as was supposed," is generally regarded as a later addition or insert. It cannot come from the original compiler, for it cuts the line of ancestry at its most vital point (between Jesus and Joseph) and it renders the whole genealogy pointless. This insert would also support the theory that the Gospel of Luke originally had no birth story and began with 3:1. This parenthesis was probably made by the hand that prefixed the birth story and was aware of the confusion and contradiction between the natural descent through Joseph and the idea of the supernatural birth. The note that Jesus was "about thirty years of age" (23) probably represents conjecture rather than historical knowledge. It does not accord too well with Luke's dates thus far: Jesus' birth at the time of the census, 6-7 A.D. (2:2) and the beginning of the public story, 28-29 A.D. (3:1). Genealogies may rest on community tradition, but their compilation is the laborious task of the individual. Luke's genealogy is a literary product, that of Luke himself or of some earlier hand. Such a long list of names was not suited to preservation in memory or to oral transmission. The earliest Christian literary record of Jesus' descent from David is not the genealogies of Matthew and Luke but the simple statement of Paul in Rom 1:3: Jesus "was born of the seed of David according to the flesh." 8. The Temptation of Jesus Mt 4:1-11 Mk 1:12-13 Lk 4:1-13 Matthew and Luke report the temptation in Mark's order. In Matthew and Mark it follows at once upon the baptism establishing an organic bond between the two incidents: the Spirit that comes upon Jesus at the Jordan Cf. Ewald, Die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 171; Völter, Die Geburt Jesu, p. 68; et al. * Cf. Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels, p. 82. 4 Cf. J. B. Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians (New York: Macmillan, 1909), p. 33. 2

59

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. |8

brings him into the wilderness for temptation. In Luke this connection between baptism and temptation is severed by his long genealogy which intervenes. Luke himself seems aware of this severed connection for, in the very first line of his temptation story, he reaches back over the genealogy to link up with the baptism story: "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan." In the joining of baptism and temptation, some critics 1 feel that the law of biographical analogy is asserting itself and that the Synoptic tradition at this point is following a conventional pattern. In the life-stories of famous religious figures (Buddha, Zoroaster, Mohammed), exalted experiences are often followed by periods of test and trial in solitude and seclusion. However, the bond that holds baptism and temptation together in the story of Jesus is not psychological or biographical but dogmatic — the agency of the Spirit. The connection between baptism and temptation is smoother and more natural in Matthew and Luke than it is in Mark. The Spirit that descends upon Jesus "as a dove" in Matthew and Luke is more sympathetic and congenial: it leads Jesus into the wilderness and temptation. Furthermore, there is a better connection of ideas in Matthew and Luke: in two of the three instances, Jesus is tempted as the Son of God, the highpoint of the baptism story. On the surface no two passages of Mark seem more closely related than baptism and temptation. They have been regarded as companion-pieces, even as a single unit.2 Yet the one thing, the Spirit, which seems to join them inseparably is the very thing which indicates their original separateness and independence: 3 the baptism and temptation stories in Mark have very different conceptions of this Spirit. The violence of the Spirit in 12 ("driveth") is hardly in harmony with the Spirit that descends "as a dove" in 10. In 11 the Spirit brought assurance; in 12 it threatens that assurance. The Spirit drives Jesus into the wilderness but it does not sustain him; divine aid comes in the form of angels. In Mark Jesus is not tempted as the Son of God, the new dignity conferred upon him at the Jordan. It is obvious that the temptation tradition came down to Matthew and Luke in two different forms: the cursory Markan notice of two verses and the elaborate Q form, 11 verses in Matthew and 13 in Luke. Matthew and Luke use the Q form which they introduce parallel to Mark — the third and last instance in which they agree in reporting the same non-Markan matter 1 Cf. Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christus Glaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaus (2. Aufl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921), p. 44; E. Fascher, Die formgeschichtliche Methode: eine Darstellung und Kritik (Glessen: Töpelmann, 1924), p. 133. 2 Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 31; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 94ÉF. ' Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 154; E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1937), p. 28.

60

THE

PUBLIC

TRADITION

at the same point in relation to the Markan framework. Luke shows no influence from Mark's text unless it is in the introduction; at the end Matthew borrows the angels from Mark. The Markan and Q forms agree on four items: the Spirit, the wilderness, the forty days, and the tempter (Mark, Satan; Q, the devil ). Otherwise they represent wholly independent traditions on Jesus' temptation. Mk 1:12-13. Mark's temptation tradition is just as devoid of psychological data as was his baptism story. The reported human subject is in a state of pure passivity. Supernatural forces are in action: the Spirit drives; Satan tempts; the angels minister. There is nothing subjective, no drama of soul, no reaction of the tempted to what goes on about him. Ancient folkpsychology asserts itself at one point, namely, in the idea that a supernatural being, here the Spirit, can so possess itself of a human subject that that subject ceases to be, temporarily or permanently, a free agent.4 This suggestion of divine compulsion has been accepted by some 5 as authentic evidence of Jesus' pneumatic or ecstatic nature. Mark does not give an account of Jesus' temptation. He gives no hint as to its nature; he does not even say that Jesus was victorious. The temptation is passed over so summarily that it does not seem to be the center of Mark's interest. The words "tempted of Satan" can be deleted,6 leaving a notice of an initial period of seclusion similar to that found in the story of Paul (Gal 1:17), Josephus,7 and Apollonius of Tyana. 8 Mark sketches; he does not narrate. There are no shifts of scene; there is no dialogue. Mark presents a tableau, a still picture, which portrays the utter human isolation of Jesus, and features scenic accessories rather than action and actors. Mark's sketch does not contain a single detail that might rest upon historical tradition. Each item — the Spirit, Satan, the wilderness, the forty days, the angels — is conventional in Hebrew and holy history. Mark's tableau has a mythological background and conception of temptation. Mark does not picture his hero in a spiritual struggle with his Satanic adversary, but rather the cosmic powers of good and evil as they struggle for possession of him. Jesus is the human point where supernatural forces converge for conflict. Mark's temptation unit has often been regarded as an epitome of the fuller Q form reported by Matthew and Luke. This idea is to be rejected for two reasons. (1) Mk 1:12-13 has neither the form nor the nature of an epitome. An epitomist does not indulge in needless repetitions ("and he Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 8. Cf. Oskar Holtzmann, War Jesus Ekstatiker? eine Untersuchung zum Leben Jesu (Tübingen: Mohr, 1903), p. 15; J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 118. 6 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 3 1 ) , p. 271; H. Raschke, Die Werkstatt des Markusevangelisten: eine neue Evangelientheorie (Jena: Eugen Diederichs, 1924), p. 76. 7 Cf. Life 2. 12. " Cf. Philostratus Life i. xiv. 4 5

61

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f 8

was," "in the wilderness"), nor does he contribute new details (the wild beasts and the angels). 9 The best proof that these two verses of Mark are not an epitome is the fact that they can be epitomized; the two sentences can be condensed into one, resulting in an actual literary improvement. ( 2 ) When one recalls Mark's general fondness for drama and dialogue, it is wholly improbable that he would have been satisfied with a mere epitome of the colorful temptation story in Q. The only solid substance behind Mk 1:12-13 is the simple Christian tradition that Jesus was tempted. In the strain that came down to Mark, there was no disposition to feature Jesus' temptation or to make a didactic use of it as in other strains ( Q ). For Mark, the temptation of Jesus did not establish a bond of fellow-feeling between Christ and Christian as it did for the author of Hebrews (2:18; 4:15). Mt 4:1-11; Lk 4:1-13. The Q tradition used by Matthew and Luke gives an elaborate account, not a mere notice, of Jesus' temptation. It depicts a veritable struggle of soul, detailing three specific temptations that confronted Jesus in the wilderness, with each encounter a victory for Jesus and a defeat for the tempter. The Q form is a drama in three acts with introduction and conclusion. The whole is developed by dialogue, with the principal actors in speaking roles. More than half of this dialogue is made up of quotations from Deuteronomy (8:3; 6:13; 6:16). In fact, the story is built up around these Deuteronomy passages. Each of the tempter's proposals is carefully designed to provoke each of the three replies. The verbatim agreements between Matthew and Luke, as usual, are closer in the dialogue than in the narrative framework.10 This is natural because of the dialectical nature of the dialogue material. Matthew (4:1-2) may be giving the original Q introduction. He specifies temptation as the reason for the wilderness retreat, and he associates the forty days with the fasting. Luke (4:1-2) is closer to Mark in his introduction. He does not specify temptation as the reason for the retreat, and the forty days are a prolonged period of general temptation. The Q form, with Jesus fasting, suggests ascetic discipline. Luke gives the whole a visionary, ecstatic quality: Jesus is "led in the Spirit" ( 4 : 1 ) , and he views the world "in a moment of time" (4:5). The Q form of the temptation story is a curious mixture of spectacular flights of the imagination with soberest and sternest religious reasoning. Q features the didactic discourse rather than action. The threefold dialogue is a duel of wits; Jesus and his dramatic counterpart dispute exactly in the manner of two Jewish rabbis. There is a sharp contrast between the fantastic ° Cf. R. A. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium und seine Quellen ( Königsberg in Pr. : Thomas und Oppermann, 1904), p. 42; Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, I, 125. 10 Cf. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 62; Martin Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1919), p. 75.

62

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

proposals of the tempter and the plain prosaic replies ascribed to Jesus. The devil shows far more originality in his proposals than Jesus does in his replies. However, the point to the story is not Jesus' originality but his loyalty. Each of the three encounters is surrounded by the mythical and the miraculous, yet no supernatural features appear in Jesus himself. The Jesus who emerges from the threefold temptation is not the Messiah but a devout Jew who is loyal to the simplest lay precepts of his people's religion. Matthew and Luke report the last two temptations in reverse order. In Matthew the three appear, with mounting tension, in the order of their relative importance, climaxing in the offer of the whole world.11 In Luke's sequence the shifts of scene are simpler, from the wilderness to Jerusalem, and the development of the dialectic is more subtle: twice repulsed by Scripture the devil himself resorts to Scripture (Ps 91:11-12). 1 2 The Q form of the temptation story does not seem to have included any divine aid for Jesus. The Spirit leads him into the wilderness where the devil takes charge, and Jesus is left to his own resources. The principal point to the Q story seems to be that these resources were entirely adequate. Luke is fond of introducing angels into his story, but he does not take them over from Mark here, as Matthew does. Luke reserves this angelic assistance for Jesus' last great struggle, in Gethsemane (22:43-44). In Mark the angels seem to be present throughout the forty days; in Matthew they appear only after the temptation is completed and the devil has departed. The Q tradition brings the temptation to a formal conclusion by noting the departure of the devil. In Matthew this departure is final; this defeat of the tempter at the beginning is decisive, once for all. In Luke, however, the devil departs "for a season" (4:13), a phrase which contains the sinister suggestion that other encounters are to follow. In Luke (22:3) Satan makes his final assault at the beginning of the death drama in the person of Judas, and at the table on the last night Jesus reviews his public life as a series of temptations (22:28). Legend, as so often in the case of good and wise men in the ancient world, has concentrated all of Jesus' temptations at one particular point in one solemn act prior to the launching of his public work.13 In real life, however, it is different, and Jesus must have solved his problems, not in advance of their appearance, but only as they emerged in the course of his life and experience in public. The threefold temptation of Q has often been regarded as going back in one form or another to an actual utterance or reminiscence of Jesus himself.14 It has been described as a parable, an allegory, or as a symbolic Favored by Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 252; Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 219; et al. Favored by Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 57; Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, II, 40; et al. 13 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 238; H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 45; et al. 14 Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, II, 24; Ragg, St. Luke, p. 52; et al. 11 12

63

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 9

narrative from his lips,15 an imaginative dress for a succession of thoughts and counterthoughts that assailed the mind and purposes of Jesus. It has been regarded also as autobiographical and confessional in nature, the account of a visionary experience, a type of visitation to which he was subject owing to his ecstatic temperament.1® Two things render such views extremely doubtful. ( 1 ) The disposition to make intimate disclosures, to indulge in confessional statement, seems to have been foreign to Jesus' nature. (2) The Q form of the temptation story is anything rather than a piece of oral composition. It is a problemplay, the product of study and reflection. It is a work of literary art and probably never existed in oral form. In the oral stage the tradition of Jesus' temptation must have circulated in the simple form found in Heb 2:18 and 4:15: he was tempted in all points like his followers, a general statement with no attempt at depiction ( Mark ) or at dramatization ( Q ). The temptation story in either literary form is a later Christian creation. It is legendary in nature, mythical in form and detail: Satan, the Son of God, the mountain from which the whole world is visible (Mt 4:8) — all are mythical. The preliminary, pre-public section of Mark's Gospel (1:1-13) has about it an almost creedal compactness. It can be reduced to a simple proposition of faith: "He was announced, consecrated, and tempted," similar to that in which the later church summarized the end of the story: "He was crucified, dead, and buried." The materials in this section of Mark receive a purely dogmatic treatment; they do not delineate the promoting factors that brought Jesus out of private life into public. 9. Jesus' Appearance in Galilee Mt 4:12-17 Mk 1:14-15 Lk 4:14-15 Mk 1:14—15 is a separate self-contained unit which sets itself off from what precedes and what follows. There is a complete break between 13 and 14: the Spirit does not bring Jesus out of the wilderness into which it took him ( 12 ). Verse 14 takes the reader back to 9 and reëstablishes the JohnJesus sequence. It ignores entirely what has intervened, the role of the Spirit at the Jordan and in the wilderness. Together 9 and 14a would make smooth reading and would join materials that remain on the level of history. Between 9 and 14a there has been a stoppage, not only in Mark's narrative, but in the flow of his information. Mark has filled in the gap with materials that belong to the realm of religious inference: Jesus, a passive subject, at the will of the Spirit in 10-13. The opening clause, "Now after John was delivered up," is not entirely 15 In the apocryphal Gospel of Hebrews the threefold temptation story is narrated by Jesus in the first person singular. It begins: "And my mother the Holy Spirit took me by one of the hairs of my head and carried me away to Mt. Tabor." 16 Cf. O. Holtzmann, War Jesus Ekstatiker?, pp. 43-49.

64

Β. 19

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

an innocent chronological notice. Mark is not thinking in terms of historical sequence. He is following a religious schematism which requires that the old must pass away before the new can appear. This clause is the final stage in the development of the dogma in 2-8. The very idea of John as forerunner and Jesus as Messiah would require the temporal relationship of before and after. Even the term delivered up signifies more than mere arrest and imprisonment. It pronounces a religious judgment on what has happened, just as it does later when it is used to describe the providential destiny that awaits Jesus (9:31; 10:33). Mark is moving through this introductory section of his Gospel (1:2-15) with seven-league boots: an over-all providential plan is unfolding itself in men and events. Verse 15 is not a word of Jesus as such that came down to Mark. It is an editorial summary and composite in nature. The kernel may be regarded as giving the authentic theme and substance of Jesus' historic message. The opening and closing statements are of later Christian origin. The fact that Matthew does not reproduce them may indicate that they are later additions to Mark. "The time is fulfilled" expresses the early Christian conception of history.1 This statement surveys all history and sees in Jesus its providential culmination. Such an evaluation could not have come from Jesus himself when his life-work was still ahead of him, but from his followers after his death when his completed story had become a matter for reverent speculation. "Believe in the gospel" is an admonition from early Christian preaching with a Pauline ring to it. The terms believe and gospel are used in the absolute sense. They are termini technici from the esoteric language of the early Christian community. The use of the term gospel twice in this brief passage would suggest that it comes from the same hand that composed the superscription (1:1). Verses 14-15 were not found in Mark's sources. They are his own literary contribution, an editorial summary generalizing on matters of common Christian knowledge which are evident in the subsequent story. This passage seems to have a twofold literary function. ( 1 ) It forms a transition from the introductory section (1:1-13) to the body of the Gospel. Such editorial summaries dealing in broad generalities appear often as literary links in Mark's writing. This first is the most ambitious of all, for it joins major sections of the total story, not just units or groups of units as is usually the case. (2) Mark seems to intend 14-15 as an introduction to the whole Galilean section. As such, it is not so appropriate. It characterizes the Galilean work as preaching the kingdom and repentance, while the great mass of the Galilean materials in Mark is narrative, not discourse. Matthew and Luke in their parallels are following the order of Mark, and 1 On the Christian conception of history, see J. H. Robinson, The New History ( New York: Macmillan, 1922), p. 3.

65

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 9

this editorial contribution by Mark becomes a written source for Matthew. It is not so certain by any means that Mark is Luke's source at this point. Mt 4:12-17 is a free reproduction of Mark's parallel with changes, additions, and omissions. In Mark it is the Gospel writer who connects Jesus' appearance in Galilee with John's arrest; in Matthew this connection is made by Jesus himself. In Mark the arrest of John is a "date" telling "when;" Jesus is John's successor in point of time. In Matthew there is a causal connection between John's arrest and Jesus' appearance in public; it is the news of John's arrest that brings Jesus into Galilee, as though he were taking up the work of his predecessor who was forced to resign. Matthew makes the same sort of connection between the fates and fortunes of John and Jesus in the same words in 14:13 If 157. In 13 Matthew reports an official change of residence from Nazareth to Capernaum, and henceforth Capernaum is "his own city." In Mark and Luke Capernaum is the principal center of Jesus' Galilean work but Nazareth remains his home. This removal to Capernaum is dogmatic rather than historical. It fulfills an Isaiah prophecy (9:1-2) which actually may have suggested it. The prophecy speaks of regions, not of any particular locality like Capernaum. This new home in Capernaum is another example of "prophetic geography" in Matthew. It is strange that Matthew has Jesus make his home in Capernaum and then almost immediately passes over the beginning of his work there (Mk 1:21-38). The mention of Capernaum here may betray in advance the important omission from Mark which Matthew makes a few verses later. Matthew ( 17 ) introduces his summary of Jesus' message with the phrase, "From that time began Jesus to preach." In 16:21 — at exactly the half-way point in his public story — the same phrase occurs again. The recurrence of this phrase in 16:21 is no mere coincidence. It shows that the author has reflected on Jesus' teaching as a whole, that he has formed an opinion about it, and that he is giving a systematic presentation of its two phases: 4:17 introduces Jesus' public message and 16:21 inaugurates his special private message to his disciples.2 In his use of Mark's summary of Jesus' message, Matthew ( 17 ) avoids the confusion with later Christian ideas. He does not reproduce "the time is fulfilled" or "believe in the gospel." They may not have been in his Mark. At any rate, their disappearance is an improvement. The term kingdom of God in Mark is supplanted by the term kingdom of heaven in Matthew, a term which is as characteristic and constant in Matthew as the term, kingdom of God, is in Mark and Luke. However, the term, kingdom of heaven, may be a rabbinical refinement by Matthew.3 The plain people 2 Cf. J. E. Carpenter, The First Three Gospels: their Origin and Relations (4th ed.; London: Lindsey Press, 1906), p. 279. 3 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 263; J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892), p. 9; et al.

66

Β. | 1 0

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

of Galilee, from whom Jesus came, were not so shy about using the divine name, and Jesus probably used the ordinary lay term, the kingdom of God. Jesus' message in Mt 4:17 is a verbatim repetition of John's message back in 3:2. This is at first surprising, for Jesus shows no advancement beyond John and it seems to rob Jesus of his independence and originality. Matthew, however, is not thinking in terms of the independence and originality of his messengers; he is thinking of the message and, as noted earlier (3:2), in essentially Catholic terms. It is God's word through John and Jesus, and later through the apostles (10:7). Mt 4:12-17 is an appropriate introduction for Matthew's own Galilean story which, unlike that of Mark, includes great masses of discourse materials, whole major sections devoted to the teaching of Jesus. Lk 4:14—15 could be a free reproduction and revision of Mk 1:14—15; however, Luke has so little in common with Mark at this point (only the return to Galilee) that he may be using a non-Markan source.4 Luke was the first to report John's arrest and imprisonment (3:19-20), but now he associates the fate of John in no way with Jesus' appearance in public. In Luke the course of Jesus' action at this juncture is severed from any historical connection: a supernatural agent is still at work, the Spirit. Thus, Luke has a closer connection with what precedes. Jesus was led "in the Spirit" into the wilderness, and now "in the power of the Spirit" he returns to Galilee as though the glow of ecstasy were still upon him. Luke gives no summary of Jesus' message at this point, perhaps for the reason that he, or his non-Markan source, is presenting a sermon of Jesus in what follows immediately (4:16-30 fílO). In 14b Luke's imagination travels faster than his story: Jesus is famous even before he emerges from obscurity. Luke is not looking backward for reasons for this fame; he is looking ahead to what is to come. The story-teller is ahead of his story, and 14b and 15 would have to be reversed to remove this confusion. Luke seems to want the teaching in the synagogues at the very end because of what he is about to report — the sermon in the Nazareth synagogue. Lk 4:14-15 has a different literary function and character from that of its parallels in Matthew and Mark. It is not intended as a formal introduction to the Galilean story as a whole. It has the more local and limited function of a transition from the temptation story to the Nazareth episode which follows. 10. The Opening Sermon in Nazareth Lk 4:16-30 Mt 13:53-58 = Mk 6:l-6a fll4Ô At this point in his Gospel Luke, or his source, is greatly anticipating the story of Mark (and Matthew). The early appearance of this Nazareth episode is another instance (||5) of Luke's occasional radical deviations 1

Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 46; Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 231; et al.

67

JESUS A N D THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 110

from the plan of Mark. In Mark (and Matthew) the rejection at Nazareth comes relatively late in the Galilean story, but Luke reports it here at the very beginning as the opening scene and occasion of Jesus' public work. It is more natural later where Mark (and Matthew) report it. It is wholly improbable that Jesus would be so utterly rejected, as Luke represents it on his initial appearance in public, whether in Nazareth or in some other locality. Furthermore, the story in Luke has an unnatural ending; it ends with an attempt on Jesus' life that is not justified by anything he has said or done. Within the story itself Luke has been honest enough, or careless enough, 1 to report items which prove that he has introduced this episode too early and that Jesus did not begin his public work in Nazareth. The proverb in 23, "Physician, heal thyself," assumes that Jesus has already acquired a general reputation as a healer, although Luke as yet has reported no cures. In 23 it is clear also that Jesus has done previous public work in Capernaum, the news of which has reached Nazareth. Luke's reason for reporting the Nazareth incident at this early point is obvious : he is fitting it into the plan and program of his Gospel as a whole. For Luke, this episode has more than a local meaning. Jesus' rejection at Nazareth portends his eventual rejection by the Jewish people. This frustrated attempt on his life at the beginning is prophetic of the successful conspiracy at the end. Thus the Nazareth incident in Luke becomes a prelude, or prologue, setting the theme for all that follows. In reporting this particular story in this particular form at this particular point, Luke writes as a dramatist, not as an historian: he reads the end back into the beginning. 2 In his treatment of this story Luke is taking the same liberties with materials and chronology that ancient historians generally took, especially those who wrote with a didactic purpose. The source for Luke's form of this piece of tradition is a matter of uncertainty. There are two principal views. ( 1 ) Luke's version could be a violent transposition and a radical revision of Mk 6: l-6a. 3 Luke has a number of details in common with Mark: Nazareth, the synagogue with Jesus teaching, the amazement of the audience, the question concerning Jesus' identity, and the proverb about a prophet's honor. Only two items in Mark's form fail to reappear in Luke; the list of the members of Jesus' family (Mk 6:3) and the few cures (6:5). Lk 4:16-30 might be regarded as a didactic sermon with Mk 6:l-6a as the text. (2) Luke could be giving a non-Markan version of the Nazareth episode.4 After acknowledging all the details which Luke has in common with 1

Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 273. " Cf. Polybius Histories ii. 56, 11; Teggart, Theory of History, p. 15. " Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 272f; Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 147; et al. 4 Feine, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung, p. 43f; B. and J. Weiss, Lukas, p. 367. According to Streeter and Taylor, Luke's Nazareth episode concludes the first major section of Proto-Luke ( 3 : 1 - 4 : 3 0 ) .

68

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Β. TIO

Mark, the main body of the material in Luke's version is new and peculiar to Luke: the reading from Isaiah, all the utterances ascribed to Jesus except the proverb about a prophet's honor, the violence at the end, and the mysterious escape. Furthermore, the fact that Luke's version has an altogether different form and structure from that of Mark, a different place in the total story as well as a different literary function in relation to it, would point to a non-Markan origin. Whatever Luke's actual source may have been, one thing is certain: Luke himself identifies his story with that of Mark for, when he comes to Mark's form in Mark's order, Luke passes it by as something already reported. Luke may have known two different versions, but he knew of only one Nazareth incident. Luke's description of the synagogue scene (16-20) has genuine Jewish color.6 It corresponds closely to synagogue practice as described in Jewish writings of the period and later, and it is very similar to the synagogue scene depicted in the Book of Acts (13:14ff). The remainder of Luke's story is a mixture of provocative utterance and dramatic action. The discourse matter is fragmentary and heterogeneous: a pointed application of Isa 61:1-2 in 21; two proverbs in 23 and 24; two comments on Jewish history in 25-27. Luke's use of the Isaiah passage is very different from Matthew's formal proofs from prophecy. The interpretation is ascribed to Jesus himself in 21, and it could amount to a messianic self-proclamation β for Luke and his readers, but not necessarily so for any contemporary Jewish audience. "To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears" corresponds to "The time is fulfilled" in Mk 1:15 which Luke did not reproduce. In Mk 1:15 the kingdom is near; in Lk 4:21 the Messiah is here. There is no proper transition from the people's wonder in 22 to their anticipated criticisms in 23. Thus there is the same incongruity between the two parts of the story in Luke that appears in Mark's version later: sincere surprise on the part of the people in the first half followed by their unprovoked antipathy and hostility in the second half, as though inharmonious traditions had been joined.7 "Physician, heal thyself" ( 2 3 ) is out of place at this early point in the story; it would be more natural at the very end, among the taunts at the cross.8 It is not a parable as Luke designates it. It is a proverb, perhaps one 5

Cf. George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Three Centuries of the Christian

the Age of the Tannaim

( 2 vol.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1 9 2 7 ) , I, 301.

"Cf. J. Wellhausen, Einleitung

in die drei ersten Evangelien

Reimer, 1 9 1 1 ) , p. 52; William Wrede, Das Messisgeheimnis Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1 9 1 3 ) , p. 177.

* Cf. Bleek, Synoptische

Gleichnisreden

Jesu

69

(2. Ausg.; Berlin:

in den Evangelien

Erklärung, I, 536; Spitta, Grundschrift,

"Cf. Adolf Jülicher, Die 1 9 1 0 ) , II, 173.

Era:

p. 50f.

(2. Aufl.;

(2. Aufl.; 2 Tie.; Tübingen:

Mohr,

JESUS AND T H E

FIRST THREE

GOSPELS

B. I l l

already in circulation which Jesus (or Luke) is quoting. A very similar proverb is found in Jewish and Roman writings: "Physician, heal thine own limping." Verse 24 brings a new break in the story. It, too, is a proverb which circulated as a separate saying (Jn 4:44), and it is introduced as such isolated sayings usually are, "And he said." Verses 25-27 might be joined to 23 as continuous discourse with 24 an insert.9 Or, it might be regarded as an independent fragment which originally was not a part of the Nazareth episode.10 Verses 25-27 appealed to Luke because they feature favors to Gentiles. In any or all of these utterances Luke may be exercising the freedom of the ancient historian who did not hesitate to invent and introduce sayings and speeches where his sources of information reported none. The Nazareth episode in Luke ends in violence; in Matthew and Mark, in unbelief and failure. The violence has no adequate provocation in what precedes, unless 21 be taken as a messianic self-proclamation; if so, then the violent reaction comes too late. In 28-30 Luke is dramatizing, giving the story a symbolical significance by reading the end of the Gospel story back into the beginning. The wrath of the people of Nazareth here is more like the wrath of the Jews after certain speeches in the Book of Acts. The mysterious, miraculous escape in 30 is the only instance of the kind in the Synoptic tradition, and it is another point of affinity between the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John (5:13; 8:59; 10:39). 11. The Calling of the First Disciples Mt 4:18-22 Mk 1:16-20 Lk 5:1-11 fll7 The reader has hardly finished Mark's characterization of Jesus' Galilean work in 1:14—15 when he is confronted in 16-20 with materials that do not fit this description at all. Instead of discourse and message, the reader finds a piece of graphic narrative depicting dramatic action. The story does contain a key-word of Jesus, but it is an intimate utterance in a private situation unrelated to the themes of the public message announced in 15. There is a complete break between 15 and 16 for the simple reason that 16-20 came down to Mark as a single separate unit of tradition without antecedent or consequence. Mark's calling of the first disciples is one of the best examples of the abruptness with which he introduces action and actors, of his precipitate manner in dealing with events. Mark reports climaxes and culminations without the antecedents that led up to them. Here there is no preparation, no background, either for Jesus' call or for the obedience of the fishermen. Jesus calls and the fishermen follow, as Wellhausen wrote, prima vista.1 The whole of an extended human process is reduced to a single episode which β 10 1

Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 423; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 40. Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 10; Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 70. Cf. Einleitung, p. 38f.

70

Β. P I

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

is flashed before the reader in one colorful moment. The isolation of the incident, as well as the suddenness and swiftness of the action, was gratifying rather than disturbing to Mark and his original readers. It is the catastrophic conception and treatment of history. 2 It is not at all certain that the calling of the first disciples belongs at this early point in the Galilean story. It seems strange in Mark that Jesus should call these men who live in Capernaum before he himself has visited that city. Mark reports the calling just ahead of Jesus' first visit to Capernaum ( 1 : 2 1 - 3 8 ) . It would be more natural and intelligible if it came after that visit as, in fact, it does in Luke. Mk 1 : 1 6 - 2 0 has often been regarded as a memoir of Simon, or at least as going back in one form or another to a personal reminiscence of that disciple. 3 Those of this view feel that they can detect a new tone and quality in Mark's narrative the moment Simon appears in the story as though, with him, a stream of fresh, first-hand information begins to flow. This view, however, is not convincing. If Mk 1 : 1 6 - 2 0 is a memoir of Simon, it is too subjective to be trusted, for it reads Simon's ultimate destiny back into the beginning of his discipleship. Furthermore, the narrative point of view taken is not that of an individual like Simon who recalls and recounts the circumstances of his joining the company of Jesus. The perspective is rather that of the believing group which projects its own later knowledge back into the remote and uncertain beginnings. Mark's calling of the first disciples is a highly subjective piece of tradition. This subjectivism is of the subtle type, expressing itself in basic assumptions which form the background of the story. These assumptions are those of the Christian believer, and they carry him over any historical or psychological difficulties involved in the incident as depicted. Jesus' sudden appearance on the shore of the sea of Galilee has the nature and quality of a divine disclosure. 4 This Jesus is not a Jewish rabbi who seeks and wins disciples through a series of contacts in quiet meditations and discussions on the law of Moses. 5 He is the Christ of the Christian faith who has only to see in order to know, whose word is absolute, a command to be obeyed under any and all human circumstances. Mk 1 : 1 6 - 2 0 is an almost perfect example of didactic narration. The story is told, not for its own sake, but for the sake of the lesson it contains. What transpires has an application that extends beyond the limits of the action depicted. It establishes a precedent in a wider sphere. Even the word "called" seems to have that deeper esoteric meaning of the religious group. In its primitive oral form as a part of the early Christian sermon, the story ' Cf. Bemheim, Lehrbuch, p. 91. " Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 138; Maurice Goguel, L'Évangile de Marc et ses Rapports avec ceux de Mathieu et de Luc (Paris: Leroux, 1909), p. 57; et al. 4 Cf. G. Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu und der Christuskult: eine formgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), p. 23. • Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 33.

71

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1[11

had the needs and interests of the listener in mind as now, in its written form, it has those of the reader in mind. The didactic nature of the story is clear in the treatment of the disciples called. Apart from their names, there is nothing individual about them. They are not as much human characters as religious types.6 Their unquestioning obedience and renunciation are normative; they are patterns to be followed. A didactic narrative may be built up around some kernel of history, but Mk 1:16-20 recounts a sort of miracle; it verges on the supernatural. Its exalted style and mood enhance the effect and suggest legend rather than actual reporting. A didactic narrative may also be a piece of pure fiction inspired by an idea. In such a case, Mk 1:16-20 would be a vocation-legend 7 which converts the first third of the apostolic roster into history.8 Mark's vocation-legend reaches its highpoint in Jesus' word in 17 which, in turn, reaches its climax in the metaphor, "fishers of men." It seems more probable that the narrative framework was suggested by this figure of speech 9 than that the figure of speech grew out of the situation depicted.10 The story of the call of Elisha (I Kgs 19:19ff ) may have been in the back of the narrator's mind. Mark's story of the calling falls into two separate episodes. They are companion-pieces, and it is obvious that they were conceived and composed together with a view to each other. Such conformity produces a certain dramatic effect, but the primary purpose of such a literary device is to make the didactic point doubly forceful. The first episode (16-18) differs from the second (19-20) chiefly in that it contains a reported word of Jesus. The absence of any command of Jesus in the second episode is not disturbing, for the command in 17 is still fresh in the reader's mind. Jesus' call seems to bring the fishing concern of Simon and Andrew to a definite end, while that of James and John goes on through the father and the hired servants. There is no reference to the father of Simon and Andrew. The phrases, "casting a net" and "mending the nets," read like a self-conscious effort at literary variation. It is not certain that this story ends with verse 20. Its real conclusion may be 21a, "And they go into Capernaum." The unnatural change from the plural in 21 ("they go") to the singular ("he entered") might be sufficient reason for joining 21a to what precedes rather than to what follows.11 6 Cf. M. Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche: ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte des Urchristentums (Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1921), p. 121. 7 Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 88; Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 282; et al. 8 Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 55. 9 Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 9; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 31f. 10 Cf. Erich Fascher, Die formgeschichtliche Methode (Glessen: Töpelmann, 1924), p. 101. 11 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 81; Emil Wendling, Ur-Marcus: Versuch einer Wiederherstellung der ältesten Mitteilungen über das Leben Jesu (Tübingen: Mohr, 1905), p. 43.

72

Β.112-15

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Mt 4:18-22 stands in even greater isolation than does Mark's parallel. In Mark Jesus and these men go into Capernaum, and together they are the dramatis personae throughout 1:21-38. In Matthew this story follows the editorial summary in 4:12-17, and it is followed by another editorial summary in 4:23-25 in which Jesus seems to be touring Galilee alone, unattended by disciples. Matthew reports the calling at this particular point, not only because he is following the order of Mark, but because he must have at least some disciples in the audience for the Sermon on the Mount. In Mark the calling comes before Jesus' first visit to Capernaum, but in Matthew Jesus established residence there (4:13) before calling these men. Mt 4:18-22 is a good example of Matthew's almost slavish dependence on Mark. The differences in Matthew are in minor detail, cast, and color rather than in substance. Matthew gives Simon his surname Peter on this very first appearance, but in Mark this disciple is called Simon until the choosing of the twelve, where the surname Peter is used for the first time (3:16). It is obvious in Mark that Jesus calls two sets of brothers, but Mark does not feature the fact as Matthew does: "two brethren"; "two other brethren." Mark's favorite adverb, "straightway," highlights the promptness of Jesus' call to James and John; in Matthew, the promptness of their obedience. In Mark there is some attempt at verbal variety in depicting the two episodes; in Matthew the two conform to each other much more closely word for word. In Luke Jesus appears publicly in Nazareth (4:16-30 fllO) and in Capernaum (4:31^13 Ρ 2 - 1 5 ) alone, and no disciples are called until 5:1-11 ( If 17 ). In Matthew and Mark, however, Jesus calls four disciples before any public work begins: Mark, in Capernaum; Matthew, with the Sermon on the Mount. P2-15:

Mk 1:21-38

Lk 4:31-43

Mk 1:21-38. This section confronts the reader with the first larger narrative complex in Mark's story, the so-called Day in Capernaum. It follows immediately on the calling of the first disciples, and it involves the same dramatis personae: Jesus, Simon, and his group. The day comprises four incidents (|f 12-15) which Mark presents as an actual sequence of events falling within the same twenty-four hours. The action begins on a sabbath and it comes to an end early the following morning. All four incidents are located in Capernaum; the first has its scene in the synagogue, and the last three are associated with Simon's house. Mark not only presents this series as a sequence, but he treats it as a dramatic unit which culminates in a crisis and brings about a turning-point in the action. Whether this dramatic quality was inherent in the events themselves or is the literary contribution of Mark cannot be determined

73

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1fl2-15

positively. The critical reader will incline toward the latter possibility, for Mark's writing generally exhibits a strong inclination to dramatize the plain and the prosaic. The day, as Mark narrates it, is eventful and full of action, and the account of it is rich in depictive color and detail. However, the unity of the whole is broken at two points by inserts in which Mark's dogmatic plan and purpose assert themselves ( 23-28 and 34b ). From the historical point of view, there is no assurance that these incidents actually happened together, or even that some of them happened at all, but they do leave the impression of always having been told as occurring together. Hence this sabbath sequence may be older than Mark. It may have taken form and shape as a larger complex in the pre-Gospel stage and have come down to Mark as a completed whole, not as single separate units which he joined for the first time.1 This sabbath sequence is presented as though it marked, not only Jesus' initial appearance in Capernaum, but the beginning of his public work in Galilee. However, it does not read like a first step out of private life into public, for Jesus' powers are at their full height. As a beginning, it must be described as dramatic and dogmatic, as another instance of the ungenetic treatment of action and actors so characteristic of Mark. If this sabbath sequence is viewed in the light of the Galilean story which it inaugurates, it is obviously a typical cross-section of Jesus' public work in full swing rather than an account of its inception and beginning. Mk 1:21-38 is far more typical, both in general and in detail, of what is to follow than the formal introduction to the Galilean story back in 1:14-15 (^9). Lk 4:31—43 reproduces Mark's day in Capernaum, unit for unit, in Mark's order. Here, for the first time, Luke exhibits obvious literary dependence on Mark. Heretofore (3:1 - 4:30), Luke has had few and fleeting agreements with Mark's text; non-Markan matter has been in the foreground. But in this sabbath sequence Luke reproduces Mark almost line for line, and often word for word.2 In Luke, however, this sabbath in Capernaum is not the beginning of Jesus' public work; that came on another sabbath in Nazareth (4:16-30). In his reproduction of Mk 1:21-38 Luke is indifferent toward some of Mark's depictive detail and color. His notices of time and place and persons are less specific than those of Mark, and the complex as a whole does not have the dramatic quality in Luke that it has in Mark. Matthew bypasses Mark's day in Capernaum. Mark goes from the calling of the first disciples (1:16-20 p i ) to the day in Capernaum (21-38 P 2 - 1 5 ) and then to the tour of Galilee ( 39 P 6 ). Matthew, however, goes from the calling of the first disciples (4:18-22 p i ) to the tour of Galilee (23-25 P 6 ) , Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 141; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 67. Streeter and Taylor regard Lk 4 : 3 1 - 4 4 as the first major insert of Markan matter into Proto-Luke. 1 2

74

B.T12

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

and the day in Capernaum drops out at this parallel point in Matthew. Later in his Gospel Matthew reproduces fragments from Mark's Capernaum sequence but the sequence as a larger narrative complex disappears from Matthew. Matthew reproduces the second and third of the four incidents in a later context (8:14^17 fl54-55), and he uses a single extract (7:28b-29 1(51) from the first incident (Mk 1:22), but the beginning (Mk 1:21-28 ||12) and the end (Mk 1:35-38 fll5) of the complex Matthew omits entirely. This is the first of three instances in which Matthew breaks up the larger narrative complexes of Mark in the first half of the Galilean story.3 However, Matthew's scattered remnants of this first major Markan sequence constitute positive proof that he had read Mark's day in Capernaum and that he deliberately omitted it at this early point in the story. Matthew's reason for this major omission is obvious: he has other plans for the beginning of Jesus' public work — the Sermon on the Mount. 12. The Day in Capernaum. In the Synagogue Mk 1:21-28 Lk 4:31-37 Mt 7:28b-29 fl51 Mk 1:21-28 obviously falls into two parts: (a) 21-22, and (b) 23-28. The mention of the synagogue is the only thing that holds them together. (a) Mk 1:21-22. There is a complete break between Mark 20 and 21. Verses 16-20 and 21-22 were not conceived with a view to each other, and their joining creates difficulties. The whole didactic point to 16-20 was that these fishermen were renouncing everything mundane in response to a call to a higher destiny, but in 21a they are simply leaving their work to return home, bringing Jesus with them into the ordinary routine of their daily existence. This close joining also makes it appear as though these fishermen were at their work on the sabbath1 — an implication which constitutes positive proof of the original separateness of these two units. Finally, 16-20 is a piece of didactic narration which came down to Mark, while 21-22 seems to be an editorial summary contributed by Mark as a transition from what precedes and an introduction to what follows. If 21a be joined to 16-20, then the break in the middle of 21 is even sharper. In 21a Jesus and the fishermen as a group go into Capernaum, but in 21b the disciples are gone and Jesus appears in the synagogue alone. This was certainly not conceived originally as the continuation of 21a. It may be, however, that 21a is a connecting link contributed by the editor.2 In either case the localization in Capernaum would disappear, leaving 21b-28 indefinite, "in the synagogue," and not necessarily a piece of Capernaum tradition at all. 3 1 3

The other two instances are Mk 2:1 - 3 : 6 and 4 : 3 5 - 5:43. Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 10; Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 448. Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 50; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 34.

75

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B. 1 1 2

It is often the case in Mark that the names of places and definite localities come at the very beginning or at the very end of the units with which they are joined, leaving the impression that they are external to the body of the units themselves. Very seldom does a topographical datum appear in the body of a unit as though it were organic to it and an original part of it. Some of his topographical data Mark may have found already associated with certain pieces of tradition. However, they were so unessential to the preaching purposes which the pieces originally served, that many of them must have come from the editor himself and are not to be taken seriously in any historical sense as actual scenes of events.3 The authority of Jesus' teaching which so amazes the witnesses confronts the reader with the same mystery that met him in Jesus' appearance at the sea of Galilee (1:16-20). It is an epiphany in message as 16-20 was in imposing presence and command. In 22 Mark is not thinking of the power of speech in psychological terms as a special gift or talent as Philostratus does when he describes the impression left by the teaching of Apollonius of Tyana.4 Mark's conception of the authority of Jesus' word is dogmatic. The Jesus who appears here is "One in whom there resides a special, supernatural, divine, even demoniac power." 5 This authority is what Rudolf Otto called the numinoser Eindruck Jesu auf seinen Kreis.6 It is for this reason perhaps that Mark gives no extracts from this teaching of such amazing power. It is a teaching that must be witnessed. Its authority is a quality that defies transmission. The original hearer felt it but he could not pass it on. The contrast with the scribes originally may not have been derogatory, for many words ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels have an evident scribal and rabbinical quality.7 The contrast is rather with all human agents and instruments of instruction. From the literary point of view, Mk l:21b-22 is an editorial generalization on Jesus' teaching along the lines of 1:14-15. It differs from that passage in that it localizes this teaching in the synagogue and features its astonishing authority. To this extent l:21b-22 supplements 1:14-15; but it in turn must be supplemented by 1:14-15 if the reader is at all curious about the theme of this authoritative teaching.8 Lk 4:31-32. In Luke's parallel Jesus comes from Nazareth to Capernaum alone; as yet, in Luke, Jesus has called no disciples. Luke speaks of Capernaum as "a city of Galilee" as though he had not mentioned this city Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 50ff; Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 148f. Cf. Life i. xvii; iv. xxxi. 6 Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 85. " Das Heilige: über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen (9. Aufl.; Breslau: Trewendt & Granier, 1922), p. 195. 7 Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 79; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 33; et al. 8 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 447; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 50. 3 4

76

Β. 112

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

before ( 4 : 2 3 ) and as though it were an effort on his part to locate it. It is evident that Luke and his readers are not familiar with the geography oí Palestine. 9 Luke mentions the synagogue in connection with the demoniac ( 3 3 ) , not with the teaching. He omits the contrast with the scribes because it would perhaps mean little or nothing to his Gentile-Christian readers. However, there is another possibility. In Luke's Gospel the break between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees is not as complete as it is in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Luke even has Jesus, now and then, in congenial social contact with them. Matthew omits Mark's synagogue scene in Capernaum entirely. He takes a single extract (Mk 1 : 2 2 ) and appends it to the Sermon on the Mount as the impression left by that address ( Mt 7 : 2 8 b - 2 9 |f51 ). Where Mark reports no actual teaching ( 1 : 2 1 b ) and records only the remarkable impression, Matthew introduces a great body of teaching in chapters 5 - 7 . The Sermon on the Mount has been regarded, not only as Matthew's substitute for Mk 1:21b, but for the whole of Mark's Capernaum sequence. 10 ( b ) Mk 1:23-28. This story is not organic to the sabbath sequence of which it is now a part. It is generally regarded as a later insert. 1 With 22 the reader had the impression that the synagogue scene was ended. Verse 23 reads like an afterthought: "There was in their synagogue." The whole of 2 3 - 2 8 can be deleted, leaving a smooth connection between 21-22 and 29-31. The next story of Mark ( 2 9 - 3 1 ) seems to assume that Jesus' first cure took place in Simon's house, not in the synagogue. Only one item in 2 3 - 2 8 presupposes 2 1 - 2 2 : "What is this? a new teaching!" in 27. This, however, is awkward, for the public reaction to Jesus' teaching was fully reported in 22. Evidently this new reaction in 27 is an attempt on the part of the hand that made the insert to join the story of the demoniac more closely, not only with the synagogue scene ( 2 1 b - 2 2 ) , but to the sabbath sequence as a whole. Mk 1 : 2 3 - 2 8 was originally a separate, self-contained unit which had no connection with this first sabbath in Capernaum. As a part of this sequence it becomes a sabbath cure, yet it does not result in a sabbath controversy. As a separate story it was not associated with the sabbath, perhaps not even with the synagogue. The encounter with the demoniac is complete in 23-27, and 28 is a natural conclusion for a story that once stood alone. Verse 28 transcends the narrow time-limits of the twenty-four hours in Capernaum. Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 12; Loisy, Luc, p. 164f. Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 289; Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 117. 1 Cf. J. H. Schölten, Das älteste Evangelium, aus dem Holländischen übersetzt von E. R. Redepenning (Elberfeld: Verlag von R. L. Friderichs, 1869), p. 201; Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 57; et al. 8

10

77

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f l 2

It carries the reader far afield to note the remote results of a brief action which locally is still in progress.2 The story itself betrays its original isolation. In 24a the demon speaks in the plural and conducts himself generally in a manner that makes it clear that this is not the first encounter between Jesus and his kind. His question, "Art thou come to destroy us?" does not refer to Jesus' coming to Capernaum but to his cosmic mission from heaven to earth.3 Mk 1:23-27 is a typical example of Jesus' encounters with demoniacs rather than the initial instance of such. The story owes its present place here at the beginning in Mark entirely to dogmatic and programmatic considerations.4 With this story Mark begins the dramatization of his second basic dogma: Jesus is the Messiah, as set forth in the first line of his Gospel. Jesus' messiahship in Mark is conceived and depicted as an involved and profound mystery, essentially esoteric in nature. The dramatization of this dogma involves the use of a wide variety of traditional materials which are not always submissive to this dogmatic treatment. It also involves a highly subjective treatment of single scenes and sayings as well as longer sequences of both. Above all, it requires a peculiar delineation of characters and actors both as individuals and as groups. The dogma of Jesus the Messiah runs from the beginning to the end of Mark's Gospel, a sort of mystery play that is developed in three overlapping phases or stages, each of which assumes the proportions of a sub-dogma: the dogma of the demons, chapters 1-9; the dogma of the disciples, chapters 4-10; the dogma of death, chapters 8-10 and 14-15. The dogma of the demons, the first phase of the messianic mystery, appears in three separate stories widely scattered over the first nine chapters of Mark (1:23-27; 5:1-20; 9:14-27) and in two editorial passages (1:34b; 3:11-12). The frequency of such stories and their appearance at regular intervals, as well as the space and detail devoted to them, make it clear that Mark attaches peculiar significance to them and intends something special with them. Each of these passages involves Jesus as the Messiah — a secret which, for considerable time, only the demons are able to penetrate. Furthermore, the reader of these stories cannot help noting their striking similarity and the identity of their structure. They are conceived and composed according to a stereotyped pattern.5 The purest example of this pattern is found here in the very first encounter with a demon in Mk 1:23-27.® 2 Cf. Emil Wendling, Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1908), p. 4; Goguel, Marc, p. 61; et al. 3 Cf. J. Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Marc (3 e éd.; Paris: Librairie LeCoffre, 1920), p. 21; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 37. * Cf. F. Hauck, Das Evangelium des Markus: Synoptiker I in Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament (Leipzig: Deichert, 1931), p. 23: Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 38; et al. 5 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 129. β Loisy favors Mk 5:1-20 as the best example; Marc, p. 71.

78

Β. 112

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

Mark introduces his dogma of the demons with the usual dramatic abruptness. Jesus' power to expel demons, like the authority of his appearance (1:16-20) and his word ( l:21b-22), simply bursts into full being. There are no antecedents leading up to it, for Mark is not depicting a life-drama that emerges as a phase of human history but a divine drama superimposed upon it. The Jesus of Mk 1:23-27 transcends all human and historical proportions; he is the demon-destroying "Holy One of God." 7 The scene depicted is not between a humanitarian healer and some unfortunate human being. Jesus' usual compassion for the sick and afflicted does not figure. It is not the man who speaks but the demon in him. The whole of the dialogue and action is between the Messiah and the demons whom it is his destiny to destroy. The scene is timeless and placeless, for it depicts supernatural forces in cosmic conflict.8 The man's recovery is not even noted, only the demon's departure. This Markan story is inconceivable in the situation in which it is set. The demon makes the most unequivocal declaration of Jesus' messiahship, and yet the public present is wholly unimpressed. No contemporary witness suspects, even for a moment, Jesus' true identity. The key to this strange situation is in the story's dramatic form and dogmatic content. Mk 1:23-27 is, simply and purely, dramatized dogma; a religious idea is transformed into history.9 The scene is calculated solely for Mark's readers. With the eye of faith they behold what those assembled in the Capernaum synagogue never witnessed.10 What Mark narrates in 1:23-27 no contemporary eye ever saw, no contemporary ear ever heard. Mark's dogma of the demons is presented within the framework of ancient folk-psychology and its demonology.11 The deepest background of this dogma is mythological: the cosmic conflict between the forces of heaven and those of the underworld.12 The less remote perspective is the Jewish tradition of the Messiah who will destroy Satan and his hosts. In the immediate foreground is a parable ascribed to Jesus in Mk 3:27 (If 120) : "No one can enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house." Mk 1:23-27 is simply Mk 3:27 converted into dialogue and action. The earliest Christian preaching may have felt the need of explaining Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 38. Cf. Lagrange, Marc, p. 22; Raschke, Die Werkstatt, p. 139. ' "A didactic piece in narrative form," Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 84; cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 135. 1 0 Cf. J. M. C. Crum, St. Mark's Gospel: Two Stages of Its Making (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, 1936), p. 115; Alfred Loisy, L'Évangile selon Marc (Paris: Nourry 1912), p. 73f. 11 Cf. Josephus Antiquities viii. 2, 5; Philostratus Life iv. 20; iii. 38. u Cf. W. Wundt, Elemente der Völkerpsychologie: Grundlinien einer psychologischen Entwicklungsgeschichte der Menschheit (Leipzig: Alfred Kröner Verlag, 1912), p. 385; Dibelius, Formgeschichte, p. 83. 7

8

79

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.

the evident discrepancy between the belief in Jesus' messiahship and the unmessianic character of his historical career. Hence, the dogma of the demons and perhaps some of the dramatized encounters may be older and earlier than Mark and his immediate sources. But when the critical reader notes how the same schematic treatment of the demons appears in purely editorial passages (1:34b; 3:11-12), how the thesis of the messianic secret is worked out in scenes that have nothing to do with the demoniacs, and how stereotyped orders for silence are associated with cures other than those of demoniacs, even with incidents that do not concern cures at all, then he feels that these complex and pervasive traits must be primarily the result of literary effort and, to some extent at least, the product of the literary imagination of the author-editor of the Second Gospel.13 Lk 4:33-37. Luke reproduces this story from Mark almost verbatim. He shows a touch of human consideration in 35 by noting that the violence of the demon did the man no harm; Mark showed no interest in the man whatever. There is less exaggeration at the end in Luke (37): the report spreads through the vicinity, not over the whole of Galilee (Mk 1:28). In general, Luke remains much closer to Mark in these demoniac stories than does Matthew. He is more congenial than Matthew toward Mark's conception of the messianic secret and the role which the demons play in it.14 Matthew omits this first demoniac story of Mark. His two demoniacs in 8:28 where Mark (5:2) has only one may be a compensation for this omission.15 Matthew seems to have no great liking for Jesus' war with the demons as depicted by Mark. He does not feature the demoniacs; they are often lost in the masses of the afflicted. He does not seriously share Mark's theory of the messianic secret, and he seems even to suppress the part played by the demons.16 13. The Day in Capernaum. In Simon's House Mk 1:29-31 Lk 4:38-39 Mt 8:14-15 fl54 Mk 1:29-31 resumes the narrative thread of 21b-22 which was broken by the insert in 23-28. Nothing in 29-31 presupposes the story in 23-28. The language of Mark, "they tell him of her," is lifeless indeed if the reader is to assume that Simon and his companions have just witnessed the spectacular wonder-work in the synagogue. The fact that they seem merely to inform Jesus of the illness of a member of the household does not suggest any expectation on their part of intervention or help from him.1 It is quite u Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 11; P. Wendland, Die urchristlichen Literaturformen, p. 269f; et al. 14 Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 173. 15 Cf. C. R. Bowen, The Gospel of Jesus Critically Reconstructed from the Earliest Sources (Boston: Beacon Press, 1916), p. 170. M Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 153f. 1 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 86.

80

Β. 113

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

clear that this little Simon story was told originally without reference to that of the demoniac in 23-28. From the point of view of the dramatis personae, 29-31 really links up best with 16-21a, ignoring the whole sabbath and synagogue scene in 21b28. Such a junction would form a natural sequence: the fishermen leave their work on the sea of Galilee and, with Jesus, go to Simon's house in Capernaum. This, too, would remove the implication that they have been working on the sabbath. The presence of the disciples was not noted in the synagogue scene. Some Greek MSS of Mk 29 (B, D, W etc.) read: "When he was come out of the synagogue, he came." The present text with the plural ("they") may have been a change made when the synagogue scene was inserted into the Capernaum sequence converting the whole into a series of sabbath episodes. In Mk 1:29-31 the Gospel miracle story appears in its simplest and most primitive form. It seems prosaic and ordinary after the spectacular dialogue and action in the synagogue (23-28). There is here no imperious word of Jesus such as forms the nucleus of so many miracle stories. It lacks the usual conclusion, telling of the amazement of the witnesses and the spread of Jesus' fame. The story has a humble human quality. The earliest Christians thought of Jesus, not only as the majestic Messiah and the demondestroying Son of God, but also as a man "who went about doing good" (Acts 10:38). This story is not pressed into the service of any theological idea. It portrays Jesus simply as a healer and helper, and yet it was just as gratifying to the early believer as the more fantastic stories like the one which precedes. The very fact that such stories appealed to faith is perhaps the best clue to the original forces and factors that brought some of them into existence.2 The stories of miracles, healings, and cures in the Gospels must be allowed to stand for two valid reasons. (1) They are an organic part of the earliest Christian tradition about Jesus. ( 2 ) These stories in and of themselves constitute authentic data on the imaginative nature and creative genius of the early Christian faith, even though what is narrated is, wholly or in part, fictitious. Lk 4:38-39. Luke's form of this story is more closely joined to the preceding scene in the synagogue than it is in Mark. Jesus leaves the synagogue alone (38) as he entered there (31). They beseech Jesus for her, as though they had been present in the synagogue and had witnessed what had happened there and now expect Jesus to intervene. In Luke Jesus "rebukes the fever"; it is an exorcism of a demon like the one in the synagogue, not a cure by touch as it is in Mark.3 2 3

Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 13. Cf. Klostermann, Lukas, p. 67.

81

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 114

In Luke this visit to Simon's house is abrupt and unexplained. It is Jesus' first contact with Simon who is spoken of as though he were known to the reader. However, the reader does not learn who Simon is until later (5:1-11 tfl7). In Luke contacts between Jesus and Simon (and his group) precede the call to discipleship, but it is doubtful whether Luke is consciously trying to give a more natural and probable account than Mark who reports no contacts previous to the calling. Luke here does not mention Simon's companions as Mark does. After the first line, however, Luke uses the plural, "they" and "them," as though these unnamed companions are in the background. Matthew reports this little Simon story much later and makes a very different use of it in 8:14-15 (|J54). 14. The Day in Capernaum. At Simon's Door Mk 1:32-34 Lk 4:40-41 Mt 8:16-17 H55 Mk 1:32-34 presents a curious mixture of the concrete and the indefinite, and a bit of realistic reporting is joined with theological theory. This passage contains specific notices of time and place as though an actual scene were being depicted: it is sunset, thé end of the sabbath. However, it seems strange that Jesus should heal on this same sabbath (23-31) without being charged with sabbath-breaking from any quarter. Again it is possible that the whole idea of a sabbath sequence in this day in Capernaum is an editorial scheme, and that the cure of Simon's wife's mother came on a weekday when the fishermen returned home from their work. The people waiting until sunset to bring their sick could be another editorial device for converting this series of episodes into a sabbath sequence. The definite location of the action, at Simon's door, accords with the scene of events in what precedes and in what follows. It gives the appearance of reality, not only to this one scene, but to the sequence as a whole. On the action that takes place in this concrete setting, Mark generalizes. No specific cases of cure are cited — just classes, the sick and the possessed. Such generalizations are usually editorial in origin. This notice about healing differs from similar notices in that it is localized in time and place, indicating exactly when and where the action transpired. Verse 34 combines a touch of realism with pure subjectivism. According to Mark, the people bring all their sick and Jesus heals many. This would imply that some of the sick were brought in vain, and that there were natural limitations to Jesus' healing power. If this is the case, Mark here is doing some realistic reporting. It is a matter of common knowledge with professional historians in the use of documentary sources that a naïve and primitive type of conception will often record, unsuspectingly, realistic items which run exactly counter to the special subjective interests and prejudices

82

Β. f l S

THÉ PUBLIC

TRADITION

of the group represented in the writing.1 Such seems to be the case with Mark's "all brought" and "many healed." Mark has hardly completed the realistic touch in 34a when he injects a purely subjective element in 34b: his mystery of the Messiah. The special mention of the demons, their recognition of Jesus, his orders for silence — all are editorial generalizations on the dogma of the demons which was dramatized in dialogue and action back in 23-27. In their reproduction of Mk 1:32-34 Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in two respects. ( 1 ) They do not reproduce Mk 33, and thus the concrete setting at Simon's door disappears. It is possible that 33 was not in the Mark known to Matthew and Luke and that it is a later decorative detail contributed by the final redactor of Mark's Gospel. Such depictive detail and color, so characteristic of Mark's writing, seldom reappears in the reproductions by Matthew and Luke. (2) Matthew and Luke both seem to sense the implications of Mark's "all brought" and "many healed," and their later Christian prejudice asserts itself. They literally rewrite Mark with the result that, of the "many brought," "all are healed." Such realistic touches in Mark systematically fail to reappear in Matthew and Luke as though by design, with the result that the picture of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition tends to become less and less realistic, more and more idealistic, as the reader moves from the earlier Gospel of Mark to the later Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Lk 4:40-41 differs from Mark in other matters also. Mark says nothing of the method used in these many cures; in Luke it is by the laying on of hands which Luke often features in his healing stories as though the mere act possessed magical power. Luke features the demoniacs even beyond Mark; in 41 he dramatizes. In Mark the demons do not get a chance to express themselves, but in Luke they are silenced only after they have given their messianic testimony. Lk 4:41a might be an anticipation of Mk 3:11. Matthew transposes this Markan notice of many cures along with its companion, the healing in Simon's house, to a later connection where both serve a special plan of his own in 8:14-17 (1}54-55). 15. The Day in Capernaum. Prayer Apart Mk 1:35-38 Lk 4:42-43 In 1:35-38 Mark continues to be specific in matters of time and place. The interval of time and the shift of scene are natural in the light of what has preceded. The dramatis personae are identical with those of 16-21a and 1 Cf. Langlois & Seignobos, The Study of History, p. 186; A. Feder, Lehrbuch der geschichtlichen Methode (3. Aufl.; Regensburg: Verlag Josef Kösel & Friedrich Pustet, 1924), p. 256.

83

JESUS

AND THE

FIRST

THREE

GOSPELS

B. | 1 5

29-31. From the literary point of view, 35-38 seems to be in every way the conclusion of the sequence which began in Capernaum on the sabbath. From the dramatic point of view, 35-38 is more than a mere conclusion: it is the culmination toward which the sequence has been moving. The praying with the suggestion of pressure and crisis, the note of purpose formed and decision reached in Jesus' declaration in 38 —both give the scene in 35-38 the air of a climax, a turning-point, and to the sequence as a whole the form of a dramatic development. Mark presents the whole as though this dramatic quality were inherent in the events themselves. However, the vivid nature of Mark's narrative since 29 suggests that the literary imagination may have made its contribution, not only to the individual scenes, but perhaps also to their arrangement and joining. Consequently, the dramatic effect evident in the sequence as a whole may be the work of the Gospel writer and, as such, an instance of dramatic distortion.1 In spite of the naturalness with which it seems to round out the entire sequence, 35-38 stands in sharp contrast with what has preceded, particularly in the portrayal, not in the identity, of the dramatis personae. The picture of Simon and his companions in 35-38 is identical with that in 29-31 (|fl3), but it is very different from that presented in 16-21a (Uli). In 16-21a Jesus' call was absolute and the response of the fishermen was final — a divine destiny brought Master and disciples into a permanent relationship. In 35-38, however, these same disciples implore Jesus not to leave them as though there were nothing permanent in their association. In 37 Simon speaks as though his life were still anchored in Capernaum.2 This contrast in portrayal involves Jesus also. In 23-27 Jesus appeared as the Messiah who transcended all human and historical limitations, a mythical figure whose speech and action took on divine dimensions: he expelled demons. In 35-38 Jesus appears in a human and religious light. A reverent tradition expands on the piety of its hero: he prays. Mk 1:35 is the second (Lk 3:21) of nine notices of Jesus praying in the Synoptic tradition. These notices are usually no more than mere mentions of the fact that Jesus, at this point or that, prayed. Of these several notices only one has been expanded into a prayer scene which constitutes a separate and independent unit of tradition, in Gethsemane (Mk 14:32-42 j[410). It, too, is the only retreat of the nine in which a prayer of Jesus is reported. It is important to observe just where these notices about Jesus praying occur. In almost every case they are at the very beginning or at the very end of the scene or story with which they are connected and merely incidental to it. These notices do not seem to be firmly established parts of the scenes 1 "Dramatic distortion consists in grouping the facts in such a way as to enhance the dramatic effect by concentrating facts, which in reality were separate, upon a single moment, a single person, or a single group." Langlois & Seignobos, The Study of History, p. 171. 2 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 640; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 42.

84

Β. 115

THE

PUBLIC

TRADITION

and stories in which they appear. The Synoptic writers, especially Luke, seem to feel free to introduce these notices at will. Consequently, any single individual notice of Jesus praying may be a purely editorial contribution. The tradition to the effect that Jesus prayed, both as a matter of devout practice and under the pressure of events, seems well established in the Synoptic story. His numerous teachings on prayer, as well as some of the prayers ascribed to him, would seem to confirm the fact beyond any reasonable historical doubt, even though each and every particular instance of his praying is supplied by the Gospel writer concerned.3 In 35 Mark speaks of Jesus praying as though it were the motive or reason for the retreat from Simon's house. However, it is quite possible that the clause, "and there prayed," is a late addition to the text of Mark and that it was not found in the Mark known to Luke who does not reproduce it.4 The clause is awkward at the end of 35; it leaves the impression of being an afterthought appended to a statement already completed. The clause can be deleted without disturbing the story as a whole. In fact, the general situation is improved without it, for then Simon and his companions seek Jesus out directly and do not intrude upon his privacy in prayer as the story now seems to imply. Mark's notice of prayer at this point suggests pressure and crisis which are not reflected in Jesus' declaration in 38. The weak verb, "came I forth," in 38 (the same verb used in 35) expresses personal intention rather than high resolve reached in a period of prayer.5 Mk 1:35-38 — like so many single pieces of Synoptic tradition — reaches its highpoint in a key-word ascribed to Jesus. It is a declaration of intention on the basis of a decision made. However, it is not altogether clear to what this frame of mind applies. If the emphasis in 38 falls on "there also," then it seems to be Jesus' intention to extend his work generally beyond Capernaum.6 This view is not impressive, for only seven verses later (2:1) Jesus is again in Capernaum as though this decision had never been taken. Furthermore, Capernaum remains the principal center of Jesus' Galilean work. If, however, the emphasis falls on "that I may preach," then it ceases to be a mere intention and becomes a resolve concerning the nature of his public work. The background of such a resolve would be the predominance of cures and healings during this first day in public. In a period of prayer Jesus resolves upon the career of a prophet and rejects that of healer.7 Such a resolve is noble enough, but it hardly accords with the nature of Jesus' activity as Mark records it in the subsequent story. Mark reports relatively * T h e professional historian accepts certain traditions as historical even when the particular form and instance of their appearance is fictitious. Cf. E . A. Freeman, The Methods of Historical Study ( L o n d o n : Macmillan, 1 8 8 6 ) , p. 137. 4 Cf. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 81. 5 Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 168. ° H. J . Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 117; Klostermann, Markus, p. 23; et al. 7 Renan, Vie de Jésus, p. 257; Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 340; et al

85

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 1 5

little of the public message resolved upon. Furthermore, Jesus has hardly rejected the role of wonder-worker when he is forced to resume it almost at once (Mk 1:40-45 2:1-12 |J59) on an even grander scale. Finally, wonder-works continue throughout the Galilean story. They are fewer toward the end, but what they lose in number and frequency they more than gain in magnitude. Wonder-works virtually disappear from the last third of Mark's Gospel, however, not because an earlier decision of Jesus is at last making itself felt, but because the shadow of death falls across this section of the story. Verse 38 of Mark is the first of a number of utterances in which Jesus is made to speak of his coming. All such utterances seem to have a deeper background and wider ramifications than the personal convictions of an individual relative to his special mission and task. They seem rather to register the reflective conviction of a like-minded group on the providential plan and purpose accomplished by an individual mission that has already been completed.8 Consequently, the "I-am-come" utterances are not words of the historical Jesus at all but later Christian creations placed on his lips — another instance of rhetorical distortion (p. 54). Mk 1:38 has more the nature of a remote and detached retrospective survey of a total career, less the nature of a personal resolve made under the pressure of events. Both the language and thought of 38 revert to the question of the demon in 24, "Art thou come?" Such a "coming" transcends any local historical setting like Capernaum and contemplates Jesus' cosmic mission from heaven to earth.9 Lk 4:42-43. Luke's reproduction of Mk 1:35-38 exhibits differences, not only in detail, but in the conception of the episode as a whole. Luke simplifies Mark's expansive notice on the early hour with the result that there is less suggestion of pressure and crisis. In Mark Jesus is leaving Simon's house, but in Luke he is leaving Capernaum. In Luke it has not been clear that Jesus has been a guest in Simon's house. Luke does not reproduce Mark's notice about Jesus praying. If this is an omission, it is a very strange one, for Luke features Jesus' praying far beyond Matthew and Mark. It may be that this notice of prayer was not in the Mark known to Luke, 10 or it may be that Luke delayed it until 5:16 (1f52). Apart from Gethsemane, Luke never parallels Mark in a notice about Jesus praying. In Mark Simon and his group seek Jesus out and with them Jesus is leaving Capernaum. In Luke the multitudes seek Jesus out and he is leaving Capernaum alone, for as yet in Luke Jesus has called no disciples. The key-word of Jesus in Luke (43) has a strength and force that it does not have in Mark. It is a more 8 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 154fi; Henry J. Cadbury, The Peril of Modernizing Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1937), p. 134ff. 9 Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 44; Hauck, Markus, p. 28. 10 Cf. Β. and J. Weiss, Lukas, p. 370f.

86

Β.112-15

THE

PUBLIC

TRADITION

solemn declaration with a Johannine ring to it: "for therefore was I sent." In 43 Luke uses the term kingdom of God for the first time as the theme of Jesus' message which he did not reproduce from Mark (1:15) back in his own 4:14-15 (|f9). Matthew omits Mk 1:35-38 entirely, leaving only one retreat of Jesus for prayer in his Galilean story (14:23). The sabbath sequence in Capernaum has been singled out as the one section of the Gospel of Mark in which the memoirs of Simon come to the surface as a personal narrative. The single stories, it is asserted, have "precision and an air of reality;" 11 they are "told with a fidelity almost photographic." 12 The cure in Simon's house is "a domestic story, so very personal." 13 Over the retreat to the desert "there hovers the breath of an oriental morning." 14 Through the third person of the written story there protrudes the first person of Simon's original oral account. The third person, so awkward in 29 and 36, admits of conversion even yet into the first person of autobiographical reminiscence.15 The whole sequence is "held together by the bonds of personal, local, and chronological memory;" Simon "must always have related these stories in this order and together as a whole." 16 The very first thing that speaks against Mk 1:21-38 as going back to the witness and report of Simon is the very nature of some of the things reported — things which no eye ever saw, no ear ever heard. Events that never took place cannot rest upon memoirs. Religious dogma and literary dramatics, not personal memory, are responsible for the scene in the synagogue (2328), for the special treatment of the demons in 34b, and for the declaration ascribed to Jesus in 38. It is also possible that Mark's specific data on time, place, and persons are, to some extent at least, mere decorative detail contributed by the final redactor of the Second Gospel to give vividness and color to the scenes and incidents. The very obvious fact that this depictive detail, not only in this section of Mark but in his entire writing, does not reappear to any great extent in Matthew and Luke would indicate that the Mark known to them did not have it and that its presence is due to some later hand. The critical student of documentary sources soon learns by experience to be skeptical of an over-abundance of picturesque detail and to find in it less faithful reporting than epic distortion.17 The mere presence of such A. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel (London: Macmillan, 1901), p. 66. G. Dehn, Le Fils de Dieu (Paris: Éditions "Je Sers," 1936), p. 37. 13 Renan, Les Évangiles, p. 119. 14 G. Wohlenberg, Das Evangelium des Markus in Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (1. u. 2. Aufl.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1 9 1 0 ) , II, 66. 15 Cf. C. H. Turner, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1932), p. 15; Goguel, Marc, p. 63; et al. 16 J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, pp. 141, 353. 17 "Epic distortion embellishes the narrative by adding picturesque details, speeches 11 12

87

J E S U S AND T H E

FIRST THREE

GOSPELS

B. 116

detail in any writing is no assurance of the author's closeness to an eyewitness, still less to the facts themselves.18 Vivid narration and graphic depiction are primarily the product of the lively literary imagination and creative writing. Even if the reader could assure himself beyond any shadow of doubt that this section of Mark is based on the memoirs of Simon, he would still have only memoirs — a form of documentary evidence which is generally regarded as a very untrustworthy source of historical knowledge because of the strong personal and subjective bias it almost always exhibits.19 If there are any memoirs of Simon imbedded in this section of Mark, they are so inextricably tangled with dramatized dogma, so deeply overlaid with decorative detail and color, that their actual historical value is in no way superior to that of the impersonal type of narration which constitutes the main body of Mark's Gospel. 16. Preaching and Healing in Galilee Mt 4:23-25 Mk 1:39 Lk 4:44 Matthew and Luke report this tour in Mark's order. In Mark and Luke it follows at once on the day in Capernaum. Mark and Luke do not state that it carries out Jesus' declared intention to leave Capernaum and preach elsewhere, but the reader is left to draw this inference simply because the notice of the tour follows immediately on the declared intention. In Matthew this tour (4:23-25 fll6) follows on the calling of the fishermen (4:18-22 flll) as the result of Matthew's omission of the day in Capernaum ( j|12-15). Mk 1:39. This sweeping notice is a separate and independent unit over against what precedes and what follows. The Capernaum sequence (1:2138 P 2 - 1 5 ) and the story of the leper (1:40-45 jf52) were older than Mark; they were a part of the tradition that came down to him. Verse 39 is not a piece of tradition that came down to Mark; it is his own literary contribution. In what precedes and in what follows, Mark is simply the delivered by the persons concerned, numbers, sometimes the names of persons; it is dangerous because the precision of details produces an illusive appearance of truth." Langlois & Seignobos, The Study of History, p. 170f. See also Feder, Lehrbuch, p. 247; J. M. Vincent, Historical Research: an Outline of Theory and Practice (New York: Henry Holt, 1 9 1 1 ) , p. 144; Kr. Erslev, Historische Technik: die historische Untersuchung in ihren Grundzügen dargestellt, aus dem Dänischen übersetzt von Ebba Brandt (Berlin: Druck u. Verlag von R. Oldenbourg, 1928), p. 53. 18 Cf. Benjamin W . Bacon, The Gospel of Mark (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925), p. 301; A. T. Cadoux, The Sources of the Second Gospel (New York: Macmillan, 1936), p. 120; et al. 18 On the value of memoirs as sources of historical knowledge, see G. Wolf, Einführung in das Studium der neueren Geschichte (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1910), pp. 3 2 4 ^ 0 4 ; Wilhelm Bauer, Einführung in das Studium der Geschichte ( 2 . Aufl.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1 9 2 8 ) , pp. 2 9 2 - 2 9 9 ; F. M. Fling, The Writing of History: An Introduction to the Historical Method (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1 9 2 6 ) , p. 84ff.

88

Β. t i e

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

recorder and transmitter of tradition he has received. In 39, however, he is a. creative writer; he contributes a literary link, an editorial transition, which joins the materials between which it appears. Verse 39 makes it clear that the story of Jesus has already passed the stage of mere collection and compilation. It belongs to the stage of actual composition: units and groups of units are joined together to form a larger narrative whole. It exhibits an elementary biographical effort in that it not only effects a junction but leaves the impression of continuity where actually none existed.1 The editorial origin of Mk 1:39 is clear in two things. ( 1 ) It generalizes and summarizes. Jesus' Galilean work is described as itinerant, a fact which was clear in the tradition when it was still a miscellaneous mass of scenes, sayings, and episodes. ( 2 ) It reflects Mark's dogmatic bias. He does not speak of Jesus' healing in general, as he does of his preaching, but he singles out the expulsion of demons. In relation to what precedes, 39 seems to carry out Jesus' intention to leave Capernaum and preach elsewhere. However, 39 conflicts with the resolve in 38, for Jesus casts out demons as though the resolve in favor of preaching had not been taken. In relation to a more remote antecedent ( l : 1 6 - 2 1 a ) , Jesus is alone on this tour as though he had called no disciples, and his word in 38, "Let us go elsewhere," is forgotten. Naturally the disciples could not accompany Jesus on a tour which was never made at this particular juncture except in the flight of the writer's imagination. In relation to what follows, the featuring of the demons would lead the reader to expect an expulsion story, not the cure of a leper. In 39 Mark is not forging a strictly logical link entirely consistent with the traditional materials it joins. He is simply filling in a gap between separate pieces of tradition which he is bringing together, perhaps for the first time, with a summary statement which he felt was generally true of Jesus' Galilean work.2 Such generalizations were about the only available connective devices left to Mark in view of the fragmentary state of the tradition which, from the outset, grouped materials according to religious interests and needs, and not according to historical sequence or literary plan. Lk 4:44. In his reproduction of Mk 1:39 Luke mentions only the preaching with no reference to expulsions of demons.3 This accords better with what has just preceded, Jesus' resolve in favor of preaching (4:43). The Greek manuscripts vary in reading at the end of 44. Some ( A, D, etc. ) read Galilee, while others (S, B, C, etc.), equally good, read Judea which some 1 2

263.

Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, I, 70. Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 43; P. Wendland, Die urchristlichen Literaturformen, p.

8 "And casting out demons" could be a later addition to Mk 1:39. See Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 4; J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 151.

89

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1fl6

critics accept as the older and better reading. Furthermore, Luke's use of the term Judea is loose and confusing. In several passages of his Gospel and Acts the term refers to the province proper, but in a few passages in both works the term Judea refers to all Palestine. If the reading "Judea" is accepted in either sense, then the public work of Jesus in Luke, from the outset, ranges over the whole of Palestine, or it shifts back and forth between Galilee and Judea — a conception more like that found in the Gospel of John.4 Mt 4:23-25. In Matthew this editorial passage differs from Mark and Luke in two respects. ( 1 ) It has no organic connection with what precedes, the calling of the fishermen (4:18-22 flll); it is a transition from the prepublic to the public story. ( 2 ) It is more elaborate for the simple reason that it is more ambitious: Matthew is looking ahead, giving the plan for what is to follow in the next five chapters. Mt 4:23-25 gives the key to the content and composition of the double major section: 5 : 1 - 9 : 3 4 . According to Matthew, the Galilean work of Jesus consists of two forms of public activity: teaching and healing. Chapters 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount, illustrate the first form; 8 : 1 - 9 : 3 4 illustrates the second with a cycle of ten wonder-works. Such is pure topical composition. The topical unity and separateness of this long section is clear at the very beginning and at the very end. The superscript in 4:23 is repeated verbatim as a subscript in 9:35. In this section of Matthew the reader finds the simplest and earliest classification of the Gospel materials: what Jesus said, what Jesus did. This simplest of all classifications goes back to the very beginnings of the Christian story of Jesus as is clear in Luke's description of his own Gospel as "all that Jesus began both to do and to teach" (Acts 1:1). The result of this massing of materials under such broad headings is that Matthew in 5 : 1 - 9 : 3 4 reports only five units in Mark's order and makes two major digressions ( 5 : 1 - 7 : 2 9 ; 8:5-34) and starts on a third ( 9 : 1 8 11:30). In 4:23-25 Matthew is conflating two widely separated Markan passages (Mk 1:39 fll6 and 3:7b-8 1(92), and the result is confusion. Matthew gets ahead of his story by noting the wide spread of Jesus' fame, the gathering of great crowds from remote regions, before any actual public work had been done. Matthew's enthusiasm for what is to follow is clear in his rhetorical exaggeration: the word "all" occurs five times in two verses (23-24). Mark goes directly from the tour in 1:39 (1J16) to the story of the leper in 1:40-45 ( j|52 ) · Luke makes one insert between Mk 1:39 and 40, the calling of the first disciples in 5:1-11 (1117), an insert which seems to break * Cf. Spitta, Streitfragen 1 9 0 7 ) , p. 21ff.

der Geschichte

Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

90

Β. 1Í17

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

the intended connection between the tour in 4:44 (fíl6) and the leper story in 5:12-16 (|[52). Matthew, however, inserts his long Sermon on the Mount between the tour and the story of the leper, or between Mk 1:39 and 40. This is Matthew's first major digression from Mark and his first great expansion of the Galilean story. 17. The Calling of the First Disciples Lk 5:1-11 Mt 4:18-22 = Mk 1:16-20 p i In Mark the calling of the first disciples preceded the day in Capernaum (1:21-38) and the tour of Galilee ( 1:39); in Luke it follows both. In Matthew and Mark there were no previous contacts between Jesus and these fishermen, but Luke has reported an earlier encounter in Simon's house in Capernaum (4:38-39 |[13). However, Lk 5:1-11 makes no reference to any previous encounters, and the story begins as though this were the first meeting between Jesus and Simon. Luke's account has often been spoken of as more natural and intelligible.1 This is true to the extent that the fishermen hear Jesus teach from their boat and witness the miracle of the fishes before Jesus calls and they follow. Luke's source for 5:1-11 is a problem. He has points of affinity with Markan matter at the beginning ( 1-3) and at the end ( 10-11 ) but the body of the story, the miracle of the fishes in 4—9, is new and peculiar to Luke in the Synoptic tradition. It has a parallel only in the Gospel of John (21:1— 19). The miracle of the fishes is the only trace of non-Markan matter in Luke's long Markan section: 4 : 3 1 - 6 : I I . 2 Luke's seaside setting, with Jesus teaching from the boat and the people listening from the land, seems to be taken from Mk 4:1 (^129). Luke's scene in 5:1-3 is not only practically identical with the later scene in Mark, but Luke himself seems to identify them. When he comes to this seaside scene in Mark's order, Luke omits it as though he is aware of having used it already (Lk 8:4 fll29). Luke's calling of the fishermen in 5:1-11 also has affinities with Mark's version in 1:16-20 (|fll). The scene is the same, the sea of Galilee, and in both, the fishermen are called from active engagement in their occupation. The names Simon, James, and John are common to Mark and Luke but in Luke Simon is in the foreground with James and John in the hardly visible background. Andrew is not mentioned in the calling story of Luke; in fact, his name appears only in the list of the twelve in Luke's Gospel (6:14). In Mark the calling falls into two separate episodes with a shift of scene; m Luke the actual call is to Simon with James and John following. In Mark Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 14; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 68. Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 214f., and Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 168f. assign Lk 5:1-11 to Proto-Luke in which the calling of the first disciples was followed immediately by the choosing of the twelve in 6:12-16. 1

2

91

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B.fl7

the two sets of brothers represent different fishing concerns; in Luke the three named are partners. Luke's phrase, "washing their nets," is natural in his story after a night of fruitless fishing; however, it may be only a variation of Mark's similar phrases about "casting" and "mending" their nets, also intended perhaps to differentiate similar situations. The story of the calling in Luke is overshadowed by the miracle of the fishes ( 4 - 9 ) . In Luke it is this prodigy that makes Simon a disciple of Jesus, not any earlier association in Capernaum. In the Gospel of John (21:1-19) this same story in substance is associated with this same disciple, but it comes at the very end and not at the beginning as in Luke. In John this miracle is a part of the resurrection tradition and it is connected with the story of Simon's rehabilitation after his denial. Simon's confession in 8 is not natural at the very beginning where Luke reports it. It is natural only in the Easter story where it could have the background of Simon's denial and disgrace. In 4-9 of Luke Simon uses titles in addressing Jesus ("Master"; "Lord") which presuppose long association with him. It is clear that the miracle of the fishes was from the start a Simon story, a wandering or floating legend 3 which attached itself at opposite ends of Simon's career in the Gospel stories of Luke and John. The form of the story in John may be later but its place as a part of the resurrection tradition is better. It might be the lost appearance of the Risen Jesus to Simon,4 or a vestige of the lost ending of Mark.5 Luke could not use this Simon story in his resurrection tradition because its scene is in Galilee, and Luke reports appearances of the Risen Jesus only in and about Jerusalem. This may explain why Luke reports it at the very beginning of Simon's career as a disciple of Jesus. The miracle of the fishes as it now stands is a piece of imaginative writing. It may have had its origin or inspiration in the Markan metaphor "fishers of men" — a mythical or allegorical dramatization of that figure of speech.6 At the end, in 10-11, Luke seems to be trying to draw his story closer to that of Mark in 1:16-20; the result is confusion. The whole scene in 4-9 of Luke is between Jesus and Simon. The mention of James and John reads like an afterthought, for they are not organic to the story. Verse 11 joins poorly on to 10.7 Jesus' word in 10b is addressed to Simon alone; it forecasts his destiny. Yet in 11 all follow Jesus as though 10b were a call to discipleship. Verses 10a and 11 can be deleted, leaving 10b a better conclusion for the Simon story in 4-9. On Wandersagen, see Bernheim, Einleitung, p. 102£E. Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 175. "'Cf. P. Rohrbach, Die Berichte über die Auferstehung Jesu Christi (Berlin: Reimer, 1898), p. 62. 0 Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 318; W. Soltau, Hat Jesus Wunder getan? eine biblische Widerlegung kirchlichen Aberglaubens (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1903), p. 38ff. 7 Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 15; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 71. 3

1

92

Β.118-51

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

Mt 5 : 1 - 7 : 2 9

PS-51

Lk 6:20^9

][95-106

In no Gospel is there such systematic and methodical use of discourse as is found in Matthew. A great mass of discourse material appears at the very beginning of the public story (chapters 5 - 7 ) and another great mass concludes the public story (chapters 23-25). Other lesser masses are interspersed in between. Seven major addresses as larger discourse complexes are found in the Synoptic tradition, and Matthew is the only Gospel writer who reports all seven. Some of these discourse masses are simply inserts of non-Markan matter; others are expansions of briefer discourse sections in Mark. All of them, however, are a part of Matthew's literary plan, and they contribute directly to the over-all impression which his Gospel gives, namely, Jesus was a teacher. Matthew's use of discourse materials is in some respects similar to the use of speeches in the writings of ancient Greek and Roman historians. The discourses are the free compilations or compositions of the writer rather than reproductions of addresses actually made. They are introduced at will. They do not grow naturally out of real situations; rather the situations are created for them. In Matthew, as in ancient historical writings, long addresses create pauses, sometimes long pauses, in the narrative and action. Speeches and orations were regarded by ancient historians as decorative, as lending elegance to their histories. Matthew's discourses are the most careful and thoughtful pieces of composition in his Gospel, not because he intends them as ornamental, but because they are instrumental in the accomplishment of his total didactic design. In all of his major addresses Matthew is not thinking of any audience that may have listened to Jesus but of his own readers, the real audience of his carefully composed addresses. Through Jesus Matthew addresses his own Christian readers with a free use of discourse materials that have come down to him as sayings of Jesus. None of these long addresses is to be regarded as an actual discourse delivered by Jesus on one particular occasion in one stream of speech. Such "rich days" (Schleiermacher) as the one on the Mount never existed and, if they had, they could not have been preserved in memory and passed on orally for a Christian generation or more.1 Early Christian memory preserved and oral tradition transmitted fragmentary materials, single sayings and shorter series of related sayings. The selection, arrangement, and treat- • ment of materials in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount are governed solely, not by what Jesus may have said on any particular occasion, but by the Christian interests and needs of Matthew's own readers. Thus, Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is primarily an early Christian tract, or catechism, in 1 On the value of oral discourse as a source of historical knowledge, see W . Bauer, Einführung in das Studium der Geschichte, p. 350f.

93

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

B. f 1 8 - 5 1

which religious guidance and instruction are uppermost in the mind of the compiler. In Matthew's Sermon on the Mount early Christianity appears in its most Jewish form. Much of the address falls within the framework of the Jewish religion. There is no general consciousness of a new and different faith, no break with the Jewish past. The thought is conservative rather than revolutionary. Most of it might be regarded as a tract on purified Judaism. 2 In Jewish literature, early and late, there are numerous parallels to the thoughts and sayings ascribed to Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, especially in the rabbinical writings.3 It is quite possible that some of these sayings not only had this rabbinical background but even this rabbinical origin. Some may have been simply borrowed. Over against this background Jesus appears as a teacher of religious wisdom, as a typical Jewish rabbi. However, there are certain points in the Sermon on the Mount where the later Christian consciousness asserts itself, giving the whole the quality of a Christian counterpart to Sinai.4 Jesus appears as the second Moses, the giver of the New Law. The whole address has a legal coloring. It is made up of imperatives and precepts; the words "law" and "commandment" are in the foreground. Luke has the same address in much briefer form in 6:20b-49 (fl95-106), his so-called Sermon on the Plain, which he inserts at a much later point in the Markan framework — after Mk 3:19a ( Mt, after Mk 1:39 ). That Matthew and Luke are reporting the same basic address is clear in the fact that both begin alike with the beatitudes ( j[19 and |J95 ) and end alike with the parable of the builders (1150 and 1|106), and they have seven other discourse units in common in between. Matthew's Sermon on the Mount comprises a minimum of thirty-two discourse units; Luke's Sermon on the Plain, only twelve. Nine of Luke's twelve units are found in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. This address comes from the second basic source of Matthew and Luke, from the document Q. This address is not found in Mark who has only five scattered parallels to the sayings in the Sermon on the Mount. The Q form of this address must have contained the nine discourse units common to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and Luke's Sermon on the Plain, and it must have begun and ended as both do. The Q form was probably longer than the Sermon on the Plain. Some of the several sayings now peculiar to Matthew in his Sermon on the Mount may have been in Q, and Luke may Cf. H. Windisch, Der Sinn der Bergpredigt ( L e i p z i g : J. C. Hinrichs, 1 9 2 9 ) , p. 51. C f . C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings ( L o n d o n : Macmillan, 1 9 3 0 ) ; I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels ( C a m b r i d g e : University Press, First Series 1917, Second Series 1 9 2 4 ) ; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Bde. I—II. * C f . Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 514; B. S. Easton, Christ in the Gospels ( N e w York: Scribner, 1 9 3 0 ) , p. 40. 2 8

94

Β.118-51

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

have omitted them because of their ultra-Jewish character. The Q form was probably less than half the length of the Sermon on the Mount. Both the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain rest upon the same four pillars (Wellhausen) in the same arrangement: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Mt

Lk

5: 2-12 38-48 7: 1-5 15-27

6:20-23 27-36 37-38, 4 1 ^ 2 43-49

The Sermon on the Mount as it now stands is the result of Matthew's own literary work and compilation. He has expanded the brief Q form by three or four times with words of Jesus taken from all parts of the tradition. Of the thirty-two discourse units twenty-three have parallels in Luke's Gospel and seem to be from Q. Nine of these twenty-three Q units are in the Sermon on the Plain, but fourteen of them are scattered over five different chapters of Luke ( 11,12, 13, 14, 16). These fourteen stray units in Luke represent about two-fifths of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and constitute his principal expansion of the address. Nine discourse units in the Sermon on the Mount are peculiar to Matthew, and some of these may represent an expansion. The Sermon on the Mount is a literary mosaic; membra disjecta are brought together to form a larger whole. Matthew's principle of compilation is not chronological. He brings words of Jesus together with no reference as to when, where, or to whom they were spoken. The Sermon on the Mount is the result of topical composition. The whole comes under the general heading of teaching, and, within the address, longer and shorter series of sayings are grouped according to similar or related subject matter. At certain points in the address subject sequences do not appear, and sayings are loosely strung together like beads on a string.5 This address is in every way so much a literary accomplishment with an eventful literary history behind it that it is useless to speculate on any possible or probable oral form in which it may have crossed the lips of Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount represents at least a second stage of literary compilation based on the earlier stage in Q, and the materials themselves have been edited in each stage. The Sermon on the Mount and its religious themes do not relate themselves closely to Matthew's summary of Jesus' message back in 4:17 (jf9). It is not a sermon on repentance, and it contains surprisingly little on the kingdom of heaven. However, it is clear in what immediately precedes that Matthew has been working toward this address. When Matthew passed over Mark's day in Capernaum, he had the Sermon on the Mount in mind 5

Cf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, I, 348.

95

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. f 1 8 - 1 9

as the beginning and inauguration of Jesus' public work, and his editorial contribution in 4:23-25 (|fl6) was designed to lead directly up to it.6 18. The Setting Mt 5:1-2 Lk 6:17, 20a \94 This famous address gets its traditional name from the mere accident of its editorial setting in Matthew, a name which gives no clue to the content or nature of the address itself. The mountain here is probably the editorial "mountain," a favorite scene for events in Matthew (and Mark) which has nothing to do with topography. Matthew's statement on audience is confusing. It is not clear whether Jesus is withdrawing from the multitudes to teach the disciples, or whether the multitudes form the background of the audience with the disciples in the foreground. At the end of the address (7:28 IfSl ) the reaction of the multitudes is reported but the disciples are not even mentioned as present. Matthew introduces the disciples abruptly. He can hardly be thinking of the four fishermen, the only disciples called thus far, but rather of the disciples as an established group in Jesus' human surroundings. If so, Matthew is getting ahead of his story. Q may have contained a brief introductory note naming the disciples as the audience, something like Mt 5:2 or Lk 6:20a.1 The whole of Matthew's setting, however, may be his own free invention: the mountain, the multitudes, and the disciples are all conventional elements in the Synoptic tradition. 19. The Beatitudes Mt 5:3-12 Lk 6:20b-23 fl95 The beatitudes of Matthew come close to forming a lyrical composition very much like a psalm, especially the first eight. The last cuts itself off from the first eight by its different sentence structure, its use of the second person, and its historical assumptions. The first eight are impersonal; they make no Christian assumptions and they have uniform sentence structure. The first part of each statement pronounces certain persons blessed; the second part tells why. The eighth beatitude ends with the same assurance as the first, thus rounding out the whole. However, Matthew's first eight are not a unity in thought and expression. Some involve contrast, almost paradox, and are consolations. Others set no contrast and are direct promises of reward for certain virtues.2 Matthew's beatitudes have an Old Testament ° For special studies of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, see Benjamin W . Bacon, The Sermon on the Mount: Its Literary Structure and Didactic Purpose (New York: Macmillan, 1 9 0 2 ) ; H. Weinel, Die Bergpredigt (Leipzig: Teubner, 1 9 2 0 ) ; Paul Fiebig, Jesu Bergpredigt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1 9 2 4 ) ; Windisch, Der Sinn der Bergpredigt; Martin Dibelius, The Sermon on the Mount (New York: Scribner, 1 9 4 0 ) . ^ f . Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 3 1 ) , p. 358f. 2 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 2 5 2 ; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 44.

96

Β. 119

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

background, but they have their closest affinities with the later rabbinical writings. They are rabbinical in spirit, thought, language, and in their aphoristic and epigrammatical style. The original number of Matthew's beatitudes is uncertain. The number could be reduced to eight by eliminating the ninth which reads like an appendage.3 The ninth cannot be regarded as an authentic word of Jesus because it assumes the existence of the early Christian church which is passing through a period of persecution because of its adherence to Jesus ("for my sake" ). Furthermore, it reflects a passion for suffering, even martyrdom, which is Christian rather than Jewish. Consequently, the ninth beatitude must be of later Christian origin.4 The original number of Matthew's beatitudes could be reduced to seven by eliminating the third and ninth.5 The position of the third in the list is uncertain; it varies in different MSS. Moreover, the third possesses no originality; it is a paraphrase of Ps 37:11a. The deletion of the third and ninth would result in seven, a favorite number throughout Matthew's Gospel. The original number of the beatitudes, however, may have been four, as Luke gives them, with Matthew improvising the additional five.6 In this event, Matthew's beatitudes would become an instructive example of how sayings ascribed to Jesus increased in number, new ones being added to the old. The beatitudes of Matthew and Luke differ not only in number but in form.7 The form in Matthew has been favored by some critics 8 because the statements are objective, detached, and impersonal. Jesus could speak only in generalities; he had no way of knowing what particular persons would belong to any of these groups. Other critics 9 favor Luke's form, primarily because they cannot accept that of Matthew. Matthew's beatitudes are reflective, abstract utterances without the strength and force of those of Luke. Matthew has moralized; the hardships of a social status ( Luke ) have been converted into a table of spiritual virtues. Matthew has widened the audience from contemporary disciples to Christians generally. His beatitudes reflect a later and changed situation. They are addressed to a growing church which includes not just the poor and the hungry but those of higher social and economic status. Hence, Matthew speaks of spiritual poverty and spiritual hunger. In beauty and solemnity the beatitudes of Luke are surCf. J. Weiss, Die Fredigt Jesu (1900), p. 180f; Allen, St. Matthew, p. 41f. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 66. 6 Cf. Weinel, Die Bergpredigt, p. 25; Goguel, Introduction, I, 415. 0 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 77. ' For a detailed comparison of the beatitudes in Matthew and Luke, see Lk 6:20b23 H95. 8 Cf. Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu, p. 39; J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu (1900), p. 182. 8 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 201f; Windisch, Die Bergpredigt, p. 61; et al. 3 4

97

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 2 0 - 2 2

passed by those of Matthew which have an artistic quality and show care in phrasing and arrangement. Yet this very superiority simply proves that the artistic form in Matthew is the result of careful literary composition. It is not the natural form of spontaneous oral utterance such as fell from the lips of Jesus, to which Luke's unpolished sentences are a much closer approximation. The beatitudes in one form or another opened the Q form of this address. The two very different forms in Matthew and Luke furnish a good example of the great differences which often appear in the same basic matter from this source. The simplest explanation of these differences is the assumption that different versions of Q were used by Matthew (Q mt ) and Luke (Q l k ). 1 0 Mt 5:13-16 1|20-22. This is the second literary complex in the Sermon on the Mount. It is very brief, yet it is the result of collection and compilation. There are three separate sayings and three separate interpretations, yet they are presented as two companion utterances introduced alike: "Ye are the salt of the earth"; "Ye are the light of the world." The joining of these sayings is the work of Matthew, for they do not appear together in either Mark or Luke. Matthew is also responsible for their appearance in the Sermon on the Mount. 20. The Parable of the Salt Mt 5:13 Mk 9:49-50 |fl94; Lk 14:84-35 |f277 This saying continues the second person ("ye") of the last beatitude, but there is a complete break in the thought —from persecution (11-12) to the world mission of the disciples ( 13 ). This shows how loosely the sayings of Jesus are joined in the discourses ascribed to him. "Ye are the salt of the earth" is not only a transition but an application of the parable which follows. Originally the parable stood alone without application as it does now in Luke. The original oral form must have left the hearer to make the application, and it probably had a concrete meaning in the situation in which it was spoken. As bare discourse in written form, without scene or setting, it could have only a general meaning from which different lessons could be drawn (Matthew and Mark). Matthew contributes "Ye are the salt of the earth," and thus gives the parable a practical point. He does not say how, in what way, the disciples are like salt, but such an interpretation approaches allegory and makes it clear that sayings of Jesus have become texts for Christian preaching. Such an application presupposes the existence, not only of the primitive Christian community, but that of the church which is already aware of its world-wide mission. This parable of the salt is a good example of the many settingless sayings 10 W. C. Allen, Studies in the Synoptic Problem by Members of the University of Oxford; ed. William Sanday (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911), p. 238.

98

B.1Ï21

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

in the Synoptic tradition. In Matthew it is one of the first words of Jesus in public (|f20). In Mark it comes at the end of the Galilean story and concludes it (|fl94). In Luke it is a part of his Great Non-Markan Section ( 9 : 5 1 - 1 8 : 1 4 ) and journey to Jerusalem. It must have come down to the Synoptic writers as pure discourse with no indication as to when, where, to whom, or why it was spoken. Matthew and Luke ignore the Markan form of this parable, and both use the Q form. The proof of this is threefold. ( 1 ) Neither Matthew nor Luke reports it in Mark's order (|{194). ( 2 ) Both report it in non-Markan sections of their Gospels. ( 3 ) They agree together against Mark in the form of the parable. Both have a conclusion about the fate of the worthless salt; it is to be cast out in both —to be trodden under foot of men (Matthew), as unfit for land or dunghill (Luke). Mark's form is briefer and does not have this conclusion. The materials in the parable itself are drawn from the familiar field of ordinary experience, giving it freshness and realism. From the known it leads thought to a higher realm, the unknown. Technically, salt cannot lose its saline properties, but in common experience it can become so mixed with impurities as to be utterly useless. The parable ends with a realistic touch: the oriental,threw refuse into the street to be trampled in the traffic. The parable may be based on a current proverb. There is a very similar rabbinical saying: "Salt, if it has lost its savor, wherewith shall it be seasoned?" 1 The rabbis used salt as a figure of speech for its purifying, seasoning, and preservative qualities, but they make no personal application such as Matthew's "Ye are the salt of the earth." 2 21. The Parable of a City on a Hill Mt 5:14 "Ye are the light of the world" is designed as a literary counterpart to "Ye are the salt of the earth." Both are the contribution of Matthew for the sake of the intended religious lesson. In the rabbinical writings God, Israel, the law, the temple, even some few distinguished rabbis are spoken of as the light, or lights, of the world.3 Another Christian variation occurs in the Gospel of John (8:12; 9:5) where Jesus speaks of himself as the light of the world. "Ye are the light of the world" is a better introduction for the parable of the lamp on the stand in 15 than it is for that of a city on a hill (14b), which is really an intrusion. In its brevity the saying about a city on a hill is nearer proverb form, but in the completeness of its word-picture (pure description) it approaches parable. Bultmann 4 lists it among what he calls "profane sayings" which Cf. Cf. 3 Cf. 4 Cf. 1 2

Abrahams, Studies, II, 183. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 235f. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 36; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 237. Geschichte (1931), p. 107f.

99

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.f22-31

found their way into the body of Jesus' teaching. These profane sayings have nothing religious about them; they record, in various moods, common observations on daily life. One Oxyrhynchus papyrus (I, 7) gives the parable as a word of Jesus in fuller form: "A city built upon the top of a high hill and established can neither fall nor be hidden." 22. The Parable of a Lamp on a Stand Mt 5:15-16 Mk 4:21 = Lk 8:16 fll33; Lk 11:33 |j229 The parable proper in 15 is just another fragment in Matthew's mosaic, the Sermon on the Mount, its only appearance in Matthew's Gospel. It appears once in Mark (4:21), but it appears twice in Luke: first in Mark's order in 8:16 and then much later, in his Great Non-Markan Section, in 11:33. Its appearance in the Sermon on the Mount is the idea and work of Matthew; neither form in Luke is associated with his parallel address, the Sermon on the Plain. Evidently it was not in the Q form of the address. The Markan form (4:21) and the Q form (Mt 5:15; Lk 11:33) differ distinctly from each other. (1) The Markan form is interrogative, a rhetorical question; the Q form is declarative throughout. (2) The Markan form is impersonal and speaks of bringing the lamp; the Q form is more personal and speaks of lighting the lamp. (3) The mention of the bed in Mark does not occur in the Q form. (4) The Q form is longer and has a conclusion about the shining and function of the light. In Luke the lamp lights the way for those who enter the house; in Matthew it provides light for those in the house. The Markan form has no conclusion about the function of the lamp. The lamp, the bushel, and the stand are common to both forms, and together they constitute the framework of this little parable. These three items give the parable a strong social coloring, for they belong to the meagre furnishings of the one-room house of the plain and the poor. Verse 16 seems to be the editorial contribution of Matthew. It is not a transition to what follows, but seems intended to conclude and round out the complex in 13-15. In 16 Matthew again applies the parable of the lamp, but he now derives a new and different lesson. In 14a the disciples were the light; in 16 they possess the light. It is their good works — originally a rabbinical, later a Catholic, conception. Verse 16 is hortatory; it is addressed to Matthew's readers. It is not a word of Jesus to the audience of the Sermon on the Mount. It really anticipates later themes in this address (6:Iff). Mt 5:17-^18 j[23-31. This is the third, and longest, literary complex in the Sermon on the Mount, a wholly new body of teaching unconnected with what precedes. It is a purely topical grouping of discourse materials under the general heading, Jesus and the Law. It results in a contrasting picture: Jesus is presented in an ultra-conservative light and at the same time as the Second Moses, the giver of the New Law. It is one of the most dialectical,

100

Β . 123

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

systematically constructed sections in the Synoptic tradition. It is made up of six key-words which are known as Matthew's antitheses. The refrain-like recurrence of the antithetical formula six times gives the section an almost liturgical quality. In its design it is a didactic section, a sort of catechism,1 of special interest to Jewish-Christians. Three of these legal utterances are from Q and three are peculiar to Matthew as they now stand. Luke has parallels to three of the six, but they are not grouped together in his Gospel. Matthew may have found the six legal sayings already grouped in his source, and he may have expanded the series with other materials (23-24, 25-26, 29-30). Or, he may have found a series of three key-utterances to which he added three along with other materials.2 Whether Matthew or his source is responsible for the total of six, it is evident that the section is a compilation of sayings which once were single and separate and, if authentic, spoken on different occasions. The antithetical formula of introduction, "Ye have heard . . . but I say unto you," is found only in Matthew. Apparently it does not go back to Jesus himself. In fact, it does not seem to go back to Matthew's source, for it does not appear in Luke's parallels. Hence, it is probably the contribution of Matthew. It is interesting to note that this formula carefully avoids the use of the names "God" and "Moses." 23. Jesus' Mission and the Law Mt 5:17-20 Lk 16:17 j[286 This passage, especially 17-18, is a preamble setting the theme for the entire section, yet it seems to contrast with, even to be contradicted by, the section itself.1 In this preamble Jesus states his solidarity with the religion of his people and affirms the permanence of the law in terms so emphatic as to satisfy the most orthodox Jewish rabbi. Yet in the six legal sayings which follow, he takes the most profound exceptions to particular precepts of the law and sets his own word in opposition to them. That Jesus, in one and the same situation, in one stream of speech, should have swung from one extreme to the other seems inconceivable. However, in the majority of the legal sayings Jesus does not abrogate the particular precept cited; he goes beyond them, yet they continue to stand as his points of departure. Any contrast or contradiction between the preamble and the body of the section is probably due to the fact that single and separate sayings, uttered under varying circumstances, are brought together as continuous discourse. That Jesus, on one and the same subject, should appear conservative in one circumstance and radical in another is only natural. Verses 17-20 are not a unity either from the literary point of view or Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 261. Cf. Bultmann, Study, p. 52; J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1937), p. 55. 1 Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926), p. 60f. 1

2

101

Matthäus

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B.f23

from that of thought expressed. There are three, possibly four, separate discourse units brought together. Verse 17 has the appearance of a separate and independent saying for two reasons. ( 1 ) It begins ("Think not") like an utterance that once had a narrative setting, perhaps as the key-word in a debate with opponents.2 ( 2 ) The mention of the prophets is out of place here, for the entire section bears on the law, not the prophets.3 However, the prophets must belong to the original saying, for the key-term and -thought ("fulfill") would apply to the prophets, not the law. 4 Verse 17 has provoked skepticism as an authentic word of Jesus. It is doubtful whether he, during his lifetime, ever made any such theoretical formulation on the relation of his mission to the religious past of his people. 5 Furthermore, like all the "I came" utterances, 17 may be a reflective retrospect which looks back on Jesus' work as completed in the past and appraises this one aspect.® It could be a piece of ultra-conservative JewishChristian apologetics. It can easily be transposed into the third person: "Think not that he came to destroy the law or the prophets; he came not to destroy, but to fulfill." Whatever its origin, 17 is true to history: Jesus lived and worked and died as a loyal and devout Jew with no thought of inaugurating a new and different religion. Verse 18 has a parallel in Lk 16:17 ( j{286 ) and seems to come from Q. In Luke, however, this ultra-conservative statement is in no way associated with Jesus' mission as in Mt 5:17. Verse 18 is also open to doubt as an authentic utterance of Jesus. 7 It seems too theoretical and abstract for an imaginative type of mind. It is the first of several ultra-Jewish utterances ascribed to Jesus in Matthew. 8 The same doubt attaches itself to verse 19.9 It is as rabbinical as the rabbis themselves. The Jewish law contained 365 negative ( V e r b o t e ) and 278 positive ( G e b o t e ) commandments, yet for the rabbis the law was an inviolable unity — to break the least commandment was to break the whole law. 10 2 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 83; Fascher, Die formgeschichtliche Methode, p. 164. 8 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 326; G. Dalman, Jesus-]eschua: die drei Sprachen Jesu (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922), p. 62 (authorized translation by the Rev. Paul P. Levertoff, Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels [New York: Macmillan, 19291). 4 Cf. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 1, 76. 6 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 205; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 53. 6 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 83; Fascher, Die formgeschichtliche Methode, p. 164. 7 Cf. Paul Wemle, Jesus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1916), p. 115; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 46. 8 Cf. Mt 10:5, 23; 15:24; 23:3. 8 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 332; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 66. 10 Cf. Moore, Judaism, I, 235; A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus: seine Sprache,

102

Β.Ϊ24-25

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Verse 20 has no good connection where it occurs. It does not belong to this legal section. Like 5:16 it is a premature anticipation of the theme of the central section of the Sermon on the Mount; with 6:1 it would make a splendid introduction to 6:2-18. 24. (a) Concerning Murder Mt 5:21-24 This is the first antithesis and, as it now stands, it is peculiar to Matthew. However, it may have been in Q. Murder and anger were just as serious for Gentile Christians as for Jewish Christians, yet Luke may have omitted this saying because of its wholly Jewish conception and treatment of both. Two separate discourse units are here joined together: 21-22 is addressed to the group ("ye"); 23-24, to the individual ("thou"). Verses 21-22 are the antithesis proper, but it weakens at the end. The abusive language seems trivial after such serious matters as murder and the anger leading to it. The second half would be more effective if it read: "but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother hath committed murder already in his heart." This would conform to the second antithesis (27-28, TJ26). Jesus here does not abrogate the sixth commandment; it is simply the starting point for the development of his own thought. Religion must reach deeper than mere social restraint to the impulses responsible for human behavior. The Jewish rabbis condemned anger in equally strong terms.1 Verses 23-24 are an independent saying, an individual, not a group, precept. This passage is not an organic element in the Sermon on the Mount, and it probably does not belong in the Galilean story at all. It would be more natural in a Jerusalem setting, for it assumes the hearer's easy access to the temple and the altar. Matthew seems to feel that it is appropriate here because it teaches reconciliation of personal differences which, unreconciled, can arouse anger and result in murder. The passage is rabbinical both in form and thought.2 It is one of the very few references to the temple cult in Jesus' sayings. 25. The Parable on Going before the Judge Mt 5:25-26 Lk 12:57-59 ]j259 This is another of Matthew's expansions of his Sermon on the Mount. It comes from Q with no important differences between Matthew and the parallel in Luke. In Luke it is not a part of any special address; it is just sein Ziel, und seine Selbstständigheit (Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1929), p. 56. Cf. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 38; Fiebig, Jesu Bergpredigt, p. 97. Cf. Paul Fiebig, Der Erzählungsstü der Evangelien im Lichte des rabbinischen Erzählungsstil untersucht (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1925), p. 5; Moore, Judaism, II, 154; et al. 1 2

103

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B.126-27

a detached saying in his Great Non-Markan Section (9:51-18:14). This is also Matthew's second addition to his first antithesis. Matthew seems to join it on to 23-24 because it, too, teaches reconciliation; however, reconciliation for a very different reason — the threat of paying a penalty in full for failure to do so. Otherwise, 25-26 has only an external similarity to 23-24. Both are in the second person singular, simple imperatives, "be" and "do" sayings like so many in the rabbinical writings. While 23-24 is a religious precept with a religious motivation, 25-26 is a bit of worldly wisdom counseling prudence in ordinary life,1 unless one chooses to read religious meanings into it, making it half allegory.2 26. (b) Concerning Adultery Mt 5:27-28 This second antithesis is also peculiar to Matthew. If it was in Q, there is no good reason why Luke should omit it. It is a comment on a precept in the Jewish decalogue, but it does not have the strong Jewish coloring of the first antithesis. Furthermore, the seventh commandment was under Christian adoption from the very first. From Paul's letters it would seem that adultery and related sins were an even more serious problem among Gentile Christians than among Jewish Christians. This second antithesis resembles the first in that it, too, is a comment on one of the ten commandments, and it expresses the same thought and point of view. However, it is much more forceful and pointed than the first which rambles off into minutia ( 22b ). The idea that lust is sinful is rabbinical. The rabbis spoke of "adultery of the eyes" and "adultery of the mind." 1 27. Concerning Occasions of Stumbling Mt 5:29-30 Mt 18:8-9 = Mk 9:43-48 fll93 This is another originally separate saying as is clear in the later parallels of Matthew and Mark. Matthew here inserts it between the second and third antitheses as an illustration of the second. The eye ( 29 ) connects well with the lustful look (28), but the hand is not appropriate. This may explain why 30 is missing in two important MSS (D and Syr sin ). 1 The specification of the right eye is curious, for, if it were destroyed, the left could still carry on. Even the totally blind are not free from desire. There is strong probability that Matthew here is giving the Q form of this saying although there is no parallel in Luke for comparison.2 In 18:8-9 Matthew reports the Markan form of this saying in Mark's order (9:43-48 11193), and this first form in Matthew differs from that of Mark as Q usually Cf. Cf. 1 Cf. 1 Cf. 2 Cf. 1 2

J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 264; Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, II, 52f. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 245. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 41. Wellhausen, Matihaei, p. 20; Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 1, 93. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 576; Goguel, Introduction, I, 220.

104

Β. 1(28

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

differs from Mark in reporting the same matter. ( 1 ) Mark has three separate statements on the hand, the foot, and the eye, in that order; Matthew here has two separate statements, first on the eye and then on the hand. The foot does not figure here in Matthew (or in Q). (2) Matthew here specifies the right eye and the right hand as the later Markan form does not. Furthermore, Matthew reports the first form of this saying in a non-Markan section of his Gospel, the Sermon on the Mount. Luke later passes over the Markan form of the saying, and he may have omitted the Q form also. The language of this saying is metaphorical and it exhibits the oriental liking for extreme and radical statement, even for a crass realism that is often offensive. It seems almost as though this saying had been framed and phrased with the deliberate intention of alienating the hearer or reader. If such is the case, it succeeded with Luke who omits it entirely from his Gospel. There are similar rabbinical sayings.3 28. ( c ) Concerning Divorce Mt 5:31-32 Lk 16:18 fl287; Mt 19:9 = Mk 10:11-12 fl306 Matthew's third antithesis seems to be a modification of the Q form, for it parallels Luke's only form, a detached saying in his Great Non-Markan Section (9:51 -18:14). Lk 16:18 seems to give the pure Q form which differs from Matthew's form here in two respects. (1) This is the first parallel of Luke to any of Matthew's words on the law, but it does not have antithetical form in Luke as it does in Matthew; hence this formula must be regarded as the contribution of Matthew. This antithetical formula does not appear in Matthew's later form (19:9), in Mk 10:11-12, or in Paul's form (I Cor 7:10-11). (2) In Luke Jesus' position is absolute: remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery. In Matthew here (and later) Jesus' position is compromised: divorce (remarriage ?) is permissible on one ground, that of unfaithfulness. The Markan form of this saying has its own special peculiarity. The second appearance of this saying in Matthew simply repeats this first form in a different setting (Mt 19:3-9 fl306). This third antithesis begins as though it followed directly on the second with no matter (29-30) in between. Albertz 1 feels that it is a lame supplement to the second and that it does not really belong in the series, for it is not properly an antithesis at all. Montefiore 2 feels that it is the first real antithesis in the series; it is unrabbinical, unorthodox, the first real conflict with the letter of the law. The most curious novelty in Matthew's form is the compromise clause which permits divorce on one ground, unfaithfulness. This gives the precept less the nature of an oral utterance, more the nature of an article of church Cf. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 46. Cf. Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 146. 2 Cf. The Synoptic Gospels, II, 65f; see also, Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, 3 1

105

I, 320.

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 2 9 - 3 0

discipline. It may even record local church practice. It must be a later gloss, for it is found only in the two forms of Matthew, not in Mark or Luke or Paul. It represents a compromise, and it may be the result of the church's experience with the weakness of human nature. Furthermore, this compromise weakens the antithesis. It ranges Jesus on the side of the school of Shammai which recognized divorce on this one ground and opposes him to the school of Hillel which permitted divorce "for every cause" (Mt 19:3). 3 29. ( d ) Concerning Oaths Mt 5:33-37 This fourth antithesis introduces the second group of three; 33a returns to the full antithetical formula of the first (21a). Although 33b is not an actual quotation from the Old Testament, it is a free summary of the drift of several Old Testament passages,1 and comments broadly on a general contemporary practice. This fourth antithesis does not concern formal legal oaths before the court, but the practice of solemnizing even trivial matters of daily life with the oath form. The second half of this antithesis is not a unity. It falls into two parts: 34—35 is in the second person plural and is phrased in Biblical language (Isa 66:1); 36 is in the second person singular and contains no Biblical phrases. In 34-35 one does not swear by heaven, or earth, or Jerusalem, for they are holy places; in 36 one does not swear by one's own person, for man is a creature and not master of his own destiny. Verse 37 was originally a single separate saying. It is not appropriate here for it has to do with truthfulness, not oaths, and in itself approaches the oath form with its repeated "Yea, yea" and "Nay, nay." In the rabbinical writings a double affirmative or negative amounts to an oath.2 The author of James 5:12 had this saying in mind, and his final statement is much more impressive than Mt 5:37; it reads, "Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay." 3 There is also a close rabbinical parallel.4 30. ( e ) Concerning Retaliation Mt 5:38—42 Lk 6:29-30 |f97 This is the first passage since the beatitudes in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount which is also in Luke's parallel address, the Sermon on the Plain. All that has intervened in Matthew is, so far as definite knowledge goes, Matthew's expansion of the Q form of the address, to the framework of Cf. Fiebig, Jesu Bergpredigt, p. 57; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 67. ' C f . Lev 19:12; Ex 20:7; Dt 5:11; 23:21; Nu 30:2. 2 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 266; Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 47. 3 See C. C. Torrey's retranslation of Mt 5:37, The Four Gospels: A New Translation (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1933), p. 291. 4 Cf. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 49. 3

106

B.T31

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

which he now returns. Luke has no parallel to the antithesis in Mt 38-393.' This fifth antithesis is composite, and there is the possibility of three separate discourse units. ( 1 ) Verses 38-39a are the antithesis proper in the second person plural and are addressed to the group. The first part of the antithesis is the socalled lex talionis. While it is a direct quotation from the Old Testament,2 some feel that its use here is unfair and a misrepresentation of the Jewish idea of justice, and they would ascribe the whole antithesis to later Christian antipathy rather than to Jesus.3 (2) Verses 39b-41 are in the second person singular and are addressed to the individual. Originally these verses probably had no connection with the antithesis but were brought in here by Matthew as illustrations of nonresistance. They are arranged in anticlimax: 39b deals with an act of violence; 40, with a legal process; 41, with a mere imposition. The thought in all three instances concerns only one person — the one who suffers wrong. There is no consideration for the wrong-doer, his punishment or reformation.4 It is thus virtually antisocial and quite different from Josephus 5 who thinks of the effect upon the wrong-doer. In such conduct as 39b-41 recommends there is no consideration for the possible or probable effects on society. Such precepts cannot be regarded as principles of social action or as cures of social ills. Society could not order its normal life according to them. The background of such sayings is a real world on the verge of collapse and an unreal order that is about to supplant it — the kingdom of God. They are motivated entirely by despair for the old, hope and longing for the new. They belong to the ethics of eschatology of the esoteric group that awaits the end. There is an undertone of urgency and tension in these sayings; they are special measures in time of crisis. All of them reflect the oriental fondness for hyperbole in general, and in particular Jesus' own fondness for the extreme, for an excess, that borders on the heroic. Some find in such utterances evidence of an ecstatic strain in Jesus' nature.® (3) Verse 42 must at one time have been an independent and separate saying. It does not bear on the antithesis in 38-39a. It has nothing to do with the suffering of wrong ( 39b-41 ), but with giving to the beggar and borrower. 31. (f) Concerning Love to Enemies Mt 5:43-48 Lk 6:27-28 fl97; 6:32^36 fí99 This sixth antithesis concludes Matthew's series on Jesus and the Law. The body of the paragraph goes back to the Q form of the address, for it 1 For a comparison of the two versions of this unit in Matthew and Luke, see Lk 6*29—30 1197. 2 Cf. Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20; Dt 19:21. a Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 268. 4 Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 71ff. * Cf. Wars ii. 16, 44. " Cf. O. Holtzmann, War Jesus Ekstatikerp, p. 79.

107

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B. 131

appears in Luke's Sermon on the Plain in the same relative position. Again, however, Luke does not have the antithetical form of introduction.1 The command "Hate thine enemy" is not found in the Old Testament or in the rabbinical writings. In general, it is an unjust misrepresentation of Jewish ethics. The rabbis regarded "hate" as something reprehensible.2 It might reflect actual Jewish feeling in the 50's and 60's when hatred of Rome was a test of patriotism. However, Matthew is thinking of one's personal enemy, not of the national enemy. "Hate thine enemy" may be a later gloss by Matthew.3 The antithesis is stronger if it is deleted, and it has better balance: "Love thy neighbor" over against "Love your enemies." Verse 44 is imperative. What this love of enemies is, how it expresses itself, what form it takes, is not stated. It must be volitional (Luke: "Do good to them") rather than emotional in nature. Its point of view is not social; there is no thought for the enemy or the effect of this love on him. It is a purely personal and individual precept, a pinnacle attained by strict self-discipline. It is one of the "heroic paradoxes" of Jesus. It requires the eschatological background that overshadows so many of his utterances. It is a last heroic effort in this world. It demands what in normal existence would be impossible. In the Didache (i. 3) this saying is toned down: "Love those who hate you, and you will have no enemies." In 45 the reader encounters for the first time the term and idea of God as the "Father who is in heaven." It is a favorite expression in Matthew's Gospel and virtually peculiar to Matthew within the New Testament. The conception of God as Father goes back to the Old Testament, and is prominent in the rabbinical writings. It is not an abstract idea or a formal theological proposition. It is rather an attitude of piety expressing God's relation to His people and to the individual. It was personalized and was usually preceded by some form of the personal pronoun. It is pure picture-thinking, an analogy drawn from an elemental human relationship. Jesus thought of men as the children of the heavenly Father, but there is no word of his in the Synoptic tradition to the effect that he drew the logical corollary: all men are brothers. The rabbis, like Jesus, used the sunshine and the rain to illustrate God's impartiality; so also did some of the Greek and Roman moralists. Verse 47 has no parallel in Luke, and it is not found in one important MS of Matthew ( Syrsin ) .* It weakens the passage as a whole by descending to the level of the commonplace. It is probably a later Christian addition, for it assumes the existence of the early Christian community. The "brethren" are not blood brothers or fellow-countrymen, but brothers in belief. 1 For a comparison of the versions of Matthew and Luke, see Lk 6 : 2 7 - 2 8 ÏI97; 6 : 3 2 - 3 6 1199. 2 Cf. Strack-Bíllerbeck, Kommentar, I, 353. 3 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 349f; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus in The Mission and Message of Jesus (New York: E . P. Dutton & Co., 1938), 453; et al. 4 Cf. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 1, 48.

108

Β. 1Γ32-40

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Verse 48 seems to look back and sum up the whole long section ( 17-47 ), and Matthew intends it as a highpoint in the address as a whole. However, some feel that 48 does not make sense.5 Nothing that precedes leads up to the idea of equalling God in perfection — a sheer impossibility and almost an irreverence in its implications. Mt 6:1-34 jf32-40. The materials in chapter 6 of Matthew seem to be an insert into the Q form of the address. Chapter 5 ended with matter from the Q form, and Matthew's next agreement with Luke's Sermon on the Plain (and Q) comes at the beginning of chapter 7: Insert 6:1-34

Mt

5:43-48 = Lk 7: 1-2

=

6:32-36 37-38

Luke has parallels to two-thirds of the materials in chapter 6 of Matthew, but he includes none of them in his parallel address, the Sermon on the Plain. Thus chapter 6 seems to be a wholly new central section with which Matthew has expanded the Q form of the address. Mt 6:1-18 1(32-36. This is the fourth literary complex in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. The preceding section (17-48) had to do with man's relation to man; this new section, with his relation to God. This new complex singles out three religious exercises, opera supererogata, more or less voluntary ascetic practices which form a Jewish triad: alms, prayer, and fasting. It is possible that the comments on these three practices were in Q, even in the Q form of this address, and that they were omitted by Luke because they were so ultra-Jewish.1 Originally this complex seems to have been briefer, including only the introduction (1) and the three key-sayings (2-4; 5-6; 16-18). Topically related matter ( 7-15 ) has been inserted between the second and third. The three key-sayings are really poetic strophes. They have perfect literary balance and symmetry, exactly the same length, identical sentence structure, and the same double refrain is repeated verbatim in all three. Together with verse 1, which sets the theme, they form an artistic whole which has been described as a didactic poem ( Lehrgedicht) : 2 Mt Insert: 7-15

6:1 2-4 5-6 16-18

Theme First strophe Second strophe Third strophe

Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 352; Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 1, 113. Cf. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 187. 2 Cf. Windisch, Der Sinn der Bergpredigt, p. 15; Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 150. 5

1

109

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 3 2 - 3 4

The scheme of each strophe is antithetical: the false is set over against the genuine. The point is identical in all three. These practices are not condemned or rejected as such, only their distortion into show and parade. Such care in conception and composition as this section shows is literary, that of Matthew or his source — so literary in fact as to arouse skepticism as to its ever having been an oral composition of Jesus at all.3 32. Concerning the Practices of Piety Mt 6:1 The theme of this section was anticipated back in 5:16 and 20, especially in the latter passage. The expression "your righteousness" would bring 6:1 and 5:20 together and, joined, they would make smooth reading. This introduction and the three strophes are dominated by the idea of literal reward. It is not the idealistic ethics of the western world, of doing good for good's sake, of virtue being its own reward, but each good deed on earth is regarded as having a corresponding reward in heaven —what is earned is paid.1 This conception is deeply Jewish and rabbinical. Jesus, with all his genius, was steeped in the thought-world of his age and people. 33. ( a ) Concerning Alms Mt 6:2-4 Alms as conceived here is a purely religious exercise, a matter between the giver and God alone. It is not a sympathetic response to human need nor a means of alleviating it. There is no thought for the recipient, his feelings or his eventual good. Alms given in secret benefit the giver; it is a good work, certain of its reward in heaven. Secret alms was praised by the Jewish rabbis, but they considered the recipient as well as the giver.1 The "hypocrites," a favorite term with Matthew, are not identified, doubtless for the reason that faults rather than persons and parties are being criticized. Hypocrisy was severely condemned by some of the rabbis. "They have received their reward" is an expression very common in the papyri and ostraca.2 It has exactly the meaning of the modern signed receipt, "paid in full." Far more impressive than this comment on alms is the simple observation that there is no record of Jesus ever having given alms. 34. ( b ) Concerning Prayer Mt 6:5-8 This passage obviously falls into two parts: the second strophe of the didactic poem in 5-6 and a topical supplement in 7-8. Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 335. Cf. Bultmann, Jesus, p. 75. 1 Cf. G. H. Box, St. Matthew in The Century Bible (Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, undated), p. 126. 3 Cf. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, pp. 88, 111. 3 1

110

Β. 135

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

In 5-6 prayer, like alms, is a good work which brings its reward to the one who practices it. If prayer were a communion of man with his Maker, the strophe would end: "thy Father who seeth in secret shall hear thee," not "recompense thee." This would be more in harmony with other words of Jesus on prayer. The usual prayer-posture among the Jews was standing. The ideal place for prayer was the temple in Jerusalem, next the synagogue, but the average layman could pray wherever the hour of prayer found him. The rabbis stressed public and communal prayer, praying with the congregation, rather than private prayer in secret. Jesus' own praying in the Synoptic tradition conforms to this recommendation for privacy and seclusion. Verses 7-15 are an insert, a topical supplement on the theme of prayer, which destroys the balance of the didactic poem. The third strophe ( 16-18 ) should follow at once upon the second (5-6). Interest in this insert centers on the Lord's Prayer (9-13) with 7-8 a sort of prologue and 14—15 as an epilogue. The second person singular ("thou"), the individual at religious exercises, dominates the three poetic strophes. The second person plural ("ye"), the group at prayer, appears exclusively in 7-15. In this supplement Matthew is thinking of the Christian fellowship. Verses 7-8 are set off from 5-6. The individual praying in secret in 5-6 is forgotten, and the praying group takes his place in 7-8. Prayer practice in 7-8 is not contrasted with the hypocrites ( 5-6 ) but with Gentile praying. The protest against publicity (5-6) disappears in 7-8, and simplicity and brevity replace privacy in prayer. Known Gentile prayers are long, verbose, full of magical formulas and tiresome repetitions. Some of the rabbis recommended simplicity and brevity in prayer, but Jewish prayers generally tended toward length, and often titles and predicates were multiplied to excess. Both Jew and Gentile seemed to feel the need for being rhetorical in prayer. Simplicity and brevity characterize Jesus' reported prayers in the Synoptic tradition. The Lord's Prayer is the only one that exceeds a sentence in length. If 8b were taken literally, it would seem to render all prayer superfluous — which, of course, cannot have been Jesus' meaning.1 35. The Lord's Prayer Mt 6:9-15 Lk 11:1-4 fl215 The Lord's Prayer is confined to 9-13; 14—15 is a comment on one of the petitions, and it is a separate discourse unit. The prayer itself is from Q, and it is reported in two different versions by Matthew and Luke.1 Luke reports it relatively late in the story, in his Great Non-Markan Section (9:51-18:14) and journey to Jerusalem. He also provides a special provo1

Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 275f. a comparison of the two forms, see Lk 11:1-4 11215.

1 For

Ill

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 3 5

cation for it (11:1). Matthew includes the Lord's Prayer in his Sermon on the Mount as one of the first words of Jesus in public. The prayer by its very nature would indicate that it must have been given much later to intimate disciples in private. Matthew includes it in a public address, probably because in his day it was in established use in public services of Christian worship. Matthew inserts the Lord's Prayer at this particular point in the Sermon on the Mount for topical reasons, in connection with two other heterogeneous sayings on prayer in 5-8. "After this manner therefore pray ye." Matthew's manner of introducing the prayer would seem to indicate his conception of the prayer and its purpose. He seems to regard it as a formulary made sacred by its origin and liturgical usage, whether prayed by the individual daily ("Give us this day") 2 or repeated in unison by Christians gathered for corporate worship. If the doxology be included, Matthew's Lord's Prayer forms a perfect prayerpattern: reverent address, seven petitions, solemn conclusion. The seven petitions fall into two groups: the first three are expressions of reverence; the last four concern elemental human needs. The prayer expects, awaits, everything as coming from God; only in the petition for forgiveness does human agency enter in. "Our Father who art in heaven." The community consciousness expressed in "our" is that of the believing group. This use of the first person plural is Jewish and rabbinical. In common prayer the individual does not separate himself from the community but holds his solidarity with it, even when he prays alone. The full rounded form of the invocation is probably the work of Matthew or of his Christian circle. Luke's "Father" is simpler and more probable. The original invocation from Jesus was in his mother-tongue, the Aramaic "Abba," as in Mk 14:36; Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15. "Hallowed be thy name." The sanctification of the divine name is Jewish, and it stands at the very beginning of many rabbinical prayers.3 Back of this first petition is the ancient idea that Name and Person are identical. "Thy kingdom come." This petition is purely eschatological, and it gives the prayer an eschatological cast and color. It is the key-petition around which the others are grouped and to which they are subordinated. This kingdom is future, yet to come. "Thy will be done." This third petition might be regarded as a moral definition or ethical expansion of the second, and the two might resolve themselves into one.4 Or, it might be a transition with attention descending from heaven (the first two petitions) to earth (the last four petitions). 6 In The Didache, viii. 3, the Lord's Prayer is to be repeated thrice daily. Cf. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 129f; Moore, Judaism, II, lOlff. 1 Cf. Th. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthäus in Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (4. Aufl.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1922), I, 274; G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu (2. Aufl.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930), p. 316. 5 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 601. 2 3

112

Β. 135

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

However, this third petition is not as simple as it seems. It virtually amounts to a surrender of the hope expressed in the second petition. In this third petition the kingdom is no longer a new supernatural order about to supplant the old natural order, but it is a state or condition to be established by human effort, by perfect obedience to the divine will such as prevails in heaven.® This third petition, not found in Luke's form of the Lord's Prayer, is probably a later liturgical addition made when the eschatological hope began to fade and when the church was beginning to gird itself for a career in the world. It may have been suggested by the prayer attributed to Jesus in Gethsemane (Mt 26:42). "Give us this day our daily bread." The most puzzling element in this petition is the Greek word translated "daily." It is used by Matthew and Luke in the Lord's Prayer, but it is not found elsewhere in any ancient writings in the Greek language. A different translation has been suggested: O u r bread for tomorrow give us to-day" 7 — which is the form St. Jerome states that he found in the Gospel of Hebrews.8 "Forgive us our debts." No common prayer, Jewish or Christian, could fail to include this petition. The idea of sins as "debts" is common in Jewish literature.9 The second part of this petition, however, is un-Jewish, "as we forgive our debtors," and some Jewish scholars 10 have protested against it. In this second part the prayer-form is almost dropped for an instant as the one praying thinks of himself. "Bring us not into temptation." This petition seems to regard God as responsible for temptation, or at least as permitting it. However, this petition may be eschatological; temptation, then, would not be anything individual or psychological but would refer to the period of trial and tribulation expected to beset the faithful at the beginning of the end. 11 "Deliver us from the evil one." This seventh petition might be an expansion or explanation of the sixth,12 or a repetition of it in positive form,13 or an antithetical parallel to it, 14 or a half-way correction of it, for Satan, not God, is responsible for temptation.15 This seventh petition, too, admits of ° Cf. Ewald, Die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 220; Martin Dibelius, Geschichtliche und Übergeschichtliche Religion im Christentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1925), p. 69f. 7 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 278; Fiebig, Jem Bergpredigt, p. 117; et al. 8 Commentary on Matthew 6:11. * Cf. Moore, Judaism, II, 95. 10 Cf. Abrahams, Studies, II, 102f. 11 Cf. Albert Schweitzer, Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis Jesu (Tübingen: Mohr, 1901), ρ. 86: Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen: Mohr, 1913), p. 411; Out of My Life and Thought: An Autobiography (New York: Henry Holt, 1933), p. 52. u Cf. Schniewind, Matthäus, p. 86. 13 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 279. " Cf. Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 59. 18 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 607f.

113

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 135

16

eschatological interpretation. The conception here is Jewish and rabbinical; evil is half personified as though it were a power outside as well as inside of man. 17 The absence of this last petition in Luke's form of the Lord's Prayer suggests that it may be a later addition. "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." This doxology is commonly regarded as a later liturgical addition. It is not found in Luke's form of the prayer, and it is missing in some of the best Greek MSS of Matthew (S, B, D ) . Furthermore, the addition in 14-15 would be difficult if the prayer ended with the full formal doxology. However, the naming of the "evil one" would be a strange ending for any prayer. Furthermore, Jewish prayers of the period usually ended with some sort of doxology. A doxology of one kind or another is essential to any prayer of any formality, for in the doxology the one praying is withdrawing, dismissing himself, from the divine presence. Judged in the light of the religious objects addressed and the religious attitude expressed, there is nothing in the doxology to make it impossible on the lips of Jesus. The Lord's Prayer is Jewish in every respect, so much so that any devout Jew might recite this prayer if he could forget its Christian origin and associations. It is Jewish in thought and feeling, in form and structure, and in language and phraseology. Each single element can be paralleled by extracts from Jewish writings. The Lord's Prayer has often been spoken of as a Jewish mosaic. Two great Jewish prayers form its background: the Kaddish and the Shemoneh Esreh. Any originality in the Lord's Prayer must be sought in its composition as a whole, in its simplicity and brevity, in its comprehensiveness, and in the selection and exclusion of things prayed for. The Lord's Prayer is ascribed to Jesus by both Matthew and Luke as an utterance of his during his lifetime. It is known that some early rabbis composed their own favorite prayers. Jesus may have done the same, but to what extent the Lord's Prayer goes back to him cannot be stated with certainty. It may be that only the gist of the prayer comes from him, 18 or it may be characteristic of Jesus rather than an actual utterance of his,19 or the prayer may be a later Christian composition on the basis of sayings and thoughts which tradition ascribed to Jesus.20 Verses 14-15 are a comment on the fifth petition, "Forgive us our debts." It is a sort of aside here in Matthew, and it has a more natural place in 18:35 where the same basic thought is repeated. Like so many sayings in the 10

See above, footnote 11. Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 103f. Cf. Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu, p. 48. 19 Cf. Bultmann, Jesus, p. 166. 20 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 262; Abrahams, Studies, II, 101. 17

18

114

Β.tse-37

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Sermon on the Mount, it has a self-orientation.21 Forgiveness is treated entirely from the point of view of the one who forgives with no thought for the one forgiven. Mt 14-15 has a parallel in substance in Mk 11:25. Luke features forgiveness, both human and divine, in his Gospel to an extent that Matthew and Mark do not, yet this peculiar treatment of the theme (the divine forgiveness depends on the human willingness to forgive) nowhere appears in his Gospel. Mt 14-15 has numerous Jewish and rabbinical parallels; especially close is Sirach 28:2. 36. (c) Concerning Fasting Mt 6:16-18 This third strophe of Matthew's didactic poem is identical with the first two (2-6); only the theme is changed — fasting. The fasting here is not the great national fasts, nor does it seem to be the voluntary private fasting of the individual when struck by disaster. It seems rather to be the special fasting observed by sectarian groups. The comment ascribed to Jesus here is rabbinical in spirit,1 and from it one might suppose that Jesus' disciples would and did fast. However, according to Mt 9:14 neither they nor Jesus fasted during his lifetime. The only notice of Jesus fasting in the Synoptic tradition is in the temptation story of Matthew (4:2) and Luke (4:2), but this fasting seems to be part of an imaginary story, not a pious practice. Thus far in his Sermon on the Mount, Matthew has presented four clearly defined literary complexes. From this point on, however, this plan of composition does not appear, and sayings which originally were single and separate are only loosely strung together. Only toward the very end of the address is there some trace of arrangement according to subject sequence. The remainder of the central section (6:19-34) consists of four Q passages, each with a parallel in Luke; however, only two are joined in Luke and the four are scattered over three different chapters of his Gospel ( 11, 12, 16). 37. Concerning the Laying Up of Treasures Mt 6:19-21 Lk 12:33-34 ||251 There is a complete break between this passage and what precedes both in form and interest. Back of 19-20 is the oriental custom of accumulating wealth in kind — things which were exposed to deterioration, destruction, and theft. The idea that good deeds done on earth build up a treasure in heaven is generally Jewish and specifically rabbinical.1 Verse 21 was probably once a single separate saying on its own account. The thought in 19-20 is complete without it. Verse 21 is in the second person 21 What Cadbury calls the "self-regarding factor," The Peril of Modernizing Jesus, p. 106. 1 Cf. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 138. 1 Cf. Tobit 4:9; II Esdr 7:77; 8:33, 36; Apoc Bar syr 14:12-13; 24:1.

115

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 138-39

singular and cuts itself off from 19-20 which is in the second person plural. Furthermore, 21 has the nature of a proverb. It may have been joined on to 19-20 by verbal association (the word "treasure"), yet it does make a fitting conclusion for 19-20 which present two types of treasure with either of which the heart might be.2 38. The Parable of the Eye Mt 6:22-23 Lk 11:34-36 1J230 This is just another detached saying from Q which Matthew includes in his Sermon on the Mount. It did not belong to the Q form of the address, for Luke does not report it in his Sermon on the Plain but as a stray saying in his Great Non-Markan Section (9:51-18:14). Matthew introduces it here in an artificial context without transition or particle. The opening statement, "The lamp of the body is the eye," might be the germ-cell of a parable, but the rest of the passage is analogy or interpretation in the second person singular. This saying needs background in order to be clear. Some critics 1 simply give up all hope of discovering its true meaning. It is so neutral and colorless that it might come from almost any teacher of antiquity. 39. The Parable concerning Double Service Mt 6:24 Lk 16:13 j[283 This is another fragment in Matthew's mosaic, the Sermon on the Mount, and a stray saying in Luke's Great Non-Markan Section like the preceding. It is a good example of verbatim reading in Q matter in Matthew and Luke. However, each statement in this parable is so direct and pointed that no liberties can be taken with the text without weakening its forcefulness. The style is Hebraic with three parallel members and an application at the end (24b). In its thought it would join up better with the word on treasures (19-21) than it does with the parable of the eye (22-23). 1 The point to this parable is clear; it is one of those self-evident sayings that need no scene or setting. It is proverbial in nature, and it may have been originally a profane saying which was taken over by Jesus or the tradition and given a religious meaning (24b). 2 Religion in its purest and most powerful form confronts the individual with the alternative either-or, everything or nothing. There are other similar uncompromising utterances ascribed to Jesus in the Synoptic tradition. Some critics feel that this saying is autobiographical and that Jesus was just such a one-sided personality, utterly devoted to one thing to the exclusion of all else.3 In the Gospel picture of For a comparison of the two forms of this Q matter, see Lk 12:33-34 11251. Cf. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 98; Paul Fiebig, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu im Lichte der rabbinischen Gleichnisse des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters (Tübingen: Mohr, 1912), p. 151. 1 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 64; Wellhausen, Matihaei, p. 28; et al. 2 Cf. Bultmann, Jesus, p. 92. 11 Cf. Bultmann, Jesus, p. 74; Windisch, Der Sinn der Bergpredigt, p. 162. z 1

116

Β. 140

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Jesus as a whole there appears no distraction of interests, no dispersion of powers, no divided devotion, but rather a remarkable singleness of self which leaves the impression of a highly intense, yet wholly unified personality. The etymology of the word "mammon" is unknown. It may originally have been the name of some mythological god of wealth or riches. The term is not found in the Old Testament, but it appears frequently in later Jewish and rabbinical writings, where it is half-personified, as it is here, and includes not just wealth but all earthly possessions.4 40. Concerning Anxiety Mt 6:25-34 Lk 12:22-32 fl250 This passage concludes Matthew's great expansion of the Sermon on the Mount in its central section ( chapter 6 ). In Luke it is not a part of any special discourse but a detached unit in his Great Non-Markan Section ( 9 : 5 1 18:14). Except for different conclusions, Matthew and Luke read almost verbatim in this extract from Q. This piece of discourse begins with the word "therefore" in both Matthew and Luke (perhaps also in Q) as though it were the continuation of something that preceded or were a conclusion drawn from it. It is the longest single utterance ascribed to Jesus in the Synoptic tradition that does not have story or parable form. It has been described as a didactic poem 1 with 25 setting the theme which is developed in three strophes: 26-27; 28-30; 31-33. However, the flow of the thought is disturbed at three points. The first break comes in 27 which seems to be an intrusion and whose deletion would allow 26 and 28 to join naturally together. Verse 27 has a rather cynical tone and is commonplace in its wording.2 The second break comes in 33 which is neither organic to the whole nor the logical conclusion for what has preceded. The passage down through 32 presents a piece of religious wisdom, but in 33 the thought springs over into the realm of eschatology. Verse 34, the third break, is commonly regarded as a later supplement (without parallel in Luke) prompted by association of ideas: anxiety.3 However, 34 has a different sort of anxiety in mind than appears in the body of the passage: 25-32 concerns anxiety about material needs; 34, a general anxiety for the future. 34 itself probably contains two separate proverbs.4 The first (34a) is paradoxical: the morrow is both the subject and the object of anxiety. One might be skeptical of 34 going back to Jesus, for such Cf. Cf. 2 Cf. 3 Cf. 4 Cf. Message 4

1

Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 170. Windisch, Der Sinn der Bergpredigt, p. 17; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 262. Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 28; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 62. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 336; Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 65; et al. Bultmann-, Geschichte (1931), p. 77, 80; T. W. Manson, The Mission and of Jesus, p. 465.

117

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 4 1 - 5 0

proverbs have the least individuality of all sayings. Both statements in 34 may be fragments of profane wisdom. In 34b especially there seems to be a tinge of the pessimistic spirit of oriental fatalism. The verse has several rabbinical parallels.5 The passage as a whole is poetic and imaginative, sentimental rather than realistic or rationalistic. The birds and the flowers are vivid pictures, not proofs. This is one of the few passages in all the teachings ascribed to Jesus with direct observations on nature. It is a religious conception of nature, not the modern conception of nature as governed by law. Furthermore, it is not the modern aesthetic appreciation of natural beauty that expresses itself here, for this feeling was generally foreign to antiquity. It is rather the ancient Hebrew conception of God's relation to His creatures and His providence over them. The religious reasoning of this passage is not based on realistic observations of nature with its struggle for existence and its law of the survival of the fittest. It expresses rather a reverent resignation to that order. Human existence is not as simple as this passage assumes. Most human experience points in exactly the opposite direction. Yet even modern man who must work and earn, plan and save, whose life is mostly care for the morrow, can still appreciate its reverent spirit and literary beauty. There are numerous parallels in substance to this passage in the profane literature of the ancient world, but they are all precepts of practical worldly wisdom, for the most part without religious color or tone. Rabbinical parallels are also very common and share with this passage its religious motivation and spirit. One can be skeptical of this long passage as an authentic utterance of Jesus. Its length speaks against original oral composition and against later oral transmission. This length, as well as beauty in conception and style, suggest care in writing. It may be a later Christian literary product.® Mt 7:1-27 ί|41-50. With 7:1 Matthew rejoins the framework of the Q form of the address where he left it at the end of chapter 5 for his great expansion in 6:1-34. Six of the nine discourse units common to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and Luke's Sermon on the Plain are found in this last third of Matthew's form of the address, and, with one exception (the Golden Rule), these six appear in the same general sequence in both Matthew and Luke. Thus Matthew is closer to the lost Q form in chapter 7 than in chapters 5 and 6. 41. Concerning Judging Mt 7:1-2 Mk 4:24b |fl35; Lk 6:37-38 fllOO This Q saying on judging is preserved in briefer, simpler, and more impressive form in Matthew than it is in Luke.1 Only a fragment of this saying 6 β 1

Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 113. Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 367; Bultmann, Jesus, p. 148f. See the discussion of Luke's parallel: Lk 6:37-38 fllOO.

118

Β.142-45

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

has survived in the tradition that came down to Mark, the conclusion about measuring, with nothing about judging which is the whole point to the saying here in Matthew. This precept applies to the private practice of judging as is clear in what follows ( 7 : 3 - 5 ) . Behind this saying there is the strong religious feeling that judgment belongs to the perfect, hence to God alone. The second half of each statement uses the passive construction, and thus it avoids the use of the divine name. There are numerous rabbinical parallels.2 It may be that this saying was already formulated and current in Jesus' day and that he simply adapted it to his own purposes.3 42. The Parable of the Mote and the Beam Mt 7:3-5 Lk 6:41-42 p 0 3 This Q parable and the word on judging not only occur together in Matthew but they seem to belong together as the logical development of a single thought. Verses 1-2 say that men should not judge; 3-5 tell why they should not judge — because of their own imperfections. The two may even have been spoken together. Both belong to the Q form of the address, and Matthew and Luke agree very closely in the text of this parable. The first two sentences are interrogative, rhetorical questions; the last is imperative. Jesus makes frequent use of the interrogative and imperative forms of speech. The oriental mind generally had a fondness for these forms.1 The figures of the mote and the beam seem to have been proverbial. They are found in the rabbinical writings.2 43. Concerning the Desecration of the Holy Mt 7:6 This little saying, peculiar to Matthew, is an intrusive element at this point in the Sermon on the Mount, unrelated to what precedes and to what follows. It needs background, or application in a particular situation, in order to be clear. A retranslation has been suggested, substituting "jewels" for "that which is holy." 1 This would result in better balance between the two parts: "Give not your jewels unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine." This saying has rabbinical parallels and it might be of rabbinical origin.2 Or it might be a profane saying that has found its way into the body of Jesus' teaching. Mt 7:7-11 ][44r-á5. This passage is a Q expansion of the Q form of the address made by Matthew. Luke's parallel (11:9-13 |[217-218) comes early in his Great Non-Markan Section ( 9 : 5 1 - 1 8 : 1 4 ) where it is a part of no 2 Cf. * Cf. 1 Cf. 3 Cf. 1 Cf. ' Cf.

Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 145. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 471. Fiebig, Der Erzählungsstil der Evangelien, p. 24. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 146; Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 65. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 285. Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 67; Bacon, Studies in Matthew, p. 182.

119

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. |44-45

special address. This passage is made up of two units occurring together in both Matthew and Luke, and they must have occurred together in Q. Like 1-2 and 3-5, they seem to belong together as the logical development of a single thought. They, too, may have been spoken together — a possibility not often ventured of sayings found joined in the Synoptic tradition. This is the second time that Matthew has come upon the theme of prayer in his Sermon on the Mount (6:5-15). In their naïve trust these sayings recall 6:25-34 44. Concerning Asking, Seeking, Knocking Mt 7:7-8 Lk 11:9-10 fl217 This is another good example of verbatim reading between Matthew and Luke in reporting Q matter. This unit is composed of two triplets, each with three carefully balanced lines. Asking, seeking, and knocking are all metaphorical expressions for praying. It is the most naïve of the many reported words of Jesus on prayer. Isolated from what follows, it would seem almost fanatical, not only in what is claimed, but in what is ignored: it does not even consider the possibility of unanswered prayer. It runs exactly counter to the prayer-experience of the average devout person who often, in all honesty, wonders if any prayer is ever answered. Furthermore, it is not easily harmonized with other reported words of Jesus on prayer nor with some of his reported praying. 45. The Parable of the Requesting Son Mt 7:9-11 Lk 11:11-13 fl218 Matthew's simpler form of this parable is more forceful than the more elaborate form in Luke.1 The parable proper (9-10) has two parallel members with a religious conclusion drawn from it (11). The whole is developed in the interrogative, by rhetorical questions. The loaf and the stone may have been a proverbial combination. They occur together in the Q form of the temptation story of Matthew (4:3) and Luke (4:3). Bread and fish were also a familiar combination as the later feeding stories show. Furthermore, they were staple articles of food in Galilee. The religious reasoning in 11 is o minori ad majus ( from the lesser to the greater), from the familiar to the Eternal. Verse 11 modifies the naïve trust expressed in 7-8. This trust is now less in prayer as such, more in the goodness of the One to whom prayer is addressed. It is one of the finest expressions of Jesus' conception of God as Father. There is no trace of sectarianism: God is the heavenly Father of all, of believing and unbelieving, of the good and the evil. 1For

a comparison of the two forms, see Lk 1 1 : 1 1 - 1 3 11218.

120

Β.146-47

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

46. The Golden Rule Lk 6:31 fl98 Mt 7:12 The Golden Rule seems to be a primitive part of the Q form of this address, for Luke includes it in his Sermon on the Plain. However, it stands isolated in its present context in Matthew. It is not a conclusion drawn from what precedes as Matthew's "therefore" might suggest. It is not a transition or introduction to what follows. It is only a link in a chain of sayings. Matthew's conclusion, "for this is the law and the prophets," may be his own supplement. In 22:40 Matthew makes a similar addition to Mk 12:31. This Jewish conclusion is also found in Hillel's form of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule appears in five principal forms in Jewish and Christian literature. (1) "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Lev 19:18) — the most ancient Jewish form. (2) "What thou thyself hatest, do to no man" (Tob 5:15). (3) "Do not to your fellow what you would hate to have done to you. This is the whole Law, entire; the rest is explanation. Go, and learn" (Hillel). (4) The Synoptic form in Matthew and Luke. (5) "Whatsoever thou wouldst not have done to thyself, do not thou to another" (Didache i. 2). 1 The Golden Rule is not a social precept with a social motive. It does not lay down an altruistic principle with the good of others in mind. It is an appeal to self-consideration, and it has a self-orientation. It begins with self and ends with self. Bultmann 2 regards the Golden Rule as a saying of profane and pagan origin and as an expression of the "morality of naïve egoism." Renan 3 spoke of it as a "piece of ancient wisdom, still quite egoistic." Wellhausen 4 did not even deign to comment on the Golden Rule; he wrote, "A proverb (Tob 4:15), with a different context in Luke." With 7:13 Matthew seems to be conscious of the fact that he is coming toward the end of the address, and 7:13-27 might be regarded as an epilogue. The New Law, then, ends with a series of warnings and exhortations like the various codes of the Old Testament (Ex 20-23; Dt 12-18; Lev 17-26). 5 47. The Gate and the Way Mt 7:13-14 Lk 13:23-24 |f266 The forms of this saying in Matthew and Luke are so different that one might hesitate to ascribe them to a single source like Q.1 It has been suggested that Matthew may have converted the Q provocation (Luke's "Are 1 For other forms of this famous precept, see Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 150f; Fiebig, Jesu Bergpredigt, p. 143; Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 68. 2 Cf. Geschichte (1931), p. 107f. 3 Cf. Vie de Jésus, p. 82. 1 Cf. Matthaei, p. 31. 'Cf. A. H. McNeile, The Gospel according to St. Matthew (London: McMillan, 1928), p. 93. 1 For a comparison of the two forms, see Lk 13:23-24 |266.

121

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. |48-50

they few that are saved?") into a conclusion for the saying itself.2 Matthew's better balanced, more symmetrical form suggests conscious literary effort. Matthew's form, however, is not free from confusion. One contrast, the two gates or the two ways, not both, would be simpler. "Finding" is not logical in Matthew, for both gates and both ways are evident. The singular object ("it") at the end is strange. Is the antecedent the gate or the way? If both, then the plural "them" should be used. Originally the figure may not have been of two separate ways but that of a forked road.3 The figure of the two ways is common in ancient Jewish literature 4 but less frequent in the later Jewish and rabbinical writings.5 The saying as a whole expresses a cheerless, gloomy, and pessimistic conception of human destiny: only a few will be saved. Mt 7:15-27 fí48--50. Allowing for some slight elaboration, Matthew's Sermon on the Mount ends in substance with the same three discourse units as Luke's Sermon on the Plain (6:43-49) which must be a close approximation to the ending of the Q form of the address. 48. The Parable of the Tree and its Fruits Mt 7:15-20 Mt 12:83-35 fll23; Lk 6:43^5 p 0 4 The theme of the tree and its fruits makes only one appearance in Luke's Gospel (|[104); in Matthew, however, it makes two appearances, first toward the end of his Sermon on the Mount (ff48) and then toward the end of his Beelzebub section ( jf 123 ). What appears as a single utterance on this theme in Luke, appears as two independent and widely separated utterances in Matthew. However, it takes the two forms in Matthew to parallel the single form in Luke. Luke's single and simpler form is probably nearer Q. In 7:15-20 Matthew has exercised a strong editorial hand. In 15, without parallel in Luke, Matthew does what he so often does in his longer discourse sections: he forgets the situation in the life of Jesus and turns to his own readers and has Jesus address them. In 15 Jesus is not speaking to contemporary disciples: Matthew is warning his own contemporary Christians. Verse 15 assumes the existence of the early Christian community, a flock threatened by wolves in sheep's clothing. Matthew is not thinking of actual heresy but of false teachers within the church. In later passages of his Gospel (24:11, 24) Matthew predicts the appearance of false prophets in the future, but here in 7:15 they are already present and at their work. This must have been one of the latest passages to be formulated in the Gospel of Matthew.1 Cf. Cf. 4 Cf. 5 Cf. 1 Cf. 2 8

Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 381. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 382; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 287. Dt 11:26; 30:15; Jer 21:8. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 463; Fiebig, Jesu Bergpredigt, p. 145. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 64; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 75.

122

Β. 149

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

"By their fruits ye shall know them," with its striking axiomatic form and its repetition in 20, highlights the passage. It might be an authentic saying of Jesus, strangely absent in Luke's parallel passage, or it might be a formulation by Matthew himself.2 The primitive parable is found in Mt 16b + 18: "Do men gather grapes of thorns, orfigsof thistles? A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." This form of the parable must go back to Q, for Luke has an exact parallel. Verse 17 is a pedantic elaboration, perhaps by Matthew, which has no parallel in Luke and which breaks the natural connection between 16b and 18. It is 18, not 17, that carries out the thought of 16b. The imagery —figsand grapes, thorns and thistles — goes back to various Old Testament passages, and there are profane analogies in the literature of the ancient world.3 Verse 19 breaks the natural connection between 18 and 20. It is borrowed from the Baptist's sermon on repentance back in 3:10 (|[2). Thus Matthew continues to merge the messages of John and Jesus, sacrificing the originality and individuality of both. 49. The Warning against Self-delusion Mt 7:21-23 Lk 6:46 P05; 13:25-27 fl267 Luke in his Sermon on the Plain has a parallel only to Mt 21, and this short saying may go back to the Q address. Luke's parallel to Mt 22-23 comes much later, in his Great Non-Markan Section (9:51-18:14) where it is not associated with any special address. Both passages probably go back to Q, although Matthew and Luke disagree not only in form but even in thought and point. The situation of the preceding passage (7:15-20) is reversed: now it takes two widely separated discourse units in Luke to parallel what Matthew seems to regard as a single unit.1 That two separate discourse units have been joined here in Matthew is obvious, not only because they appear singly and separately in Luke, but because of their different nature and assumptions. Verse 21 remains within the Jewish religious perspective of Jesus: the will to be obeyed is that of the Father in heaven. The later Christian origin of 22-23 is clear in three things. ( 1 ) The Lord in 22-23 is the head of a cult about whom are gathered his religious adherents. (2) The name of Jesus is already a liturgical formula in preaching and healing. (3) In 23 Jesus speaks of himself in the first person ( "I" ) as the judge who will preside over eternal destiny "in that day" — a phrase borrowed from the prophetic writings of the Old Testament ( Isa 2:11, 17; Zech 14:6; etc.). Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 54. Cf. Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 70. 1 For a comparison, see Lk 6:46 1(105; 13:25-27 1(267. 2 8

123

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 150-51

50. The Parable of the Builders Mt 7:24-27 Lk 6:47-49 j|106 The address ends alike in both Matthew and Luke with the parable of the builders, and it must have concluded the Q form. Other major addresses of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition end with parables, and this phenomenon may reflect an actual practice of Jesus in concluding longer discourses. As the Old Testament law-books ended with blessings or curses for keeping or not keeping the commandments (Lev 26; Dt 28), so Matthew and Luke ( and Q ) conclude the New Law with promises for hearing and doing, with warning for hearing and not doing. The parable itself is developed by two contrasting word-pictures, one positive and one negative; it requires both to make the intended thought or point.1 This use of contrasting word-pictures is frequent in Jesus' parables. Each of the two word-pictures is introduced by what Strauss 2 called "a peroration": "Every one therefore who heareth these words of mine, and doeth them" (24a); . . . "and doeth them not" (26a). These two halfverses stand in sharp contrast with 21. In 21 it was the will of the Father that was to be obeyed; here, however, the teachings of Jesus are the New Law, the New Will, to be obeyed. This is the later Christian ethic of obedience to the words of Christ. Matthew is even more specific than Luke, "these words of mine," not Jesus' teachings in general but those in this particular address. There are rabbinical parallels to this parable.3 One or two of them are so similar that it might be thought that Jesus borrowed his parable from the rabbis. The practical point about hearing and doing, hearing and not doing, is thoroughly rabbinical. However, in the rabbinical writings the antithesis is usually between study and doing, learning and doing, with the emphasis falling on study and learning.4 51. The Impression on the Multitudes Mt 7:28-29 Mk 1:22 = Lk 4:32 fll2 In 28a the reader meets Matthew's famous transition formula for the first time: "And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words." It is a part of the structural scheme of Matthew's Gospel. It appears five times in Matthew's public story (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1), dividing it into six parts which, with the birth tradition (chapters 1-2), constitute the Seven Books of Matthew. In four of the five instances of its appearance (not in 11:1) it is a transition from a long discourse section back to narrative. This For a comparison of the two versions of the parable, see Lk 6:47-49 11106. Cf. Life of Jesus, p. 342. 3 Cf. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 55; Fiebig, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, p. 81. * Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 125; Rabbinic Literature, p. 154f. 1 2

124

B.Ï52

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

formula may go back to Q,1 but it seems more probable that it is Matthew's own literary device.2 There is only one approach to this formula in Luke, at the end of his Sermon on the Plain: "After he had ended all his sayings in the ears of the people" ( 7 : 1 ) . The first appearance of this formula here in Matthew constitutes the dividing line between Book II ( 3 : 1 - 7 : 2 7 ) and Book III ( 8 : 1 - 1 0 : 4 2 ) . In 28b-29 Matthew is using an extract from Mark (1:22) verbatim. Matthew omitted Mark's scene in the Capernaum synagogue (Mk 1:21-28 12), but he makes this one extract from that Markan passage. This constitutes positive proof that Matthew read Mark's day in Capernaum and deliberately passed it by. In Mk 1:22 this statement registered the impression left by Jesus' teaching in the Capernaum synagogue, but Matthew uses it to record the impression left by his Sermon on the Mount. Verses 28-29 are a postscript to the Sermon on the Mount and a companion-piece to 5:1-2. Together they round out Matthew's Sermon. However, this concluding notice is not entirely in harmony with 5:1-2. There Jesus seemed to be withdrawing from the multitudes to teach the disciples. Here at the end the disciples are forgotten, and the multitudes are in the foreground leaving the impression that the Sermon was in public, not in private. This discrepancy is due to the fact that Matthew is using a borrowed passage (Mk 1:22) which mentions the multitudes, not the disciples. In fact, it may have been Mk 1:22 that suggested to Matthew the idea of a great body of teaching at this early point in the story. The contrast with the scribes is not so appropriate for two reasons. ( 1 ) In Matthew the scene of the address is a mountain, not the synagogue where the scribes regularly taught. (2) Many sayings ascribed to Jesus in the Sermon have a scribal and rabbinical quality, suggesting likeness rather than contrast 52. The Cleansing of the Leper Mt 8:1-4 Mk 1:40-45 Lk 5:12-16 In Mark this story, along with the tour in 39, fills in the gap between Jesus' departure from Capernaum in 1:38 and his return in 2:1. However, there is no actual connection between the story of the leper and the tour in 39. Nothing in 40-45 suggests that Jesus is on an itinerant mission. The reader involuntarily associates the cure with the tour simply because it comes next, in spite of the fact that it has nothing to do with preaching in synagogues or the casting out of demons. The looseness of the story in relation to its present context in Mark proves its original separateness and isolation, which is also clear in the story's impersonal beginning: "There 1 Cf. Sir John C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2d ed.; Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1909), p. 165; Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 262. 2 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 645; Schlatter, Matthäus, p. 119.

125

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 5 2

cometh to him a leper." Circulated once as a single unit, it may have been narrated in the course of the early Christian sermon or used as a reading lesson in early Christian services of worship. In such circumstances interest centered on the story for its own sake apart from its context in the framework of events. The literary technique followed in the Gospel of Mark is the juxtaposition of units of tradition, or groups of units, which seldom give any data to aid in accurate topographical arrangement or correct chronological sequence.1 The story of the leper lacks completely the colorful type of conception and depiction which appeared in 1:29-38 (jf 13-15) where vivid items of time, place, and persons were prominent. The depiction here is not the sort that delights in introducing imaginative detail but a sort that concentrates on dialogue and action as the keys to the nature and character of the central figure. The story of the leper has its color, a new and different kind of color which subsequent stories in Mark also exhibit. This color belongs to the personality of the hero; it is psychological in nature. It involves the introduction of strong emotional affects as prompting or attending Jesus' speech and action: here, his compassion in 41; his anger in 43. Such emotional touches in narrative are what the professional historian calls lyrical distortion.2 It is not clear just where Mark's story of the leper ends. It could end with 44 (as it does in Matthew) with Jesus' key-utterance, as other Markan stories do, leaving 45 an editorial supplement.3 However, 45 seems to be in part a conclusion to the story in 40-44 and in part a general editorial comment. A number of Mark's stories come to an end by drifting off into generalities which seem to be aftermaths of the stories themselves.4 Verse 45 contains features which Mark as editor introduces repeatedly into his Galilean narrative: deliberate disobedience to Jesus' commands, the wide spread of Jesus' fame in spite of all the efforts to prevent it, and futile attempts to escape the multitudes.5 All such touches belong to imaginative depiction and serve to enhance the figure of the hero. The story of the leper as it now stands is not a unity in conception and depiction. It is in a state of confusion owing to the combination of elements which are not only in contrast but in contradiction to each other. There are two different centers of narrative interest: an actual cure of leprosy with Jesus in the role of healer, and a request from a cured leper to be pronounced clean with Jesus in the role of priest. The lack of unity is also clear Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, pp. 67f, 77. "Lyrical distortion exaggerates the intensity of the sentiments and the emotions." Langlois & Seignobos, The Study of History, p. 171. 3 Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 152; Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. S; et al. 4 Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 66. 5 Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 139; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 89; et al. 1

2

126

Β. 152

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

in the unprovoked swing from one emotional extreme to the other, from compassion to anger. Finally, the key-word in 44 is self-contradictory. The order for silence in 44a is immediately countermanded in 44b by the order to report to the priest for the benefit of some unidentified group ("for a testimony unto them"). The confusion in this story may be accounted for in two ways. ( 1 ) The story itself may have had a history. In an earlier form it involved nothing miraculous, for it told of a cured leper's request to Jesus to be pronounced clean. In the telling and retelling, this simple episode acquired miraculous proportions and became Jesus' cure of a leper.6 ( 2 ) This confusion could be due to the fact that two different versions of the story have been conflated. According to one version, a cured leper comes to Jesus to be pronounced clean and Jesus, in anger, sends him away to the priest as the law required. According to the second version, a leper comes to Jesus requesting cure and Jesus, in compassion, heals him and sends him away with the order to tell no one.7 The very idea of an instantaneous cure of leprosy puts this story of Mark in the category of fiction. From the standpoint of its primary purpose, it is a piece of didactic narration into which Mark has introduced certain phases of his messianic dogma. The anger in 43 is not a touch of realism, a natural human anger, for the leper says or does nothing to provoke it. It is the dogmatic anger of the mystery-Messiah whose incognito is threatened with each new act of power.8 The command for silence (44a) also belongs to Mark's dogma of the Messiah. Heretofore, such orders have involved only the demons. Now they are associated with wonder-works other than expulsions. Later in Mark they will appear in connection with scenes and sayings which do not involve wonder-works at all. The order to report to the priest in 44b has a clear apologetical note. It is a defense against criticism. It assumes that Jesus' reputation for liberality over against the law of Moses is already established. It requires the background of later sections of Mark, even teachings of Jesus that Mark does not report at all. The defense here is rather strange, for it asserts Jesus' conformity to the ritualistic side of the law, when, as a matter of fact, the Synoptic tradition as a whole locates the issue elsewhere: the interpretation of moral and ethical precepts and the observance of religious customs and practices. The order to report to the priest does not have the originality and spontaneity of an oral utterance in an actual situation. It has a solemn tone, an officious quality, as though a group, not an individual, were speaking. Verse 44b and the leper story as a whole presuppose an organized opposition " Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 53; Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 89f; et al. 7 Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 44f. 8 Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 35.

127

JESUS A N D THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 152

represented in the phrase "for a testimony unto them." This story of Mark must have taken its present form in an ultra-conservative Jewish-Christian environment. 9 Matthew and Luke reproduce the leper story from Mark in Mark's order. Matthew is returning to the order of Mark after his long first digression (the Sermon on the Mount) between Mk 1:39 and 40. Luke has made only one insert at this point in the Markan framework, the calling of the first disciples in 5:1-11 (fll7). Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in one important item: the compassion and the anger are omitted. If this were the only instance it would not be important, but again and again the emotional color of Mark's story is absent in Matthew and Luke. High emotional color characterizes Mark's Gospel as a whole. Mark often has Jesus speaking and acting at the impulse of a wide range of what is ordinarily regarded as natural and normal human emotion, even the stronger emotions like anger and love. This gives Mark's picture of Jesus, at many points, a human and realistic quality. In Matthew and Luke there is not only much less of this emotional color, but what there is lacks variety. One might almost speak of a monotony in Jesus' emotions as depicted by Matthew and Luke. The affects which they note are almost entirely of the same type: sympathy, pity, compassion. The total result in Matthew and Luke is a less realistic and a more idealistic picture of Jesus. It has been thought that Matthew and Luke were offended at the stronger and sterner emotions ascribed to Jesus in Mark and that they simply omitted them from their reproductions. However, if this is so, it is strange that they should so often concur in these deletions. Furthermore, not only the stronger but also the milder emotions in Mark fail to reappear in the parallels of Matthew and Luke. In the leper story compassion (Mk 41 ) disappears from Matthew and Luke as well as the anger ( 43 ). The most probable explanation of this total phenomenon is that the high emotional color now present in Mark was not in the Mark known to Matthew and Luke, and that it is due to a process of retouching by some later redactor of Mark's Gospel.10 Lk 5:12-16. Luke's special differences from Mark are at the beginning and the end of the story. In 12 Luke reaches back beyond 5:1-11 ( P 7 ) and links the leper story with the tour in 4:44 (1fl6) : Jesus is in "one of the cities," apparently on this tour. In 15-16 Luke completely revises Mark's conclusion (1:45). In Mark the cured leper disobeys Jesus and spreads the report; in Luke the rumor spreads as rumors do, and Jesus' order is not disobeyed by the leper. In Mark Jesus' attempt to escape the people is frustrated; they seek him out in the desert. In Luke Jesus succeeds in escaping ' Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 147. Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 74; Hauck, Markus, p. 29.

10

128

Β. 152

THE P U B L I C TRADITION

the multitudes and retreats to the desert to pray. This is the second notice of prayer which Luke has introduced where Matthew and Mark have none (Lk 3:21). This may not, however, be a new notice but a delay of Mark's notice of prayer in 1:35 (j|15) which Luke did not reproduce. This notice in 5:16 may be Luke's compensation for that omission. Mt 8:1-4. Matthew's changes in Mark's leper story are also at the beginning and at the end. In 1 Matthew gives the story a setting in time and place; he connects it with the Sermon on the Mount, "when he was come down from the mountain." Thus Matthew joins unjoined materials in Mark, but the order for silence in Matthew loses its point (4): the cure takes place in the presence of "great multitudes" (1). Matthew omits Mark's aftermath (1:45) to the story entirely. As a Jewish Christian, Matthew may have seen the highpoint in Jesus' key-utterance (4) and his compliance with the law of Moses. Furthermore, Matthew has no liking for the disobeyed orders and the frustrated plans of Jesus as depicted by Mark. An escape from the people does not fit in with Matthew's plan in the long series of public wonder-works just beginning, and the very next story of Matthew has Jesus in a city, in Capernaum. The story of the leper opens Book III of Matthew ( 8 : 1 - 1 0 : 4 2 ) which falls into two parts: an elaborate series of wonder-works in 8 : 1 - 9 : 3 4 and the address to the twelve in 9:36-10:42. The dividing line between these two parts is found in 9:35. Book III of Matthew reports only five small units in Mark's order ( 59, 60, 61, 62 ) for the very simple reason that he is following a topical method of composition. With 8:1 and the leper story Matthew begins the second phase of his twofold plan set forth in 4:23-25 (fíl6): after a long section illustrating Jesus' teaching (the Sermon on the Mount), Matthew begins a long series of ten wonder-works ( 8 : 1 - 9 : 3 4 ) . All but four units in this section (1f56, 60, 61, 62) bear directly on this wonder-work theme. The leper story is not only the first in the series, but it is the first cure ascribed to Jesus in Matthew's Gospel. It may be that Matthew is not only looking backward to his plan announced in 4:23-25 but that he is looking ahead as far as 11:5 and building background for what Jesus says there: "The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up." 11 The number ten for this cycle of wonder-works may have been suggested to Matthew by Jewish tradition. Pirqe Aboth (5 and 8) speaks of ten miracles in Egypt, ten by the sea, and ten in the sanctuary.12 Matthew's ten wonderworks represent all three of his basic sources: two are from Q, one is peculiar to Matthew, and seven are from Mark. Only two of the seven Markan wonCf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 294; Goguel, Introduction, I, 401f; et al. " Cf. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 167; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 72. u

129

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. ^ 5 3 - 5 8

der-works are reported in Mark's order (|f52, 59); five are transposed — one Mark reported earlier (t[13) and four Mark reports much later (jf146-148). The special reason for these transpositions is that Matthew is collecting and compiling topically, under the same general heading. Matthew's literary work does not confine itself to transposing these Markan stories; he greatly condenses and abridges the individual story, often in a radical fashion. In Matthew these stories lose much of the detail, color, and drama that they possess in Mark. Matthew, in each instance, is interested only in the bare account of the wonder-work; he is not interested in the devices of the storyteller.13 Mt 8:5-34 H53-58. After his first digression in 5 : 1 - 7 : 2 9 between Mk 1:39 and 40, Matthew returned to the order of Mark for the leper story, and then at once he starts on his second digression in 8:5-34 between Mk 1:45 and 2:1. This second digression is shorter than the first; it includes only six units, of which two are from Q and four are transposed Markan stories. Mark and Luke go directly from the story of the leper ( 1{52 ) to that of the paralytic ( 1{59 ), but in Matthew these two stories are separated and spread apart by his second digression ( |[53—58 ) : 1153-58

1152 1159

Mt 8: 1-4 5-34 9: 1-8

Mk

1:40-45

Lk

2: 1-12

5:12-16 17-26

53. The Centurion of Capernaum Mt 8:5-13 Lk 7:1-10 If 107; 13:28-29 H268 This is the second of Matthew's ten wonder-works, and it opens Matthew's second digression. However, it is clear in the story itself that Matthew has reported this particular wonder-work too early. The story assumes that Jesus is widely known as a healer; otherwise, the centurion would not have come to him.1 Furthermore, Jesus' key-utterance in 10 assumes an earlier eventful experience in public in which he has learned what sort of faith exists in Israel and that it is excelled by that of the centurion.2 Luke reports this story in his Small Non-Markan Section ( 6 : 2 0 - 8 : 3 inserted after Mk 3:19a) where it follows immediately upon the Sermon on the Plain. Even in Matthew this story is separated from the Sermon on the Mount by only six Markan verses ( 7 : 2 8 - 8 : 4 ) . In Q, then, it must have followed at once upon this address. This story is commonly assigned to Q in which narrative is rare, and cures still more rare ( only two ). Two things might account for the presence of this story in Q. (1) It centers on a striking word of Jesus (10) which Cf. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 158; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 290. Cf. Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, II, 199. 2 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 23; Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 35.

ω

1

130

Β.154-55

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

would not be clear without the narrative setting which showed who possessed this faith and under what circumstance it asserted itself. ( 2 ) The story as a whole is a piece of didactic narration; the fact that it involves a wonder-work is only incidental. The two forms of this story in Matthew and Luke are so different that some critics 3 hesitate to assign them to the same source. Others 4 explain the two forms by having Matthew and Luke use different versions of Q. Still others 5 feel that only the key-word of Jesus ( 10 ) came down to Matthew and Luke with little or no narrative framework which they supplied independently, each in his own way. Matthew and Luke agree almost verbatim in the dialogue. Their differences are in the narrative framework leading up to and following it.6 Both Matthew and Luke locate the story in Capernaum; this probably goes back to their source. This is Matthew's first mention of Capernaum since Jesus established his residence there in 4:13 ( f 9 ) . The Greek word translated "servant" in verses 6, 8, and 13 can also mean "child" or "son." One of the latter meanings would be preferable, for in 9 the centurion himself uses a different term for "servant," the literal Greek term and not the one used of the sick person in 6 and 8. Verses 11-12 are really separate and unorganic to this story. They are not a part of this story in Luke but form an isolated discourse unit reported much later (13:28-29 f268). Incorporated in this story as it is in Matthew, this saying shifts the interest still further from the cure and highlights the intended lesson. Such anti-Jewish, pro-Gentile sayings never appear in Mark; however, they form a thin but strong thread running through the Gospel of Matthew (the most Jewish of the Gospels!). This passage contains expressions typical of Matthew but rarely or never occurring in Mark or Luke: "outer darkness," "sons of the kingdom," "weeping and gnashing of teeth," the last a sixfold refrain in Matthew's Gospel. Stories of healing at a distance are found in non-Christian writings of the ancient world. In the Synoptic tradition there are only two, this centurion story from Q and the cure reported by Mark in 7:24-30 (j{168). Mt 8:14-17 j|54-55. These two little units along with Mt 7:28-29 are the only remnants of Mark's day in Capernaum to survive in Matthew, and they furnish definite proof that Matthew read the Capernaum sequence in Mark and bypassed it intentionally. Matthew keeps the two units together (1(54-55) as they were in Mark earlier (|f 13-14). Transposed to this later point, they become a part of his collection of wonder-works in 8 : 1 - 9 : 3 4 . 3 4 5 8

Cf. Spitta, Streitfragen, p. 32. Cf. NcNeile, Matthew, p. 103; Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 229. Cf. Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 112; Dibelius, Die Botschaft, p. 132. For a comparison of the two forms, see Lk 7 : 1 - 1 0 If 107.

131

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 5 4 - 5 6

54. The Cure of Simon's Wife's Mother Mk 1:29-31 = Lk 4:38-39 fll3 Mt 8:14-15 In Mark Jesus comes to Simon's house (1:29) almost immediately after Simon's call (1:16-20). In Matthew a great mass of matter intervenes between Simon's call (4:18-22) and Jesus' first visit to his home (8:14-15). During this long interval the disciples have not been mentioned in Matthew as in Jesus' company, except as the editorial audience for the Sermon on the Mount (5:1-2). In Matthew this cure has no connection with the sabbath. Jesus seems to come to Peter's house alone; even Peter's presence is not noted here in Matthew. This is the third in Matthew's cycle of ten wonder-works. This little story is brief in Mark, but Matthew condenses Mark's account by half. In Matthew Jesus takes the initiative without being informed (Mark) or besought (Luke) by anyone. Matthew agrees with Mark in the method of cure (touch) against Luke (word). In Matthew the cured woman ministers to Jesus (Mark and Luke, "them") as though no others were present. However, Matthew often brings Jesus into the extreme foreground to the neglect of others present. 55. Cures of the Sick in the Evening Mk 1:32-34 = Lk 4:40-41 fll4 Mt 8:16-17 Matthew here condenses three verses of Mark into one (16) with the result that the detail, color, and realism of Mark disappear: the sunset, the scene at Simon's door, the commands for silence to the demons. Matthew, like Luke, removes Mark's implied limitation of Jesus' healing power: many are brought; all are healed. In Matthew it is not clear why the sick are not brought until evening; Matthew has not told his readers that it is a sabbath. Matthew singles out the demoniacs, but he does not reproduce Mark's dogma of the demons (1:34b). As yet Matthew has reported no actual cases of expulsion. The healing of the sick is mentioned last because the Isaiah passage (53:4) applies to them, not to the demoniacs. The Isaiah passage is another of Matthew's proofs from prophecy introduced at will in the course of the story. No night follows this evening in Matthew as it does in Mark (1:35). This little Markan notice about many cures fits into the wonderwork theme of this section of Matthew. 56. Would-be Disciples Mt 8:18-22 Lk 9:57-62 fl202 Why these Q sayings should appear just here in the midst of the great cycle of wonder-works is one of the mysteries in the composition of Matthew. The first saying is especially inappropriate here: why should Jesus feel utterly homeless in Capernaum (8:5) which, since 4:13, has been his home? Furthermore, such drastic demands are out of place at this early point in the story. Jesus here is made to speak as one who has burned his bridges behind

132

Β.157-58

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

him, as one for whom there is no turning back. Such sayings need a background of crisis or the prospect of danger ahead. Luke has a better place for these sayings: they come at the beginning of the fateful journey to Jerusalem.1 In Matthew there is no evident reason why Jesus should all at once leave Capernaum. Matthew here is not thinking in terms of continuity and sequence; he is getting ahead to new wonder-works. Matthew's setting ( 18 ) is taken from the beginning of the next story; the command in Mk 4:35 is brought forward: Jesus is on the point of departure, a situation calculated to provoke the offers to follow him. This Q passage centers on two sayings which originally may have been single and separate, and only later brought together to form a double episode. The two episodes in Matthew have grown to three in Luke, the final stage in the process of compilation. The sayings in 20 and 22 are the primitive elements, and they may once have been without scene or setting. The provocations may have been devised for them, each saying forming the nucleus for the creation of an episode. The first saying (20) is a cynical, pessimistic comment on the human lot: the birds and the beasts are better off than human kind. It may originally have been a profane saying which became a word of Jesus through a misunderstanding of the term son of man. In its profane form the term meant simply "man," but for the early Christians the term Son of man was a messianic formula and the saying as a whole seemed to fit the lowly lot of Jesus.2 The second saying (22) has a proverbial ring to it, and it may go back to an Aramaic proverb: "Let the dead past bury its own dead." Not a few critics 3 hesitate to ascribe either of these sayings to Jesus because they are so profane and so un-Jewish. Renan felt that "these dreadful sayings . . . should lie dormant in profound oblivion. . . . Common sense revolts against such excess." 4 Mt 8:23-34 fl57-58. Matthew completes his second digression (8:5-34) by reaching deep into Mark's Galilean story for the fourth and fifth wonderworks in his series. In Mark (and Luke) these two stories are the first half of a later, longer narrative sequence associated with a round trip across the sea of Galilee (fll46-148). In Mark (and Luke) Jesus stills the storm during the crossing ( If 146 ) ; on the eastern shore he heals the demoniac ( if 147 ) ; on returning to the western shore he heals a woman and raises a child from the dead ( jfl48). Matthew does two things to this later sea sequence of Mark. ( 1 ) He brings all three stories with their four wonder-works forward to this early point as a part of his cycle of ten wonder-works in 8 : 1 - 9 : 3 4 . *For fuller notes, see Lk 9:57-β2 1Γ202. 3 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 58; Jesus, p. 47. * Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 50; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 133. 4 Vie de Jésus, p. 315.

133

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 157-58

(2) Matthew splits this Markan sequence in half. The first two wonderworks conclude his second digression (j|57-58); the last two come at the beginning of his third digression ( 1J63 ). In Matthew the two halves of this sea sequence are separated by the first three of the five controversies ( fl5962), the next section of Mark (2:1 - 3:6) :

lf59-62

I-III

Matthew If 57 1T58

Mark and Luke Ρ 46 11147

If63

1fl48

In these transpositions of extensive Markan matter the chief feature of Matthew's reproduction is condensation. The fifty verses of Mark's sequence are reduced to twenty-one in Matthew. The gist of the individual stories remains the same, but Mark's picturesque detail and color disappear. These abridgements are skillfully done, in fact, so much so that earlier critics (like Strauss and Zahn) were led to regard the briefer, simpler versions of Matthew as more primitive and to accept Matthew as the basic Synoptic source with Mark only a secondary embellished version of Matthew. Today Matthew's abridgements are not regarded as improvements. 57. The Stilling of the Storm Mt 8:23-27 Mk 4:35^tl = Lk 8:22-25 1[146 In Mark this story and the whole sea sequence ( 4 : 3 5 - 5 : 4 3 ) follow the day of parables (4:1-34). In Matthew this story and the split sequence come in chapters 8 and 9; the day of parables comes much later, chapter 13. In Matthew the stilling of the storm is the fourth in his cycle of ten wonderworks, and he does less abridgement in this first story than in the two which follow (IJ58 and j|63). Matthew agrees with Luke (8:22) in noting the presence of the disciples; Mark has an indefinite "they" throughout and no mention of the disciples. Matthew omits the command in Mk 4:35; he used it to introduce the preceding unit (8:18). In Matthew Jesus rebukes the disciples and then stills the storm; in Mark (and Luke) he stills the storm and then rebukes the disciples. The strangest feature in Matthew is that he begins the story with "the disciples" (23) and ends with "the men" (27) who speak of Jesus as though he were a stranger to them. Matthew seems to hesitate to ascribe such a statement to the disciples. 58. The Gadarene Demoniacs Mt 8:28-34 Mk 5:1-20 = Lk 8:26-39 fll47 Matthew mentioned the expulsion of demons in 4:24 and 8:16 but this is his first expulsion story, and it is the fifth in his cycle of ten wonder-works. Mark's story of twenty verses is reduced to seven by Matthew, but he does

134

Β.159-62

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

not treat all parts of the story alike. He condenses the first half of Mark's story (ten verses) into two verses. The episode of the swine, 11-14 of Mark, for some strange reason, he reproduces almost line for line. The last six verses of Mark (15-20) he omits except for one-half verse. In general, Matthew's changes are not improvements, rather Verschlimmbesserungen. Matthew has two demoniacs where Mark (and Luke) have one. Matthew is fond of double cures. There are three such instances in his Gospel (1(58, 1164, 11316), two of which are doublings of Mark (1J58, 1f316). There are no cures of two persons at once in Mark or Luke.1 The two demoniacs here in Matthew may be a compensation for the omission of the expulsion story in Mk l:23-28. 2 If this is the case, then Matthew conflates stories as well as sayings. Matthew omits Mark's description of the insane behavior of the demoniac. Two demoniacs might not act alike although they think alike and say the same thing in unison ( 29 ). Matthew also omits the name Legion and the dialogue built up around it (Mk 5:9), also the scene between Jesus and the cured man in Mk 5:18-20. Matthew is interested only in the accomplished wonder-work. 1159-62,90-91

Mt 9:1-17 12:1-14

Mk 2 : 1 - 3 : 6

Lk 5 : 1 7 - 6 : 1 1

Mk 2 : 1 - 3 : 6 . This section of Mark stands out as a separate block of matter apart from its present context. It is cut off from what precedes by the editorial notice in 1:45 and from what follows by a more expansive editorial summary in 3:7-12. This section of Mark also introduces a new type of material which sets itself off from its immediate surroundings. The section includes two healings, but they are secondary in interest and importance to the dialectical materials associated with them. This section of Mark is made up of single episodes, each a little drama in itself, each developed by dialogue and monologue, each reaching its climax in a key-word of Jesus. Dibelius 1 classifies such units as paradigms; Bultmann,2 as apothegms. It is by this means, a striking saying imbedded in a bit of graphic narrative, that Mark presents much of his inadequate record of Jesus' teaching. Some of the sayings ascribed to Jesus in episodes of this type are doubtless pronouncements of the later Christian group. On general principles, the professional historian is skeptical of epigrammatic sayings that appear in traditional anecdotes, for they are as often fictitious as they are authentic.3 Mk 2 : 1 - 3 : 6 is a topical, not a chronological, grouping of incidents. It is similarity of subject matter and common character that brings them toLuke has one mass cure, the ten lepers in 17:11-19 H293. Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, I, 497; Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 70; et al. 1 Cf. Tradition to Gospel, pp. 37-69. ä Cf. Geschichte (1931), pp. 8-73. * Cf. Vincent, Historical Research, p. 34. 1

2

135

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. T[59-62

gether as a group. Each of the episodes is complete in itself, and originally they circulated separately and independent of each other. Mark himself may have collected and arranged them in the present series.4 Or, he may have found them already compiled in written form and simply incorporated them en bloc.5 They may even have formed a skeleton group in oral form.® The last two units of the series were probably the first to be brought together, for they involve the same specific issue, that of sabbath breaking. This section of Mark is the product of a highly subjective operation, selecting and grouping. Consequently, no historical or biographical conclusions are to be drawn from it. There is no reason to suppose that the opposition to Jesus began at this early point, that it came in such a concentrated form, or that all of these conflicts occurred together in rapid succession. From the standpoint of the issues involved, any one of the five might belong to almost any part of the Galilean story. No one of the five can be localized as early, intermediate, or late. Mark does not depict a gradual, growing opposition to Jesus. He simply introduces these controversies at this early point with his usual abruptness and his habitual disregard for genetic treatment. From the point of view of dramatic conception and depiction, this section of Mark belongs to the rising action in the story, and it introduces the opposing forces. Mark has this series culminate in a crisis, in a plot against Jesus' life (3:6). This, however, is not borne out by the single stories nor by their grouping. It is true that the opponents, from scene to scene, become more and more direct in their criticisms.7 Nevertheless, there is no dramatic progression, no mounting tension, from episode to episode, welding them into an organic whole. From the standpoint of the seriousness of the issues involved, the arrangement is really an anticlimax. The gravest charge of all (blasphemy) comes in the very first encounter (Mk 2:1-12); the fifth and last of the series is the least critical.8 The five encounters are not articulated parts of a whole; they are only loosely joined together. The word "again" as a link between episodes occurs three times within the series (2:1; 2:13; 3:1); it is not a link in a time sequence but a cataloguing device. Actually, it highlights the original detachment and isolation of the several stories.9 Allowing for natural variations and obvious expansions, these stories have a striking similarity of structure. It is the favorite threefold scheme of ancient drama. Each begins ( 1 ) with a situation which provokes (2) a critical com4

Cf. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 95; J. Weiss, Das älteste

p. 1 6 1 ; et al.

Cf. ' Cf. 7 Cf. 8 Cf. " Cf. p. 263. 5

Evangelium,

Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 374; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 104; et al. Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 104ff. Klostermann, Markus, p. 25; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 49. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 154. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 126f; Wendland, Die urchristlichen Literaturformen,

136

Β.159-62

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

ment, often a question, of the opponents to which ( 3 ) Jesus replies, often in the form of a counter-question. The most primitive and authentic element in this structure is the third, the key-word of Jesus. In some cases, the scene in which the key-word is set seems organic to the saying, as though they belong together. In other cases, however, there is no necessary connection between scene and saying. The scene seems secondary, a piece of invented composition intended to provide a setting for a discourse fragment which originally had no narrative framework. The practical concerns and interests of the early Christian community have asserted themselves, not only in the individual stories, but in the series as a whole. Some of the episodes reflect the situation of the later Christian church over against an unsympathetic and critical environment. They have an apologetical, even polemical, note. Other episodes pertain to problems and issues within the Christian community itself. The very fact that it is so often the conduct of the disciples, not that of Jesus, which is questioned would point to the Christian origin and formulation of the stories. Didactic aims and purposes, catechetical needs and practices, have helped bring these units of tradition together. At no point in his Gospel does Mark give his readers a formal delineation of Jesus' character and personality. He leaves the reader to gather his impressions of Jesus in single scenes and episodes, in particular from his speech and action within them. The professional historian would describe this method as sampling.10 Such a treatment is kaleidoscopic, yet the reader does gather certain very definite and clear-cut impressions of Jesus as a historical character. Lk 5 : 1 7 - 6 : 1 1 . Luke respects Mark's grouping in 2 : 1 - 3 : 6 . He incorporates it en bloc and reports it incident for incident in Mark's order. However, Luke treats the section less as a topical grouping and more as a temporal sequence by joining the first three episodes more closely together in point of time.11 In Luke the series receives less of a dramatic treatment because of Luke's modification of Mark's conclusion and climax (Mk 3:6 = Lk 6:11 H91). Mt 9:1-17 12:1-14. Matthew shows no real interest in Mark's collection of controversies as a larger complex. He breaks it up as he did Mark's day in Capernaum (1:21-38) and later his sea sequence ( 4 : 3 5 - 5 : 4 3 ) . Matthew splits the five controversies into two parts. He reports the first three in Mark's order (j[59-62) in the midst of his cycle of wonder-works where only the story of the paralytic is appropriate.12 The last two he also reports in Mark's •10 Cf. F. M. Fling, Outline of the Historical Method (Lincoln: J. H. Miller, 1899), p. 120. 11 Cf. Fascher, Die formgeschichtliche Methode, p. 134. 12 Cf. Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 15.

137

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 159

order (|j90-91); Jesus' sayings on the sabbath seemed more important to Matthew than the one cure ( j[91 ), and he includes both sabbath controversies in his anti-Pharisaic section (chapter 12). 1 3 Matthew's long third digression ( 9 : 1 8 - 1 1 : 3 0 ) separates the first three conflicts at the beginning of chapter 9 from the last two at the beginning of chapter 12: Matthew

Mark

I-III 9:18-11:30 IV-V

Luke 5:17-6:11

I-V

The key to these broken Markan complexes in Matthew and to his digressions from Mark is the topical method of composition which dominates the first half of his public story. 59. The Cure of the Paralytic I. Mt 9:1-8 Mk 2:1-12 Lk 5:17-26 There is a complete break in Mark's narrative between 1:45 and 2:1. In 1:45 the story comes to a full stop; 2:1 marks a fresh start. The newness of 2:1 is clear in its lack of harmony with what has preceded. Jesus is again in Capernaum in spite of his resolve to preach elsewhere seven verses back (1:38). This second visit to Capernaum contradicts what was stated in the preceding verse: he "could no more openly enter into a city" (1:45). The editor at work in 2:1-2 is not thinking of what has gone before but of what he is about to report in 2:3-12. In spite of these inconsistencies, 2:1-2 seems to come from the same editorial hand that was at work in chapter 1. The scene in 2:1-2 is virtually a repetition of the scene in 1:33. Here Jesus is preaching "the word" in the same absolute sense he was preaching "the gospel" back in 1:14-15 —both termini technici of the early Christian faith — and both are placed proleptically in the account of Jesus' public work. In 2:1-2 there is the same neglect of Jesus' actual message that appeared in 1:21-22, also the same disposition to dismiss Jesus' teaching with a mere notice in order to feature a wonderwork. "The house" mentioned is not particular or concrete like Simon's house in verse 29. "The house" here is purely editorial; like "the desert," "the seaside," "the mountain," it is always at the editor's disposal.1 The house was suggested by the story in 3-12 and is necessary to it — the breaking up of the roof. Verses 1-2 are the contribution of the editor, providing a setting for the story in 3-12. The story is timeless and placeless except for the house. It began impersonally as it now does in 3: "And they come, bringing unto him a man sick of the palsy," as did the preceding story of Mark: "And thdre 13 1

Cf. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 128. Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 14; Loisy, Marc, p. 83.

138

Β. 159

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

cometh to him a leper." The body of the story in 3-12 is older than its setting in 2:1-2. These two verses were added when the editor took the isolated story in 3-12 and fitted it into his larger narrative, his Gospel as a whole. 2 The question of the unity of Mk 2:1-12 is not settled by cutting off 1-2 as an editorial contribution. Verses 3-12 themselves lack unity of conception. Two very different dogmatic interests cross each other: the cure in 3-5a -f 11-12; and the controversy in 5b-10. The whole point at the beginning ( 3-5a ) is the faith of the four, so graphically dramatized in action; in 5b-10 this faith is not even mentioned. The dramatic tension in 3-5a is built up to a climax, and the reader awaits the healing word of Jesus. However, this healing word does not come until verse 11, and Jesus in 5b-10 indulges in a dogmatic discussion of his right to forgive sins. The tardy introduction of Jesus' critics (the scribes) in the middle of the story (6) makes it clear that they belong to the controversy, not to the story of the cure. If they belonged to the whole, they should have been mentioned at the beginning and their reactions noted at the end. The transition in Jesus' speech from 10, addressed to the scribes in the plural, to 11, addressed to the paralytic in the singular, is so awkward that it could not be covered up. The parenthesis ("he saith unto the sick of the palsy") is pure patchwork and reads like a stage direction. Finally, the public reaction at the end ( 12b ) is not to the controversy but to the cure; it ignores the controversy, which is inconceivable, had it actually taken place. Jesus' claim in 10 would be blasphemy, not only for the scribes, but for every devout Jew present. The public has no place in the controversy; the scribes have no place in the cure. This confusion in 3-12 indicates that the cure and the controversy were not conceived together with a view to each other. The controversy in 5b-10 is a later secondary development that has been superimposed upon the story of the paralytic. It can be lifted, leaving 3-5a + 11-12 a complete and self-contained unit of narration: 3 3 And they come, bringing unto him a man sick of the palsy, borne of four. 4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed whereon the sick of the palsy lay. 5 And Jesus seeing their faith saith unto the sick of the palsy, . . . 11 Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house. 12 And he arose, and straightway took up the bed, and went forth before them all; inasmuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion. Thus reconstructed, the story of the paralytic is a homogeneous, wellbalanced unit; it can stand alone. The controversy, however, is not complete 2

Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 79. 'Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 6f; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 50. Some critics protest against the deletion of 5b-10; see Fascher, Die formgeschichtliche Methode, p. 123; Vincent Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London: Macmillan, 1933), p. 68.

139

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B. 159

in itself but a mere torso. It cannot stand alone; it requires the support of the story of the cure. It is a parasitical growth which attached itself to the cure of the paralytic as the vision and the voice in Mk 1:10-11 attached itself to the notice of Jesus' baptism by John in Mk 1:9. However, the controversy has prevailed over the cure and reduced it to mere background and provocation. The controversy in 5b-10 is not one that confronted Jesus during his lifetime. The whole perspective is that of the later Christian community confronted with a critical, perhaps even a hostile, environment. There can be no doubt about the organic connection between this controversy and early Christian preaching.4 The forgiveness of sins through Jesus was a basic theme of the primitive Christian message. However, the forgiveness of sins in 5b-10 is not the primitive proclamation of this theme but a defense of that proclamation. The protest in 7 is not one that Jesus heard during his lifetime but a Jewish recoil to the later Christian proclamation, which is branded as blasphemy. Christian preaching on this theme has reached the apologetical stage. It defends not only Jesus* authority to forgive sins but also the Christian right to proclaim it. The scene as it is now depicted lacks reality. It is a controversy in idea only, not in technique. The opposition does not become vocal. There is no actual exchange in dialogue and debate. Jesus replies openly and publicly to unexpressed criticisms, to the mental comments of the scribes. The reader witnesses a scene in 5b-10 which was not enacted anywhere except in the pious imagination.5 The Christian origin of the key-utterance in 10 is clear in the fact that Jesus is made to speak of himself as the Son of man, which he was in early Christian belief. Jesus himself may have used this term objectively in its various Jewish senses, but it is inconceivable that he ever spoke of himself as the Son of man in any sense.6 The fact that the term appears in the Gospels only on the lips of Jesus and, with a few exceptions, only in private words to the disciples,7 makes it terminus technicus of an esoteric group which endows it with a highly subjective, sectarian, and un-Jewish meaning. The general Christian perspective is still clear in the phrase "on earth." It sets Jesus over against a cosmic background: he had authority to forgive sins while he was on earth as he now has in heaven. This phrase looks back on the life of Jesus as closed, his work completed, in the past. Verse 10 of Mark is simply and purely a proposition of the later Christian faith carried back to Jesus himself for authorization. The solemn and officious Cf. Dibelius, Formgeschichte, p. 35. Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 66. ' Cf. Hans Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn: ein Beitrag zur neutestamentlichen Theologie (Leipzig: Mohr, 1896), 85, 95; Heitmiiller, Jesus, p. 84; et al. ' T h e term Son of man does not occur between Mk 2:28 and 8:27; nor between 10:45 and 13:26. Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 19. 4

5

140

Β. 159

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

nature of the statement shows that it registers the faith and conviction of the believing group, not any personal claim by its founder. The total body of the Synoptic tradition makes it clear that forgiveness, both human and divine, was a dominant and authentic element in the historic message of Jesus. He taught the duty of forgiving fellow-men, and he spoke of the divine forgiveness with the greatest assurance. Always and everywhere, however, this forgiveness is a part of his message; it is not something associated with his life and work, something accomplished by him. If even the most elementary historical assumptions are conceded — that Jesus was a Jew and that as a Jew he must have shared the religious sentiments and feelings of his people — then he cannot have claimed for himself the authority to forgive sins. He would have recoiled from such irreligious arrogance as sheer blasphemy. The Christian assumptions of Mk 2:10 would have been as shocking to the Jewish Jesus of history as Mark says they were to the scribes. On this point Jesus and the scribes would have been in accord, not arrayed against each other as Mark represents. The Jesus of Mark 2:5b-10 who reads men's hearts, who calls himself the Son of man, whose authority to forgive sins is projected from heaven back to earth, is the same Jesus who appeared at the sea of Galilee (1:1620) and in the Capernaum synagogue (1:21-28). He is no longer human; he is a mythical figure lifted out of the stream of history into the realm of dogma. Any semblance of history or humanity that surrounds him is the work of dramatic depiction. Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in one item: the scene with the crowd at the door in Mk 2:2 does not reappear in Matthew and Luke as the crowd at Simon's door (1:33) did not reappear. Both Mk 1:33 and 2:2 are probably colorful touches not found in the Mark known to Matthew and Luke and are the work of a later redactor of Mark's Gospel. Lk 5:17-26. Luke seems to think of Jesus as still on the great tour begun in 4:44 ("on one of those days"). He omits the localization in Capernaum; perhaps he felt that Mark's account is strange with Jesus so soon again in Capernaum after his resolve in 4:43. Luke's next visit to Capernaum comes in 7:1. Luke retains Mark's general notice about Jesus teaching. He introduces Jesus' opponents at the very beginning, as Mark did not. Thus, Luke prepares the way for the controversy rather than the cure. The crowd he mentions only incidentally (19, 26). Luke ends 17 with a curious notice: "and the power of the Lord was with him to heal." This implies that Jesus' power to heal was intermittent, that at times it was exhausted and must be renewed. In 26 Luke has a double contradictory conclusion: 26a and 26b, either of which would make a natural ending; the two together are too much. Mt 9:1-θ. In Mark and Luke the story of the paralytic follows at once upon the leper story. In Matthew these two stories are separated by his

141

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 6 0

second digression (8:5-34). With this story Matthew returns to the order of Mark for four units ( |f59-62 ). In Mark and Luke Jesus later returns from the trip across the sea ( 1J146—147 ) to heal a woman and raise a child from the dead (|fl48). In Matthew, however, he returns from the same trip ( |f57-58 ) to heal the paralytic ( |J59 ), the sixth in Matthew's cycle of ten wonder-works. Matthew 9:1 is a conflation of Mk 2:1 and 5:21; two different returns to Capernaum in Mark are combined into one by Matthew. Matthew ignores Mark's setting in 2:1-2 except for this return to "his own city" (since 4:13). Q had Jesus in Capernaum (Mt 8:5) but with no hint that it was his place of residence. Matthew does not mention teaching on this occasion (Mk 2:2); his interest now centers on wonder-works. In fact, there is not one general notice about Jesus teaching in this entire section on wonder-works ( 8 : 1 9:34). All references to the house disappear from Matthew, and the multitudes are mentioned only at the very end ( 8 ). The point to the story of the cure is somewhat weakened in Matthew by his abridgement of verses 3 - 4 of Mark. The obstacles overcome in Mark are gone from Matthew, and there is nothing to highlight the faith of anyone. Matthew's conclusion seems to bear on both the cure and the controversy, but verse 8 contradicts verse 6: in 6 the authority belongs to the Son of man; in 8, to men. 60. The Calling of Levi Mt 9:9 Mk 2:13-14 Lk 5:27-28 This little Markan episode differs in character from its surroundings. It is not a controversy, but Mark seems to feel that it prepares the way for the second controversy which follows immediately: 13-14 brings Jesus into contact with a publican, the special issue debated in 15-17. It was perhaps this association of ideas that led Mark to introduce the call of Levi into a section ( 2 : 1 - 3 : 6 ) which otherwise is devoted exclusively to controversies. Verses 13-14 are only loosely joined to 1-12. As usual, editorial ingenuity helps the reader from episode to episode. Here verse 13 bridges the gap. This verse did not come down to Mark in the tradition but he composed it on the basis of items clear enough in the tradition as a whole: much of Jesus' Galilean work was associated with the sea; multitudes did gather about him, and he taught them. The data on scene and setting in 13 are typical rather than concrete. Verse 13 is the same sort of editorial writing which met the reader in 1-2. Jesus' actual teaching is neglected here as it was in 1:21-22 and 2:1-2. Verse 13 is half transition from what precedes and half introduction to what follows. The calling of Levi is recounted in a single verse in two crisp sentences (14). In spite of its brevity, it is a complete, well-rounded unit of tradition that came down to Mark without scene or setting beyond that suggested in the phrase, "at the place of toll." The opening clause, "And as he passed

142

Β. 160

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

by," is clearly parallel to the beginning of the earlier vocation stories (1:16, 19). The seaside in 2:13 may have been suggested by the scene of the callings in 1:16-20 ( f i l l ) . The story of Levi's call has the same schema as the double call of the fishermen, so much so in fact that it may be only a variation modeled on that earlier pattern. There is the same authoritative command, the same prompt obedience, the same break with ordered existence; only the disciple called and the details are different. There is no intimation of Levi's destiny as in the call of Simon and Andrew, "fishers of men." The occupation of tax-gatherer did not lend itself to religious metaphor. The call of Levi is just as abrupt and unprepared as was the calling of the fishermen.1 To be sure, Jesus' public work is under way as it was not back in 1:16-20. Nevertheless, so far as Mark's story goes, Jesus and Levi are just as much strangers as were Jesus and the fishermen. If Mark and the tradition behind him had conceived of the master-disciple relationship as having come about naturally, there would have been no vocation stories. When Mark recounts the calling of Levi, he is not looking farther ahead than the next episode (15-17). He makes no attempt to relate this Levi to the catalogue of the twelve (3:13-19a j[93).2 All that can be said is that there is no Levi among the twelve. The identification of Levi with Matthew is only uncertain conjecture. The story of Levi's call is built up around the religious idea of prompt obedience, not around the later ecclesiastical idea of officially appointed apostolic leadership. Of the twelve apostles Mark recounts the original calling of only four, the fishermen in 1:16-20. Lk 5:27-28. "After these things" is a favorite transition formula in Luke. From Mk 2:13 Luke notes only Jesus' departure; he omits the seaside, the multitudes, and Jesus' teaching. Luke may have omitted the seaside scene because it has no bearing on anything that follows, even in Mark. 3 In Luke Levi "forsook all" which accords badly with the next episode in which Levi, in his own house, gives a feast in Jesus' honor. In his Gospel generally, Luke features renunciation as a virtue to an extent that Matthew and Mark do not. For Luke, the call of Levi is a lesson in Christian perfection, not a call to apostleship, and Luke (like Mark) makes no attempt to harmonize this story with the list of the twelve (6:12-16 fl93). Mt 9:9. Matthew omits Mk 2:13 entirely. He has just finished a series of sea episodes at the beginning of the preceding story (9:1), and he has no place for a seaside scene here. "As Jesus passed by from thence" is Matthew's only transition from the story of the paralytic. The name Matthew in the First Gospel supplants the name Levi in Mark, and it constitutes an 1

Cf. Dehn, Le Fils de Dieu, p. 54. Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 100. 3 Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 83. 2

143

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

B. 1 6 1

unsolved mystery. Matthew could be a surname for Levi, but there is no verification for this. The author of the First Gospel is certainly not speaking of himself, recounting his own call, for there is nothing fresh or first-hand about the story. Matthew is using Mark here in the same impersonal way that he has in the past and does in the future. One thing is certain: the author is recounting a call to apostleship, and thus he harmonizes this call with the catalogue of the twelve (10:1-4 Matthew reports the original calling of five of the twelve apostles. 61. At Meat with Publicans and Sinners II. Mt 9:10-13 Mk 2:15-17 Lk 5:29-32 As the reader moves from the story of Levi to this table scene, he seems to be following a connecting thread in the phrase, "in his house," as though it were the house of Levi. The calling of the fishermen had a similar aftermath: Jesus went with them to their home (1:29). However, Mark originally may have read simply "in the house" (as Matthew does in 9:10), and then it would be the editorial "house" that is always available. Otherwise, the call of Levi and this episode do not go well together. This episode introduces the disciples as a group, as an established element in Jesus' surroundings, but in the story of Levi Jesus is still in the process of recruiting individual disciples. This episode is a separate unit of tradition complete in itself, and it makes its point better apart from 14 than in connection with it. The primitive nucleus of 15-17 is the parable in 17a, which originally was probably a settingless saying and circulated as a discourse fragment. Verses 15-16 seem to be an imaginative narrative setting created for it,1 and which are not wholly in harmony with it. Jesus may have applied the parable in 17a to the publicans as the sick and the sinful, but he can hardly have meant that the scribes and the Pharisees are the whole and the righteous. Whether the setting in 15-16 was devised by the editor or came down to him with the key-saying, it is altogether indefinite and constructed of conventional items from the tradition: publicans, disciples, scribes, Pharisees. Mark introduces the disciples as a group just as abruptly as he introduced the individual disciples called. The author himself seems aware of this abruptness at the end of 15: "for there were many, and they followed him." This notation can hardly refer to the publicans and sinners, for they have already been spoken of as numerous. It is evidently an awkward editorial aside from writer to reader, a feeble explanation of the sudden appearance of a group of disciples. In their initial appearance here, the disciples are an indefinite part of the hazy human environment about Jesus. Their presence is noted, a question is addressed to them which they do not answer, and then they disappear without taking any actual part in the 1

Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 109; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 56.

144

Β .

1Í61

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

dialogue or action. They have no relation to the key-parable in 17a, and it is not applied to them in 17b. It is clear here as everywhere that the scribes and the Pharisees are typical of the opposition to Jesus and that they are always at the beck and call of the editor. Here they are introduced into a situation in which they would not, as a matter of principle, have participated. Actually, they are no more real than the publicans, sinners, and disciples. It is only the circumstance that they have a proper name that makes them seem so. Verse 17a is a discourse unit complete in itself, and it is a good example of the briefer parables ascribed to Jesus. In form and point it is closely related to a proverb of the ancient world which appears with variations in some of the Greek and Latin writers. 2 Its original meaning on the lips of Jesus would depend entirely on the concrete situation in which it was spoken. In a proper setting, or even standing alone as pure proverb, it has a trace of contemptuous tone. Verse 17b is a dogmatic interpretation or an allegorical application of the parable in 17a to the life and work of Jesus. 3 In the early Christian sermon, 17b may have been a homiletical conclusion drawn from 17a: "He came not to call the righteous, but sinners." 4 The antithesis between the "righteous" and "sinners" reflects the church's consciousness of its redeemed membership over against unrepentant sinners. T h e same doubt is aroused by 17b that besets all passages in which Jesus is made to speak of his coming in the absolute sense. 5 It transcends the scene in which it is set and comments on Jesus' coming into the world on his divine mission. In 17b it is the cosmic Christ, that is, the community that believes in him, not the historical Jesus, who is speaking.® L k 5 : 2 9 - 3 2 . Luke draws this episode and the call of Levi so close together that any boundary line between them virtually disappears. 7 In his own house Levi is giving a feast in Jesus' honor. T h e presence of the disciples is not noted until the action has begun, and this is their first appearance as a group in Luke. According to Luke, the complaint is made to the disciples about their own conduct ( " W h y do y e ? " ) , not about Jesus' conduct as in Matthew and Mark. However, Jesus' reply ( 32 ) makes it clear that the criticism involved his conduct rather than that of the disciples. Luke has weakened the application of the key-parable by adding "to repentance" ( 32 ). Mt 9 : 1 0 - 1 3 . In Matthew the break with what precedes is complete. Jesus is in the editorial "house," and there is no implied connection with the ° Cf. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 176f; Klostermann, Markus, p. 31. 3 Cf. Schölten, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 153. 4 Cf. Dibelius, Formgeschichte, p. 32. 5 Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 92; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 94. 0 Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 151. 7 Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 86; Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 46.

145

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 6 2

call of Matthew. Matthew agrees with Mark against Luke that the criticism strikes Jesus' conduct, not that of the disciples (Luke). The disciples as a group are not new in Matthew (5:1-2). Toward the very end ( 13a) Matthew inserts a proof from prophecy: Hosea 6:6 which he uses a second time later in his Gospel (12:7). Matthew introduces the Hosea passage with a rabbinical formula, "Go ye and learn," but he inserts this proof from prophecy at an unfortunate point. It splits Jesus' key-utterance into two parts, 12b and 13b, and it distorts its thought and point: care of the sick is the physician's duty, not an act of mercy. 62. The Question of Fasting III. Mt 9:14-17 Mk 2:18-22 Lk 5:33-39 This third controversy occupies a central position in the series of five. However, it does not represent an advance beyond the two which precede, nor does it prepare the way for the two which follow. This third controversy is completely cut off from the second. They do have one element in common: the issues do not have to do with violations of the law but with failure to observe special religious practices of certain sectarian groups. In both episodes Jesus has a group of disciples about him. In the preceding encounter they were virtually static figures; in this encounter their conduct becomes the central issue. Mk 2:18-22 is composite. It is made up of four heterogeneous elements not entirely in harmony with each other: ( a ) 18-19a presents the controversy proper; ( b ) 19b is a clause now peculiar to Mark; ( c ) 20 is a piece of later Christian exposition; (d) 21-22 is a stray double discourse unit unorganic to its present context. ( a ) 18-19a is a dialectical unit complete in itself with typical threefold structure: the situation in 18a; the critical comment in 18b; Jesus' reply in 19a. The nucleus of the episode is Jesus' key-word, a parable, in 19a. There is closer relationship than usual between saying and setting; both deal with fasting. It may be that the fasting in the parable ( 19a ) suggested the issue of fasting built up around it. The very fact that it is the conduct of the disciples that is questioned, not that of Jesus, would point to the Christian origin of the provocation in 18.1 The episode originally may have begun with 18b, "And they come and say unto him," an impersonal beginning typical of primitive units of tradition.2 Like so many of Jesus' shorter parables, especially those of a polemical nature, 19a has the form of a rhetorical question. The interrogative form would indicate that it must have been spoken originally in a debate. The emphasis in the parable falls on the "sons of the bridechamber," the wed1 2

Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 121; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 24. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 9; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 88.

146

Β. |62

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

ding guests, not on the "bridegroom." Jesus is speaking of the mood befitting wedding guests; he is not comparing himself to a bridegroom.3 The primitive parable may have contained no reference to the bridegroom and have read simply, "Can the sons of the bridechamber fast?" 4 Such a brief form gives a complete word-picture with Jesus including himself among the wedding guests. The bridegroom may have been added later when the allegorical interpretation in 20 was added, and distorted the original sense of the parable. In this briefer form the parable becomes a highly eschatological utterance which has as its background the whole religious outlook of Jesus. It reflects the mood of elation which the prospect of the impending kingdom called forth. It expresses high hope and fervent faith. Feasting, not fasting, becomes the frame of mind of Jesus and his disciples.5 ( b ) 19b as it now stands, does two things: it shifts the emphasis in the parable from the wedding guests to the bridegroom, and it leads over to the allegorical interpretation in 20. ( c ) 20 was probably a part of the tradition that came down to Mark. It is of later Christian origin and does not go back to Jesus. However, it is the highpoint of Christian interest in the whole of 18-22. Verse 20 is a farfetched interpretation which does violence to the parable in 19a and robs it of its primitive point and proof-value. The parable of the wedding guests is not at all suited to the sombre reflections attached to it in 20, which turns the parable into allegory. Real guests at a real wedding would not expect a real bridegroom to be taken away from them. 6 Verse 19a depicts what is generally true of any wedding, its guests and bridegroom, but in 20 the wedding is past and the bridegroom ( Jesus ) has been taken away from his guests (the disciples). The frame of mind has changed completely; the elation of 19a has given place to a sense of loss and a feeling of sorrow. The perspective has shifted from what the future promises to the contemplation of a tragedy which lies in the past. Verse 20 reflects the situation after the death of Jesus: he is no longer with his disciples. Now fasting befits their mood as it did not while he was still with them. There is a clear apologetica! note in 20. It seems intended to justify the observance of special fasts within the early church over against the known neglect of fasting by Jesus and his disciples during his lifetime. Christian fasting is justified as the result of a changed situation. Thus, a parable of Jesus ( 1 9 a ) which basically rejected fasting is turned into an allegory that justifies fasting.7 * Cf. * Cf. "Hilfe," e Cf. ' Cf. ' Cf.

Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 89. M. Maurenbrecher, Von Nazareth nach Golgatha (Berlin: Buchverlag der 1909), p. 142; Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1921), p. 40f. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 95; Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 496. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 186f; Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 498; et al. Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 96.

147

JESUS ÀND T I Ï E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

Β. I¡62

Verse 20 is the first bit of predictive material ascribed to Jesus in Mark; it is a sort of veiled forecast of death. Such predictive material is rare in the first half of Mark's Gospel, but it virtually dominates the second half. These predictive passages belong to the most highly subjective elements in the Synoptic tradition. Things which the early Christians looked back upon as matters of the past they carried back into the life of Jesus as things which he foresaw and foretold. On the lips of Jesus 20 is predictive, but actually it is a vaticinium, ex eventu, a prophecy formulated after the event. It reflects the point of view of the believing group that looks back on Jesus' death in the past; it is not the sombre premonition of an individual who senses danger ahead. Verse 20 introduces the tragic note too early in Mark's story. It does not accord with Mark's own plan and treatment of the death-theme which begins only in the second half of his Gospel.8 This lack of harmony with Mark's program as a whole would indicate that 20 is not a piece of Mark's own exposition but that it came down to him firmly joined to the parable in 19a. (d) 21-22 is the first example of what is known as twin or companion parables, or as a parable-pair. There are a possible six or seven instances in the Synoptic tradition; they are most frequent in Luke. In such instances the reader encounters two parables, usually very brief, occurring together with the same length, form, and structure, and dramatizing the same thought or theme. The primary purpose of such twin parables is emphasis or forcefulness of speech: the second parable reinforces the first with a change of imagery. This first parable-pair dramatizes the same thought — the incompatibility of the old and the new. They favor neither the old nor the new, but they warn against their being brought together as dangerous for both. The first parable relates the part to the whole, the new patch to the old garment; the second relates content to container, the new wine to the old wine-skin. These two parables are an independent discourse unit. They were not conceived and composed originally as a part of the controversy on fasting. They are so general and comprehensive, even theoretical, that they could hardly be a spontaneous utterance in a concrete situation, but rather a sweeping observation on what has proved itself true in a multiplicity of various instances. They may be profane axiomatic analogies that have found their way into the tradition as a word of Jesus.9 Matthew and Luke reproduce Mark's third controversy in Mark's order. They agree together against Mark in two respects. ( 1 ) According to Mk 18, it is a special fast day for John's disciples and the Pharisees. An unidentified 8 9

Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 19; Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 5. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 107.

148

Β. 162

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

"they" observes this fasting and makes the critical comment in 18b. In Matthew and Luke the critical comment is general, based on the known fasting habits of the two groups and not on a particular instance. Mk 18a may be the work of a later redactor suggested by the critical comment in 18b. ( 2 ) Matthew and Luke have no parallel to Mk 19b; it may not have been in their Mark. It is perhaps a late addition to Mark which helps turn the thought of the parable from the wedding guests to the bridegroom.10 Lk 5:33-39. In Luke there is no break between the second and third controversies as there is in Matthew and Mark; the third in Luke is simply the continuation of the second. The scene is the same and the dialogue is unbroken. In 33, "And they said unto him," the critics of 30 are voicing a new criticism. The mention of the "supplications" of John's disciples is peculiar to Luke (33), who generally gives more detail on this group than do Matthew and Mark. The joining of prayer and fasting in Luke may be purely involuntary, for the two were closely associated in actual practice by Jews and Christians. In Lk 33 the critical comment is even more pointed than it is in Matthew and Mark. Jesus' disciples not only fail to fast but they do the very opposite: they feast. However, the words "eat and drink" in Lk 33 may be simply carried over from the preceding controversy (30). In Lk 36a the twin parables are cut off from the body of the controversy by a reintroduction of Jesus as speaker, "And he spake also a parable unto them." This breaks into the continuous discourse ( Matthew and Mark ) and proves the original detachment of the two parables. Such incisions into continuous discourse are frequent in Luke's Gospel. They would indicate one of two things: either Luke is moving from one source (here Mark) to another (here Q), or he is bringing a detached saying into a context to which it did not originally belong. Luke uses the Markan form of the second parable, but he seems to be giving the Q form of the first. In Luke (and Q) the absurdity is heightened: the new patch (Matthew and Mark) becomes a new garment which no one tears up to mend an old one. Furthermore, the new will not only rend the old, but the old and the new will not look well together. Verse 39 is peculiar to Luke and is itself a near-parable. It has no connection with the twin parables except association of ideas: wine, the old and the new. It expresses a preference for the old as the twin parables do not; it does not warn but is conciliatory in spirit, touched with good nature, even amused satisfaction. Its meaning is obscure except as a general observation. It is not found in D and some Latin versions of Luke. It may not be a saying of Jesus at all but some stray proverb added by Luke or a profane saying that has come into the tradition as a word of Jesus. 11 10 11

Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 122; Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 187. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 108.

149

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 6 3 - 8 9

Mt 9:14-17. Matthew agrees with Mark in presenting this third controversy as a new and different encounter over against the preceding. In Matthew the two are joined by the simplest of connectives, "Then" ( 14a ). In Matthew John's disciples themselves voice the protest to Jesus, "Why do we fast?" — a strange question, for they should understand their own fasting even if they do not understand the non-fasting of Jesus' disciples. In the key-parable (15a) Matthew uses the term mourn instead of fast (Mark and Luke) which makes the point much stronger: a lament for the dead has no place at a wedding celebration. However, the term mourn in the parable ( 15a ) leads smoothly to the sorrow reflected in the allegorical interpretation (15b). Matthew reproduces the twin parables from Mark with only a minor addition at the end: "and both are preserved." Mt 9:18-11:30 f[63-89. In Mark and Luke the fourth and fifth controversies follow at once upon the first three in an unbroken series, but in Matthew the first three in 9:1-17 are widely separated from the last two in 12:1-14 by three full chapters.1 This wide separation in Matthew is the result of his long third digression in 9:18 - 1 1 : 3 0 which he makes between Mk 2:22 and 23, or between the third and fourth controversies. In this digression Matthew continues his topical method of composition; in fact, this method of composition is the best explanation for this digression. In 9:18 Matthew leaves the order of Mark after 2:22, and he rejoins Mark's framework where he left it (2:23) with his own 12:1 and reports the last two controversies in Mark's order (^90-91). This long digression is made up primarily of nonMarkan matter but there are several transpositions of Markan materials. This digression contains some narration, but it is predominantly a discourse section. In this digression Matthew does four things: (1) he completes his cycle of wonder-works in 9:18-34; (2) he reports the address to the twelve in 9:35-11:1; (3) he presents his form of the address on the Baptist in 11:2-19; (4) he concludes with a short series of miscellaneous utterances in 11:20-30. 63. A Raising from the Dead and a Woman Healed Mt 9:18-26 Mk 5:21-43 = Lk 8:40-56 fll48 Matthew transposes this double story from a much later point in Mark's Galilean narrative. In Mark and Luke ( fll48 ) it concludes their sea sequence (1(146-147), but in Matthew it is separated from this sequence (fl57-58) by the first three of the five controversies (^59-62). Matthew has brought it forward because of the two wonder-works narrated, and they become the seventh and eighth in his cycle of ten. This is Matthew's only story of a raising from the dead, and it builds background for Jesus' statement in 11:5: "the dead are raised up." Matthew joins this double story closely with 1

See diagram on p. 138.

150

Β. 163

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

what precedes, "While he spake these things unto them," and Jesus seems to be in the same house he entered back in 9:10. Matthew differs from Mark so much in this double story that some critics 1 hesitate to regard Mark as his source, or even reverse the relationship and regard Mark as a later embellishment of the briefer, simpler form in Matthew. 2 However, most critics feel that Matthew is simply making another of his drastic abridgements of Mark, using one word to Mark's three, nine verses to Mark's twenty-three, and sacrificing Mark's detail and color. The proper name Jairas (Mk 5:22) does not reappear in Matthew; it may not have been in the Mark known to him. 3 Even Mark uses the name Jairas only at the beginning; in the rest of the story he uses the man's title, "ruler of the synagogue." Matthew uses simply the title "ruler." Mark has two reports on the child's condition: dying in 23, dead in 35. Matthew condenses the two into one and reports the child dead from the outset (18). This does not exaggerate the miracle as much as it enhances the story and the ruler's faith. Matthew not only reduces Mark's story of the woman healed from ten verses to three but the cure itself in Matthew acquires a different character. In Mark (5:27) Jesus is thronged by the crowd and the woman can lose herself in it; in Matthew Jesus is accompanied by the disciples (19) but the crowd appears only at the house of the ruler (23). This alters the situation for the cure of the woman. In Mark the woman really heals herself without the conscious agency of Jesus; she is healed (5:29) before Jesus knows who has touched him (5:32). In Matthew, however, the woman does not heal herself by her faith in the touch of Jesus' garment; she is healed by Jesus' word (22). Furthermore, Matthew omits Mark's caustic comment (5:26) on the medical profession. He dislikes Mark's paganistic conception of Jesus' healing power (5:30) as though it were a magical physical force that escaped him involuntarily. Matthew substitutes the healing word of Jesus in 9:22. The second half of the ruler story, nine verses in Mark, is reduced to four (really three) in Matthew. The famous trio —Peter, James, and John — which appears in the story for the first time in Mark (5:37) and Luke (8:51), is not mentioned in Matthew's version of the story. Matthew also omits the solemn utterance (Mk 5:41; Lk 8:54) in connection with the raising, which in Matthew results from Jesus' touch alone (25). Matthew does not note the age of the child ( twelve years in Mark and Luke ). At the end of the story Matthew omits the order for silence which is pointless in 1 2 8

Cf. Schniewind, Matthäus, p. 118. Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 459. Cf. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium,

p. 220f; Bussmann, Synoptische

87.

151

Studien, I,

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.|64-65

Mark (5:43) and Luke (8:56); he also omits the order about food. Matthew ends by noting the spread of Jesus' fame (26), not the amazement of the witnesses (Mk 5:42; Lk 8:56). 64. The Cure of Two Blind Men Mt 9:27-31 This is the ninth in Matthew's cycle of ten wonder-works, and with it he may be preparing the way for 11:5: "the blind receive their sight." This is the second double cure in Matthew (8:28), and both are in his collection in 8 : 1 - 9 : 3 4 . Various conjectures have been made relative to Matthew's source for this story, but the most probable seems to be that it is an anticipation or duplication of the two blind men healed at Jericho in 20:29-34 (11316) which is taken from Mk 10:46-52 (fl316) at that late point. Thus, the ultimate source of this first story would be Mark, Matthew using it twice with variations to make it appear as though they were two different wonderworks. Matthew's story here in has close affinities with his story in 1(316. ( ! ) In each case two blind men are healed. (2) The plea of the two blind men is identical in the two stories: "Have mercy on us, thou son of David." (3) Each is a cure by touch, not by word as in Mk 10:52. There is one principal difference between the two stories in Matthew: the first cure is in private in a house; the second is in the presence of a large public. Matthew's introductory clause, "And as Jesus passed by from thence," repeats verbatim the opening clause of his story of the calling of Matthew (9:9). Matthew's story ends (30b-31) with features more typical of Mark than of his own Gospel: the stern command for silence and the prompt disobedience. 65. The Cure of a Dumb Demoniac Mt 9:32-34 Lk 11:14-15 1(219-220; Mt 12:22-24 1(116-117 Matthew's cycle of ten wonder-works comes near ending in an anticlimax. The last two ( 1(64—65 ) are extremely sketchy, and both anticipate or duplicate wonder-works which appear later in his Gospel. This tenth and last is the least impressive of all. Only the fact that they are cures brings these last two together, and yet Matthew joins them with a transition formula, "And as they went forth," as though they formed an actual sequence. This cure has no relation to Mt 11:5 which makes no reference to the dumb speaking. This is one of the two cures from Q (Mt 8:5-13 1f53) in the Synoptic tradition. In Q it was associated with the Beelzebub section as it now is in Lk 11:14 and in its second appearance in Matthew (12:22-24). The version here in fl65 is only an anticipation and duplication of that in 1fll6. That Matthew is simply using the same cure twice is clear in two things. (1)

152

Β.166-80

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

This first version in Matthew parallels the only version in Luke more closely than the second version in Matthew does. (2) Verse 34 is positive proof that Matthew has torn this cure away from the Beelzebub section, for in transposing he has brought the Beelzebub charge along with it. Here in chapter 9 of Matthew the Beelzebub charge (34) does not make sense, for it involves something that Matthew does not report until chapter 12. Verse 34 is not found in two important manuscripts ( D and Syrsin ). Its omission is an improvement, for then 33b would make a good conclusion for Matthew's whole section on wonder-works and for the first half of Book III ( 8 : 1 9:34) : "And the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel." THE ADDRESS TO THE TWELVE AND THEIR MISSION

Mt 9:35 - 11:1

Mk 6:6b-13 = Lk 9:1-6 1(150-152 Lk 10:1-20 |f203-208 This is Matthew's second major address of Jesus and a part of his third digression between Mk 2:22 and 23. In Mark (6:6b-13 P50-152) this address and the mission of the twelve come much later, in the second half of the Galilean story. Luke (9:1-6 ft151-152) reports the address and the mission of the twelve in Mark's order, and then Luke (10:1-20 ^203-208) has a second mission of the disciples still later, that of the seventy, and a special address to them in his Great Non-Markan Section (9:51-18:14). Matthew reports the address to the twelve and their mission too early (IJ66-80), even before Mark and Luke report the choosing of the twelve (1f93). Matthew may report it at this early point to complete the background for 11:5: "the poor have good tidings preached to them." 1 This address was found in both basic sources, in Mark and in Q. The Q form (approximated in Lk 10:2-12 + 16) is twice as long as the Markan form. In their treatment of the two forms the literary methods of Matthew and Luke, as usual, are exactly opposite. Luke leaves the Markan and the Q forms separate and reports both. Since he reports the address twice, he must have two missions of the disciples. The Markan address he has delivered to the twelve in Mark's order; the Q address he has delivered to a new group, the seventy, as a part of his long journey to Jerusalem. Matthew, however, conflates the Markan and Q forms and expands the combined form with a great mass of other discourse matter. The result is a very long address in 9:36-10:42.. Such compiling of long addresses is typical of Matthew's Gospel as a whole. Except for the use of Markan matter, the principle of composition is the same as in the Sermon on the Mount, that is, the joining of materials on the basis of related or similar subject matter. The backbone of the address Matthew found in his sources: 10:1, 7-15, 40; this nucleus is in itself composite, a conflation of Mark and Q. Into this framework Matthew builds 1

fl66-80

Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 295f.

153

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 166

his discourse materials which in Mark and Luke are scattered here and there over the whole story. This address, however, differs in some respects from the Sermon on the Mount. In this address Matthew uses Mark almost as freely as Q, and there seem to be more and greater contributions from Matthew himself. The address also has better unity of thought and theme, and there is more evident effort at joining the various units into a wellordered whole. Finally, in this address Jesus' own person is more in the foreground than in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew's address to the twelve is the classical example in the Synoptic tradition of what the professional historian calls anachronism: 2 an error in chronology, one by which an event or a situation is dated too early, before its actual occurrence or existence. In such an error the writer temporarily loses his historical perspective, and he carries the situation of his own later day back into the past as though it were a part of the time, life, and even of the mind of his hero. The writer composes speeches for his own readers and contemporaries and puts them on the lips of his hero of the past and has him foresee and foretell the things that have come to pass in the writer's own time.3 Such anticipation is exactly what Matthew does in the greater portion of his address to the twelve. He temporarily forgets the actual situation in the past — Jesus instructing the twelve for their mission — and he has Jesus speak to the readers of his Gospel and to his own contemporary Christians generally. In this address the author of the First Gospel, over Jesus' lips, is speaking directly to the Christian church a generation or more after Jesus' death. The author forgets the twelve, the actual following and audience of Jesus, and has him speak as though his following were an organized, widespread movement in competition and conflict with the Jewish and Gentile world. It is a purely practical purpose which leads Matthew to carry the situation of his own time back into the life and time of Jesus. In reality, Matthew's address to the twelve is an ecclesiastical tract, a practical program and charter for Christian apostleship. Consequently, the address is a far better source of information on the Christian movement in the 60's, 70's, and 80's than it is for the reported event in the life of Jesus. Matthew is so engrossed in the bearing of the address on the critical situation of his own day that for long periods in the course of the address he forgets the twelve and their mission entirely. 66. A Preaching and Healing Tour Mt 9:35 Mk 6:6b fll50 With 9:35 Matthew completes the literary plan set forth in 4:23-25 ( P 6 ) . He has given an elaborate report on Jesus' teaching in 5:1 - 7:29 and 2 8

Cf. W. Bauer, Einführung in das Studium der Geschichte, p. 916. Cf. Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians, p. 113f.

154

Β. 1167-68

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

on his healing in 8 : 1 - 9 : 3 4 . When he wrote 4:23 he was looking ahead exactly to this point, and now that he reaches it he looks back to the beginning: his subscript in 9:35 repeats verbatim his superscript in 4:23. In 9:35 Matthew is not only looking backward but he is looking ahead to what Mark reports much later and to what he himself reports immediately, the mission of the twelve. Mk 6:6b has a teaching tour precede the mission of the twelve, and in 9:35 Matthew seems to be borrowing the idea from Mark, but he expands this purely editorial notice of Mark to suit his own literary plan and purpose. In relation to the structure of this section of his Gospel, 9:35 is a dividing line, or a transition, between the ten wonderworks and the address to the twelve, the two parts of Book III of Matthew. 67. The Compassion of Jesus Mt 9:36 Mk 6:34 tfl57 In 9:36 Matthew again reaches deep into a later section of Mark's Galilean story, extracts a fragment, and brings it forward into a new and different context. This notice about the multitudes and Jesus' compassion for them is appropriate in Mark's later context (1fl57), for it leads directly to the feeding of the five thousand ( If 158 ). This Markan passage, however, is not so appropriate at this point in Matthew, for the address which follows is private, given to the twelve and not to the general public. Furthermore, the mission of the twelve can hardly be described as an act of compassion. Even the figure of the sheep and the shepherd is not appropriate for the mission of the twelve proper, for Jesus is not sending them out as pastors, as shepherds of a flock, but rather as heralds who hasten from place to place announcing the nearness of the kingdom. However, the figure is well suited to much of the inappropriate material in the address where Jesus ( Matthew ) speaks as a pastor of a flock. Matthew paints the picture in even stronger colors than Mark: the multitudes are "distressed and scattered" as though Matthew's attention is already drifting away from the mission of the twelve to the harried state of the church in his own later day. 68. Harvest Plenteous — Laborers Few Mt 9:37-38 Lk 10:2 1f204 Matthew uses one of his favorite literary links in joining this passage to the preceding, "Then." There is an abrupt change of figurative speech as the reader goes from the sheep and the shepherd to the harvest and the reapers. This second figure casts a different light on the mission of the twelve. They are not sent out for protracted pastoral work. The time is too short; it is harvest; their task is to reap. This abrupt change of figurative speech is also due to the fact that Matthew is shifting from one source (Mark in ff67) to another (Q in j|68). This passage belonged to the Q form of the address. It must have stood at the very beginning of the Q form, for

155

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. ^69

it opens the address in Matthew here and in Lk 10:2 with the great difference that in Matthew it is addressed to the twelve, in Luke to the seventy, a group unknown to Matthew and Mark. This passage is not entirely suited to the mission of the disciples, for it is God who will send the reapers, not Jesus. It may be an older Jewish saying which was regarded as appropriate because it has to do with sending. Here in Matthew it is cut off from the body of the address by the catalogue of the twelve which follows. 69. The Catalogue of the Twelve Mt 10:1-4

Mk 6:7 = Lk 9:1 |fl51 Mk 3:16-19a = Lk 6:14-16 |f93 Matthew has told of the calling of five different disciples, the four fishermen in 4:18-22 and Matthew in 9:9. Now, suddenly, he speaks of the twelve and is on the point of sending them on their mission when he, just as suddenly, realizes that he has not told his readers that Jesus had twelve disciples or who they were. It is to make good this oversight that Matthew halts the address begun in the preceding passage to give the names of the twelve. Mt 10:1-4 is a parenthesis that only partially makes good this oversight, for it ( and Matthew elsewhere ) gives no account of the actual choosing of the twelve, yet Matthew speaks of the twelve this first time as though they were a definite group already established, a college already instituted. The effect of this oversight is highlighted by the fact that Matthew uses the term twelve four different times in this section ( 10:1, 2, 5; 11:1). In Mark the choosing of the twelve (3:13-19a) and the mission of the twelve (6:6b-13) are two widely separated events. The same scheme appears in Luke; the choosing in 6:12-16 and the mission in 9:1-6. Matthew has done two things to Mark's scheme. ( 1 ) He contracts these two widely separated events and gives the catalogue of the twelve in connection with their mission, with the result that the choosing of the twelve (Mk 3:13-15) as an actual act of Jesus drops out entirely. ( 2 ) Matthew reports the mission of the twelve and the twelve names in his digression between Mk 2:22 and 23 even before Mark reports their choosing. This confusion of the Markan plan is clear in Matthew's arbitrary use of two widely separated Markan passages in reversed order·, in 10:1 he is using Mk 6:7 but in 2-4 he is using Mk 3:16-19a. Matthew does not state, as Mark does, that the twelve were sent out "by two and two." Perhaps he hesitates to be so specific, for he does not tell of their departure or their return, or even that they actually went on a mission. The fact that Matthew names the twelve in pairs may be due to Mark's "by two and two." Both Matthew and Luke use the term apostles to designate the twelve listed. Mark, however, does not apply this term to the twelve until they have returned from their mission and are literally apostles

156

Β .

Tf70

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

(6:30). The term apostles, so frequent in Luke and Acts, appears only here in Matthew; elsewhere he speaks of "the twelve" and "the disciples." Matthew has taken his list of the twelve from Mark. He has the same twelve names with two differences in arrangement. (1) In Mark the first four named are in the order of their prominence, leaving Andrew fourth; in Matthew the first four appear in the order of their calling (4:18-22), with Andrew second. (2) Matthew reverses the names Matthew and Thomas, and he seems to identify Matthew the publican in the list of the twelve with the Matthew called in 9:9. 70. Restriction of the Mission to Israel Mt 10:5-6 In 5a it is clear that Matthew is conscious of the interruption in 2-4, for he reaches back to verse 1 and resumes the thread of narrative: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying." The utterance in 5b-6 is a natural part of this address, for it is a specific instruction to the twelve about their mission. This instruction may have been in Q.1 There is good reason why Luke would omit it: its open discrimination against non-Jews. There is no good reason why Matthew would fabricate it.2 This saying is so ultra-Jewish as to be shocking, and yet it accords with a like restriction which Jesus places on his own work in Mt 15:24. In both passages, both peculiar to Matthew, Jesus appears as a strict Jewish nationalist, sharing the narrow prejudice and particularism of his people. Both passages stand in sharp contradiction with the final instruction at the end of Matthew's Gospel: "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations" (28:19). Many critics 3 hesitate to ascribe Mt 10:5b-6 to Jesus. They feel that it is not in harmony with his true spirit and that it is contradicted by so much of his thinking in the Synoptic tradition as a whole. They are inclined to regard it as of later Christian origin, as an expression of the sentiment and feeling of a strict Jewish-Christian group opposed to the liberalism of Paul. Other critics 4 leave the passage to stand as a word of Jesus with its full force. He did share, naturally, the particularism and prejudice of his people, and his horizon did not extend beyond them. The genuineness of this utterance is guaranteed by the fact that it is a command of Jesus which was not observed by the later church and that it runs exactly counter to later Christian practice. Strict adherence to this word of Jesus would have made the work of Paul impossible, and there would have been no Book of Acts. It is really surprising that such a saying survived at all, that it was not suppressed 1 Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 146; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 274. 2 Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 301. 3 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 208; Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 402; et al. 4 Cf. Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought, p. 18; Goguel, Life of Jesus, trans. Olive Wyon (New York: Macmillan, 1933), p. 206f; Introduction, I, 230; et al.

157

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 171

entirely. The only possible motive for ascribing it to Jesus must have been the simple fact that it was known to be an utterance of his, and Matthew (or his source) was honest enough to record it. These opposed critical views do not exhaust the possibilities relative to this utterance. Verses 5b-6 are followed a little later in the address by another short saying, also peculiar to Matthew, in 23. Verses 5b-6 and 23b can be joined as a single logical unit of utterance. Joined to 23b, 5b-6 acquires an altogether different import and character than it now has as a detached fragment, and its restriction appears in a wholly new light (see Mt 10:23H73) 71. Message, Equipment, and Conduct Mt 10:7-16

Mk 6:8-11 = Lk 9:2-5 fll51 Lk 10:3-12 p05 These instructions are the heart of the address in all its forms, and all the other discourse materials in the address are gathered about them. The Markan address exhausts itself in these instructions. Matthew here is conflating the Markan and Q forms of these instructions, the most intricate example of such conflation thus far, and he is making some free additions of his own. The Q instructions seem to have been twice as long as those of Mark, and the two versions exhibit some important differences. The Q instructions touch on three points: the message of the twelve, their equipment, and their conduct during their mission. The Markan instructions touch on the last two items, but there is nothing about the message to be preached. In Q they are to preach the kingdom and its nearness. In Mt 10:7 their message is verbatim that preached by Jesus in 4:17 and earlier by John in 3:2. The Q instructions on equipment are all prohibitions, even no shoes and no staff; the Markan instructions permit staff and sandals. Among the rabbis travelling without shoes was unusual; only those fasting or in mourning went barefoot.1 The idea of taking no money for services is rabbinical.2 Verse 10b may be a profane proverb.3 In all of these instructions equipment is to be light, reduced to a minimum, to facilitate rapid movement over as much ground as possible. The Q instructions deal with reception in a city and in a house; the Markan, only with the latter. Most of the instructions are better suited to reception in a house. Shaking the dust from one's feet has a Jewish and rabbinical background. Renan felt that some of these instructions contain "germs of real fanaticism." 4 Verse 16 seems to be a transition, concluding what precedes and intro1 Cf. ' Cf. "Cf. 1 Cf.

Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 560. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 225. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 107. Vie de Jésus, p. 327.

158

Β. 172-78

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

ducing what follows. The idea in 16a dominates most of the remainder of the address. Back in verse 6 the twelve were sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; now in 16 they themselves are sheep in the midst of wolves. The situation has changed completely, and Matthew is reading his own present back into the past. Verse 16a has no relevance to the mission of the twelve but to the situation of the Christian missionaries in Matthew's own later day. In such a passage the Risen Lord, not the historical Jesus, is speaking.5 Verse 16b has more the nature of a profane proverb and a bit of worldly wisdom.6 Mt 10:17-39 f72-78. With 17 Matthew begins his great expansion of this address. He introduces materials which appear much later in Mark and Luke where they have no connection with the mission of the disciples at all. Some of this matter is from Mark but most of it is from Q. The various units are only loosely joined together, but they are gathered about one basic theme: the adversities and persecutions that await the disciples. For Matthew and his readers this was the most important part of the address. In this section Matthew's great anachronism occurs. Except for 23, the mission of the twelve is forgotten until the very end (40). In this section things are predicted which the twelve never encountered on their mission during Jesus' lifetime. Here the horizon lifts. The local field of the mission ( Galilee ) fades out and the reader is carried to the ends of the earth. There is a sudden projection forward in point of time. The days of Jesus recede into the remote past, and the reader is carried forward into a period of general persecution of the church in the apostolic and post-apostolic age. In most of this section the heavenly Christ is speaking. Jesus' death is a matter of the past. He is now only spiritually present with the faithful, or the Spirit which has taken his place comes to their aid. In this section Matthew himself becomes a pastor addressing words of comfort and assurance to the distressed flock of his own day. In its mood and temper this section offers a curious combination of pessimism and optimism; fear and dread and despair mingle with hope and trust and courage. From the whole the reader gathers a clear impression of Christian heroism in the 60's, 70's, and 80's when the very existence of the church seems to have been threatened. In this section Matthew becomes a first-rate church historian. 72. The Fate of the Disciples Mt 10:17-22

Mk 13:9-13 = Lk 21:12-19 P 6 3 - 3 6 4 Lk 12:11-12 lf247 This passage has close affinities with Mk 13:9—13 which is probably Matthew's source. Furthermore, Matthew omits this matter when he comes "Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte •Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte

(1921), pp. 96, 99. (1921), ρ. Θ2.

159

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. |73

to it in Mark's order ( 363-364 ) as though he is aware of having used it already. In Mark and Luke this matter is a part of the great eschatological address near the very end, and these adversities are portents of the collapse of the old and the dawn of the new. Matthew brings this matter forward as adversities which await, but never actually strike, the twelve on their mission. There is a stray non-Markan (perhaps Q) parallel to part of this matter in Lk 12:11-12 (H247) to which Mt 19 is very close. "Beware of men" is a literary suture, the result of Matthew's effort to join diverse materials into a smooth whole. Behind it is the Christian awareness of what they felt was world-wide hostility. In 17-18 Christianity has extended beyond Jewish to Gentile soil. Official organized persecution — Jewish and Gentile, religious and political — has struck the faithful because of their adherence to Christ ( "for my sake" ). Rabbinical sources say nothing of scourging in the synagogue as a form of punishment.1 Verses 19-20 confront the reader with an early Christian conviction which is pure supernaturalism. Even in their witness before courts, Christians are not the speaking subjects; it is the Spirit that speaks through them. Verse 21 reflects the disruption within the family which the conversion of some members to Christianity brought about. In 22 the heavenly Christ is speaking, expressing the Christian's feeling that he is the object of universal hatred; his only hope is to endure to the end. 73. The Imminent Son of Man Mt 10:23 The first half of this verse, "But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next," was not in Matthew's source. It is his own editorial contribution, a conscious effort at joining small discourse fragments into smoothly flowing discourse. It is a transition from the theme of persecution in the preceding passage to a discourse fragment (23b) of altogether different character. In 23b Matthew, for a brief moment, returns to the mission of the twelve. The reader is brought back from the ends of the earth to the cities of Israel. The outlook is again Jewish, not Christian. Matthew found 23b in his source (perhaps in Q). It relates itself directly to 5b-6, and the two passages should be joined together as a single unit of utterance: 1 Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Together, these two passages peculiar to Matthew make sense; apart, they are confusing. Verse 23b throws a different light on 5b-6. The restriction 1 1

Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 577. Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 147; Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 255.

160

Β.174-75

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

to Israel is not because of Jewish prejudice against non-Jews. It is a matter of time: the end is so near that the twelve will not cover the cities of Israel before the Son of man comes. If this utterance is authentic, Jesus never expected to see the twelve again in this world,2 and it expresses the eschatology of Jesus in its most extreme form. Many critics 3 reject 23b as an authentic utterance of Jesus. However, its genuineness can be maintained on two solid grounds. ( 1 ) The utterance is ultra-Jewish, and the term Son of man is used objectively with no reference to Jesus' person. This Son of man is a superhuman, divine figure who will come from heaven, one of the religious objects believed in by Jesus as he believed in God and His kingdom. ( 2 ) This utterance never fulfilled itself: the twelve did return; the Son of man did not come. It is inconceivable that the early Christian mind would fabricate such an unfulfilled prediction. It must have been preserved as a word of Jesus for the simple reason that he spoke it 74. The Parable of the Disciple and His Teacher Mt 10:24-25 Lk 6:40 1J102 Matthew includes this Q parable in his address to the twelve, but in Luke it is found in his Sermon on the Plain.1 In Matthew's use of it (25a), it returns to the theme of persecution in The mission of the twelve (]f73) again fades into the background, and Matthew turns to his own contemporary situation. The disciple here is not one of the twelve but any Christian anywhere. The background of the interpretation (25a) of the parable (24) is Jesus' own suffering and death: his disciple can expect no better fate. Here the reader encounters the early Christian conception of the relation of believer to Christ: it is that of disciple to master, servant to lord. It is the early Christian motivation and consolation for suffering: loyalty to Christ. The parable originally did not have this meaning, for Luke derives a very different one. The parable acquires its new meaning through the context which Matthew gives it and through its interpretation in 25a, which has a parallel in the Talmud.2 Verse 25b is a second awkward allusion (9:34) to the Beelzebub section which Matthew does not report until chapter 12. 75. The Parable of the Manifestation of the Hidden Mt 10:26-27 Lk 12:2-3 1J244; Mk 4:22 = Lk 8:17 fll34 Verse 26a, "Fear them not therefore," is another discourse transition. 2 Cf. Schweitzer, Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis Jesu, p. 46; Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, p. 405; Out of My Life and Thought, pp. 18, 52, 72f. 3 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 234; Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1921), p. 10; et al. 1 For a comparison of the two forms, see Lk 6 : 4 0 11102. 2 Cf. Box, St. Matthew, p. 185.

161

JESUS AND T H E F I B S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f 7 6

The notion of fear may have been suggested by the fear dealt with in the next unit (28 and 31), but "them" seems to have its antecedent in the adversaries back in j[72. This is the only appearance of this parable in Matthew, apparently the Q form which parallels Luke's second form (12:2-3 in his Great Non-Markan Section). Luke (8:17) reports the Markan form (4:22) in the Markan order ( P 3 4 ) . 1 Neither Mark nor Luke associates the parable in any way with the mission address to the disciples. The parable itself is Semitic in style and structure: a double statement with two parallel members. It reads like a proverb, even a profane one, which cautions against the confiding of secrets. The application or interpretation in 27 seems to go back to Q even though Luke derives a different meaning. Verse 27 of Matthew seems like an apology for the relative obscurity of Jesus' life and work. 76. Summons to Fearless Confession Mt 10:28-33

Lk 12:4-9 |[245; Mk 8:38 = Lk 9:26 fll81

In both Matthew ( ||75-76 ) and Luke (fl244r-245) this passage and the preceding occur together, and they must have stood together in Q. Mt 10:28-33 falls into two parts on the basis of source: 28-31 and 32-33. The first part has a parallel in Lk 12:4-7 but no parallel in Mark. The second part has a parallel in Mk 8:38. Luke uses both source forms of the second part: Mark's form in Mark's order in 9:26 (1fl81); the Q form in 12:8-9 (IJ245) in his Great Non-Markan Section.1 Matthew alone associates this passage with the mission address to the disciples. However, the real audience in Matthew is not the twelve about to depart on their mission. Verses 28-31 are addressed to any devout person who fears and trusts God; 32-33 is addressed to Christians in a hostile world faced with the dilemma of confessing or denying Christ. Thus, they represent two separate sayings of an altogether different religious nature and origin. Few adjacent passages in the Synoptic tradition furnish better examples of genuine and ingenuine utterances ascribed to Jesus. Verses 28-31 seem to be an authentic word of Jesus. They are an expression of individual piety, warm and personal. Like so many literary expressions of such piety, it begins with fear and awe and ends with trust and confidence. It is God who is to be feared and trusted; adherence to the person of Jesus does not figure at all. In 28-31 Jesus himself is the simple, single religious subject who fears and trusts. Like the famous passage in Mt 6:25-34 (PO), it is based on the elemental religious distinction between creature and Creator. Verse 29 is an inference that reasons from the lesser to the greater ( a minori ad majus). It is based on a homely observation — the sale of sparrows, the cheapest of birds in the market.2 Verse For a comparison of the Markan and Q forms, see Mk 4:22 fll34. For a comparison of the Markan and Q forms, see Mk 8:38 1181. ' Cf. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 273f. 1

1

162

Β.177-78

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

30 may be an independent saying in its own right, for it appears as a separate unit in Lk 21:18 and in Acts 27:34b. Verses 32-33 cannot be regarded as an authentic utterance of Jesus. In this passage the reader encounters a formal and officious pronouncement of the religious group. It expresses a community conviction. Its thought is wholly christocentric: loyalty or disloyalty to Christ determines individual destiny. The disciple's duty is to confess Christ, not fear and trust God as in 28-31. The expressions "confess me" and "deny me" are termini technici of the early Christian faith. The term Son of man in both Mark and Luke is associated with Jesus' person. The present form in Matthew goes still further: the term Son of man is suppressed altogether by the pronoun "I". From the Jewish and historical point of view, it is inconceivable that Jesus made any such identification,3 direct (Matthew) or indirect (Mark and Luke), or that he made any such sweeping statement as Mt 10:32-33 and its parallels ascribe to him. 77. Dissension in the Family Mt 10:34-36 Lk 12:51-53 fl257 In Luke this Q passage is an isolated utterance in his Great Non-Markan Section (9:51 - 1 8 : 1 4 ) , but Matthew includes it in his address to the twelve.1 Matthew's thought is still engrossed in the trials that confront Christians in his own day. Verse 34 suggests general persecution: Christians are not bearers but victims of the sword. Verse 35 turns to the disruption which Christianity has introduced into the private life of the household; the Christian converts have not yet severed the bonds of home and family. The entire passage is an extract from early Christian history rather than a word of Jesus 2 with an Old Testament background (Mie 7:6). The beginning, "Think not," might suggest that it is an excerpt from early Christian dialectic and debate.3 The first half of the passage should be reset into the third person, for it is really a later Christian statement about Jesus' mission from heaven to earth: "Think not that he came to send peace on the earth: he came not to send peace, but a sword. For he came to set . . ." 78. Conditions of Discipleship Mt 10:37-39

Lk 14:25-27 ||275; 17:33 1f300

Mt 16:24-25 = Mk8:34r-35 = Lk 9:23-24 ^180

This paragraph contains a group of three units of utterance, all from Q, held together by the idea of heroic sacrifice. The first two (37-38) must have stood together in Q, for they occur together in Luke also (14:26-27). Cf. J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu ( 1900), p. 165f. For a comparison of the two forms, see Lk 12:51-53 11257. 2 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 238; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 152. 3 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 94. 8 1

163

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B.179

Furthermore, the first two conform to each other in both Matthew and Luke ( and Q ? ) : they have the same thought expressed in the same language, although Matthew and Luke differ in the thought and point.1 In Luke the third saying of Matthew is widely separated from the first two (17:33). The first of these three sayings has no parallel in Mark, but the second and third of Matthew have parallels later in Mark (8:34-35 fíl80) where Matthew and Luke reproduce them in Mark's form and order.2 These last two are one of the rare instances of the same word of Jesus occurring twice in both Matthew and Luke, once from Mark and once from Q. This group of three sayings ends Matthew's long digression (17-39) from the past, the mission of the twelve, into his own present. The predictions which began in 17 now reach their climax in the prospect of martyrdom and death. Luke's form of these sayings retains the situation of Jesus' lifetime—loyal discipleship. But these same sayings in Matthew do not have in mind the twelve, or any disciples during Jesus' lifetime, but Christians who must face great sacrifice to prove themselves worthy of Christ. Verse 37 of Matthew is nearer the traditional Jewish point of view than Luke's parallel (14:26). Honor to parents was one of the ten commandments, but in rabbinical thought, devotion to family and parents was secondary to devotion to God, to the law, even to one's teacher.3 Verse 38 might be of later Christian origin, for the figure of the cross could have Jesus' own crucifixion as a background. However, crucifixion was so common in Palestine4 that the cross may have become, in common speech, a symbol for suffering and martyrdom even before Jesus' death. Verse 39 is a paradox, and a paradox is of such a nature that there cannot be much variation in wording without destroying the paradoxical form, even in two independent written forms like Mark and Q. These sayings, generally, are so mystifying in nature, so disconcerting to normal human intelligence, so disdainful of ordinary human existence with its loves and loyalties, as to sound fanatical.5 Their extreme severity is best explained by their eschatological background, the cosmic crisis. They belong to the ethics of eschatology.® 79. Reception and Its Rewards Mt 10:40-42

Mk 9:41 fl92; Lk 10:16 P 0 7 Mt 18:5 = Mk 9:37 = Lk 9:48a 90 After his long anachronism in 17-39, Matthew now returns to the mission of the twelve and concludes the address. This conclusion is composite;

For a comparison of the two forms, see Lk 14:25-27 H275. For a comparison of the Markan and Q forms, see Mk 8:34-35 11180. 3 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 587. 4 Cf. Josephus Antiquities xvii. 10, 10. B Cf. Renan, Vie de Jésus, p. 312. * Cf. Schweitzer, Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis Jesu, p. 18; Carpenter, The First Three Gospels, p. 375; et al. 1 2

164

Β. 180

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

it is made up of three separate discourse units. It is a good example of Matthew's conflation of his basic sources, verse for verse: 40 is from Q with a parallel in Lk 10:16; 41 is peculiar to Matthew; 42 seems to be from Mk 9:41 —a stray saying toward the very close of Mark's Galilean story. All three have to do, directly or indirectly, with receiving. They have such a strong sectarian cast and color that they can apply to Christians generally, not just to the twelve on their mission. Verse 40 must have concluded the Q form of the address, for it concludes Luke's Q form, the address to the seventy, not to the twelve as in Matthew. 1 This saying exists in four slightly different forms in the four Gospels: Mt 10:40; Mk 9:37; Lk 10:16; Jn 13:20. All four forms have one basic element in common, a purely christocentric orientation ( "receiveth me" ). The general idea is Jewish and rabbinical: a person sent, commissioned by, or representing another is equivalent to that person himself. Verse 40 expresses an exalted Christian consciousness, a conviction of complete solidarity of disciple with Christ, and through Christ with God. Verse 41 with its prophets and righteous men has an Old Testament background, and it may once have been an old Jewish saying.2 However, taken with 40 and 42, it reflects the organized ranks within the Christian church at an early stage: apostles (40), prophets and righteous men (41), and simple believers (42). 3 In 42 the heavenly Christ is speaking. The "little ones," so prominent in a later chapter of Matthew (18), are new in the address; they are not the twelve, but humble Christian believers of Matthew's own day. "In the name of a disciple" expresses Christian affiliation, and it gives this otherwise impressive saying an almost offensive sectarian cast and color. 80. The Departure of Jesus Mt 11:1 Mk 6:12-13 = Lk 9:6 fll52 At no point is Matthew's catechetical interest clearer than here at the very end. He is so engrossed in the practical importance of the address for his readers that he does not report the departure of the twelve or anything about their mission; even their return he never notes. The disciples are not mentioned again until 12:1 but nothing in the interval suggests their absence. Matthew is so unaware of this void in his story that he reports the very opposite of what the reader would expect, the departure of Jesus on a tour. This notice in Matthew simply hangs in the air, for his story follows neither the twelve on their mission nor Jesus on the tour of "their cities." This is pure didactic writing, not historical reporting. It may be that Q, like Matthew, gave the address but no account of the mission, no note of depar1

For a comparison of the two forms, see Lk 10:16 11207. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 85. 3 Cf. E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 143; II, 241f.

2

165

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.

181-85

ture or return. The beginning and end of Luke's mission of the seventy (H203; If208) would seem to substantiate this. Chapter 11, verse 1 is the dividing line between Book III and Book IV of Matthew. The stereotyped formula, "And it came to pass when Jesus had finished commanding his twelve disciples," simply repeats, with necessary variations, the first appearance of this formula, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount (7:28a). In this one instance of its five appearances, this formula is a transition from one discourse to another, not from discourse back to narrative as in the other four instances. It calls attention to the composition and structure of Matthew's Gospel. In Book IV, which extends from 11:2 to 13:52, Matthew is closer to the Markan framework than in Books II and III. In Book IV discourse matter continues to prevail over narrative. There are three discourse sections; one is from Q, and two are expansions of briefer discourse sections in Mark. A few narrative units are interspersed. JESUS' ADDBESS ON THE BAPTIST

Mt 11:2-19 1(81-85

Lk 7:18-35 P0&-112

This is the third major address of Jesus in Matthew, and it comes in his third digression between Mk 2:22 and 23. Luke reports it later, in his Small Non-Markan Section ( 6 : 2 0 - 8 : 3 ) . This is a distinctly Q address without so much as a parallel sentence in Mark. Matthew and Luke agree more closely in the content and composition of this address than in the case of any other. They begin with the same two paragraphs (Mt, fl81-82; Lk, P09-110), and they end with the same parable (Mt, lf85; Lk, p i 2 ) . These three units constitute the main body of the address and must be a very close approximation to the form in Q. Matthew has only four verses (11:12-15) not found in Luke's form, and Luke has only two verses (7:29-30) not found in Matthew's form. This section, presented as continuous discourse, is by no means a unity. Even in Q it was composite, built up of heterogeneous and not wholly harmonious materials. This lack of unity is clear in three things. (1) The section is made up of what were originally single and separate units. (2) The multitudes in 7 are a sympathetic audience, but at the end (18-19) a bitter indictment strikes this generation. (3) The first unit (1J81) ends with a polemic against John which is followed immediately (1j82) by unstinted praise and tribute. Just the general theme, Jesus and John, brings the materials in this section together. For the most part, the Christian treatment of this theme predominates over history: what John actually thought of Jesus; what Jesus actually thought of John — if such a thought ever occurred to either. The relationship of Jesus and John has a different treatment in the two

166

Β. f 8 1

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

basic sources of the Synoptic tradition, in Mark and in Q. ( 1 ) In Mark there is just one fleeting contact between Jesus and John, at the Jordan (1:9), and no subsequent encounters, direct or indirect. Q may or may not have had the story of Jesus' baptism by John, but in Q there is a later subsequent contact between the two through John's deputation of his disciples to Jesus. (2) In Mark John's attention is never directed to Jesus personally or individually, but in Q John's hope (or doubt) is turned to Jesus in a momentous question. ( 3 ) In Mark John is portrayed in a secondary subordinate light as Jesus' providential forerunner — a later Christian conception. In Q this subordination of John is less apparent, if evident at all, and Jesus and John appear more as parallel contemporary figures, independent colleagues in a common task. 81. The Deputation of the Baptist Mt 11:2-6 Lk 7:18-23 fil09 Matthew and Luke begin this section alike, with John's deputation to Jesus, evidently the beginning in Q. Just how much of this passage goes back to Q is difficult to determine; for certain, John's question in 3 and Jesus' reply in 4r-6. The original amount of narrative framework is uncertain. If Q gave a skeleton narrative framework like Matthew, then Luke has expanded; if Q gave a fuller narrative setting like Luke, then Matthew has compressed.1 In either case Matthew and Luke have one feeling about discourse matter and a very different feeling about narrative. The discourse matter seems almost sacred, forbidding literary liberties; the narrative matter is not binding and invites literary ingenuity.2 This section begins abruptly; there is no connection with anything that has immediately preceded. In fact, the whole section is timeless and placeless. Verse 2 reaches back to the very beginning of Matthew's public story (4:12), to his original notice about John's imprisonment. The phrase, "the works of the Christ," is very abstract, and Matthew may be thinking of his ten wonder-works back in 8 : 1 - 9 : 3 4 . It would be a good title for that section. However, the long address to the twelve has distracted the reader's attention from those wonder-works. The term Christ here seems to be no longer a title (Messiah) but a personal name synonymous with Jesus. John's question is double. Even its tone is uncertain. Does it express mounting hope and growing belief, or does it express weakened faith and growing disappointment? The second part of the question seems to let the emphasis fall on doubt, and Jesus' reply also seems to interpret the question as skeptical. This question of John is still more puzzling when the reader seeks to relate it to earlier passages of Matthew. This Q question in Mt 11:3 really contradicts the Q message of John 1 2

For a comparison of the two forms, see Lk 7:18-23 H109. Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, pp. 28, 33f.

167

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. ^81

back in Mt 3:11-12 (jf4). In his announcement of the Coming One in that early passage John was thinking in terms of a divine figure with supernatural powers and functions who would baptize in the Holy Spirit and in fire and conduct the divine judgment. Here in 11:3, however, John turns to Jesus as though he were expecting a human, historical figure. This Q question in Mt 11:3 is also hard to reconcile with that new addition to the baptism story which Matthew made in 3:14-15 (fj6) where John recognized Jesus as the One he had been announcing and hesitated to baptize him. As pointed out there, the recognition scene in Matthew compromises the character of John, and now this question in 11:3 discredits him still further: at the Jordan John believed; now in prison he doubts. Jesus' reply (4-6) is evasive and enigmatic, perhaps a veiled hint, yet noncommittal. The early Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah, yet the Synoptic tradition, except in rare instances, depicts Jesus as reticent and secretive on this issue. The obvious explanation is that the early Christians believed and claimed for Jesus what he never claimed, or even thought, for himself. The first part of the reply (4-5) turns attention from Jesus' person to his works. Verse 5 is a paraphrase of Isa 29:18-19, which is a poetical passage describing in metaphor the wonders of the new age to come. Matthew takes this figurative language literally, and in 5 he seems to be thinking of the cycle of wonder-works back in 8 : 1 - 9 : 3 4 . This, however, is awkward for two reasons. ( 1 ) In 4 Jesus appeals to what John's disciples have seen and heard, and yet they were not noted as witnesses of the wonder-works in that section. (2) Jesus' word in 5 could hardly refer to those wonderworks; such miracles could hardly be described as commonplace, daily occurrences. Verses 4-5 are not a reply to John at all, but a generalization on the new age. They would clarify John's mind at no point; rather they would mystify him. The appeal to miracle reads more like later Christian proof of Jesus' messiahship than any actual reasoning on the part of Jesus himself. Verse 6 seems to be addressed to John directly, not to his disciples as was 4-5. It is the only part of the reply that bears on Jesus' person and John's question. It has the tone of warning to one who doubts. In phrasing and idea it is christocentric and very probably of later Christian origin. The episode is incomplete. It breaks off without the reader learning whether the reply was ever transmitted to John and how he reacted to it. The writer's interest in the episode exhausts itself as soon as the key-word of Jesus is spoken. The Synoptic tradition as a whole reflects mixed feelings relative to John. From the dogmatic point of view, John was an asset: he was the providential forerunner of Jesus. But in the light of the known facts of history, John was a liability: neither he nor his disciples ever became personal followers of Jesus during his lifetime.

168

Β.182-83

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

82. Jesus' Exalted Estimate of the Baptist Mt 11:7-ll Lk 7:24-28 flllO The preceding passage was a separate and independent unit. What follows is a series of diverse discourse materials attached to it; 2-6 is a sort of peg on which the rest of the section is hung. Matthew makes a feeble effort to effect a connection, "And as these went their way," but there is a change of subject and of situation. Verses 2-6 centered primarily on Jesus' person; 7-11 center on John's person. In 2-6 a scene was enacted between Jesus and John's disciples; in 7-11, and in the remainder of the section, Jesus is addressing the multitudes. Verses 7-11 are composite, made up of three elements: (a) 10; ( b ) 7-9, 11a; (c) lib. (a) 10 is a free, perhaps memory, quotation of Mai 3:1. It is generally regarded as a later insert into Q as it was in Mk l ^ . 1 It breaks the natural connection between 9 and 11a, and it anticipates what is to come in 14. It expresses the later Christian subordination of John and is out of harmony with its context. ( b ) 7-9, 11a represents the heart of the passage. It is an appeal of Jesus to the memory of his audience, to persons who had earlier seen and heard John. The passage begins with three rhetorical questions. The first two are ironical and assume a negative reply. The third anticipates an affirmative reply which is given by Jesus himself. In this passage Jesus speaks as a contemporary of John, even as a colleague. It is a eulogy, an unstinted tribute, an almost objective judgment in which Jesus feels a sense of solidarity with John. It may be regarded as an authentic utterance of Jesus, for it is opposed to the later Christian disposition to depreciate John.2 (c) Verse 11 might seem to form a single antithetical unit. However, the deep depreciation of John in l i b is hard to reconcile with the tremendous tribute in 11a, and is commonly regarded as a later addition. Schweitzer3 contends for the unity of l i b with what precedes. It does not depreciate John in particular but everything human and historical in relation to the new supernatural order to come. The kingdom will bring a reversal of ordinary standards: the greatest in history will be less than the least in the kingdom. 83. The Stormers of the Kingdom of Heaven Mt 11:12-13 Lk 16:16 fl285 This Q passage has no organic connection with this section. In the address as a whole, John is the subject of interest, but in this passage, interest centers on the kingdom. John is mentioned only incidentally. Furthermore, Cf. Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen, p. 253; Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 96, et aï. Cf. Dibelius, Johannes der Täufer, p. 14; Bousset, Kyrios Christos ( 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 45; et al. 3 Cf. Out of My Life and Thought, p. 19. 1

2

169

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B. |84

the section began with John a living and acting contemporary of Jesus, but here he is spoken of as though he and his work are a part of the past. Luke's parallel proves that this passage was originally a detached unit; Luke does not include it in his form of this address. Only verbal association, the name John, leads Matthew to include it in his version of the discourse. This is one of the most enigmatic utterances ascribed to Jesus in the Synoptic tradition. Even the general drift of its meaning is uncertain. It is not clear whether Jesus is commending or condemning these men of violence. Some critics 1 feel that it is a warning, even an indictment, expressing disapproval. Other critics 2 find here a revolutionary and fanatical trait in Jesus, perhaps his own (assumed) determination to compel the kingdom to come by his death in Jerusalem. However, the passage as it stands, utterly detached, expresses neither approval nor disapproval. The passage might be regarded as of later Christian origin, for it reflects the Christian conception of John as the end of the old, or as the line of demarkation between the old and the new. On the other hand, it might be a word of Jesus that survived only because he was known to have spoken it. It would be strange for the tradition to fabricate an utterance which the tradition itself did not understand any better than does the mystified reader. 84. The Baptist Identified as Elijah Mt 11:14-13 Verse 14 is not only peculiar to Matthew but the substance of the statement made is unique in the Synoptic tradition. It returns to the theme of John, deserted briefly for that of the kingdom in 12-13. The background of 14 is Mai 4:5-6. This belief in the return of Elijah remained an article firmly held in the faith of the Jewish synagogue.1 In Matthew here it has almost the form and force of an oracle. Schweitzer 2 regards Mt 11:14 as an authentic utterance of Jesus who did look upon John as Elijah returned. This was a conclusion which Jesus drew from his own conviction that he was the Messiah or destined to be the Messiah. In making this statement Jesus came near to divulging his own messianic secret. Most critics 3 feel that it is not an authentic utterance of Jesus but a later Christian inference drawn from the Christian belief that Jesus was the Messiah. It could be Matthew's own expansion of Mark's hint 1 Cf. Bousset, Jesu Predigt in ihrem, Gegensatz zum Judentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892), p. 92; J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth·. His Life, Times, and Teaching, trans, from Hebrew, Herbert Danby (New York: Macmillan, 1925), p. 206; et al. 2 Cf. Wernle, Jesus, p. 244; Schweitzer, Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis Jesu, p. 33. 1 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 597; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 249. s Cf. Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis Jesu, p. 44; Geschichte der Leben-JesuForschung, p. 420f. ' Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 305; Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 32.

170

Β.185-89

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

4

in 9:13. Or, it could be Matthew's own editorial contribution, for two reasons.5 (1) Matthew is the only Synoptic writer who has Jesus himself make this identification. (2) Verse 14 is phrased in such an uncertain way that it is not clear whether Matthew intends it as a word of Jesus or simply as an observation of his own.® Verse 15 is a stereotyped formula which appears three times in Matthew, twice in Mark, twice in Luke, and frequently in Revelation. 85. The Parable of the Children at Play Lk 7:31-35 flll2 Mt 11:16-19 This Q address on John, like the Sermon on the Mount and Sermon on the Plain, ends with a parable. This parable originally was a separate unit and not a part of this section on John. The real theme of the parable is not John but the attitude of a generation. It is joined on here only because John is mentioned — no more than verbal association, for John is mentioned only incidentally. The paragraph falls into two parts: the parable proper in 16-17, and the allegorical application in 18-19. The parable itself can very well be an authentic saying of Jesus. It is based on a simple observation from the ordinary life of plain people. In their play children imitate the serious things of adult life; here, wedding and funeral. Verses 18-19 are of later Christian origin, and the parable is evidently older than this application. In it Jesus is made to speak both of John and of himself as figures belonging to the past. In both cases the verbs are in the past tense: "John came" . . . "the Son of man came." Both Jesus and John have become objects of historical reflection. The term Son of man here has no Jewish connotation; it is a Christian synonym for Jesus. Verse 19b may be an old Jewish saying on the order of Sirach 11:28b. Its tone is ironical and satirical. Wisdom is personified as so often in the Jewish wisdom literature. Mt 11:20-30 If86-89. In this short section Matthew concludes his third digression (9:18-11:30), made between Mk 2:22 and 23, with a series of unrelated discourse units, three of which are from Q and one now peculiar to Matthew 86. The Woes on the Galilean Cities Mt 11:20-24 Lk 10:13-15 1[206 The original context of these woes is unknown. Luke includes them in the mission address to the seventy. They may have had this context in Q, for 11:24 of Matthew repeats verbatim the final instruction to the twelve in 10:15. Their appearance at this particular point in Matthew may be due to 4

Cf. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 182; Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 674f. Cf. Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 98; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 11. β Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 675. s

171

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 186

topical considerations. The indictment of an unresponsive generation in the preceding unit ( ) may have suggested these sayings about unresponsive cities (|[86). Matthew joins these woes to what precedes with his favorite connective, "Then." Verse 20 is Matthew's own editorial contribution suggested by the woes themselves. Matthew reports these woes too early in the total story. By their very nature these woes are retrospective; they look back and survey the Galilean work as a whole. Luke reports them much later as a part of his Great NonMarkan Section and journey to Jerusalem.1 At this later point in Luke the Galilean work is completed, and such a retrospect is more natural. The strong appeal to wonder-works in Q is strange, for Q reports only two. Mark's Galilean story would furnish a much better background for such an appeal.2 The singling out of Capernaum for special indictment is not surprising to the reader familiar with the Synoptic tradition, but the other two cities featured give him pause. This is the only reference to Chorazin in Matthew and Luke (and Q); it is never mentioned in Mark. Jesus is never in Chorazin in the Synoptic tradition, and not one particular saying or incident is associated with Chorazin elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels. This is also the only reference to Bethsaida in Matthew. Luke has the parallel reference from Q (10:13) and one editorial mention of Bethsaida (9:10). Mark mentions Bethsaida twice in the latter part of the Galilean story (6:45; 8:22). Yet these three isolated references to Bethsaida in Mark and Luke would not point to that city as a principal center of Jesus' Galilean work. This Q passage with its woes on three Galilean cities might suggest that Mark has given a one-sided and incomplete account of Jesus' Galilean work with its center in Capernaum, when actually other cities were equally important scenes of Jesus' Galilean work. According to Josephus,3 Sepphoris and Tiberias were the largest cities of Galilee; yet neither is mentioned in the Synoptic tradition. Verses 21-24 of Matthew are a rhetorical apostrophe. They are charged with strong emotion: disappointment, perhaps even bitterness. They possess dramatic power whether accepted as a spontaneous oral utterance or as a piece of literary composition. Similar indictments of Jewish and Gentile cities are found in the Old Testament.4 Some critics 5 are skeptical of these woes as authentic utterances of Jesus. They have the appearance of a piece of careful literary composition rather than that of extemporaneous oral utterance. They seem to look back, not only on Jesus' Galilean work, but on his whole life as completed in the past. For a comparison of the two forms, see Lk 10:13-15 11206. Cf. Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 160. 8 Cf. Life 65. 346. 4 E.g., Amos 3:9-11; Isa 14:13-15. 6 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 264; Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 54f. 1 2

172

Β. 187-89

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

They also seem to reflect Christianity's failure in Jesus' own native province. Galilee never figures as a scene of Christian success in the Book of Acts or elsewhere. In the second woe there is an indirect reference to the person of Jesus. Jesus himself would hardly think or say that his presence had exalted Capernaum to heaven, but the early Christians could think and say just such a thing. Hence, it is possible that these woes are an early Christian product, and do not go back to Jesus at all. Mt 1 1 : 2 5 - 3 0 I f 8 7 - 8 9 . The three discourse units which follow have no organic connection with what precedes. In fact, they stand in sharp contrast with it. In 1f86 the reader met indictments inspired by frustration and disappointment. In | f 8 7 — 8 9 he encounters a complete change of mood in exalted utterances expressing sheer elation. Matthew introduces these three units in a vague manner, "At that season Jesus answered," giving the impression of connection where actually none exists. Matthew uses this same formula twice a little later ( 1 2 : 1 ; 1 4 : 1 ) . As 2 5 - 3 0 now stands in Matthew, it is timeless and placeless, a detached monologue, a sort of impersonal declamation in rhythmic liturgical style. Some critics 6 regard Mt 1 1 : 2 5 - 3 0 as a unity, a didactic poem or hymn in three strophes in Semitic style on the pattern of Sirach 51. They reject the whole as an authentic utterance of Jesus because it is a literary composition in un-Synoptic style in which the mythical Christ, not the historical Jesus, is speaking. Others 7 regard it as a pre-Christian Jewish wisdom lyric of unknown literary origin; still others,8 as a hymn of Christian wisdom. Mt 1 1 : 2 5 - 2 7 T f 8 7 — 8 8 . These two Q paragraphs are usually regarded as a literary unit. They occur together in Matthew ( f l 8 7 - 8 8 ) and in Luke ( | f 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 ) , as apparently they did in Q. Furthermore, both are written in the same exalted mood and style. However, they must be regarded as two separate units because of their different nature and religious origin. (1) 1f87 is in true prayer-form with the natural first and second person of direct address ("I"; "thou"). In T f 8 8 the prayer-form disappears entirely; there is no second person and, after the opening line, the first person ("me") gives place to impersonal discourse. (2) |f87 depicts a religious subject (Jesus) praying to a religious object (the Father); in fl88 Jesus becomes a religious object, the Son along with the Father. ( 3 ) In fl87 the individual is speaking, but in |f88 the believing group is making a formal officious pronouncement of a dogmatic nature. (4) fl87 can be accepted as an expression of Jesus' personal religious feeling and faith, while |f88 must be regarded as a deposit of early Christian thought and belief. " C f . D i b e l i u s , Tradition 7 β

to Gospel,

p . 2 7 9 ; E . M e y e r , Ursprung

Cf. Bacon, Studies in Matthew, p. 73£F; Bultmann, Geschichte Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 127, 403, 910.

173

und Anfänge,

I, 2811F.

( 1 9 3 1 ) , p. 172.

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f 8 7 - 8 8

87. Jesus' Prayer of Praise Mt 11:25-26 Lk 10:21 j[209 This is the second prayer ascribed to Jesus in Matthew; the first was the Lord's Prayer in 6:9-13. Both are from Q and both are included in the Galilean story. Luke reports both in his Great Non-Markan Section ( 9 : 5 1 - 1 8 : 1 4 ) . There are no Galilean prayers of Jesus in Mark and Luke. At one time this prayer may have had a definite context or an historical provocation which made it clear what "these things" thanked for in the prayer itself were. It is a prayer of praise and thanksgiving. Its basic thought is directly opposed to that of the Jewish rabbis who exalted study, learning, and knowledge, and excluded the simple and the ignorant.1 If this is accepted as an authentic prayer of Jesus (and it may well be), it differs from the other prayers ascribed to him in the Synoptic tradition in two respects. It has a more formal and elaborate address, Ό Father, Lord of heaven and earth," over against the usual simple invocation, "Father"; it also employs a more solemn liturgical language and style than is usual. In these two respects it is nearer Matthew's form of the Lord's Prayer. Dibelius 2 regards it as a prayer in form only, actually as a sermon. Its language and thought are strongly reminiscent of that of Paul in I Cor 1:18 — 2:16. 88. The Father and the Son Mt 11:27 Lk 10:22 fl210 Verbal association seems to join this impersonal discourse to the preceding prayer, the word "reveal." Verse 27a is a transition from the personal discourse in 25-26 to the impersonal discourse in 27b. In idea it is not a good transition, for 27a has to do with authority; 27b, with knowledge and revelation. The former has such close affinities with Mt 28:18b that it must be regarded as a word of the Risen Jesus. Verse 27b is of Greek-Christian origin. The term knowledge is used in the Greek sense; this knowledge is abstract and mystical. In Jewish thought the knowledge of God comes of right-doing. In 27b there is an un-Jewish conjunction or constellation of religious objects, the Father and the Son. Both are cosmic, metaphysical; their relationship transcends time. The literary style is Johannine, not Synoptic, and 27b has the appearance of an errant fragment from the Fourth Gospel. There are only two passages in the Synoptic tradition in which Jesus uses the term Son of himself in the absolute sense: the present Q passage of Matthew and Luke, and Mark 13:32 (Mt 24:36 j[380). This term in this sense is as foreign otherwise to the Synoptic Gospels as it is indigenous to the Gospel of John. Verse 27b cannot be accepted as an authentic utterance of Jesus. "Not the Son, only the Father, 1 2

Cf. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 237. Cf. Formgeschichte, p. 89.

174

Β. 189

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

belongs in the religious message of Jesus." 1 It comes nearer being a Christian doxology on revelation.2 89. "Come unto Me" Mt 11:28-30 This passage concludes Matthew's long third digression in 9 : 1 8 - 1 1 : 3 0 . With its tone and quality of benediction, it may be especially designed to conclude the long discourse section which began with 9:36. It continues the lyrical style of the last two passages, but otherwise it stands in sharp contrast to what immediately precedes in 11:27. This passage cuts itself off from the impersonal discourse of ][88 by its use of the first person. In |fS8 the idea was Greek: the Son is the organ or agent of revelation. In T|89 Jesus appears in a Jewish light, as a teacher of religious wisdom. This passage is peculiar to Matthew, and there is nothing remotely similar to it elsewhere in the whole of the Synoptic tradition. It stands in sharp contrast to Mark's strong Son of God and numerous drastic demands upon the disciples in Matthew and Luke, especially those from Q. Some critics,1 however, would assign it to Q because it is associated with three Q passages ( fl86-88 ) and continues their lyrical style. On the other hand, if it was in Q, it seems strange that Luke should have reproduced the three preceding units and have omitted this fourth so congenial to his religious feeling and to his general conception of Jesus. Some critics 2 accept this passage as an authentic word of Jesus. Others 3 reject it; they resent its egoism and self-recommendation. Others 4 feel that Jesus is made to speak here as a mythical god like the divine redeemers in the Greek cults who recommended themselves. Still others 5 regard it as a possible extract from some Jewish wisdom writing. Whether it is accepted as a word of Jesus or as a piece of later Christian composition, it certainly has a Jewish background. It contains an echo from Jer 6:16. It has affinities with Sirach 24:19-22 and 51:23-27 which are so close that the entire passage may be a mosaic of extracts borrowed from that Jewish writing.® In Sirach the divine wisdom is speaking. This famous passage as it now stands is egocentric to the point of being offensive with its recommendation of self, and yet it is one of the most 1 Adolf Hamack, Das Wesen des Christentums (Ausg. fürs Feld, Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915), p. 91. 2 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 127, 403, 910. 1 Cf. T. W. Manson, The Mission and Message of Jesus, p. 477; Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 279. 2 Cf. T. W. Manson, The Mission and Message of Jesus, p. 479; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 312f. 3 Cf. Wernle, Jesus, p. 326; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 182. 4 Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, pp. 245, 281. "Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 97. • Cf. Abrahams, Studies, II, 4; Benjamin W. Bacon, Jesus: the Son of God (New York: Henry Holt, 1930), p. 77; et al.

175

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 190

popular and most quoted passages of the Synoptic tradition. It has brought consolation and comfort to numberless Christians down through the centuries, and this fact is perhaps the best clue to its origin: in it, piety speaks to piety, Christian to Christian, not Jesus to his contemporaries. It should read in the third person singular on the lips of some early Christian pastor addressing his flock. Taken from the lips of Jesus and reset in the third person, the passage loses none of its beauty or religious value. In fact, it gains in both, for the Christian believer can say of Christ what no man, in reverence, could have said of himself. In the third person the passage appears in its natural environment as an early Christian invitation to Christ, perhaps a part of the early Christian service of worship: Come unto him, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and he will give you rest. Take his yoke upon you, and learn of him; for he is meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For his yoke is easy, and his burden is light. 90. Plucking Grain on the Sabbath IV. Mt 12:1-8 Mk 2:23-28 Lk 6:1^5 This is the fourth controversy in Mark's series in 2 : 1 - 3 : 6 . It follows immediately upon the third (2:18-22 1f62), and it introduces a new issue of debate into the series — sabbath observance. The fact that it is a controversy is the only thing that gives it a place in the series. This Markan story lacks unity. Verses 23-24 depict the situation and give the critical comment which it provokes, to which are attached two different replies, 25-26 and 27-28, each introduced by, "And he said unto them," which proves their original separateness. Either of the replies might be given to the critical comment in 24, but the double reply overloads the situation in 23-24. The two replies are wholly unlike in nature and orientation. That of 25-26 is a piece of professional reasoning based on the patterns and precedents of a school; it is typical rabbinical argumentation based on scripture. That of 27-28 is a more detached and philosophical type of reasoning with greater originality and independence of thought. Reconstructed, the story might have one of two briefer and simpler forms: ( 1 ) 23-24 + 25-26 with 27-28 a later addition; 1 (2 ) 23-24 + 27-28 with 25-26 a later addition.2 Verses 23-24 begin in the manner typical of the single detached episode, "And it came to pass." The setting seems concrete, but actually it is very indefinite. The ripened grain here is the only indication of the season of the year in the Synoptic tradition, until the reader comes to the Passover at which Jesus dies. It has no chronological value for dating the episode as early or late in the story or for estimating the length of Jesus' public career. 1 2

Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 102; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 97. Cf. J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu, p. 58; Crum, St. Mark's Gospel, pp. 20, 103.

176

Β. 190

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

The appearance of the Pharisees in the grainfields on the sabbath is abrupt. They are always at hand, as though they never let Jesus and his disciples out of their sight, for the simple reason that they are always available in the writer's literary imagination as the dramatic counterpart to Jesus in controversy and debate. Again, it is not the conduct of Jesus that is questioned but that of the disciples. Why must Jesus answer for his disciples' conduct? Is their behavior so different from his own? Where have they learned their liberalism? Such a breach between master and disciples is not natural. This concentration on secondary characters, here the disciples, may be only a literary device for highlighting the key-word of Jesus, or it may point to the later Christian origin of the issue which is settled by a resort to a proclamation of Jesus. In 25-26 there is only a general similarity between the situation of the disciples and that of David in I Sam 21:1-7. In both incidents forbidden things are done and are justified by special circumstances. Mark's review of the David episode does not accord too well with the Old Testament. ( 1 ) There is the glaring error, "when Abiathar was high priest." According to I Sam 22:20 his father Ahimelech was high priest. This error is not found in some Manuscripts of Mark ( D Syrsin it). It recalls the erroneous ascription of a Malachi passage to Isaiah back in Mk 1:2. ( 2 ) The David episode does not take place on the sabbath; hence, the point is lost in defense of Jesus' disciples. ( 3 ) In the Old Testament story David is alone; in Mark he has companions with him. ( 4 ) In the Old Testament David does not enter the sanctuary as Mark states; he does not take the bread; it is given to him by the high priest. The author of Mk 25-26 must be reviewing from memory without actually consulting the Old Testament form of the story. The second reply, 27-28, is introduced as a supplement, "And he said unto them." Its point is not a natural or logical conclusion drawn from what precedes. It is not an appeal to the past but to a sound sense for human values. Verse 27 crystallizes a social philosophy that puts the welfare of the individual above conformity to traditional practice. It has no direct bearing on the issue of plucking grain on the sabbath. The reasoning in 27 is too sweeping, too detached, to have burst genius-like from a concrete situation. Verse 27 is not found in D and some Latin versions. It is not reproduced by Matthew and Luke, and there is the definite possibility that it may be a later addition to Mark.3 If it is an authentic word of Jesus, it was originally an isolated saying which was later joined to this controversy because it deals with the sabbath.4 However, 27 has a very close rabbinical parallel, and it 3 Cf. Hoffmann, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 131; H. Weinel, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments: die Religion Jesu und des Urchristentums (3. Aufl.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1921), p. 210; et al. 4 Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 366; Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, p. 81.

177

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B.H90

may have been borrowed from that source and ascribed to Jesus. 5 Whether 27 is original with Jesus or borrowed from the rabbis, it has something basically un-Jewish about it. According to Gen 2 : 2 - 3 the sabbath was instituted, not for man, but by God for His own sake. Verses 27 and 28 are presented as continuous discourse, as a single utterance in poetic parallelism. However, 27 and 28 are complete in themselves apart from each other, and each has a tone of finality. They are not premise and conclusion, but each is a separate conclusion in its own right. 6 They have different orientations. The "Son of man" in 28 does not mean man (27), but it is used in an emphatic sense: the Son of man is Jesus as in Mk 2:10. The proposition in 28 is too un-Jewish to come from Jesus. It is inconceivable that Jesus set up man in general or himself in particular as lord of the sabbath. Verse 28 is a later Christian proposition, a preacher's precept. The heart of this story in Mark is 27, perhaps the only authentic element, the nucleus about which Christian tradition formed a story —the sabbath episode in the grainfields.7 Mt 12:1-8 and Lk 6 : 1 - 5 reproduce this fourth controversy in Mark's order. In Luke the fourth and fifth follow directly on the first three as they do in Mark. Matthew here, however, is returning to the order of Mark after his long third digression ( 9 : 1 8 - 1 1 : 3 0 ) . Matthew left the order of Mark after Mk 2:22 and he now returns to Mark's order exactly where he left it, at Mk 2:23. In 9:1-17 (fl59-62) Matthew reported the first three controversies in Mark's order, and now in 12:1-14 ( ^[90—91 ) he reports the last two in Mark's order. If the reader had only the Gospel of Matthew, it would never occur to him to associate these last two controversies with the first three. Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in three items which might indicate that their version of Mark differed in these respects from the present Mark. ( 1 ) In Matthew and Luke the plucking and eating of the grain constitutes the sabbath violation; in Mark it is just the plucking. ( 2 ) The error mentioning Abiathar as high priest does not reappear in Matthew and Luke, and it may not have been in their Mark. ( 3 ) The keysaying in Mk 27 does not reappear in Matthew and Luke and it too may be a later addition to Mark. However, it is easy to understand how the dogmatic statement in Mt 8 and Lk 5 may have suppressed the key-word of Jesus in Mk 27. Mt 12:1-8. Matthew ( 1 ) uses the Hebraic connecting link, "At that Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 5; Moore, Judaism, I, 31; et al. ' Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 210f; Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 215; et al. 7 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 285: L. Köhler, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr, 1927), p. 31; et al. 5

178

Β. 191

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

season" (11:25; 14:1). Verses 5-7 are an insert, perhaps Matthew's own contribution; the reasoning in 5-7 is pedantic and rabbinical. Verse 5 is a second Old Testament proof added to the one from the story of David. It diverts the whole line of reasoning: the duties of the priest on the sabbath have no bearing on the charge against the disciples. The joining of these new materials is by verbal association. The word "priests" joins 5 to 4, and the word "temple" joins 6 to 5. Verse 6 is a saying which perhaps never stood alone but was always a part of some controversy or debate. It is only a variation of Mt 12:41-42 ( P 2 6 ) . With all his gift for using Old Testament prophecy, Matthew has not been fortunate in his use of Hosea 6:6 either here or back in 9:13. Hosea 6:6 has no bearing on the issues debated. It would be more appropriate if it were associated with some act of mercy. Lk 6:1-5. Some MSS of Lk 1 (A, D, it) have a very strange term: it is the "second-first" sabbath. There is no satisfactory explanation for it. In Matthew and Mark the critical comment is made to Jesus about his disciples' conduct; in Luke it is made directly to the disciples about their own conduct (as in Lk 5:30). Verse 5 of Luke is simply stranded without Mk 27 to lead up to it. Codex D transposes Lk 5 to follow verse 10 as the conclusion for the next story, and this same MS inserts after verse 5 the semi-apocryphal story about the man working on the sabbath.8 91. The Cure of the Man with the Withered Hand V. Mt 12:9-14 Mk 3:1-6 Lk 6:6-11 Lk 14:5 ^271 This last of the five controversies is joined to the preceding very loosely, by "again." The fact that both are sabbath debates brings them together and, as already noted, they may have been the first of the five to be joined. Even in oral tradition one sabbath story would recall another.1 In the fourth controversy the issue involved the conduct of the disciples, but in the fifth it involves the conduct of Jesus himself. The localization in the synagogue may be secondary. The story could begin impersonally with lb: "There was a man." The synagogue and the sabbath should be mentioned together, not separated ( 1 and 2 ). The synagogue and the sabbath usually carry with them a notice about Jesus teaching, the presence of the multitudes or of the disciples. This story reads as though Jesus and his critics were the only persons present in the synagogue on this sabbath. The synagogue here is probably the editorial "synagogue" suggested by the sabbath. The opposition here is anonymous as it was in the earliest form of such stories.2 The statement in 2 is based on Jesus' general reputation for healing on the sabbath; it is not based on any Cf. Carpenter, The First Three Gospels, p. 22. Cf. Köhler, Das formgeschichtliche Problem, p. 31f; Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, I, 144. 2 Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 81. 8

1

179

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B. Tf91

actual antecedents in Mark's story thus far. The sabbath cures reported (1:23-31) did not result in charges of sabbath breaking. In 3-5 interest centers on the controversy, not the cure. Actual humanitarian interest is not evident. The man with the withered hand, who requests no cure and exhibits no faith, has the dramatic function of provoking Jesus to speech and action. Jesus' attention centers on the opponents who are reduced to the role of spectators, with no part in the speech or action. Even the key-word of Jesus is a monologue. The scene depicted approaches the melodramatic and has the "air of dramatic fiction."3 For narrator and hearer, for writer and reader, this excess of dramatic detail and color was gratifying because it proved the completeness of Jesus' mastery of the situation. The key-word of Jesus ( 4 ) is a rhetorical question, for the opponents are purely passive and not supposed to reply. Its tone is ironical as befits its dramatic function. However, this question is not entirely appropriate in its narrative setting. The cure of the withered hand could wait until after the sabbath without harm being done.4 This key-utterance really transcends the situation in which it is set. It is a piece of abstract, detached reasoning. It reads more like a conclusion reached in speculative thought than an appropriate utterance in an actual situation. The saying is probably older than the setting, and the story has probably been built up around it.5 This saying on the sabbath has neither the originality nor the genius of the sabbath saying in Mk 2:27. It frames the sabbath issue in the form of an uncompromising alternative which is hardly just to all the considerations involved. The first part of the question is almost absurd, for the answer is obvious. The second part is strange, for it is not lawful to do harm or to kill on the sabbath or on any other day. The alternative excludes the middle ground on which the Jews had stood for centuries: the sabbath is a day of rest, a day for doing nothing. Furthermore, Judaism set aside sabbath laws when human life was in danger.® This key-word has the one-sidedness that characterizes controversial statements generally. The polemical intensity in the whole situation might suggest a conflict between Christians and Jews on the sabbath issue rather than between Jesus and his contemporary critics. The emotional color in 5 is overdone. The situation might justify milder emotion, such as impatience or exasperation. Anger and grief are not only strong but they are hardly a natural combination.7 This flare of feeling is not provoked naturally by anything in the situation itself. The provocation is dogmatic: unbelief. The anger is not a human anger (Mk 1:43) that springs from a natural cause, but a divine anger aroused by the general perverse" Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 471. Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. lOlf; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 82; et al. 6 Bultmann, Geschichte, p. 9, and Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 66, regard saying and setting as an organic whole. 6 Cf. Moore, Judaism, I, 30. 7 Cf. H. P. Chajes, Markus-Studien (Berlin: C. A. Schwetsche und Sohn, 1899), p. 20. 4

180

Β. 191

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

ness of human nature. It reflects a feeling of superiority, even an impatience with everything human. It registers the reactions of a cosmic being whose own nature is a law unto itself.8 Such emotion is not a touch of "unembarrassed realism."9 Such touches do not make the hero more human but less so: they increase his dogmatic stature.10 Mk 3:6 is not a conclusion to the story of the withered hand, but it may have suppressed that ending.11 It is intended as the conclusion for the entire series in 2:1 - 3:5. It does not note a particular instance of conspiracy but a general determination to destroy Jesus.12 It surveys a larger context and, to that extent, shows biographical interest.13 It is a comment from the evangelist or from an earlier compiler.14 Hence, it is not to be taken seriously from the historical point of view as though it marked a turning-point or a change in the actual situation of Jesus in Galilee. Mk 3:6 is an attempt to endow the series with something which actually it does not possess, namely, dramatic development. The drama noted in Mk 3:6 is not inherent in the single episodes or in their grouping. Jesus has said or done nothing which, in Jewish justice, would result in a plot to destroy him. In the series he appears perhaps as a nonconformist and nonsectarian, but he is still Jewish.15 The plot in 3:6 does not grow naturally and logically out of the series. It is not the culmination of a rising action. It is entirely the literary conception and contribution of Mark or of one of his unknown predecessors. It is another example of dramatic distortion (see p. 84). Any such plot at this early point would be premature in Mark's scheme as a whole, according to which actual plots to destroy Jesus come toward the very end of the story. The watching in 3:2 is more typical of the final and fatal plot in Jerusalem than of the opposition in Galilee. The conjuncture of forces, Pharisees and Herodians, anticipates Mk 12:13. Furthermore, this plot in 3:6 is no sooner mentioned than it is forgotten; the reader hears no more of it. Mark must have found this crisis effect already appended to the series in his source, and this might suggest a written source for this section of Mark in 2 : l - 3 : 6 . 1 6 Mt 12:9-14 and Lk 6:6-11 reproduce this fifth controversy in Mark's Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 69f. Cf. L. V. Bartlet, St. Mark in The Century Bible (new and enlarged ed.; London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, undated), p. 143. 10 Cf. Hauck, Markus, p. 41. 11 Cf. Fascher, Die formgeschichtliche Methode, p. 48f; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 100; et al. 12 Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 216. 13 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 5. 14 Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 22; Klostermann, Markus, p. 37; et al. 15 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 9. 1β Cf. Fascher, Die formgeschichtliche Methode, p. 148; Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, p. 177f; et al. 8 8

181

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f 9 1

order, and they agree together against Mark in two items. ( 1 ) As in the leper story (1{52), Matthew and Luke do not reproduce the high emotional color in Mark ( 5 ) . This concurrence would point to the absence of this color in the Mark known to them indicating it to be a result of later retouching. ( 2 ) At the end Matthew and Luke do not mention the Herodians who appear in Mk 3:6 (and later in Mk 12:13 1J338). They are mentioned only once in Matthew (22:16 |J338) and never in Luke. Nothing is known of this group except their name which would suggest a party friendly to the administration of Herod. Mt 12:9-14. In Mark the last two controversies are loosely joined but they could fall on the same sabbath; Matthew ( 9 ) joins the two in an action sequence as though they came on the same sabbath. In Mark and Luke Jesus' critics are spectators; in Matthew (10) they become vocal, and the incident in Matthew takes on the form of a controversy as it does not technically in Mark and Luke. Mt 10 converts Mark's depiction in 2 into direct discourse,17 a question which anticipates and suppresses Mk 4. This is Matthew's literary device for introducing the non-Markan matter in 11-12. Matthew's analogy of the sheep in the pit (11-12) has a close parallel in Lk 14:5 ( ^[271 ), and it is apparently not only from Q but it seems to be the Q defense for healing on the sabbath. Luke has another similar analogy about domestic animals and the sabbath in 13:15 (^262). In all three cases of its appearance this analogy is associated with sabbath cures and controversies; in Luke with two cures peculiar to his Gospel and in Matthew with this Markan cure. This Q defense in Mt 11-12, based on the humane treatment of domestic animals, suppresses the Markan defense based on the idea of the sabbath as a day for doing good (Mk 3:4). The Q analogy is not entirely appropriate as a part of this Markan story. The analogy depicts an emergency; the cure of the withered hand could wait until the sabbath is past. The analogy itself is conceived along Jewish and rabbinical lines. Matthew in 12b converts Mark's rhetorical question ( 4 ) into a conclusion drawn from the Q analogy, but it is not a very forceful conclusion. Lk 6:6-11. In Luke ( 6 ) this controversy comes on a different sabbath than the fourth. Luke mentions Jesus teaching as Matthew and Mark do not. This, of course, is a conventional notice suggested perhaps by the time and place. Luke specifies the "right hand" as he does the "right ear" in 22:50. This does not indicate professional medical interest on the part of the author 18 but rather the novelistic tendency of legend to become more specific.19 Luke introduces the opposition, the scribes and the Pharisees, at 17 For such conversions of Mark's text by Matthew, see A. Schlatter, Markus: der Evangelist für die Griechen (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1935), p. 81. 18 Cf. A. Hamack, Lukas der Arzt (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906), p. 128. u Cf. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 29; F. Fenner, Die Krankheit im Neuen Testament (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930), p. 109.

182

Β.192-93

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

the beginning; they become a part of the cure and the controversy. In Luke (8) Jesus reads their thoughts, a favorite theme in Luke's Gospel. In Matthew and Mark the Pharisees are named at the very end, not as a part of this episode but as the opposition determined upon Jesus' death as the result of the entire series. Luke's conclusion in 6:11 parallels Mark's conclusion in 3:6. However, Mk 3:6 concludes the entire series of five controversies, while Lk 6:11 concludes the one story of the withered hand. Luke's ending is milder and less dramatic, not necessarily a plot to destroy Jesus. Mk 3:7-19a j[92-93. This Markan passage requires special attention because of the peculiar difference in Luke's treatment of his parallel material. Mark has first the cures and the crowds in 7-12 (fl92) and then the choosing of the twelve in 13-19a ( j|93 ) · Luke has exactly the reverse order: first, the choosing of the twelve in 6:12-16 (1|93) and then the cures and the crowds in 6:17-19 (|f94). If Luke is using Mark here, he has reversed the order of these two Markan units, perhaps to use the crowds of Mark ( ]f92 ) as a part of the audience (1|94) for his Sermon on the Plain which follows immediately. However, it is possible that this difference in Luke is to be explained by his use of a non-Markan source in 6:12-19, even though he closely parallels Mark's fl92-93 in his own j|93-94. No problem arises in this connection in Matthew, for this Gospel reproduces, omits, transposes, and expands materials in Mark's |f92, and Matthew omits Mark's |[93 entirely at this point in the story ( |J69 ). 92. Cures and Crowds Mt 12:15-21 Mk 3:7-12 Mt 4:24-25 fll6; Lk 6:17-19 fi94 This passage of Mark stands apart from its immediate surroundings. It brings Mark's narrative to a full stop. It has the nature of a parenthesis, filling in a temporary pause in Mark's story. In this passage Mark is making his way from one body of transmitted tradition ( 2 : 1 - 3 : 6 ) to the next ( 3 : 1 3 - 19a). The theme of conflict which dominated the preceding section is dropped for the moment and it is not resumed until 3:22. Verses 7-12 take up a contrasting theme, Jesus' popularity and power with the people. This passage did not come down to Mark in his sources; it is his own editorial contribution. It does not depict a concrete incident; it is a comprehensive survey. It generalizes on items that have appeared, and will appear, in single stories. The writer here is not a narrator but a commentator. Such passages belong to the very latest phases in the composition of Mark's Gospel. In 3:7 the scene shifts to the seaside, a shift of scene which is purely literary. The seaside is a part of Mark's editorial property like the house, the mountain, and the synagogue. Jesus may actually have appeared often at the seaside. It may have been a favorite and familiar scene of his work,

183

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. ^92

yet the reader of Mark can seldom be sure that any particular incident had its scene at the seaside and nowhere else. A shift of scene seldom indicates more than the mere fact that the editor is finding his way from one piece of tradition to the next, seeking to give them the semblance of life and reality. Shifts of scene are frequent in this section of Mark: the seaside in 3:7; the mountain in 3:13; the house in 3:19b; back to the seaside in 4:1. The disciples are now in Jesus' company, although their presence was not noted in the preceding episode. However, they are now a regular part of Jesus' human surroundings, and they can be introduced at will. Their presence here is all the more natural because of what follows at once, the choosing of the twelve in 3:13-19a. Mark may intend 7 - 1 2 as a sort of backdrop for the choosing in lä-lGa. 1 The great crowds about Jesus are already a conventional item in Mark's story. Heretofore they have appeared within local limits representing a local community. This multitude is more grandiose; it is gathered from every quarter of Palestine, even beyond. Such multitudes in Mark are vague and formless because they are his own editorial contribution. In 7b-8 Mark condenses the geography of his Gospel, and eventually he brings Jesus into all these regions. Samaria is not mentioned here or elsewhere in Mark's Gospel, perhaps due to deliberate design on Mark's part. It is not clear whether the boat ordered in 3 : 9 has any connection with the boat which furnishes the thread of narrative for chapters 4 and 5. Even after ordering it, Jesus makes no immediate use of it but retreats to a mountain. The boat may be merely a scenic detail in the seaside setting. Verses 11-12 are an editorial reappearance ( 1 : 3 4 b ) of Mark's dogma of the demons; it simply generalizes on particulars which occur in Mark's three expulsion stories. Mt 12:15-21 reproduces only the opening and closing sentences and the notice about healing from Mk 3:7-12, but even these meagre reproductions involve differences. ( 1 ) In Mark Jesus' retreat in 3:7 follows the plot in 3:6 but Mark does not relate them as cause and effect. In Matthew the retreat in 12:15 is the result of Jesus' knowledge of the plot in 12:14: "And Jesus perceiving it." This is another example of a closer joining of materials in the later Gospels than existed in their source (Mark). ( 2 ) In Mark the order for silence at the end is to the demons; in Matthew it is to the sick who have been healed. ( 3 ) Matthew used the substance of Mk 3:7b-8 back in 4:24-25 (lfl6) for his own special purpose. ( 4 ) Matthew omits the notice about the boat in Mk 3:9. ( 5 ) Matthew passes over Mark's dogma of the demons as he did back in his own 8:16 (1¡55). ( 6 ) At the end, in 17-21, Matthew adds one of his longest proofs from prophecy (Isa 4 2 : 1 - 3 ) , another quotation from his favorite prophet. 1

Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 18.

184

Β. |93

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

93. The Choosing of the Twelve Mk 3:13-19a Lk 6:12-16 Mt 10:2-4 |f69 In the preceding passage (7-12) Mark was commenting; now in 13-19a he is cataloguing. The two passages have the appearance of two detached units which are not too well joined together. There is a complete break between 12 and 13. Verses 7-12 were a seaside scene; 13-19a is located on a mountain. In 7 the disciples were about Jesus; in 13 he must gather them about him. The choosing of the twelve appears with the abruptness generally characteristic of Mark's story. It is not in harmony with the impressions which the reader has gained thus far; in fact, it seems to contradict them. Thus far, Jesus has been recruiting disciples gradually, here and there, singly and in pairs; here, however, he chooses twelve in one solemn ceremonial act. Thus far, there has been no hint of a restriction in number, but here there are just twelve — no more, no less. Earlier Simon and Andrew were called together, but here the two brothers are separated. The catalogue here has no Levi, yet he was called to be a disciple back in 2:14 ( j[60 ). The mountain in 13 is not to be located on any map. It is the editorial "mountain" always at Mark's disposal, or it might be the mythical "mountain" (Ex 19:3) where divine disclosures and solemn ceremonies take place.1 According to Mark, Jesus has a twofold reason for appointing twelve: they are to be with him, companions; and he plans to send them forth as though the mission of the twelve were already in his mind. This twofold reason may have been drawn from the subsequent story in which the twelve are Jesus' companions and in which he sends them out to preach and heal ( Mk 6:6b-13). There is nothing really concrete about Mark's account of the choosing of the twelve. In the catalogue itself Mark is probably transcribing a list that came down to him in written form,2 and 13-15 may be his editorial effort to localize the catalogue in time and place, to give it storyform. The twelve as a fixed group is firmly established in the New Testament, and it goes back to an early date (I Cor 15:5). Some critics 3 feel that the number twelve goes back to Jesus himself, perhaps not as the result of a single solemn act, as Mark represents, but of a series of choices. Traditionally, the number twelve was thought to be intentional on Jesus' part, a disciple for each of the twelve tribes of Israel. However, Jesus nowhere seems to have been the slave of holy numbers, and it is inconceivable that he would exclude a worthy disciple, or include an unworthy one, for the sake of a fixed number. If the number twelve goes back to Jesus' lifetime, it must have been undesigned on his part. Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 242; Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 136; et al. Cf. Lagrange, Marc, p. 60; Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 108. 8 Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 324; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I. 297f; et al. 1 2

185

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B. |93

Other critics 4 feel that the number twelve was not fixed during Jesus' lifetime, but was determined upon by the early church after Jesus' death. The differences in the lists point to some uncertainty and confusion. The catalogue of the twelve belongs at the beginning of the Book of Acts (1:13b), not in the Gospels. The catalogues in the Synoptic tradition are an instance of prolepsis: the church's official college of the twelve is carried back into the life of Jesus, and a piece of pure statistics is transformed into an actual act of Jesus. During his lifetime the limits of Jesus' following must have shifted and fluctuated, sometimes wider, sometimes narrower, due to locality and situation. There must have been all shades and degrees of interest, comprehension, confidence, and loyalty ranging from the general admiration for a teacher by many to the abandonment of everything by the few.5 Mark makes no effort to relate the choosing of the twelve to the earlier vocation stories. He has given the account of the original calling of only four of the twelve (1:16-20 fill), unless Matthew is to be identified with the Levi of 2:14 ( j[60 ) · Under what circumstances the others joined Jesus' following is unknown. In Mark the first four are named in the order of their prominence with Andrew fourth. The first three have surnames, but these cannot have been conferred as abruptly and ceremoniously as Mark represents. If they are historical, they represent gradually gathered and growing impressions of three particular disciples. Mark now uses the surname Peter for the first time. Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, he did not confer the surname Peter (Greek) but Cephas known to the Gospel of John (1:42) and Paul (I Cor 1:12; Gal 1:18; et al). Boanerges, a joint surname for James and John, is a mystery interpreted but not explained by Mark. Of the twelve listed, seven remain just so many names in the Synoptic tradition; they never emerge as living characters, as speakers or actors in the story. The most prominent in the subsequent story is Simon Peter, then James and John. From the dramatic point of view, the most important and enigmatic is Judas Iscariot who is never mentioned again in Mark until he is in the very act of betraying Jesus (Mk 14:10-11). In the New Testament three different terms are used to designate the following of Jesus: the disciples, the twelve, and the apostles.6 The term disciples goes back to the lifetime of Jesus and designates his personal followers. This is the broadest term of the three. The twelve is a closed and fixed group made up of disciples of Jesus. This is the narrowest term of the three. The term apostles is of later Christian origin. The number is not restricted nor is it limited to former disciples of Jesus, but to witnesses of Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 203; Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 141; et al. Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, lOlf. 6 Cf. Wellhausen, Einleitung, pp. 138-147; R. Schütz, Apostel und Jünger Töpelmann, 1921), pp. 1-118. 4 5

186

(Glessen:

Β. 194

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

the resurrection. Paul distinguishes sharply between the twelve (I Cor 15:5) and the apostles (I Cor 15:7), and he claims for himself the distinction of the latter. Lk 6:12-16. Luke reports the choosing of the twelve and the catalogue of their names in Mark's order allowing, of course, for Luke's reversal of Mark's |f92-93 to his own 1193-94. If Luke is using Mark here, he exhibits some striking differences over against his source. Some critics 7 assign the whole of Lk 6:12-19 to a non-Markan source because of Luke's disagreements with Mark's parallels and because it immediately precedes an important non-Markan section ( 6 : 2 0 - 8 : 3 ) to which it may belong. In 12-13 Luke succeeds better than Mark in giving the list of the twelve a concrete scene and setting as an actual incident. Luke introduces another notice of Jesus praying which gives the choosing a distinctly religious character and adds solemnity to the occasion: Jesus appears as the formal founder of the college of the twelve. This is the third instance in which Luke has introduced a notice of prayer where Matthew and Mark have none (Lk 3:21; 5:16). This particular instance of praying may have been suggested by the later Christian practice of prayer in connection with the choice and consecration of leaders (Acts 1:23-26; 13:3). Luke says nothing of Jesus' purpose in choosing the twelve, on which Mark elaborated (3:14-15). Luke agrees with Matthew against Mark in designating the twelve as apostles at the very outset. Luke also agrees with Matthew against Mark in the order of the first four names with Andrew second and named with his brother. This is the only mention of Andrew in Luke's Gospel. Luke has no surname for James and John. Luke disagrees with Mark in the case of one name. Luke has no Thaddaeus, but he has a second disciple by the name of Judas, the son of James. This Judas (not Iscariot) is mentioned in the Gospel of John (14:22). This one name, more than anything else, would point to a non-Markan origin for Luke's list of the twelve. Luke repeats this list (minus Judas Iscariot) at the beginning of his second New Testament work, the Book of Acts (1:13b). Matthew reported the list of the twelve earlier in connection with their mission ( 10:1-4 j[69) with the result that the choosing dropped out and the list itself became a mere parenthesis. 94. The Setting for the Sermon on the Plain Lk 6:17-20a

Mt 5:1-2 ϊ[18; 4:24-25 ffl6 Mt 12:15-16 = Mk 3:7-12 j{92 The usual view is that Luke has reversed the two preceding units of Mark, and that he is now using Mark's preamble ( ) to the choosing of 7 Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, pp. 112, 117f. According to Taylor, Luke discontinues his use of Mark at Mk 3 : 6 with his own 6:11, and with 6:12 Luke returns to Proto-Luke to which Taylor assigns Lk 6:12-19. Cf. The Third Gospel, pp. 82f, 149fi.

187

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 195-114

the twelve (fl93) as an introduction and auditorium (|[94) for his Sermon on the Plain (|[95-106). Some critics 1 feel that Luke here has not improved upon Mk 3:7-12 but has accomplished only a confusion of unrelated general notices. If Luke is using that passage of Mark, he has at least succeeded at the beginning (17) in creating a concrete scene continuous (the mountain) with 12-13. Other critics 2 feel that Luke here is using a non-Markan source. Luke's disuse of Mark certainly begins with 20, and it may have begun with 12. In Luke the seaside and the boat of Mk 3:7-12 are gone, also the long list of geographical names and Mark's dogma of the demons. Luke agrees with Mark in only two general items, the cures and the crowds. Luke agrees with Mt 5:1-2 ( f l 8 ) in associating the Q address which follows with a mountain, and the mountain here in 6:12 may be from Q and not from Mk 3:13 ( j[93 ). In Mt 5:1-2 Jesus went up the mountain and sat down; in Luke here he comes down the mountain and stands "on a level place," hence the "Sermon on the Plain." Luke's audience for the address is better than that of Matthew for his Sermon on the Mount. In the foreground Luke has the newly chosen twelve, then "a multitude of his disciples" from whom the twelve were chosen, and in the background the general public. Like Mt 5:1-2, Luke features the disciples at the beginning (20a) and, like Matthew (7:28), at the end he forgets the disciples and mentions the people (7:1). Verse 20a does not join well on to 17-19, and it may have introduced the address in Q.3 It is an unusually solemn introduction of Jesus as speaker. LUKE'S SMALL NON-MARKAN SECTION Lk 6:20b-8:3 H95-114

Luke used predominantly non-Markan matter at the beginning of the public story ( 3 : 1 - 4 : 3 0 ; 5:1-11), but for the most part it paralleled or fitted smoothly into the Markan plan and framework. In 4:31—44 and 5:12 6:11 (6:12-20a ?) Luke was using Markan matter. Now in 6:20b-8:3 Luke introduces an important non-Markan section which is a complete departure from Mark both in matter and plan. Thus it becomes clear that the Gospel of Luke, from the standpoint of composition, is made up of alternating bulk blocks of Markan and non-Markan matter. Lk 6 : 2 0 b - 8 : 3 is usually known as Luke's Smaller Interpolation (after Mk 3:19a) to distinguish it from his Larger Interpolation in 9:51 - 1 8 : 1 4 (after Mk 9:50), but the term interpolation commits the user to the Markan hypothesis for the composition of Luke's Gospel. This section of Luke is not a mere interpolation after Mk 3:19a. The 1 2 3

Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, I, 287; Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, I, 146. See footnote 7, p. 187. Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 113.

188

Β.Τ95-106

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

second half of chapter 3 of Mark ( 19b-35 ) drops out of Luke at this point, creating a great gap between the choosing of the twelve (Mk 3:13^-19a) and the parable section (Mk 4:1-34). This non-Markan section fills in the gap at this point in Luke's story. It constitutes an expansion of Mark's Galilean story, but Luke's subsequent extensive omissions from Mark more than cancel it. Lk 6:20b - 8 : 3 is a very important factor in the Proto-Luke hypothesis, for it represents a complete disuse of Mark in this section in the middle of his Galilean story.1 It is perhaps better to label 6 : 2 0 b - 8 : 3 as Luke's Small Non-Markan Section over against his Great Non-Markan Section in 9 : 5 1 - 1 8 : 1 4 . Neither title commits the user to any particular hypothesis for the composition of Luke. Lk 6 : 2 0 b - 8 : 3 is made up entirely of non-Markan matter. Only one sentence of discourse has a parallel in Mark, and one story has a remote but doubtful Markan parallel. Except for four units peculiar to Luke, this section is composed of Q matter with parallels in Matthew. Discourse matter predominates over narrative. The arrangement of materials is very simple. The section begins with the Sermon on the Plain ( j[95-106) which is Luke's parallel to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount ( P 8 - 5 1 ) . Then follow two narrative units, both wonder-works ( j|107-108 ), which are followed by the address on John ( P 0 9 - 1 1 2 ) already reported by Matthew (^81-85). Then comes a story especially characteristic of Luke ( j|113), and the section ends with an editorial unit (flll4). THE SERMON ON THE PLAIN

Lk 6:20b—49

fl95-106

Mt 5:1 - 7:29 jfl8-51

Compared with Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, Luke's Sermon on the Plain is briefer and simpler and, in general, a much less ambitious literary effort. Over against the thirty-two discourse units in Matthew's form of the address, Luke has only twelve: nine were in the Sermon on the Mount, one is peculiar to Luke, and two are found elsewhere in Matthew. Where Matthew left the impression of adding and expanding, Luke leaves the impression of much closer adherence to his source. The Sermon on the Plain is certainly nearer the Q form of the address, and it may be even briefer than the Q form owing to possible omissions of Jewish materials on the part of Luke. Matthew inserted his Sermon on the Mount early (after Mk 1:39), for it inaugurated Jesus' public work. Luke has a much better place for the address in the story as a whole (after Mk 3:19a), for Jesus at this later point has recently chosen intimate and trusted disciples which the address 1 Taylor, The Third Gospel, pp. 82f, 149f, and Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 222, assign the whole of this section to Proto-Luke which thus far would include Lk 3:1 - 4:30 + 5:1-11 + 6:12-19 + 6 : 2 0 - 8 : 3 .

189

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B.T95

by its very content and nature presupposes as audience, such as he did not have at that early point in Matthew. This address in Matthew was programmatic for his Gospel as a whole, for his total picture of Jesus as teacher; Luke's Sermon on the Plain has no such purpose or perspective. The address in Luke is closely associated with the choosing of the twelve, and it lays down the precepts for their new life as Jesus' associates. In Luke's Sermon on the Plain the Jewish color and Palestinian background of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount are gone. The reader encounters nothing about the law, the prophets, the false prophets, the antitheses to Old Testament precepts, nor the practices of alms, prayer, and fasting. Even Luke's language is less Biblical than that of Matthew. In Matthew's Sermon on the Mount the reader saw Jesus in relation to his land, day, and people; his disciples in relation to their Jewish background and environment. In Luke's Sermon on the Plain the outlook is broader, generally human rather than specifically Jewish. Jesus is the founder of a new order of life; his disciples are a new community conscious of its own life over against the world — perhaps a hostile world, for love of enemies is the dominant theme of the address. From the standpoint of composition and structure, there are two breaks in the address: in 27 and 39, each with a short formula of introduction. These two breaks divide the address into three parts: a prophetic section in 20b-26, a compilation of short sayings in 27-38, and a parable section in 39^9.

95. The Beatitudes Lk 6:20b-23 Mt 5:3-12 fll9 The beatitudes open the address in Luke as they did in Matthew (and in Q). Few literary units in the Synoptic tradition exhibit greater differences than the beatitudes in Matthew and Luke. Matthew has nine beatitudes; Luke has only four. Matthew's beatitudes, except the last, are in the impersonal third person, the usual literary form for beatitudes.1 All four of Luke are in the second person plural of direct address. In Matthew Jesus is discoursing about theoretical groups which exist only in the imagination; in Luke Jesus is addressing actual social groups, the poor and the hungry. The language of Matthew's beatitudes is figurative: the poor in spirit, and so forth; Luke's language has its natural and literal meaning: the really poor, and so forth. Two of Luke's beatitudes contrast a painful present ("now") with a glorious future. They are eschatological; the rewards promised are for the 1

Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 198; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 412; et al.

190

Β. 195

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

future, in the next world. In Matthew there is no contrast between now and then; the rewards are, or can be, present possessions. Matthew's beatitudes have a positive approach to religious virtues and values; the various groups are blessed because of what they are and do. In Luke there is a negative approach; the various groups are blessed because of what they lack and suffer. Matthew's beatitudes have a smoothness and finish which is the result of careful literary composition. The style of Luke's beatitudes is abrupt and rough, nearer the natural form of extemporaneous oral utterance. Two really opposed pictures of Jesus emerge from the beatitudes of Matthew and Luke. In Matthew Jesus appears as the shepherd of a flock, a Christian pastor addressing believers on spiritual virtues and values. In Luke's beatitudes Jesus appears in a prophetic, even proletarian light addressing definite social and economic groups on their depressed lot and hope for the future. As a literary composition Matthew's beatitudes will be favored over those of Luke, but for this very reason Luke's beatitudes will be favored as nearer any probable oral utterance of Jesus. Luke's beatitudes have a different spirit from those of Matthew. Luke is not thinking in terms of a spiritual society (Matthew) but of a human group in a depressed situation in this world. Their finite lot is poverty, hunger, and misery which, paradoxically, is their hope and promise. The new order will bring a reversal of their earthly fortune. The association of poverty and piety, the idea that misery here assures blessedness there, goes back to the Jewish Psalter. Luke's beatitudes bespeak more actual comfort and consolation than those of Matthew, for they take more account of the human situation of the persons addressed. This closeness to actual existence gives Luke's beatitudes a better unity of thought and spirit than those of Matthew. In Luke there is an increasing volume, a mounting tone, a growing trust and confidence from statement to statement. They rise from utter pessimism for this world to an almost fanatical hope for the next. All four stand as a monument to the faith and courage of some early Christian group. The last beatitude of Luke sets itself off from the rest as did the last in Matthew. It is longer than the first three put together. The first three deal with common conditions of human distress, but the fourth deals with the special distress of persecuted Christians. They are persecuted because of their religious adherence. This persecution is local and sectarian; persecuted and persecutors once belonged to the same congregation, the synagogue. There are four kinds of persecution; all take the form of personal abuse, and all are Jewish. This last beatitude, like the last of Matthew, is very probably of later Christian origin.2 2

Cf. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum·, I, 425; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 115.

191

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

B. 196-97

96. The Woes L k 6:24-26 These woes are new and peculiar to Luke. Except for the fact that they are an obvious play on the beatitudes, they seem out of place here. They address an audience in the second person plural that is not present. Furthermore, they break the natural connection between 23 and 27 which read well together. Luke himself is conscious of this break, for in 27 he returns to the audience of the beatitudes with, "But I say unto you that hear." However, the joining of blessings and curses, beatitudes and woes, is common in Jewish literature. The four woes are the four beatitudes in reverse, their negation. They express a proletarian philosophy: the next world will bring a reversal of earthly fortune. This same philosophy finds expression in a different form later in Luke in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31 1(288). These groups are indicted, not because of their sins and unbelief, but because of their wealth and good fortune. The four woes strike the worldly; they have no Jewish background. The fourth woe, like the fourth beatitude, sets itself off from the first three. It does not involve any special social status, for even the poor and the humble could b e well spoken of. The fourth woe also lacks a conclusion announcing the fate to come, and it is not a good counterpart to the fourth beatitude. It should strike Jews who persecute Christians. These woes are of later Christian origin, and they may b e the literary contribution of Luke. Matthew may have increased the beatitudes from four to nine, and Luke's woes may b e an expansion of the beatitudes in a different direction. They are so obviously, even slavishly, patterned after the beatitudes that they cannot have existed in oral form but were composed by an author who had the beatitudes before him in written form. 97. Concerning Retaliation L k 6:27-30 Mt 5:44 1(31; 5:39-42 1(30 This discourse unit introduces the second section of Luke's Sermon on the Plain (27-38). The theme is "Love your enemies," and it receives an even stronger emphasis in Luke than it does in Matthew. Luke's form of this utterance is also more practical, for Luke defines love of enemies as doing them good. Such a theme clashes harshly with the bitter indictments in the woes. Verse 27a, "But I say unto you that hear," is an abrupt transition from the audience addressed in absentia in the woes to the real audience of the address, the disciples. In thought, 27 joins well on to the last beatitude, and it resumes the original perspective of the address. The full antithetical formula used six times in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount finds its only possible echo here in 27a. None of these sayings in Luke is presented as an antithesis to Old Testament precepts as they are in Matthew.

192

Β. 1f98—99

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Luke here joins sayings that are separated in Matthew and in reverse order. Verse 27 parallels the second half of Matthew's sixth antithesis (5:43-44). Verses 29-30 are examples of love to enemies in Luke; in Matthew this matter is associated with the fifth antithesis and the theme of retaliation. That Luke has brought two separate sayings together here is clear in the fact that 27-28 is in the second person plural while 29-30 is in the second person singular. Luke's form of these sayings is more detailed, fresher, and more impressive. Luke parallels Matthew in the examples of the other cheek and the coat and the cloak, but he does not have the saying about going the second mile (Mt 5:41). 98. The Golden Rule Lk 6:31 Mt 7:12 ftó Luke reports the Golden Rule rather early in the address; in Matthew it is nearer the end. In Luke, too, it is a more natural and logical part of its immediate context than it is in Matthew. It also resumes the second person plural after the second person singular in 29-30. The Golden Rule in Matthew has a distinctly Jewish cast and color; it is presented as the sum and substance of the law and the prophets. This precept in Luke has more the nature of a piece of popular and practical wisdom. It loses the character of a Jewish religious precept which it has in Matthew due to its association with the law and the prophets, an association not made in Luke. Thus Luke's form, except for the negative, is closer to that of Confucius: "What you would not want done to yourself, do not to others." 1 99. Concerning Love to Enemies Lk 6:32-36 Mt 5:44-48 tI31 This theme of love to enemies appears twice in Luke's Sermon on the Plain (27 and 35), only once in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (5:44) with notable differences in text and treatment apart from a different order and arrangement of sentences. (1) In Matthew this Q material develops the sixth antithesis to the Jewish law; in Luke it does not have antithetical form. (2) The Jewish background and color of the saying in Matthew disappear from Luke's form. Luke uses the word "sinners" instead of "publicans" (Mt 5:46) and the "Gentiles" (Mt 5:47). In Matthew the disciple is set over against his Jewish surroundings; in Luke, over against the world in general. (3) Matthew (47) and Luke (33-34) have different examples of love to enemies. Luke features "lending" in 34-35 which does not appear at all in Matthew. Lending was esteemed very highly in Jewish and rabbinical thought. 1 (4) Matthew's poetic language about the sun and the rain gives place to more general and abstract language in Luke: "He 1 1

Cf. Creed, St. Luke, p. 94. Cf. Abrahams, Studies, II, 190ÉF.

193

JESUS AND THE F I R S T THREE GOSPELS

B. 1 1 0 0 - 1 0 2

is kind toward the unthankful and the evil." (5) Mt 48 is connected with what precedes by "therefore" as though it were a conclusion drawn from it. Luke's parallel in 36 is not connected with what precedes, but it introduces the new theme which follows. The sayings on judging become examples of being merciful. (6) Matthew and Luke end with different ideas: Matthew, "Be ye therefore perfect"; Luke, "Be ye merciful." The ideal of perfection, taken over by later Christianity, is Greek and not natural in a Jewish mind like that of Jesus. Luke's text is more authentic, for the idea of mercy is Jewish. Lk 36 has a very close parallel in the rabbinical writings.2 100. Concerning Judging Lk 6:37-38 Mk 4:24b fil35; Mt 7:1-2 fl41 This saying in Luke lacks the unity, directness, and forcefulness it has in Matthew. Luke's form reads like a paraphrase or a rambling elaboration which results in a confusion of ideas: judging with condemning, releasing, and giving. The sweeping statement in Matthew, "Judge not," is restricted in Luke. The final statement on measuring in Luke applies to giving (38), not to judging as in Matthew. This word on judging in Matthew (t[41) is followed by the parable of the mote and the beam (|[42), and the two belong together as the logical development of a single thought. In Luke this saying ( |jl00 ) and the parable ( jfl03 ) are separated by the extraneous material in Ífl01-102. Lk 6:39-40 fll01-102. These two sayings represent an almost infinitesimal expansion of the address. Both are from Q, but there is no reason for thinking that they were in the Q form of the address. Matthew's parallels are not in his Sermon on the Mount, and they are obviously an insert foreign to their present context in Luke. They break the natural connection between the word on judging (1(100) and the companion parable ( P 0 3 ) . Lk 39a, "And he spake also a parable unto them," breaks into the continuous speech and sets the insert in sharp relief. Both 39 and 40 read more like popular sayings than precepts of religious wisdom. They introduce the third section of Luke's Sermon on the Plain (39-49) devoted principally to parables. 101. The Parable of the Blind Guides Lk 6:39 Mt 15:14 fll66 This Q saying is wholly out of place in an address intended for intimate disciples. It is, by its very nature, polemical; it should be addressed to critics and opponents. Matthew has a better sense for the nature of this saying, and he reports it much later as a word of Jesus in the midst of a conflict with opponents. In Luke it has the form of a rhetorical question; a

Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 159.

194

Β.1102-105

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

in Matthew it is a calm assertion. The absurdity of the blind leading the blind was proverbial in the ancient world. 102. The Parable of the Disciple and His Teacher Lk 6:40 Mt 10:24-25a ψΑ This Q saying is not inappropriate in Luke's Sermon on the Plain, for it concerns disciple and teacher. However, it does not seem to have been in the Q form of the address, for Matthew reported it earlier in his address to the twelve. There are two principal differences between Matthew and Luke. (1) Matthew has a double contrast: disciple and teacher, servant and lord. Luke has the first of the two; he may have felt that the double contrast was uncongenial. The relation of disciple to teacher is very different from that of servant to lord. The former is something dignified; the latter might be regarded as degrading. (2) Matthew and Luke derive different lessons from the parable. In Matthew the disciple will share the fate of his teacher — persecution, even death. In Luke the teacher is the disciple's ideal for emulation until he attains his perfection. 103. The Parable of the Mote and the Beam Lk 6:41-42 Mt 7:3-5 j[42 This parable should be joined to the word on judging (jflOO) as it is in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (jf41-42) and probably was so joined in the Q form of the address. Matthew and Luke read almost verbatim. 1 104. The Parable of the Tree and Its Fruits Lk 6:43-45 Mt 7:15-20 fl48; 12:33-35 fll23 This Q passage has had an uncertain history. It is not now possible to determine whether Matthew has expanded or whether Luke has condensed, or whether a single saying (Luke) has been split into two (Matthew), or two separate sayings (Matthew) have been compressed into one (Luke). At least it takes the two widely separated sayings in Matthew to parallel the single saying in Luke. This theme of the tree and its fruits makes just this one appearance in Luke's Gospel. The thorns and the bramble in Lk 44b should precede 43 and introduce the parable as they do in Matthew (7:16b, 18). In Luke the saying has no association with the false prophets as it does in Matthew (7:15); it has to do with genuine and ingenuine religion in general. In Matthew the good fruits are good works; in Luke they are good words, due to the application of the parable in 45. 105. Warning against Self-delusion Lk 6:46 Mt 7:21 fí49 This discourse fragment not only makes an abrupt break with what precedes but it disrupts the perspective of the whole address. It seems to 1

For fuller notes, see Mt 7:3-5 1142.

195

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1106-107

be an apostrophe or monologue addressed to the readers of the Gospel, not to the disciple audience of the discourse. It does not have the form and nature of an independent, self-contained saying as it does in Matthew. However, it is a good introduction or transition to what follows: "the things which I say" (47 and 49). It has a distinctly Christian cast and color, and it must be of later Christian origin. ( 1 ) The term Lord is a Christian title for Jesus. (2) In Luke here the words of Christ are a law to be obeyed. Matthew's parallel remains within the religious perspective of Jesus: it is the will of the Father that is to be obeyed. (3) Lk 46 seems to reflect the disappointing experience of the church with members who profess but do not practice their religion. In general, this fragment in Luke reads like a Christian reproof to Christians, and it should be reset in the third person: "Why call ye him, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which he says." 106. The Parable of the Builders Lk 6:47-49 Mt 7:24-27 j[50 This parable concludes Luke's Sermon on the Plain as it did Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, and probably also the Q form of the address. The two versions of Matthew and Luke differ as follows. ( 1 ) Luke's introduction (47) is more circumstantial than that of Matthew (7:24a). Luke does not specify the words of Jesus in this particular address (Matthew) but speaks of Jesus' teachings in general. (2) The two contrasting pictures are better balanced in Matthew, worded almost exactly alike except for the necessary variations. Luke's form exhibits no such literary effort. (3) Luke's form is more artful, for he leaves each man to characterize himself by his action and leaves the reader to form his own judgment — not necessarily wise or foolish, rather, well or poorly done. The words "wise" and "foolish" were probably added by Matthew. They weaken the parable as a whole, for they form at the beginning a judgment which should be left for the hearer or reader to form for himself at the end. (4) In Matthew the house stands or falls depending upon its foundation: "upon the rock"; "upon the sand." In Luke the building site plays no actual part in the contrast. The sites can be identical, for the contrast is between care and carelessness in construction. (5) Matthew seems to be thinking of a seaside site where a storm beats upon the shore. Luke seems to be thinking of an inland site where the houses are threatened by a swollen stream. 107. The Centurion of Capernaum Lk 7:1-10 Mt 8:5-13 |f53 Lk la, "After he had ended all his sayings in the ears of the people," joins this story to the Sermon on the Plain, and this literary link may go back to Q itself. This is the only instance in which Luke approximates

196

Β.I107

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

Matthew's fivefold transition formula which appears for the first time at exactly the same point, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount.1 The two versions of the story itself in Matthew and Luke differ as follows. ( 1 ) Luke ( 2 ) acquaints his readers with the situation before action begins. In Matthew the situation is clear only when the centurion is in Jesus' presence and begins to speak. Matthew specifies the affliction as palsy; Luke notes simply the seriousness of the illness, "at the point of death." Luke has the same confusion in the Greek term for "servant" that Matthew has but not at the same points in the story. Luke uses the literal term for "servant" in 2, 3 and 10; in 7 he uses a different term that can mean "child" or "son" as well as "servant." ( 2 ) In Matthew the centurion himself comes to Jesus; in Luke he does not come but sends two delegations, first elders of the Jews and then friends. In Luke the centurion appears not only as a benefactor of the Jews but almost as a Jewish proselyte (5). ( 3 ) In Matthew there is no shift of scene; Jesus offers to go but the centurion's faith makes it unnecessary. In Luke (6a) there is a shift of scene; Jesus approaches the centurion's house and is met by the friends. ( 4 ) The extraneous saying which Matthew incorporates in the story ( 11-12) is not a part of Luke's version but a stray unit reported much later (13:2829 fl268 ) — a very definite improvement. ( 5 ) Matthew and Luke both end the story with the servant healed, but each writes his own conclusion in his own way. Apart from the extraneous saying in 11-12, Matthew's version of this story is superior to that of Luke. The key-word of Jesus (10) is better dramatized by Matthew's narrative framework in which the centurion himself comes and everything transpires on the spot of the original encounter. The point to the story is weakened in Luke's version because the centurion sends others who recommend and plead with no special faith exhibited on their part or, through them, by the centurion. Luke's version is in a state of confusion. In 3 the centurion wants Jesus to come; in 6 he would restrain Jesus from coming. In the second half of Luke's version the narrative and the discourse do not harmonize: the narrative is carried by the friends in the plural (6a, 10) but the discourse is in the first person singular (6b-8). It is possible that some of the confusion in Luke's version is a result of the influence of Mark's Jairus story (5:21-43 j[148) reported by Luke later in Mark's order (8:40-56 fll48). "At the point of death" ( 2 ) and "Trouble not thyself" ( 6 ) could come verbatim from Mk 5:23 and 35. The delegation from the centurion's house ( 6 ) may be borrowed from Mark's delegation from Jairus' house (5:35). In Luke here and in Mark there, Jesus encounters the delegation as he nears the house. If the friends in 6 and 10 of Luke are deleted and the words "came" and "he" are substituted, then 1

See Mt. 7:28a f[51.

197

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. |108

Lukes narrative harmonizes with the first person singular of the discourse in 6b-8: 6 And Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion came to him, saying unto him, . . . 9 And when Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned and said unto the multitude that followed him, . . . 10 And he, returning to the house, found the servant whole.

Luke's confused version as it now stands features the centurion's humility rather than his faith, a shift of emphasis due perhaps to a peculiarity of Luke's Gospel as a whole. It is strange that Luke's Gospel, Gentile-Christian in origin and nature and intended for Gentile-Christian readers, carefully avoids bringing Jesus into direct contact with Gentiles. 108. The Son of the Widow of Nain Lk 7:11-17 This is the first of two stories of raisings from the dead in Luke's Gospel, and it is peculiar to Luke. Matthew (1|63) and Mark (fll48) have only one such story which Luke reports later in Mark's order (|J148). Luke here, like Matthew earlier, may be building background for Jesus' statement a few verses later (7:22), "the dead are raised up." The story begins (11a) as though Jesus were alone. The mention of the disciples ( l i b ) may be merely conventional, for they play no part in the story. The multitude is mentioned at the beginning and at the end in the role of witnesses. This is the only mention of Nain, not only in the Synoptic tradition, but in the Biblical writings.1 Verse 12 is pure melodramatic writing intended to play on the reader's emotions: some one is dead, the only son of a mother who is a widow. "The only son of his mother" is a typical legendary feature and a favorite with Luke (8:42; 9:38). The public reaction in 16 is phrased in Old Testament language as endings of stories often are in Luke. Luke began to feature religious awe and fear as general reactions to wondrous events as early as his birth story. The impression that Jesus is a prophet, so frequent in Luke, is rare in Matthew and Mark. It is rather strange here, for such a stupendous miracle would suggest the Messiah rather than a prophet. The story as a whole is a tale or novelette. Interest centers in the story for its own sake; there is evident gratification in the mere telling. There is no evident didactic point beyond a general glorification of the wonderworker. Faith is not even mentioned on the part of any one as a factor in the miracle. This story has very close affinities with raisings from the dead by Elijah (I Kgs 17:17-24) and by Elisha (II Kgs 4:32-37) which may 1 Josephus ( Wars iv. 9, 4 ) mentions a village of Nain, but it is east of the Jordan, not in Galilee as Luke's Nain seems to be.

198

Β.1109-112

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

have suggested or inspired the Christian version here in Luke.2 There are pagan parallels to raisings from the dead on the way to burial.3 In Lk 7:13 the reader encounters the term and title Lord as a substitute for the name Jesus, and from this point on it becomes a peculiarity of Luke's text, making a dozen appearances, but only in special circumstances. It appears only in materials peculiar to Luke as in this first instance and in little editorial contributions made by him. With one uncertain exception (Lk 22:61), the title Lord never supplants the name Jesus in the Markan matter of Luke. Since it appears only in passages and fragments peculiar to Luke, it must come from Luke's own pen and not from his sources. The term Lord is never used in this special sense in Matthew and Mark. Wherever the term is addressed to Jesus in Matthew and Mark, it is equivalent to teacher or master and expresses the deference of an individual. The title Lord as used by Luke in this special sense comes from the Christian cult; the Lord (Jesus) is the object of its religious reverence and worship, and he is spiritually present in the assembly. It expresses the religious feelings and attitudes of the believing group. The background of the term Lord in this special sense is the resurrection faith of the early Christians. In fact, it is the most succinct expression and formulation of that faith. By virtue of his resurrection Jesus became Lord over life and death —the ultimate realities.

JESUS' ADDRESS ON THE BAPTIST

Lk 7:18-35 P09-112

Mt 11:2-19 fl81-85

This is the second major address in Luke. Like the first (his Sermon on the Plain) it comes from Q and appears in his Small Non-Markan Section (6:20b-8:3). In Matthew's arrangement of major discourses, this address was the third and was reported earlier as a part of his third digression. Luke has only two verses (7:29-30 jjlll) not found in Matthew's form of the address, while Matthew included four verses (11:12-15 ^[83—84) not found in Luke's form. Otherwise Matthew and Luke agree exactly on content and composition, and neither can be far from the Q form of the address. 109. The Deputation of the Baptist Lk 7:18-23 Mt 11:2-6 pi John's question and Jesus' reply open this section in Luke as they did in Matthew (and in Q as well). Luke seeks to fit this section into its conCf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, II, 206. • Cf. Philostratus Life iv. xlv. 11

199

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

Β. 11110

text by having John's disciples report to him "all these things," a reference so sweeping that it might cover everything in Luke's public story thus far. John's question is the only instance in Luke where John's attention is called to Jesus personally, and this goes back to a fundamental difference between Mark and Q. In Mark Jesus never comes to John's personal attention; in Q, in just this one fleeting instance. The Q question in Lk 7:20 is contradicted by the Q announcement of the Coming One by John back in 3:16-17 ( |J4), as it was in Matthew.1 Matthew and Luke agree verbatim on John's question and Jesus' reply. They differ in the narrative framework in which they are set — a bare minimum in Matthew, a circumstantial development in dialogue and narration in Luke. ( 1 ) In Matthew John is in prison when this action takes place. Luke does not mention John's imprisonment at this point, although he was the first to report it (3:19-20 and he never refers to it again. (2) Luke depicts a scene between John and his disciples ( 19 ), and the reader learns the question from John himself. Matthew has no such scene, and John's question becomes known only when it is put to Jesus. (3) In Luke John sends two of his disciples; in Matthew he sends "his disciples," no number specified. (4) Luke's principal new feature comes in verse 21: he has John's disciples witness many cures and healings performed by Jesus. In both Matthew and Luke Jesus' reply begins by instructing John's disciples to report what they have seen and heard. In Matthew there is nothing that they have seen or heard, but Luke gives them something to see and to report in 21, "a bouquet of miracles." 2 These wonder-works were probably suggested to Luke by "the things which ye have seen and heard" referred to in Jesus' reply. Luke's elaborate narrative framework is probably, for the most part, his own contribution for two reasons. ( 1 ) In 19 the title Lord supplants the name Jesus as it does on several occasions in editorial contributions by Luke. (2) Luke has a predilection for deputations of two disciples (19:29; 22:8). 110. Jesus' Exalted Estimate of the Baptist Lk 7:24-28 Mt 11:7-11 W This tribute to John occupies the same position in Luke's form of the address that it did in that of Matthew, and apparently in Q, and it involves the same problems here in Luke as it did earlier in Matthew.1 It is another good example of practically verbatim reading in Matthew and Luke in the reproduction of Q matter. 1 2 1

See Mt 11:2-6 fl81. Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 223. See Mt 11:7-11 1182.

200

Β.1111-112

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

111. The Baptist's Successes and Failures Lk 7:29-30 Mt 21:32 j|335 This is a strange passage in a section devoted to continuous discourse, for it does not have discourse form. Neither the second person plural ("you") of what precedes ( P I O ) nor the first person singular ( " I " ) of what follows (11112) appears. It seems to be an editorial comment, an aside, which breaks into the flow of the address. Furthermore, it has no organic place in this address; verbal association, the name John, seems responsible for its inclusion here in Luke. In Mt 21:32 (|f335) this same matter in substance has the form of a word of Jesus in the second person plural. It has no connection with Matthew's address on John but it is an indictment of Jesus against his opponents in the course of the Jerusalem conflicts. Only the substance of this passage can go back to Q; its original form is uncertain. The Pharisees and lawyers, a combination peculiar to Luke, are brought together later in an extensive Q section of Luke (11:37-54 ^231-242). This passage may be of later Christian origin, for it is a retrospective survey of John's work in the past, and "the baptism of John" is so specific as to suggest that a Christian baptism is already in existence.1 The early Christians found an analogy between the successes and failures of John and those of Jesus: both were successful with the people, even with the outcasts, and both failed with the religious authorities — a two-way piece of polemic to discredit the latter. 112. The Parable of the Children at Play Lk 7:31-35 Mt 11:16-19 fl85 This parable concludes the address in both Matthew and Luke (and in Q). This parable, like the preceding passage, is an indictment, but with a difference. In j j l l l the people responded to John but the Pharisees and lawyers did not; in fíll2 a whole contemporary generation is indicted as unresponsive to both Jesus and John. Luke uses a double interrogative to introduce this parable as he often does; Matthew uses a single interrogative, a form of introduction equally characteristic of Matthew. The application of the parable ascribes to Jesus a double portrait, one of John (33) and a self-portrait (34). If John was the eccentric figure which some passages of the Synoptic tradition represent, it seems certain that Jesus did not follow in his footsteps. Jesus and John may have left such opposed impressions with their contemporaries, but these contrasting portraits were probably painted by the early Christian imagination. Luke passed over the ascetic portrayal of John in Mk 1:6; now in 7:33 (1:15) Luke comes as near as he ever does to ascetic traits in John. These ascetic traits from Q are milder than those of Mark (1:6). The pertinence of the proverb at the end (35) is no clearer in Luke than it was in 1

Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 30.

201

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. |113

Matthew, but Luke's "children" seem more probable than Matthew's "works." 113. Luke's Anointing of Jesus in Galilee Lk 7:36-50 Mt 26:6-13 = Mk 14:3-9 fl393 This is another of what might be called Luke's problem-stories on the order of his peculiar version of the Nazareth episode in 4:16-30 (fllO) and of the calling of the first disciples in 5:1-11 (1jl7). There are affinities with Mark, perhaps even borrowings from Mark, yet the main body of the story is so new and different as to indicate a non-Markan source. The very fact that this story is a part of Luke's Small Non-Markan Section ( 6 : 2 0 b - 8 : 3 ) would, from the very outset, favor the idea of a non-Markan origin. Furthermore, the new matter in this story far outweighs any incidental agreements with Mark. In the Synoptic tradition the story of the anointing of Jesus has come down in two very different forms: that of Mark in 14:3-9 (1|393) reproduced by Matthew in 26:6-13 in Mark's order and that of Luke in 7:36-50 ( P 1 3 ) . Apart from agreements and disagreements in text and materials, these two forms differ greatly in literary and dramatic function and in religious character. In Matthew and Mark the anointing of Jesus takes place in Bethany outside of Jerusalem two days before his death where it is a prelude or prologue to the death drama. In Luke the anointing has no connection with the death drama or with the Jerusalem story; in Luke it comes early and has its scene in Galilee. Luke does not localize it otherwise in time or place, and it seems to be a piece of floating tradition which by sheer accident lodged at this particular point in Luke.1 In Matthew and Mark the anointing story is wholly christocentric. The action and speech focus on Jesus and his fate; it is a consecration to death. In Luke, however, the anointing itself is incidental, and there is no connection with the death-theme. All interest centers on the penitent woman and the forgiveness of her sins. In Matthew and Mark Jesus' host is Simon the leper; in Luke, Simon the Pharisee. The woman is unidentified in both forms of the Synoptic tradition. In Matthew and Mark no reflection is cast on her character, but in Luke she is a sinner. Her being a sinner is as necessary to Luke's story as it would be inappropriate in the story of Matthew and Mark. In Matthew and Mark the woman anoints Jesus' head which is natural since it is a consecration to death. In Luke she anoints Jesus' feet which is natural since it is an act of penitence. 1

Cf. Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 210.

202

Β. 1113

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

In Matthew and Luke the objection is to the waste of the ointment; in Luke, to the character of the woman. In Matthew and Mark Jesus' comments interpret the anointing in the light of what is to come, his unanointed body at burial and the memorial to the woman. In Luke Jesus' comments bear on love and forgiveness as dramatized in a parable. The "alabaster cruse of ointment," the anointing itself, and the name Simon may be borrowed from Mark's anointing story. However, these Markan details introduce confusion into Luke's version of the story. The bringing of the ointment would point to a planned and premeditated act, but the act of this woman in Luke is spontaneous and impulsive. The name Simon appears abruptly in the middle of the story in Luke. If it were a primitive part of the story, it should come at the beginning as it does in Matthew and Mark. The borrowings from Mark are not confined to the anointing story. Lk 7:48 seems to be taken from Mk 2:5; Lk 7:49 from Mk 2:7; Lk 7:50 from Mk 5:34. These Markan details also introduce confusion into the conclusion of the story. Luke's treatment of the theme of forgiveness in the body of the story is more primitive and authentic than in 48-49 which is borrowed from the treatment in Mk 2:5b-10. In Luke (48) the woman is assured of the divine forgiveness, but Jesus as the Son of man does not claim authority on earth to forgive sins (Mk 2:10). Jesus' word of dismissal to the cured woman (Mk 5:34) is used here as his final word to the forgiven woman (Lk 7:50) where it is not appropriate, for Luke's story centers on love and forgiveness, not on faith and healing as in Mark. It cannot be determined whether Luke himself borrowed these details from Mark, for the transference of details from one story to another can take place more easily in the oral than in the written stage of tradition. 2 This invasion of Markan details may antedate Luke, and the story may have come down to him in its present confused state. Luke seems to identify his anointing story with that of Mark, at least in a general way, for when he comes to it in Mark's order ( |[393 ) he does not reproduce it, as though he is aware of having used it already. All of Luke's affinities with Mark are incidental and secondary items. They can be deleted, and the result is an impressive story that has nothing to do with an anointing. It tells how a penitent woman approached Jesus; her tears fell on his feet and she wiped them away with the hair of her head, and Jesus assured her of the divine forgiveness: 36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he entered into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat. 37 And behold, a woman who was in the city, a sinner; and when she knew that he was sitting at meat in the Pharisee's house, she came . . . 38 and standing behind at his 1

Cf. Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradüion, p. 155.

203

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f l l 4

feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head. . . . 39 Now when the Pharisee that had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have perceived who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him, that she is a sinner. 40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Teacher, say on. 41 A certain lender had two debtors: the one owed five hundred shillings, and the other fifty. 42 When they had not wherewith to pay, he forgave them both. Which of them therefore will love him most? 43 Simon answered and said, He, I suppose, to whom he forgave the most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. 44 And turning to the woman, . . . 48 he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. 49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that even forgiveth sins? Thus reconstructed, the story would be entirely peculiar to Luke and would have closer affinities with the story of the adultress in the Gospel of John ( 7 : 5 3 - 8 : 1 1 t|391) than with the anointing story in Matthew and Mark. 3 The reconstructed story exhibits a number of features characteristic of Luke's Gospel, and especially of his peculiar matter. ( 1 ) Jesus is the guest in the home and at the table of a Pharisee, a situation never encountered in Matthew and Mark, but of which there are three instances in Luke (7:36; 11:37; 14:1). ( 2 ) Jesus appears in this story as a reader of thoughts and he replies openly to an unexpressed mental comment ( 3 9 - 4 0 ) . This occurs occasionally in Matthew and Mark but less frequently than in Luke. ( 3 ) The story contains a parable peculiar to Luke ( 41^12 ), one of some fifteen found only in his Gospel. ( 4 ) The story is one of several portraits in Luke's gallery depicting Jesus' sympathy with the poor and lowly, the sinful and the outcast. ( 5 ) It is an expansive, imaginative narrative or novelette, one of the few in which three principal characters are involved. The didactic elements in Luke's story do not have perfect unity. The parable in 41-42 and its explanation in 47 clash with each other. In the parable love is the result of forgiveness, but in the explanation forgiveness is the result of love. Both the parable and the explanation have a calculating rabbinical color: so much forgiveness, so much love; or the reverse. 4 Some critics 5 regard the parable as a later addition and the story as complete without it. Other critics 6 regard the parable as primitive and the story as a literary invention providing a setting for it. 114. The Ministering Women Lk 8 : 1 - 3 This passage is usually regarded as the conclusion of Luke's Small NonMarkan Section which began with 6:20b. However, some critics 1 feel that Cf. Cf. 5 Cf. et al. "Cf. 1 Cf. 3 4

Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 404ff. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 431. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 32; Wendland, Die urchristlichen Literaturformen, p. 277; Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, II, 143; Loisy, Luc, p. 31; et al. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 34; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 95.

204

Β.1114

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

it should be joined to what follows, because it creates a pause or period in Luke's story like 4:44 earlier and 9:51 later. However, it joins better to what precedes because it is non-Markan matter; the next verse of Luke (8:4) begins a new Markan section of his Gospel.2 Luke's Small Non-Markan Section followed the choosing of the twelve, and it ends with them (8:1) in Jesus' regular following. Verses 1-3 join on to the preceding story perhaps by the association of ideas: both feature women. Luke gives no hint that the sinful woman (flll3) is Mary Magdalene (flll4). Verse 1 is the familiar editorial type of generalization except for the fact that it does perhaps carry out the resolve back in 4:43. Verses 2-3 present something unusual: women are named and identified who have been cured by Jesus, but the cures themselves have not been narrated. In such a case, the Synoptic tradition knows more than it tells. New also is the idea of cured persons in the following of Jesus. Ordinarily cured persons are dismissed without subsequent trace and, in one case, refused a place in Jesus' following (Mk 5:18-20). Here, too, for the first time the reader encounters women in Jesus' Galilean following, and Luke is the only Synoptic writer who mentions them in the course of the Galilean story itself. In Matthew and Mark these Galilean women do not appear until the very end where they witness Jesus' death ( If445 ), his burial ( 1J447 ), and the empty tomb on the first day of the week (C. jfl). In 15:41 Mark speaks of these women as having been in Jesus' Galilean following and as ministering unto him, but Mark (Matthew also) never mentions them in the course of the Galilean story. In this group of women the Synoptic writers have only one name in common, Mary Magdalene, and in Matthew and Mark there is no hint that they have benefited by Jesus' healing power as Luke notes. Some critics 3 feel that Luke in 8:1-3 exhibits at least some biographical interest: he is looking ahead to a remote part of his story and preparing the way for the three appearances of these women at the very end — at the crucifixion, the burial, and the empty tomb. Apart from this early notice peculiar to Luke, women are far more prominent in Luke than in Matthew and Mark. The Gospel of Luke has often been called "The Woman's Gospel." Luke left the order of Mark after Mk 3:19a for his Small Non-Markan Section, but at the end of this section (8:3) Luke does not rejoin Mark at the point where he left Mark's story. In 8:4 Luke rejoins Mark at Mk 4:1. Luke passes over the second half of chapter 3 of Mark. Luke treats this bypassed section of Mark in three different ways. ( 1 ) He omits Mk 3:19b-21 entirely from his Gospel. ( 2 ) He omits Mark's Beelzebub section in 3:22-30 2 The next section of Luke assigned to Proto-Luke is his Great Non-Markan Section, 9:51-18:14. 3 Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 237; Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the New Testament, p. 62.

205

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

Β.T115-128

in favor of the Q form which he reports much later (Lk 11:14-26 1(219-226). (3) The episode with Jesus' family in Mk 3:31-35 which comes just ahead of Mark's parable section (4:1-34), Luke delays until just after his meagre parallels to this parable section (Lk 8:19-21 1(145). Mk 3:19b-35 P15-128. The remainder of chapter 3 of Mark is an erratic block of matter which has no natural connection with what precedes, the choosing of the twelve (3:13-19a), or with what follows, the parable section (4:1-34). Mk 3:19b-35 centers on adverse opinions concerning Jesus, the section's only semblance of unity. There are two adverse opinions from two different quarters involving two different episodes, the one breaking into the other: 19b-21 (22-30) 31-35. In this section Mark seems to be narrating in a sort of "that-reminds-me" style which is more natural in oral narration and story-telling than in written narrative and literary composition. There are other instances in Mark of one story interrupting another: 5:21-24 ( 25-34 ) 35-13; 6:7-13 (14-29 ) 30-32; 14:1-2 (3-9) 10-11. However, Mark seems to think of 19b-30 as continuous, one thing leading to the next, with 31-35 a separate story. THE BEELZEBUB ADDRESS

Mt 12:22-37

Mk 3:19b-30

1(115-124

Lk 11:14-26 j[219-226

This is the first major address of Jesus in Mark, although it hardly merits the name "address." It is actually a controversy with the usual threefold structure: (1) provocation in 19b-21; (2) critical comment in 22; (3) Jesus' reply or refutation in 23-30. The only structural difference between this controversy and the earlier ones is that Jesus' reply is not a single striking pronouncement but a series of utterances, all more or less of a polemical nature. This section of Mark, then, is composite, made up of separate units, principally discourse. It seems certain that some of them do not belong together and that one at least cannot be regarded as an utterance of Jesus at all. It is even possible that the major part of the section (22-30) does not depict an actual controversy of Jesus with his contemporary critics but reflects, rather, a controversy between believing Christians and unbelieving Jews on the basis of some sayings of Jesus, and presented as an episode in the course of his public career. This Beelzebub section was found in both Mark and Q. The Q form is twice as long as the Markan form and comes nearer meriting the name "address." With the exception of Luke's errant 1(221, Matthew and Luke agree exactly on the first six units and their arrangement. This concurrence must be close to the Q form of this complex. Matthew and Luke differ only in their conclusions for this section. Matthew, as usual, combines the Markan and Q forms, makes a slight

206

Β.1115

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

expansion at the end, and reports the whole in Mark's order as a part of the Galilean story. It is Matthew's fourth major address of Jesus. Luke, as already noted, passes over the Markan form of this Beelzebub section and he reports the Q form in his Great Non-Markan Section and journey to Jerusalem, in 1 1 : 1 4 - 2 6 ( ^ 2 1 9 - 2 2 6 ) . Luke's literary method, here as elsewhere, is the exact opposite of that of Matthew: Luke almost never conflates Markan and Q matter. Whenever Luke finds duplicate matter in Mark and Q, he does one of two things: ( 1 ) he will report both forms separately, as he often does, or ( 2 ) he will omit the Markan form in favor of the Q form when he does make a choice. Luke seems to have a definite preference for Q over Mark which Matthew does not have. Thus, a section of Mark's Galilean story drops out of Luke's Galilean story at this point, and such omissions from Mark's Galilean story become more extensive and serious from this point on. The total result in Luke is a radical curtailment of the Galilean story and a great expansion of his special central section ( 9 : 5 1 1 8 : 1 4 ) which comes between the end of Mark's Galilean story and the beginning of the Jerusalem story. 115. Jesus in the Opinion of his Friends and Family Mk 3 : 1 9 b - 2 1 Verse 19b of Mark, "And he cometh into a house," follows awkwardly on the catalogue of the twelve ( 13-19a ), and it signalizes a break. Verse 20 is an editorial transition and a favorite situation in Mark. "Again" may refer back to 2:1; but this house (perhaps the editorial "house") is necessary to what follows in 31-35. The verb "heard" in 21 has no definite object; "it" might refer to a lost antecedent which provoked the harsh judgment, "He is beside himself." The type of narration here relates itself to that in chapters 1 and 2. The house, the dense throngs, the strong verbs, the vague subjects, the indefinite objects — all are characteristic of the author-editor of the Second Gospel. The Greek text translated "his friends" is an idiom, "those about him," which usually designates blood relatives, close or distant, but it can mean "adherents" or "followers." In the light of 3 : 3 1 where Jesus' mother and brothers do appear, it should be translated "family." One Syriac MS of 3 : 2 1 reads, "his brothers." 1 Mk 3:21 excites the interest of the professional historian 2 who finds here a bit of naïve, realistic reporting close to the facts of history. The thing reported (that Jesus was out of his mind in the judgment of his family) is of a nature that excludes the possibility of falsehood, fabrication, or invention. It is so opposed to the interests and prejudices of Mark and his Christian readers that there is only one explanation for its recording: it must 'Syr' 1 "; cf. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, I, 68. * Cf. Bemheim, Lehrbuch, p. 360f.

207

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. ^[116

represent the truth and the facts. It is easier to understand why Matthew and Luke suppressed it than why Mark ever reported it. Mk 3:19b-21 is the first major omission in which Matthew and Luke concur, with the result that it is one of the few passages peculiar to Mark's Gospel. In spite of its brevity, it is a major omission by Matthew and Luke because of the nature of what is reported. Mk 3:21 is shocking to Christian sentiment. That any one should regard Jesus as beside himself (out of his mind ) is shocking enough, but it is all the more so when this harsh judgment comes from his own family. It was shocking to Matthew and Luke, and they suppress it by the most effective of all means, by simple omission. Mk 3:19b-21 has its natural continuation and conclusion in 31-35; the two passages belong together as a single unit of narration. Separated, they do not make sense; joined, each clarifies the other. Verse 31 identifies "those about him" in 21, his mother and his brethren; the harsh judgment in 21, "He is beside himself," explains the coldness and indifference of Jesus toward his family in 31-35. The Beelzebub section proper in 22-30 breaks into the episode of Jesus and his family. Verses 22-30 can be regarded as a literary insert and diagramed thus: 3:19b-21 (22-30) 31-35. Or, 22-30 can be regarded as a narrative tangent or digression. Mark starts to tell of one adverse judgment in 3:19b-21 which reminds him of another adverse judgment (22-30) which he tells to the end, and then resumes the first instance and tells it to the end (31-35). This view can be diagramed thus: 3:19b-21

22-30

31-35

116. The Cure of the Blind and Dumb Demoniac Mt 12:22-23 Lk 11:14 fl219; Mt 9:32-33 |[65 Matthew joins this cure to what precedes with his favorite connective, "Then." Here the reader realizes how little this "then" means so far as sequence and continuity are concerned: it joins on to a long quotation from Isaiah (Mt 12:17-21). Matthew has passed over Mk 3:13-21 having used only Mark's list of the twelve (3:16-19a) earlier in his own 10:1—4 (1(69). Both Matthew and Luke introduce the Beelzebub complex with this cure, which must have introduced it in Q. This is the second appearance of this cure in Matthew, and it illustrates legend's tendency to duplicate and repeat. Matthew used it as the last in his cycle of ten wonder-works (9:32-33 t[65) where it was evident (34) that it had been torn from this later Beelzebub context. Matthew is conscious of this repetition, and he has added blindness to make it appear as a new and different cure. This is a very thin disguise for, at the end of 22, Matthew speaks of the "dumb man." With four words deleted ("blind and"; "and saw") Mt 12:22 agrees

208

Β.1117-118

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

almost verbatim with Lk 11:14 (fl219) and his own 9:32-33 (fl65). The public reaction in 23 is only a variation of that in 9:33b. 117. The Beelzebub Charge Lk 11:15 fi220 Mt 12:24 Mk 3:22 There is no good connection between Mk 21 and 22 except a superficial association of ideas: one adverse judgment from one quarter (21) recalls a similar one from another quarter (22). This conjunction in Mark virtually associates Jesus' family (21) with the opposition (22). The scribes are typical and conventional opposition rather than actual critics of Jesus on this particular occasion. They are referred to as though their coming from Jerusalem had been mentioned earlier. The scribes were mentioned in Mk 2:6 but not as having come from Jerusalem. This early introduction of the Jerusalem authorities into the Galilean story is literary rather than historical. The Beelzebub charge was found in both Mark and Q. In Q the charge grows out of a specific instance of expulsion; in Mark it is based on Jesus' expulsions generally. The charge in Mark is double and much more severe than in Q. The first part, "He hath Beelzebub," charges actual possession and is closer to "He is beside himself" ( 21 ) : Jesus is no longer a responsible agent. The second part charges collusion with Beelzebub and is closer to the Q form of the charge in Matthew and Luke. The issue has to do with the source and nature of Jesus' inspiration and power. The critics admit both the inspiration and the power but they define both as demoniac, and thus discredit Jesus. The section which follows defends this inspiration and power as divine, but in a negative and indirect way. The whole could be a piece of later Christian apologetics or polemics. Philostratus 1 wrote his Life of Apollonius of Tyana to defend his hero against the charge of being a wizard. Mt 12:24. Matthew reports this charge in Mark's order but he uses the milder Q form which is provoked by the Q expulsion in 12:22 (|jll6). Now for the first time it becomes clear what Matthew was referring to back in 9:34 and 10:25b. Matthew's Pharisees who make the charge are just as conventional as Mark's scribes. 118. The Parable of the Kingdom and House Divided Lk 11:17-18 |j222 Mt 12:25-26 Mk 3:23-26 Jesus' reply, the address proper, begins alike in all three Gospels with this parable; hence it must have opened the address in both Mark and Q.1 Verse 23 is the editorial work of Mark. It does not depict an actual scene but is simply Mark's way of linking up with 22. How Jesus learns of 1 1

Cf. Life i-ii, vii-viii. For a comparison of the Markan and Q forms, see Lk 11:17-18 11222.

209

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. If 119

the charge in 22, Mark does not say; the charge was not addressed to Jesus but to others about him. Mark uses the term parable for the first time; "in parables" is a favorite phrase in his Gospel. It indicates a form of teaching rather than a plurality of examples. The Synoptic writers never define or explain the term parable. They use it so freely that their readers must have been wholly familiar with it as a form, style, or method of oral instruction. This, too, would suggest that parable was not novel and unique with Jesus, his own original creation. The rhetorical question, "How can Satan cast out Satan?," anticipates the reasoning and line of argument in the parable itself (24-25) as well as the conclusion drawn from it (26). Verses 24-25 really present a double parable, the kingdom and the house. A number of critics2 feel that the Beelzebub encounter originally ended with this parable and that the two discourse units which follow in Mark (27 and 28^-30) expand an episode into a section. Mt 12:25-26. Matthew reports this parable in Mark's order which is accidental, for Matthew is simply using, for the most part, the Q form of the address. Matthew also uses the Q form of this parable and agrees almost verbatim with Lk 11:17-18 (fl222). In Q the connection with the charge is closer, "knowing their thoughts," and Jesus appears in the role of a diviner of thoughts. Matthew adds "the city," making a triple example (kingdom, city, house), almost too much. 119. Exorcism and the Kingdom of God Mt 12:27-28 Lk 11:19-20 ]f223 This passage belongs to the Q form of the address with no parallel in Mark, and it occupies the same position in this section in both Matthew and Luke. Some critics 1 regard this passage as an insert and as belonging to a later stratum in the section's expansion. It separates the two parables in 1J118 and j|120 which seem to belong together and actually occur together in Mark. A break is clear in Matthew: Jesus' reasoning expressed by "how" at the end of 12:26 is continued by "how" at the beginning of 12:29. The original line of argument may have gone directly from one parable ( p i 8 ) to the next (fll20) without this break in flll9. Verses 27 and 28 of Matthew are not congenial. ( 1 ) Verse 27 could fit into the Beelzebub section, but 28 springs over to a different theme — the nearness, even the presence, of the kingdom. (2) Verses 27 and 28 make two very different uses of exorcisms which cancel each other. If Jesus and his critics do the same thing, expel demons (27), then the conclusion in 28 is unsound. (3) In 27 Jesus' expulsions are nothing exceptional; Jewish wonder-workers do the same thing. In 28 Jesus' expulsions are wholly 2 1

Cf. Klostermann, Markus, p. 42; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 78. Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 706; Box, St. Matthew, p. 208.

210

Β.1120-121

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

unique: they herald a new epoch. Back of 27 is the general Christian admission of Jewish exorcisms.2 Some critics would reject 27; others, 28; still others would reject both. Verse 28 is one of the famous passages featured by the opponents of an exclusively eschatological interpretation of Jesus and his message. 120. The Parable of the Strong Man Mt 12:29 Mk3:27 Lk 11:21-22 |f224 This parable belongs to both the Markan and Q forms of the Beelzebub section.1 It could very well be a companion or counterpart to the parable in p i 8 , the two forming a sort of parable-pair. However, some critics 2 feel that the connection between the two is loose and that this parable was originally a detached unit and not a part of the Beelzebub section. Others 3 feel that this comment about the strong man is not an independent parable but an allegorical conclusion drawn from the parable in p i 8 ; it states a general truth rather than projects a new word-picture. The allegory is suggested rather than stated; the Christian reader involuntarily thinks of Jesus as the One who overcomes the strong man. The idea expressed in this passage has a Jewish background: "Shall the prey be taken from the mighty?" (Isa 49:24); "For no man taketh spoil from a mighty man" (Pss Sol 5:4). The expulsion stories in the Synoptic tradition could very well be imaginative dramatizations of the word-picture in Mk 3:27. Mt 12:29 reports this parable in Mark's order and uses the Markan form almost verbatim. Verse 29 of Matthew seems to connect directly with 26, ignoring 27-28. This is clear, as pointed out, in the use of "how" at the end of 26 and at the beginning of 29. 121. No Neutral Ground Mt 12:30 Lk 11:23 fl225; Mk 9:40 = Lk 9:50b fll91 This passage belongs to the Q form of the Beelzebub section, and it occupies the same position in both Matthew and Luke. It is the last unit in which Matthew and Luke concur in the content and composition of this address. This saying has really nothing to do with the situation or theme of this section. It is ego- and christocentric, and it reads more like a warning to faltering disciples than an indictment of hostile critics. Its inclusion in this Beelzebub complex may be due to sheer accident. It has a proverbial ring to it, and it may be a profane saying which has been applied to Jesus' person. Mk 9:40 (Lk 9:50b) gives the same idea in inverted form, but it is far removed from any connection with the Beelzebub address. Cf. Acts 19:13; Josephus Antiquities vii. 2, 5; Wars vii. 6, 3. For a comparison of the Markan and Q forms, see Lk 11:21-22 11224. " Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 26; Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 49; et al. ' Cf. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 226. 2 1

211

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

B. ^[122

122. The Unpardonable Sin Mt 12:31-32 Mk 3:28-30 Lk 12:10 fl246 Each of the Synoptic writers concludes the Beelzebub section in a different way. Mark concludes it with the word on the unpardonable sin (|[122). Matthew has his own non-Markan ending in P23-124. Luke concludes the section with the Q parable of the unclean spirit ( j[226 ). This alleged utterance of Jesus was found in both Mark and Q, but it seems to have had no connection with the Q form of the Beelzebub section, for in Luke it is a stray saying (12:10) for removed from the Beelzebub controversy (11:14-26 This pronouncement has no natural or organic place in the Beelzebub section. It would not be provoked by the Beelzebub charge, and it is not a natural part of its refutation. Verse 30 of Mark seems to be a conscious effort to fasten it firmly where originally it did not belong. Verse 30, "He hath an unclean spirit," marks the limits of the parenthesis which began with verse 22, "He hath Beelzebub." These two verses are literary brackets which set the section off from its surroundings. Verse 30 is not a part of Jesus' speech but a comment from the editor. It has the emphasis of underlining or italics, calling the reader's attention to something special.2 This pronouncement on the unpardonable sin cannot be accepted as an authentic utterance of Jesus, because it limits the divine forgiveness in a purely dogmatic fashion, the only such instance in Jesus' extensive teaching on this theme in the Synoptic tradition. In both its forms (Mark and Q) it is obviously, in style as well as in nature, of later Christian origin. It reads like a formal officious pronouncement, not like a spontaneous oral utterance. It expresses a consensus of judgment, the agreed mind of a group, not the personal religious conviction of an individual. This sin is against the Holy Spirit, a religious object and value which belongs in the later Christian perspective. In the Q form the term Son of man ( Jesus ) has its special Christian and un-Jewish meaning. The unpardonable sin itself is not defined, but it does seem to be a sin of speech ("blaspheme"), expressing a general perverseness of attitude or frame of mind. The gradation of sins is Jewish. Some are forgiven on earth, some in heaven, and some never. The Holy Spirit in rabbinical thought was the spirit of prophecy or inspiration.3 Mt 12:31-32 appears exactly in Mark's order, but it does not conclude the Beelzebub section as it does in Mark. Matthew omits verse 30 of Mark for the simple reason that he is not ready to conclude this section. In the For a comparison of the Markan and Q forms, see Lk 12:10 H246. "It is a part of the technique of inserts and interpolations that at the end they return to the point where they left their source" (Mk 3:30; 6:16; 8:33; 14:59; 15:45). Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 234. 3 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 637. 1

2

212

Β.1123-127

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

body of this passage Matthew conflates the Markan and the Q forms of this pronouncement, and he almost overdoes things. Verse 32 (from Q) repeats 31 (from Mark). Matthew's conflated form is still less Jewish and much more deeply Christian in color than either form found in his sources. Matthew gives the pronouncement a more solemn and liturgical conclusion formed of phrases common in the rabbinical literature: "neither in this world, nor in that which is to come." 4 Mt 12:33-45 If123-127. This rather long passage of Matthew is a nonMarkan insert between Mk 3:30 and 31. Mark goes from the Beelzebub section, ending with 3:30 (ffl22), to the episode of Jesus and his family in 3:31-35 (fJ128). Matthew reports both paragraphs in Mark's order but he spreads the Markan framework between Mk 3:30 and 31 and inserts five nonMarkan units — four from Q and one peculiar to Matthew. In this insert Matthew does two things: (1) he completes his Beelzebub section with 11123-124; (2) he introduces a new section, the demand for a sign, in |f125-127. 123. The Parable of the Tree and Its Fruit Mt 12:33-35 Lk 6:43-45 fll04; Mt 7:15-20 f[48 This word on the tree and its fruits has only a loose connection with its present context, and the abusive language in 34a is an attempt to give the passage a polemical character which it originally did not possess. "Ye offspring of vipers" is borrowed from John's Q indictment back in 3:7 (|f2) and is another example of Matthew's merging of the messages of Jesus and John. This is the second (and last) appearance of this theme of the tree and its fruits in Matthew, first toward the close of his Sermon on the Mount (7:15-20 lf48) and now toward the end of his Beelzebub section. It makes just one appearance in Luke, toward the close of his Sermon on the Plain (6:43-45 ffl04). In Q it seems to have been associated with that earlier address. As already noted, it takes the two widely separated passages in Matthew to parallel the single passage in Luke. The passage here has still less of parable form than it had earlier in Matthew and Luke. Back in the Sermon on the Mount the fruits were works; here they are words, as in Lk 6:45. If this passage were lifted from the Gospels, it would seem more like a precept of practical profane wisdom than a piece of religious instruction. 124. Words in the Day of Judgment Mt 12:36-37 This little passage peculiar to Matthew concludes his Beelzebub section. It joins on to what precedes by association of ideas. The speech here, however, has to do with idle words, not with evil words as in the last two units 4

Cf. Box, St. Matthew, p. 211.

213

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f 1 2 5 - 1 2 7

of Matthew ( j[122-123). The sudden change to the second person singular in 37 makes it appear as a quotation, perhaps a proverb, of unknown origin. The entire passage is rabbinical in thought and expression. Mt 12:38-45 P25-127. This is the first appearance of this material in the Synoptic tradition. It was found in both sources, Mark and Q. Matthew is reporting the Q form here in ^125-126 with an addition from Q in |[127. Later Matthew (16:l-4a ^172-174) reports it a second time, in Mark's order. Luke reports the Q form only, and it comes in his Great Non-Markan Section and journey to Jerusalem, not in the Galilean story as it is in Mark and both times in Matthew. In Luke the unity of this little section is destroyed: the demand for a sign in 11:16 (^221) is separated from Jesus' reply in 11:29-32 (|j228). There are two possible explanations for the appearance of this little section at this particular point in Matthew. ( 1 ) It resembles the Beelzebub section in that it is a hostile attempt to discredit Jesus. (2) In both Matthew and Luke it is evident that the Beelzebub section and the demand for a sign were not far removed from each other in Q. 125. The Demand for a Sign Mt 12:38 Lk 11:16 fl221; Mt 16:1 = Mk 8:11 fll72 In this first form of the demand for a sign Matthew exercises a free hand over against his sources. He names the scribes and Pharisees, his favorite combination of opponents. He uses direct discourse, "We would see a sign from thee," as neither of his sources did. He omits the hostile intention, "trying him," and the specification, "a sign from heaven" — both stated apparently in Mark and Q.1 In Jewish thought signs appear in the heavens; miracles take place on earth.2 Even without the specification "from heaven" the opposition seems to be demanding something different from Jesus' reported wonder-works. 126. The Sign of Jonah Mt 12:39-42 Lk 11:29-32 fl228; Mt 16:4a = Mk 8:12 fl74 This is the Q form of the reply to the demand for a sign.1 The exception, the sign of Jonah, is the distinctive element in the Q form, but it may be a later addition.2 Mark knows nothing of this exception. The flat refusal in Mark (no sign) makes better sense. Q itself, as is clear in Matthew (12:40) and Luke (11:30), had no clear conception of what this sign of Jonah was.3 For a comparison of the Markan and Q forms, see Mk 8:11 11172. Cf. Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 111. 1 For a comparison of the Markan and Q forms, see Mk 8:12 1(174. 2 Cf. Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 67f; Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 128. 3 For differences in the Q version in Matthew and Luke, see Lk 11:29-32 K228.

1 2

214

Β. 1(127

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Verse 40 of Matthew is probably a later addition or insert.4 It differs from Luke's interpretation as though Q did not contain it, and Matthew and Luke were left to interpret it each in his own way. Verses 41-42 join well on to 39, omitting 40. Verse 40 does not accord well with 41: in 40 the sign is the Jonah miracle; in 41 it is Jonah's message. The background of 40 seems to be the Christian tradition of Jesus' resurrection. Verse 40 itself is in confusion. The three days and the three nights note the interval between death and resurrection, but "the heart of the earth" would seem to refer to the underworld, not to the tomb. The three days and the three nights here in Matthew are very strange, for in all three formal prophecies of resurrection Matthew corrects Mark's "after three days" to "the third day" to conform to the known Easter tradition. However, the three days and the three nights may be only an echo from the Jonah story (Jon 1:17). Verses 41—42 were joined to the sign of Jonah in Q, but they may have been at one time a single separate unit of discourse, an independent prophetic warning, that had no connection with the demand for a sign.® Some critics 6 feel that "a greater than Jonah" and "a greater than Solomon" are later additions made when 41—Í2 was joined to the sign of Jonah. There are two different readings in the Greek MSS for this comparison with Jonah and Solomon. The stronger and better reading is "something greater"; this would fall within the religious perspective of Jesus in which the kingdom will transcend the greatest glories of the past. The weaker and inferior reading is "some one greater" which would reflect the Christian retrospect which exalted Jesus above the greatest figures of the past. 127. The Parable of the Unclean Spirit Mt. 12:43-15 Lk 11:24-26 1J226 This is a stray Q unit which has no better connection with Matthew's demand for a sign than it has with the Beelzebub section in Luke. Since there is no good connection at the beginning, Matthew creates one at the end which ties this parable up with what precedes and cuts it off from what follows: "Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation." This last line is also a literary bracket ending the non-Markan insert (1(123-127) before Matthew returns to Mark's framework in |(128. If this is an authentic saying of Jesus, its original point and meaning are no longer clear. Some critics 1 regard it as not only authentic but autobiographical, reflecting some of Jesus' painful experiences with expulsions. Some of these so-called cures were not permanent, but brought only temporary relief with the victim relapsing into a worse condition. In such cases, 4 Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, II, 81; Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen, p. 289; et al. 5 Cf. Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 63; Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 112. "Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 118; Bousset, Kyrios Christos, p. 51. 1 Cf. Soltau, Wunder, p. 67; Fenner, Die Krankheit im NT, p. 24; et at.

215

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

B. 1 1 2 8

they were better left alone altogether. The demoniac stories usually feature the superhuman powers of the demons, especially their powers of perception. This little story, however, endows the demons with wholly human feelings and desires — need of shelter, security, and companionship. Like all the expulsion stories, the person possessed is purely passive; action and monologue concern only the demon. One critic 2 feels that this parable does not go back to Jesus at all, because it is so different in style and subject matter from his usual utterances. It has no specifically Christian features, and it might come from some Jewish writing or even from some pagan source. It may have been originally a caustic criticism of the practice of exorcism generally, or perhaps a pointed warning to those who had been freed of demons. Its pagan origin might be suggested by the half-jesting, cynical tone in which it is conceived and written. 128. Jesus' True Kinsmen Mt 12:46-50 Mk 3:31-35 Lk 8:19-21 fll45 The story begun in 3:19b-21 is now resumed. The multitude of 32 is that of 20. Jesus is in a house in 31 as he was in 19b. The desire to see Jesus in 32 conforms with the plan to take him in 21. "His mother and his brethren" in 31 explains who "those about him" were in 21. Jesus' coldness in 31-35 is natural after their adverse comment in 21. Verse 31a, perhaps 31-32a, resets the scene because the connection has been broken by 22-30: 19b And he cometh into a house. 2 0 And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. 2 1 And when his friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on him; for they said, H e is beside himself. . . . 3 2 b And they say unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 3 3 And he answereth them, and saith, W h o is my mother and my brethren? 3 4 And looking round on them that sat round about him, he saith, Behold, my mother and my brethren! 3 5 F o r whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mark's style of narration in 3:31-35 is unusually redundant and expansive. Dibelius 1 feels that the story proper ends with 34, and that it is older than the Christian generalization drawn from it in 35. The story in 31-34 was recounted in the course of the early Christian sermon, and 35 is a preacher's precept applying it to the Christian audience. Bultmann 2 takes the opposite view. He regards 35 as primary; 31-34 is just an ideal scene which dramatizes the saying in 35, a narrative framework invented for it. Even 35 he regards as of later Christian origin. Behind 35 there is the group consciousness of the religious community, the feeling of fellowship 2 1 2

Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 100. Cf. Tradition to Gospel, pp. 57, 69. Cf. Geschichte ( 1 9 2 1 ) , pp. 15, 86.

216

Β.1128

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

between members as well as the feeling of solidarity, spiritual kinship, with Jesus himself. Lohmeyer 3 feels that the story should end with 34, and that 35 does not belong to it at all. Verse 35 centers on doing the divine will, an idea that does not figure in the episode in 31-34. Verse 35 is a stray saying that has been attached to it. It is quoted as a separate saying with no reference to the episode in 31-34 in II Clement ix. 11: "For the Lord said, My brethren are those who do the will of the Father." Mt 12:46-50. Matthew left Mark (3:29) at his own 12:32 and now he rejoins Mark (3:31) with his own 12:46. Jesus' family appears very abruptly in Matthew due to his omission of Mk 3:21. The object or purpose of their visit is not stated in Matthew. Jesus' whole attitude toward his family here in Matthew becomes enigmatic and harsh because there is no provocation for it (Mk 3:21). "Without," out of doors, is clear only in Mark. Matthew has not told his readers that Jesus is in a house, and he does not until 13:1. The whole situation in Matthew presupposes an antecedent (Mk 3:19b-21) which Matthew has not reported. Ordinarily in reproducing Mark, Matthew avoids Mark's redundancies and literary effusions, but in this particular instance he does not. Mt 49 restricts Jesus' spiritual kin to the disciples; the circle is wider in Mark (34), those about him. Mt 12:50 is a clear echo from his Sermon on the Mount (7:21). In both Matthew and Mark Jesus speaks of his spiritual mother, brothers, and sisters, but not of his spiritual father. There is a profound religious reason for this as is clear in Mt 23:9: "Call no man your father on the earth; for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven." Luke (8:19-21 fîl45) delays this Markan episode and reports it just after the parable section ( Mk 4:1-34), not just ahead of it as here in Matthew and Mark. Mk 3:19b-21 + 31-35 is the only reported contact between Jesus and his immediate family in the course of his public work and, as Mark depicts it, it is a rather shocking episode in which Jesus' mother and family take a very strange attitude toward him. As a matter of history, there seems to have been a breach and a break between Jesus and his family, and he seems to have begun and accomplished his public work without their sympathy or support. Apart from this one episode, there are other traces of this breach in the Synoptic tradition. The Gospel of John states point blank that "even his brethren did not believe on him" (7:5). It is only after Jesus' death that his family appears within his following (Acts 1:14). The usual Christian conception of Jesus' family, especially of his mother, is based on the birth stories of Matthew and Luke and the appearances of 3

Cf. Markus, p. 80.

217

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1129-144

his mother in the Gospel of John. The implications of the birth stories are not borne out in the public story, even in Matthew and Luke. Now the reader learns that Mary is the mother of a family and that she and her other children do not show the comprehension and understanding of Jesus and his work that the birth stories would lead the reader to expect. Jesus' mother in Mark is "eine beschränkte jüdische Frau." 4 If Mark were the only Gospel, or if there were no birth stories in Matthew and Luke, there would have been no cult of the Virgin Mary. If129-144

Mt 13:1-52

Mk 4:1-34

Lk 8:4-18

Mk 4:1-34. This is known as Mark's parable section. It is the first major section of Mark's Gospel to be devoted to Jesus' teaching, not to his teaching generally, however, but to one special form, "in parables" (2). This phrase is the key to the entire section and it delimits its content. Mark is emphatic on this point: "Without a parable spake he not unto them" (34). Mark, then, is aiming at a systematic presentation of this special phase of Jesus' teaching. The section contains three detached parables (3—9; 26-29; 30-32) which have only one thing in common, their materials, which are drawn from the familiar field of seed, sowing, and harvest. No two of the three treat these materials alike or make the same point with them. The three represent a selection, not a collection; they are chosen as specimens typical of this form of oral instruction. The composite nature of this section of Mark is obvious in the repeated introduction of Jesus as speaker. "And he said," or its equivalent, occurs eight times, and in each case it introduces a separate and independent discourse unit. The lack of unity in this section is highlighted in verse 10, where there is an abrupt shift of scene from public to private and a change of audience from the multitudes to the disciples. The three key-parables come at the beginning ( 3 - 9 ) and at the end (26-32), and they are addressed to the people as public utterances. In between is a parenthesis (10-25) in which Jesus is alone with the disciples and gives them private instruction. Verses 10-25 are generally regarded as an insert which can be diagramed thus: 4:1-9 (10-25) 26-34. There are three strata of materials in this section of Mark. There is the primary stratum, the three key-parables, which probably go back to Jesus, but with no assurance that any two of them were spoken together or on the same occasion. There is a secondary stratum which presents Mark's theory of the nature and purpose of parable. There is a tertiary stratum in which one of the key-parables is explained according to this theory. Mark is more interested in the parable-form than he is in the parable-content. This section of Mark, then, is doubly didactic: it teaches about Jesus' teaching. This fact 1

Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 257.

218

Β.1129-144

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

takes the section out of the category of possible spontaneous oral utterances and makes it the literary product of study and reflection. Mark himself may be responsible for the collection, compilation, and composition of this section.1 However, such formal compositions are not characteristic of Mark, and he may have found the collection already made in one of the fragmentary written sources at his disposal.2 Or, the different strata of materials in the section may be contributions from different minds and hands at different times.3 Mt 13:1-52. Matthew follows the lead of Mark and builds up a parable section in Mark's order that is even more ambitious than that of Mark. Matthew reproduces two of Mark's three key-parables and adds five (six) non-Markan parables, making a total of seven (eight) — a favorite number with Matthew. In addition, Matthew introduces other non-Markan materials. Mark's section of thirty-four verses, even with considerable omissions from Mark by Matthew, becomes a section of fifty-two verses in Matthew. Chapter 13 of Matthew is a collection of parables which has still less cohesion and unity than Mark's selection of three. Matthew's parables are only loosely joined together. Three different times (24, 31, 33) Matthew repeats his formula, "Another parable," which betrays the method of the collector. The addition of so much new material in Matthew leads to even greater confusion in scene and audience than exists in Mark's parable section. Lk 8:4-18. With 8:4 Luke returns to Mark's order (Mk 4:1) after introducing his Small Non-Markan Section in 6 : 2 0 b - 8 : 3 . Lk 8 : 4 - 9 : 5 0 is a Markan section of Luke which completes his Galilean story. In Mark six full chapters ( 4-9 ) still remain in the Galilean story. Luke's radical curtailment of the remainder of the Galilean story is clear in the fact that less than two chapters in Luke give his reproductions from the six chapters of Mark, 103 verses over against 265 in Mark. Luke makes various omissions along the way, but the primary factor in this curtailment is his omission of an entire long section: Mk 6 : 4 5 - 8 : 2 6 . Luke's Gospel is richer in parables than any other, yet Luke does not build up a parable section at this point parallel with Mark. Luke reproduces only the first of Mark's three key-parables and some of the materials associated with it. Mark's section of thirty-four verses drops to a mere fifteen in Luke. The author of Luke seems to shy away from the very things which Mark features in his parable section. Luke seems to have no liking for Mark's parable theory. Many of Luke's special parables could not be fitted into it. In Luke's brief parallel section there is no confusion in scene and Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 178. Cf. A. E. J. Rawlinson, St. Mark (4th ed.; London: Methuen, 1936), p. 47; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 351. " Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 132. 1

2

219

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 1 2 9

audience: the parable in 4r-8 is addressed to the multitudes and what follows ( 9-18 ) is private instruction to the disciples. 129. The Parable of the Seed and the Soils Mt 13:1-9 Mk 4:1-9 Lk 8:4-θ In 4:1-2 Mark is conscious of making a new beginning. There is no attempt to connect up with what precedes; even the boat in 4:1 is not related in any way to the boat ordered in 3:9. This introduction in 4:1-2 is editorial and composite. The seaside setting in 1 is complete in itself and it is resumed at the end of the parable section (35). Verse 2 is a special introduction to the parable section, wholly adequate in itself without the seaside scene in 1. In verse 1 Jesus is teaching — general; in verse 2 he is teaching "in parables" — specific. "Again" may refer to the earlier seaside scenes (2:13; 3:7-9), or it may be purely conventional. The disciples are not mentioned in 4:1-2 but the twelve and others appear suddenly in verse 10. The parable itself ( 3 - 8 ) depicts something that is generally true, a common occurrence, but it is narrated in the past tense as history, as a particular instance. The four soils are four types rather than four different kinds found together. The three sets of adverse conditions would hardly be encountered in a single sowing by a single sower. They are rather a compendium of adverse conditions learned through repeated experience. Verse 9 is cut off from the parable by "And he said." It is a stereotyped discourse unit in the Synoptic tradition introduced at will to add solemnity to an utterance. It gives the discourse to which it is attached the nature and tone of an oracle. Several critics 1 regard this parable as autobiographical, as a transcript of Jesus' own experience in public work. They find it pessimistic in tone, a sort of melancholy retrospect, a half-resigned and half-grateful monologue of Jesus on his own successes and failures. However, the parable is not necessarily pessimistic. There are three instances of failure and one of success, but the returns are so great in the one instance as to offset the failures and to justify all that has been done. Neither is the parable optimistic; rather it is neutral. It is a realistic commentary on the frustrations and fruits of human effort giving a cross-section of average experience. In itself the parable has no religious cast of color; it acquires such only because it is ascribed to Jesus. Mt 13:1-9. Matthew reproduces this parable in Mark's order almost verbatim. He joins the parable section more closely to what precedes: "On that day" as he so often does (9:9, 14; 12:1, 9). In 1 Jesus is leaving a house which Matthew has not mentioned but which he presupposed in 12:46. This is the house of Mk 3:19b which Matthew omitted. Verses 1-2 of Matthew are awkward and redundant: Jesus is seated twice, and the multitude is men1

Cf. J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu (1900), p. 101; Bousset, Jesus, p. 37f; et al.

220

Β.1130-135

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

tioned twice. Matthew uses the plural "seeds" throughout, where Mark uses the singular ( or collective ). Matthew ( 8 ) has a downward gradation in the yield ( 100, 60, 30) where Mark has an upward gradation (30, 60, 100). Lk 8:4—8. Luke attempts no connection with what precedes, for he is leaving a block of non-Markan matter (6:20b - 8:3) to resume his reproductions of Mark at a purely arbitrary point, at Mk 4:1 instead of 3:19b where he left Mark's framework. Luke omits the seaside scene and setting for the simple reason that he used it much earlier (5:1-3) in a very different connection, the calling of the first disciples. The omission of the scene here would indicate that Luke is conscious of having used it there. In Luke generally there is less of the sea and the seaside than in Mark. Luke's present setting is so vague that the shift of scene in 9 is not as awkward as it is in Matthew and Mark. In 4 Luke makes it clear that he is not compiling a parable section, but is introducing a single parable, "he spake by a parable," the only one which Luke reproduces from Mark's trilogy. Luke makes a strong abridgment of the parable itself, in fact too strong, for details disappear from the parable which are necessary to Luke's own explanation of the parable (8:11-15 |[132). This abridgment also deprives Luke's parable of some of the local Palestinian color it has in Mark. This parable of the seed and the soils is one of the only two parables reported by all three Synoptic writers. The other is the parable of the wicked husbandmen (j[336). P30-135

Mt 13:10-23

Mk 4:10-25

Lk 8:9-18

Mk 4:10-25. This section is a mechanical insert or parenthesis between the first and second of the key-parables. It falls outside the narrative framework, the seaside scene and setting in 4:1 and 35. The idea of a single day and a concrete situation is forgotten. With utter indifference to what precedes and to what follows this parenthesis, Jesus is suddenly alone with the disciples. The section begins (4:1-9) and ends (4:26-34) with striking word-pictures or parables, but in 10-25 the reader is transported into the realm of religious theory and dogma. This parenthesis is academic; the author is no longer a reporter and narrator of history but a commentator on history. In 10-25 the reader begins to meet a Pauline type of thought and expression which appears now and then in the Gospel of Mark and which has led some critics to speak of a Pauline influence in the Second Gospel. Thus far in Mark there has been no disposition to theorize on Jesus' teaching, its form or content. No question of its simplicity or clarity has been raised. The plain assumption has been that Jesus' teaching was understood by all, people and disciples alike. Now, suddenly, Jesus' parables become a mystery. And this idea of mystery hovers over everything in the central

221

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1130

section of Mark's Gospel —over all of Jesus' teaching, over incidents and events, even about Jesus' person generally. This bracket in Mk 4:10-25 is composite and by no means homogeneous. (1) There are two replies to the question in 10: one in 11-12, another in 13-20. (2) The first reply (11-12) has to do with the nature and purpose of parable as a form of instruction; the second (13-20) explains a particular parable (3-8). (3) Verses 11-12 assume that the disciples understand and that the people do not; 13-20 assumes that even the disciples do not understand and require explanation. In Matthew (13:10-23) and Luke (8:9-18) this bracket does not have the strong esoteric quality it has in Mark. Matthew elaborates this bracket at the beginning (P30-131), but he omits the shorter sayings at the end ( fll33-135 ). Luke reproduces the entire bracket except for two minor omissions (Mk 4:12b, 24b); however, in Luke the section is not really a parenthesis at all, for Luke does not return to the theme of parable at the end. 130. Concerning the Purpose of Parable Mt. 13:10-15 Mk 4:10-12 Lk 8:9-10

Mk 4:25 = Lk 8:18b fll35 Mt 25:29 11388; Lk 19:26 flS18 Jesus being alone here is not an historical notice but an editorial device for introducing esoteric teaching. 1 It is a part of Mark's scheme in his treatment of Jesus' teaching in the central section of his Gospel (7:17ff; 9:28; 10:10). The twelve are mentioned for the first time since their appointment (3:13-19a). Here they seem almost to take a secondary place in relation to others about Jesus. The appearance of any disciples at this point is abrupt, for 4:1-2 mentioned only Jesus and the multitudes. They ask of him "the parables," although only one has been reported. This plural was probably suggested by the plural in 11 and by the general nature of the statement in 11-12.

Verses 11-12 are commonly regarded as an insert.2 It is not a proper answer to the question in 10; it theorizes on parable and explains no parable. Verses 11-12 break the connection between the question (10) and the appropriate reply (13-20). If what Jesus says in 11-12 is true (the disciples possess the mystery), then they do not need the explanation in 13-20. In 11-12 is found the most abstract piece of religious reasoning in the Synoptic tradition. It is so theoretical that it has no natural connection with any one parable or group of parables. 3 It is commonly regarded as the contribution of Mark,4 and most certainly it cannot be accepted as an authentic utterance of Jesus. 1

Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 65. ' Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 31; Crum, St. Mark's Gospel, p. 57; et al. 8 Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 56. 4 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 112; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 351.

222

Β. f130

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

According to Mark, Jesus' parables are enigmas intended to conceal rather than to reveal Jesus' thought and its true meaning. They were not intended to be understood by anyone, and they cannot be understood by anyone without explanation. According to Mark, Jesus has two circles of hearers: the favored few, the disciples, who receive explanations subsequently in private; the people, those without, who are excluded by Jesus' use of parable, for they cannot understand and they receive no explanation. The purpose of parable is to blind the people's eyes, stop their ears, lest they understand, repent, and be forgiven. Mark's parable theory is the most offensive and repulsive religious dogma in the Synoptic tradition. It introduces a perverse, an almost inhuman trait into Mark's picture of Jesus. The remote Jewish background of this religious dogma is the Isaiah passage ( 6 : 9 - 1 0 ) which Mark here paraphrases and applies to the people and, still later ( 8 : 1 8 ) , to the disciples. In Isaiah this hardening of Israel is not yet an accomplished fact; it will be accomplished by Isaiah's message. The less remote Christian background of this dogma appears in the letters of Paul (Rom 11:7-10; 9 : 1 8 ) who explains thus the Jewish rejection of Jesus and Christianity as providential. In Mark this dogma is carried back into the mind of Jesus himself as a theological explanation of his failure with his own people. A religious hypothesis is converted into pessimistic history. The Synoptic tradition itself breaks down this parable theory of Mark. The fifty to sixty parables reported are not enigmas but, for the most part, are simple, even homely dramatizations of some evident thought, point, or truth. Most of the major parables are clear and intelligible as they stand. Even the average hearer or reader needs no explanation. The exact point to some of the shorter parables is uncertain, for the situation that would clarify them is lost forever. However, they must have been clear in the situation in which they were spoken. If the Synoptic tradition is to be trusted at all, Jesus aimed at nothing so much as simplicity and clarity in his teaching, and it is inconceivable that he used a teaching-form that would defeat this purpose. Jesus' actual reason for using parable must have been the exact opposite of that ascribed to him by Mark's parable theory. Mark himself makes no consistent application of his own theory, for only two of his numerous parables are ever explained (fll32, fll67). It is at this point in his story that Mark begins to paint his peculiar picture of the disciples, to feature their dullness, incomprehension, and general incapacity. In Mark a deep dullness hangs over the disciples like a magical spell. There is no growth in their understanding as the story progresses. From seeing and hearing, from experience and events, they learn nothing. Mark's picture amounts to a caricature of the disciples. 5 This peculiar portrayal of the disciples appears only in the central section of * Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 238.

223

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 1 3 0

Mark's Gospel. It begins with their question in 4:10 and it ends with 10:12. It does not appear in the first three chapters of Mark nor in chapters 11-15. In these early and late chapters the disciples are amazed at this and that, but they are still persons of normal native intelligence. Jesus' disciples were men of simple social origin. Any gifts they possessed were primarily emotional and volitional rather than intellectual in nature. They were capable of love, loyalty, and devotion rather than gifted with brilliance, but that they were as dumb and dull as Mark represents is simply incredible. The dullness of the disciples in Mark is a dogmatic corollary to his parable theory, but it is more. It is the beginning of the second phase in the development of his dogma of the Messiah. In the first phase only the demons penetrated the messianic mystery. In the second phase this deep mystery confronts the disciples to their confusion until at last the spell is broken for a moment and Simon recognizes and confesses Jesus' messiahship in Mk 8:27-30. This dullness of the disciples in Mark is dogmatic rather than real. It is a conception that is superimposed upon the materials. It is a dramatic device, a counterpart to the mystery with which Mark endows Jesus' speech, action, and person. The technique is familiar in drama, the use of light and shadow to effect contrast. The dullness of the disciples serves to enhance the mystery and majesty of their Master. Mark accomplishes this dramatic design less by actually exalting his hero, than by lowering the level of his human environment. Matthew and Luke report this matter in Mark's order and they agree together against Mark in one item of text and thought. In Mark the disciples are "given the mystery"; they possess it. In Matthew and Luke they are "given to know the mysteries"; they understand them. Matthew and Luke may be giving the reading of the Mark they knew, or they could be giving the reading of the Q form if, as it seems, this passage was once a separate and independent discourse unit. Lk 8:9-10. These two verses of Luke have less the nature of a new unit, more the nature of a transition to what follows. The disciples' question in Luke fits better what precedes, "this parable," for only one has been reported. However, this question is out of harmony with Jesus' reply in 10 which does not touch on the question, but theorizes on the use of the parable-form of instruction. If 10 of Luke be omitted with the exception of "And he said," there is an excellent connection between 9 and 11. Luke cuts the Isaiah paraphrase short and allows the harshest element ( Mk 12b ) to drop out. In Luke the esoteric effect is weakened and the idea of mystery is less emphatic. In Luke's Gospel generally the dullness of the disciples is not featured. All this must be regarded as an improvement over Mark. Mt 13:10-15. Matthew does not have a complete shift of scene from public to private. Jesus is approached by the disciples; he is not alone with

224

Β.1131-132

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

them (Mark), and the people are still present in 36. Matthew puts the question in direct form, and he changes the question itself. It does not involve the meaning of the preceding parable but Jesus' reason for using the parable-form of instruction. It is a purely theoretical and academic question designed to conform to Jesus' reply in 11. The question casts no reflection on the intelligence of the disciples; in fact, it might suggest the exact opposite, their erudition. The paradox in 12 of Matthew is brought forward from Mk 4:25 (fll35). It is out of place here, for it breaks the natural connection between verses 11 and 13. Mark paraphrased the Isaiah passage, but Matthew quotes it in full; and he makes a different use of it. In Mark Jesus uses parable to blind and deafen the people. In Matthew the people are already blind and deaf, and Jesus' use of parable is the result, not the cause, of this condition. Matthew's view is milder and less offensive than that of Mark. Matthew features the dullness of the people, not that of the disciples who receive only praise and commendation, even a benediction for their seeing and hearing in what follows (13:16-17) 131. Blessed Eye- and Ear-witnesses Mt 13:16-17 Lk 10:23-24 j[211 Matthew introduces this Q discourse unit into his parable section; it is an insert after Mk 4:12. It may be Matthew's substitution for Mk 4:13 which he omits.1 In Luke this Q passage is an isolated unit in his Great NonMarkan Section (9:51 - 18:14). 2 The repeated mention of eyes and ears, of seeing and hearing, in 13-15 may have suggested the introduction of this passage at this particular point. Furthermore, it continues the exalted tone and spirit of what precedes in Matthew. Still no reflection is cast on the intelligence of the disciples; on the contrary, they are specially blessed with faculties for seeing and hearing. The passage requires an eschatological background and outlook. It is an ecstatic outburst, uttered perhaps on the crest of an emotional wave. 132. The Explanation of the Parable of the Seed and the Soils Mt 13:18-23 Mk 4:13-20 Lk 8:11-15 This explanation is separated from the parable by Mark's parable theory, and Mark may regard it as a practical example of the working of that theory. However, the explanation does not join well on to the theory for, if the disciples possess the mystery, they should understand without explanation. The reproach in 13 contradicts the solemn assurance in 11-12. Since Mk 4:13 is not reproduced by Matthew and Luke, it may be a later addition to 1 2

Cf. Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 66; Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 119f; et al. For a comparison of the two forms, see Lk 10:23-24 1Γ211.

225

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

B.f132

Mark.1 It seems almost to reflect an actual animosity toward the disciples 2 — that of Mark rather than that of Jesus. The explanation and the parable agree on one feature: the sower remains in the background. Otherwise, they are not in perfect accord. ( 1 ) The explanation inverts the emphasis of the parable. In the parable the emphasis fell on the one instance of success which balanced the three instances of failure. In the explanation the emphasis falls on the three instances of failure. The one instance of success is not really explained; it virtually repeats the wording of the parable. ( 2 ) There is a change of mood and temper from the parable to the explanation. In the parable there was a resigned attitude toward failures; they are inevitable. In the explanation the failures are alarming, a cause for dismay; they are not inevitable, but due to special causes. Thus, the explanation is more pessimistic than the parable. ( 3 ) In the parable there is a single lesson; in the explanation, a series of lessons. ( 4 ) The parable surpasses the explanation in literary quality; the explanation is written in a pedantic, labored style. The explanation is not wholly consistent with itself. It begins by identifying the seed with the word which seems natural. But in the body of the explanation the seed sown are identified with different categories of persons. One would expect the hearers to be identified with the different kinds of soil; the word is sown, not people. People hear the word, receive it as the soils receive the seed. The explanation does not go back to the author of the parable. It is obviously of later Christian origin. ( 1 ) This explanation assumes the existence of the Christian church which has experienced persecution from without and which, within, has had disappointing experiences with human nature. ( 2 ) The explanation has the background of Christian propaganda and missions, including successes and failures. ( 3 ) The language of the explanation is that of the early Christian community and much of it has a Pauline quality. The style is that of early Christian preaching, especially that of the expository type. The "word" is the technical Christian term for the "gospel." ( 4 ) The explanation is allegorical, the type of scripture interpretation that prevailed in the early church. Apart from the Christian nature of this explanation, the critic is skeptical of any parable explanation on general principles. Explanation is foreign to the nature of true parable. A parable that must be explained is not a true parable. The primary purpose and function of parable is to make a thought or point so clear that it is obvious without commentary of any kind. This is the basic difference between parable and allegory; a parable needs no explanation; an allegory must have one. It cannot be determined whether this explanation is the work of Mark 1 2

Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 62. Cf. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 177.

226

Β.1133-135

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

or whether it came down to him in his sources. Certainly, the parable is older than the explanation which is the product of study and reflection, suggesting that the author had the parable before him in written form. The disposition to explain Jesus' parables was not strong in the early church, otherwise more such explanations would have found their way into the Synoptic tradition. Applications of parables are common in this tradition, but formal explanations like this first one are rare; there are only four such in a total of some fifty or sixty parables. This explanation is common to all three Synoptic Gospels ( If 132 ) ; one is common to Matthew and Mark ( f 167 ) ; two are peculiar to Matthew, and both are in his parable section ( |fl41 and 11143). Matthew and Luke report this explanation in Mark's order, but Matthew is closer to the text of Mark than is Luke. Mt 13:18-23. Matthew omits Mk 4:13 —the reproach to the disciples. In this parable section Matthew has only praise for the disciples; they are blessed with special gifts for understanding. In Matthew it is really surprising that Jesus goes ahead to explain the parable. This explanation really contradicts what precedes (10-17), for it assumes that the disciples have not understood the parable. This explanation reappears in Matthew simply because he is copying Mark. Matthew seems to have taken the explanation directly from Mark without turning back, consulting, and expounding his own form of the parable. One preoccupation of Matthew colors the whole explanation: he is thinking less of the sower and the sowing, and more of the sown field — the church. Lk 8:11-15. Luke abridges Mark's explanation somewhat less than he abridged the parable itself. Like Matthew, he omits Mark's reproach to the disciples (4:13). Like Matthew also, he does not expound his own form of the parable, but he simply takes the explanation from Mark. The proof of this is the simple fact that Luke's explanation includes details and features which he did not reproduce from Mark's form of the parable. Luke's language has a stronger Christian cast and color than that of Mark. Luke gives the explanation a distinctly homiletical turn. It reads more like a sermon, an admonition, than a dismayed reflection on the failures of the Christian mission. This is the only formal explanation of a parable in Luke, the Gospel richest in pure parable material· Ρ33-135

Mk 4:21-25

Lk 8:16-18

Mk 4:21-25. This is a chain of shorter sayings such as appears now and then in the Gospel of Mark. The sayings themselves are diverse and disconnected; only catch-words seem to bring them together. It is the sort of

227

JESUS A N D THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. | 1 3 3

loose arrangement found in Proverbs, Sirach, and other Jewish writings. Such groupings were usually for catechetical purposes. The sayings, singly or collectively, have no organic connection with the parable section. The very fact that they follow on Mark's parable theory and its illustration gives them an esoteric and mysterious quality which they originally did not possess. The words "hidden," "secret," "heed," "hear," "given," carry out Mark's idea of mystery. The four sayings in the series occur in two pairs, each introduced by the same formula, "And he said unto them." This frequent phrase means simply, "This was one of his sayings," or "He used to say." All of these Markan sayings except 24a have parallels in Q, and all of them, except 24b where variation is hardly possible, exhibit distinctive differences over against the Q forms in Matthew and Luke. Bultmann 1 regards three of them as originally profane analogies which have been transformed into words of Jesus. Matthew omits this entire series of sayings in Mark's form and order with the exception of the paradox in Mk 4:25 which Matthew transposed to an earlier place in the parable section (13:12 ÌJ130 ). Matthew uses the Q form of all these sayings at widely scattered points in his Gospel except Mk 4:24a which has no parallel in Q. By this omission of duplicate matter Matthew has avoided at least three repetitions in his Gospel. Lk 8:16-18. Luke reproduces the entire series in Mark's order except the word on measuring (Mk 4:24b), and he gives the Q form of all these sayings at various points in his Gospel except, of course, Mk 4:24a. Luke omits Mark's introductory formula in both instances, "And he said unto them," and in Luke, saying follows saying in a flow of discourse. 133. The Parable of the Lamp on the Stand Mk 4:21 Lk8:16 Mt 5:15 ]\22; Lk 11:33 j[229 Matthew reported the Q form of this parable 1 early in his Sermon on the Mount, and he omits the Markan form here. Mark's interrogative form, a rhetorical question, is more forceful and dramatic than the calm assertion in the Q form, and it is nearer the form of spontaneous oral speech. The bed, distinctive of the Markan form, adds new color and completes the simple furnishings of the home of the Galilean peasant. Lk 8:16 reports this parable in Mark's order but, except for the mention of the bed, Luke is using the Q form. Such conflation of the Markan and Q forms of a saying, so common in Matthew, is extremely rare in Luke — the only other instance thus far in Lk 3:16-17 (fl4). Luke's pure Q form comes much later in his Great Non-Markan Section, in 11:33 ( |J229 ). 'Cf. Geschichte (1931), p. 107f. 1 For a comparison of the Markan and Q forms, see Mt 5:15 H22.

228

Β. 1Γ134-135

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

134. The Parable of the Manifestation of the Hidden Mk 4:22-23 Lk 8:17 Mt 10:26-27 1(75; Lk 12:2-3 fl244 There is no logical or other natural connection between the two sayings in Mk 4:21 and 22. This little parable in Mark is a good example of Hebraic parallelism. Verse 23 repeats the apostrophe in verse 9. Matthew reported the Q form of this saying in his address to the twelve (10:26-27 |f75), and now he omits the Markan form in Mark's order. There are two differences between the Markan and the Q forms. (1) They have different key-words expressing the same thought — Mark: "hid," "manifested," "made secret," "come to light"; Q: "covered," "revealed," "hid," "be known." (2) The Markan form is pure parable with no application such as is found in the Q form (Mt 10:27; Lk 12:3). Lk 8:17 reports the Markan form of this parable in Mark's order and text. "Be known" may be an echo from the Q form which Luke reports much later in his Great Non-Markan Section, in 12:2-3 ( 1{244 ) • Luke avoids the repetition of the apostrophe in Mk 4:23. 135. Concerning Hearing and Measuring Mk 4:24-25 Lk 8:18 Mt 7:2b fl41; 13:12 fll30; Lk 6:38b POO Mt 25:2911388; Lk 19:26 fl318 In Mark the saying on measuring is joined to a warning about hearing. In Mark it reads more like a Jewish proverb and less like a word of Jesus than it does in Q where it concludes the saying on judging. This word on measuring in Mark is an interesting example of how a saying of Jesus was mutilated and only a fragment of it survived in one strain of tradition (Mark). Mark evidently had no knowledge of the fuller Q form with its association of measuring with judging. Mark's supplement, "and more shall be given unto you," may have been suggested by the paradox which follows ( 25 ). However, it is a perversion which leads to a misunderstanding of the word on measuring. The paradox in 25 is a separate saying with no established context. In Q it is firmly joined to a particular parable, the parable of the talents in Matthew (25:29 fl388) and the parable of the pounds in Luke (19:26 |1318). Standing alone as it does in Mark, the paradox has a caustic quality that it does not have in Matthew and Luke. In Mark it expresses a sort of cynical social philosophy about the "haves" and the "have-nots." Lk 8:18 reproduces only the beginning and the end of Mark's parallel passage. Luke omits Mark's word on measuring; he used the fuller Q form back in his Sermon on the Plain (6:37-38 POO). Mark warns about "what ye hear"; Luke, about "how ye hear." Luke weakens the Markan form of the paradox at the end, from actual possession to imagined possession: "that which he thinketh he hath." Verse 18 ends Luke's reproductions from Mark's

229

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

Β. 1136

parable section ( 4 : 1 - 3 4 ) . With 8:19-21 ( P 4 5 ) Luke returns to narrative matter with an episode delayed from Mk 3:31-35 (1(128). Matthew has no parallel to Mark's warning about hearing (24a). He omits Mark's word on measuring, having used the fuller Q form back in his Sermon on the Mount (7:1-2 1(41). Matthew reported Mark's paradox (25) earlier in the parable section (13:12 |jl30). 136. The Parable of the Seed Growing of Itself Mk 4:26-29 This is the second parable in Mark's trilogy which forms the framework of his section in 4:1-34. The thread of discourse, broken in 10-25 by the digression on the nature and purpose of parable, is resumed. This parable should follow directly on the first ( 1-9 ). The formula, "And he said," really goes back to verse 2. Mark would be clearer at this point if he had noted a return to public as he noted the shift from public to private in 10. Verse 33 assumes that this parable was spoken in public to the multitudes. Some critics 1 feel that this parable is only a variant of the preceding on the seed and the soils. However, the two parables have too little in common for either to stem from the other. They use the same materials ( seed, sowing, harvest), but they make very different use of these materials. ( 1 ) The parable of the soils featured the frustrations and fruits of human effort; in this parable, between sowing and harvest, human effort is excluded. ( 2 ) In the first parable failure and success depended on the character of the soil; in this parable the harvest follows sowing inevitably with no reference to the quality of the soil. ( 3 ) This is a kingdom-of-God parable; the parable of the soils had no necessary religious implications. Actually, this second parable has more in common in thought and theme with the third (the mustard seed ) than it has with the first ( the soils ). The unity of this parable has been questioned. Verse 28 may be a comment, an aside, not necessary to the word-picture.2 Verse 29 is an echo of Joel 3:13; it leaves the realm of reality and moves over into the field of allegory, the harvest being a common figure of speech for the last judgment.3 However, there is no necessary allegory in 29. The man who sows at the beginning should reap at the end; the parable and the process it depicts would be incomplete without the harvest. The parable does not contain the modern conception of genetic development, evolution, or natural law. Such conceptions were foreign to the ancient mind which thought in terms of direct divine intervention and regarded the natural as supernatural, the miraculous as the normal state of things. Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 35; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 98. Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 289. a Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 34; Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 541ff; et al. 1

2

230

Β.1137

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

There is no satisfactory explanation for the failure of this parable to reappear in Matthew and Luke. They may have omitted it as obscure and colorless. Matthew may have preferred the story of the tares to this parable of Mark. Luke is not building up a parable section at this point in his Gospel; he not only omits this second parable in Mark's trilogy but he also omits the Markan form of the third (the mustard seed). It is possible that this parable was not found in the Mark known to Matthew and Luke. No matter what the reason for its absence from Matthew and Luke, it has all the traits of an authentic parable of Jesus. It is too original and impressive to be regarded as a later Christian product.4 It is the only parable peculiar to Mark's Gospel. 137. The Parable of the Tares Mt 13:24-30 Matthew's loose link, "Another parable," makes the first of its three appearances in this parable section (24, 31, 33). The dialogue with the disciples is over in Matthew, and this parable resumes the public scene; that 24-33 was addressed to the multitudes is clear in 34. There are conflicting views relative to the origin of Matthew's story of the tares. Some critics 1 have regarded it as only a secondary expansion and allegorical elaboration of the preceding parable in Mark (|fl36). The two parables occupy the same position in the parable sections of Matthew and Mark. Both use the same basic materials (seed, sowing, harvest), and naturally they have details in common. Both have a common theme: there is to be no interference between sowing and harvest. However, there are some striking differences between the two parables. ( 1 ) Mark's parable depicts something that is generally true, something that recurs again and again; Matthew's parable depicts a specific instance true at one particular time but not likely to happen just that way again. ( 2 ) In Mark's parable the kingdom is future, and the religious outlook is eschatological and Jewish; in Matthew's story of the tares the kingdom already exists, the Christian church. ( 3 ) Mark's parable deals with the transcendent nature of the kingdom; Matthew's story of the tares, with the presence of good and bad within a mundane institution. ( 4 ) Mark's parable falls within the religious outlook and perspective of Jesus. Matthew's story of the tares dramatizes a problem of the early church: What shall be done with unworthy members within the Christian congregation? Bultmann 2 regards the story of the tares as pure parable, but most critics 3 regard it as pure allegory or as a parable with strong allegorical Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 35. Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 249; Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, p. 116; et al. 2 Cf. Geschichte (1931), p. 191. 3 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 190; Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, I, 262; et al. 4

1

231

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.fl38

features. The story does contain features that are not true to life. ( 1 ) The enemy is not a revengeful neighbor but the arch-enemy, the devil. ( 2 ) The reader knows that the tares are the work of the enemy, but how does the owner know it? ( 3 ) No field is naturally free of weeds; their appearance is not unexpected or in any way unusual. ( 4 ) The servants' proposal to remove the tares is too absurd in the situation to be taken seriously. A possible parable of Jesus may lie behind the story of the tares, and it can be recovered by deleting all references to the enemy and his work: 24 Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field: . . . 26 but when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thyfield?whence then hath it tares? 28 . . . Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he saith, Nay: lest haply while ye gather up the tares, ye root up the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to bum them; but gather the wheat into my barn. Such a reconstruction would remove all allegorical elements and leave a story quite true to life and reality. However, this story of the tares may be the out-and-out creation and invention of Matthew, because of its obvious fictitious character. The whole story leaves the impression of being a carefully constructed piece of imagery designed to describe an already existing situation. It is perfectly clear that Matthew was looking ahead to the explanation to come in 36-43 (|fl41) when he conceived and composed the story in 24-30 (|fl37). Matthew's story of the tares has a Catholic color characteristic of his Gospel as a whole: the church is the visible kingdom of heaven on earth in which an attitude of resigned tolerance has adjusted itself to the co-existence of worthy and unworthy persons within the membership 138. The Parable of the Mustard Seed Mt 13:31-32 Mk 4:30-32 Lk 13:18-19 fl263 Mark introduces this third and last parable in this section, as he did the preceding, with "And he said," which indicates its original separateness and independence. Mark's form of this parable has been regarded by some as secondary and inferior to that of Q (Lk 13:18-19 fl263). The Q form is vivid and poetic; that of Mark, prosaic and pedantic. The Q version has more of story form; Mark's version is description rather than narration.1 In Mark líie interest centers exclusively on the seed (there is no sower) as in the two previous parables. Some of Mark's peculiarities over against the Q form may be due to his desire to achieve a general conformity in the three 1

For a fuller comparison of the Markan and Q forms, see Lk 13:18-19 H263.

232

Β.1139

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

key-parables in this section. Mark's form ends (32b) with almost verbatim echoes from the Old Testament. 2 This parable, like Mark's second ( 4 : 2 6 - 2 9 ) , has been used by the antieschatologists: the kingdom is already present, in germ at least, ready to grow, expand, and increase. 3 However, both parables can support the eschatological idea very well: from sowing to harvest, from seed to mature grain, requires only a single short season.4 Mt 13:31-32 reproduces this parable in Mark's order, the third in Matthew's section as it is in Mark's, and it is fitted into the section by the cataloguing device, "Another parable." Mark (Luke also) introduces the parable with a double interrogative which Matthew does not use. In Mark (Luke also) the term kingdom of God is a part of the interrogative introduction; in Matthew the term kingdom of heaven is a part of the parable itself. The parable proper in Matthew is the most striking of all his examples of conflating Markan and Q duplicates. In this instance Matthew telescopes the Markan and Q forms phrase for phrase, and clause for clause. Luke passes over the Markan form of this parable in favor of the Q form which he reports much later (13:18-19 j[263) in his Great Non-Markan Section. 139. The Parable of the Leaven Mt 13:33 Lk 13:20-21 1J264 The parables of the mustard seed and the leaven are commonly regarded as a parable-pair. They occur together in both Matthew and Luke, and they must have stood together in Q. However, they are not really a good example of a parable-pair. They are not of equal length, the first being twice as long as the second. They have similarity but not identity of thought and theme: the disproportion between beginning and end. They were perhaps originally separate parables, and similarity of thought and theme brought them together in one strain of tradition ( Q ). The very fact that they have separate and different introductions in Matthew and Luke would indicate that they were originally independent of each other. Their separateness is emphatic in Matthew, for each is introduced by his formula, "Another parable," as though he is cataloguing rather than reporting companion-pieces. The best examples of twin parables are joined very simply by "Or." It is easier to understand how two independent parables along similar lines were joined in one source ( Q ) than to understand how twin parables were separated and the second lost to another source ( Mark ). At least, Mark knows the parable Cf. Ezek 31:6; 17:23; Ps 104:12; Dan 4:12. Cf. Hamack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu, p. 161. *Cf. Easton, Christ in the Gospels, p. 163.

2

8

233

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. Tfl40

of the mustard seed as an independent parable unrelated to any companionpiece. It is clear in Paul's letters (I Cor 5:6b; Gal 5:9) that the figure of the leaven was proverbial in Jewish thought and speech. This little parable, pure narration, may be simply a dramatization of that proverb. The three measures of meal may have an Old Testament background (Gen 18:6). This is the fourth parable in Matthew's collection, and with it begins his expansion of Mark's three key-parables to an eventual seven (eight). Luke's parallel comes much later in his Great Non-Markan Section, in 13:20-21 fl264 140. Jesus' Method of Instruction Mt 13:34-35 Mk 4:33-^34 This notice brings Mark's parable section to a formal conclusion. It is a retrospect of the section as a whole and refers back to verses 2 and 10, delimiting the whole as a larger and special unit. Verse 33 resumes the public scene at the beginning (4:1-2) and assumes that the last two parables were spoken to the people. Verse 33a ignores the private scene with the disciples in 10-25 and makes it clear that Mark is giving a selection, not a collection, of parables. This notice of Mark is composite and involves a confusion of the primary with the secondary. There are two possible analyses. A. Verses 33b and 34b may be later additions to Mark, for both fail to reappear in Matthew and they may not have been in the Mark used by him. Both constitute a recurrence of Mark's parable theory. B. Verse 33 might be regarded as primary and 34 as secondary for the following reasons. (1) Verse 33 contradicts Mark's parable theory; 34 reaffirms it. (2) Verses 33 and 34 contradict each other. Verse 33, "as they were able to hear," seems to record Jesus' real reason for using parable. It was a natural adaptation of his teaching to the native capacity of his primary audience, the people. Parable was an aid to their understanding. In 34 parable is an enigma veiling the truth and not intended to be understood. The disciples are favored with subsequent explanations in private. (3) The term parable has a different meaning in 33 and 34. In 33 it refers to particular parables, word-pictures, and dramatizations. In 34 the term parable is used academically of a teaching form or method. Verse 34 also ignores the fact that much of Jesus' teaching did not have parable form. Mt 13:34-35 is one of the choice examples of Matthew's close adherence to Mark's form. In the middle of his own parable section Matthew reproduces Mark's concluding notice, simply because it comes next, apparently without realizing how out of place it is at this point in his Gospel. Verses 34-35 leave the impression that Matthew is ending his own parable section, and

234

Β.1141-144

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

the reader does not expect other parables to follow. This out-of-place notice highlights what follows as an appendix or supplement. Matthew reduces the two verses of Mark to one and by omitting 33b and 34b he avoids the reaffirmation of Mark's parable theory. The Mark known to Matthew may have ended the parable section in the simpler, briefer fashion of Mt 13:34. Verse 35 is another of Matthew's proofs from prophecy, but here he quotes Ps 78:2. The phrase "in parables" ( L X X ) made the passage irresistible to Matthew. Verse 36a might be joined to 35 as the conclusion of the first part of Matthew's parable section.1 Luke naturally omits Mk 4:33-34 ( Ρ 4 0 ) for he has not built up a parable section at this point in his Gospel. Mt 13:36-52 P41-144. This is Matthew's supplement or appendix to Mark's parable section. It is made up entirely of matter peculiar to Matthew: three (four) parables, two explanations, and Matthew's special conclusion for the section as a whole. This is another example of Matthew's method of introducing new matter by the simple expansion of existing Markan sections. 141. The Explanation of the Parable of the Tares Mt 13:36-43 The explanation (1jl4l) is separated from the parable ( j[137), perhaps for the reason that Matthew wished to complete Mark's parable section before adding extensive new matter of his own. The disciples ask for the explanation of the parable of the tares but ignore the more mysterious parables which have intervened, the mustard seed and the leaven. Verse 36 is the editorial work of Matthew, using his favorite device for the semblance of sequence, "Then." There is a complete shift of scene from public to private which was not so clear back in verse 10. The house is the usual editorial "house" which provides privacy. In this shift of scene Matthew is aware of what comes next in Mark, the round-trip across the sea of Galilee, a section which Matthew reported much earlier (fl57-58, j[63). In Matthew Jesus can leave the boat (13:1-2) for the house (13:36), for no sea-stories follow in Matthew. Mt 13:36-43 is the second formal explanation of a parable in Matthew. The two explanations ( fll32 and ^141 ) are quite different. The explanation of the parable of the soils was simpler and more original; this second explanation is involved and complex. In the parable of the soils only the general features were explained with light traces of allegory; but here, however, not only the action, but each and every detail has a special allegorical meaning. Matthew's explanation of the story of the tares is the purest example of allegory in the Synoptic tradition. Words here no longer have their natural 1

Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 323.

235

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 1 4 2

and literal meaning. The field is not a real field; it is the world. The enemy is the devil; the reapers are the angels, and so on. This explanation falls into two parts: ( 1 ) 37-40a is preliminary; it specifies the scene, names the characters and the roles they play. ( 2 ) In 401>43 the drama is unfolded in allegorical action. This explanation conforms almost exactly to the parable, detail for detail and point for point. The author of this explanation seems to have worked through the parable item by item, as though he had the parable before him in written form. In fact, the conformity between explanation and parable is almost too close, too correct. It suggests that the Christian ideas in the explanation are older and earlier than the story of the tares and that the parable was invented to dramatize them. It seems certain that the parable was created for the sake of the explanation. Hence, not only the explanation, but the parable itself is a purely literary product and probably never existed in oral form. The explanation contains favorite expressions of Matthew: "the end of the world," "the weeping and the gnashing of teeth." The explanation fails the parable at only one point. The core of the parable's teaching was patience, a resigned attitude toward the church's imperfections. The mood of the explanation, however, is more that of aggravation and impatience with this condition, perhaps for the reason that the church now feels free to take steps for its own purification. Throughout his parable section Matthew is a churchman, but he takes a very realistic view of the church's constituency. It is a mundane institution in which human weakness and waywardness appear as well as human goodness and strength. 142. The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl Mt 13:44-46 These are the fifth and sixth parables in Matthew's collection in chapter 13, and both are peculiar to Matthew. They are commonly regarded as a parable-pair. They occur together and have the same length and structure. This conformity is purely literary and could be the work of Matthew. The two are connected by the word "again" which separates rather than draws them together. The same link, "again," joins a wholly unlike parable (fíl43) to them. Furthermore, these two little parables are not wholly homogeneous: in the first the kingdom is likened to a treasure; in the second, to a merchant. Either the kingdom should be likened to the treasure and the pearl, or to the man who finds and the merchant who seeks. In the first case, the kingdom would appear as the supreme intrinsic value; in the second, the point would be that no price, no sacrifice is too great in order to possess the kingdom. However, this idea of the kingdom as a value to be acquired and possessed is wholly unique in the Synoptic tradition. The honesty of the first man is open to question. He finds a treasure in

236

Β. 1(143-144

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

another's field, hides it, and buys the field, leaving the original owner ignorant of his discovery. The purchase of the field is a subterfuge for possessing the treasure, preferable perhaps to outright theft. There are other even more striking instances in which Jesus portrays unideal characters in his parables, but they are always true to life, genuinely human and realistic. The honesty of the merchant is not open to question; he buys his pearl of great price in the open market. This double parable makes its point, independent of the dishonesty of the one and the honesty of the other. 143. The Parable of the Drag-net Mt 13:47-50 This is the seventh parable in Matthew's collection, and Matthew seems to think of it as the last, completing his favorite round number. It is introduced by "Again" which makes no actual connection with what precedes and is more like numbering in a list. This parable and that of the tares are so much alike that they might be companion-pieces and form a parable-pair peculiar to Matthew. However, the story of the tares is not true to life and has allegorical features; that of the net is true to life with no necessary traces of allegory in it. In the story of the tares the point is patience; the future, in higher hands, will bring the separation. In the parable of the net there is no need of patience, even no room for it, for the separation takes place at once — the thing forbidden in the story of the tares. This difference is not due merely to the difference in materials (wheat and tares; good fish and bad); it is more fundamental. The parable of the net has a good chance of being an authentic utterance of Jesus. It could fall within his religious perspective as an imaginative dramatization of the divine judgment. It does not reflect a problem of the early church as did the story of the tares. This is the third parable (47-48) which has a formal explanation (49-50), the only instance among four in which parable and formal explanation occur together in an unbroken flow of speech. This explanation is a mechanical addition and is borrowed directly, almost word for word, from the second half of the explanation of the story of the tares (40b—Í2). It is for this reason, perhaps, that the explanation in 49-50 is not well suited to the parable in 47-48. In the parable the separation is natural and takes place at once; but in the explanation the separation is supernatural and comes in the remote future, "in the end of the world." 144. The Parable of the Scribe Mt 13:51^52 Verse 51 is an editorial link for joining 52 to the parable section. Verse 51 contradicts Mark's parable theory and his portrayal of the dullness of

237

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E

GOSPELS

B.1145

the disciples. Matthew, however, has not featured the parables as mysteries, nor has he cast any reflection on the intelligence of the disciples. Verse 52 could very well be regarded as a parable, that of the scribe, making a total of eight in Matthew's parable section. Matthew, however, does not seem to regard it as a parable. For him, it is an isolated discourse fragment which he feels is appropriate as the second conclusion ( if 140 ) for his parable section. He joins it on with "therefore" as though it were a conclusion drawn from what precedes. "Therefore" might point to its having been torn away from an earlier and different context.1 However, Matthew makes the same loose use of "therefore" in introducing other small discourse units in his Gospel (7:12; 18:23). This parable could be an authentic word of Jesus, but it may be the contribution of Matthew himself. If it is of Christian origin, it reflects a very conservative type of Jewish Christianity with its praise for the scribe and no clear preference for the new over the old.2 The treatment of the theme of the old and the new here, their synthesis, is the exact opposite of that in the twin-parables back in Mt 9:16-17 (fí62) where the old and the new stood in complete antithesis to each other with any contact disastrous to both. In its present context the exact or intended meaning of this parable of the scribe is obscure. It has been suggested that this little word-picture might be Matthew's own self-portrait, his unwitting autograph, his signature as author here in the middle of his Gospel at the end of Book IV. 3 It is certainly an apt characterization of the mind and hand of the author of the First Gospel, for throughout his work he is a Jewish-Christian scribe who effects a fusion of the new and the old. 145. Jesus' True Kinsmen Lk 8:19-21 Mt 12:46-50 = Mk 3:31-35 fll28 Matthew and Mark reported this little episode just ahead of their parable sections. In Luke it follows immediately on his meagre parallels to the parable section, and it stands isolated just ahead of the sea-stories which follow (fí146-148 ). It would have been just as isolated in Luke as it is in Matthew, if Luke had reported it in Mark's order, for Luke, like Matthew, omitted its antecedent (Mk 3:19b-21). The fact, however, that Jesus is in a house ("without") has Mark 3:19b for a background. "The house," so frequent in Matthew and Mark, never appears in Luke as Jesus' home or residence in Capernaum, nor as a place to escape the people. In his reproduction of this Markan episode, Luke abridges and, in the process, improves the account by removing Mark's redundancies and exCf. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 133. Cf. Bacon, Studies in Matthew, p. 131. 8 Cf. Bacon, Studies in Matthew, p. 131.

1

2

238

Β.1146-148

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

cesses. Luke has done even more; he has toned down the whole scene and has removed most of the unpleasant implications found in Mark. In Luke Jesus is not so cold and indifferent, not so harsh, in his attitude toward his family, and there is less suggestion of a breach between him and them. Luke seeks to adapt the episode to its new suroundings. The key-saying bears on the hearing and doing of the word of God (Mk: "the will of God"), the theme of the parable of the soils and its explanation. The idea of doing words (of the law) is rabbinical. P46-148

Mk 4 : 3 5 - 5 : 4 3

Lk 8:22-56

Mk 4:35 - 5:43. In this special section Mark presents four stories in three narrative units as though they formed an actual sequence in connection with a round-trip across the sea of Galilee. Originally, however, they may have been three (even four) separate stories unconnected with each other. The first story requires a sea trip, the stilling of the storm ( j|146 ) ; the second (|jl47), also, for Jesus is obviously on the other side of the sea. These first two stories, however, are not necessarily a part of one and the same sea trip. The story of Jairus' daughter and the woman healed ( |[148 ) has no necessary connection with a sea trip at all. The sea sequence (Mk 4:35-36; 5:1, 18, 21) may be the contribution of the collector and compiler or of the final editor. It is not the sea sequence that brings and holds these stories together; it is rather the magnitude of the things reported. This section of Mark is an anthology of stupendous wonder-works, and in it Mark's depiction of the wonder-works reaches its highpoint as is clear, not only in the nature of the things reported, but in the space devoted to them. Mark himself may have made this compilation,1 but most critics favor the idea that he found this complex already completed, perhaps even in written form.2 This new complex is joined in time and place (Mk 4:1, 35) to the preceding parable section. It begins on the evening of the day of parables, and the boat, a sort of narrative thread, runs through chapters 4 and 5. Mark may have found this still larger complex ( 4 : 1 - 5 : 4 3 ) already formed in his sources.3 However, the joining of these two complexes, both associated with one and the same day and with one and the same boat, is highly artificial and may be the work of the final redactor.4 If Mk 4 : 1 - 5 : 4 3 were an actual sequence, then almost one fourth of Mark's Galilean story would fall on a single day. Furthermore, the two complexes have a very different nature and content. In 4:1-34 Jesus' teaching in parables is featured; in 4 : 3 5 - 5 : 4 3 the parable teaching is forgotten and miracles are in the foreground. Cf. Wemle, Sources, p. 119. Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 180f; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 89, et al. 3 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 28f. ' Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 37f; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 136. 1 2

239

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.

1146-148

Heretofore Mark's narratives have been very simple and brief, clear and compact, told in the fewest possible words with no disposition to elaborate. Ordinarily they have focussed on a didactic point, usually some key-word of Jesus. From this point on in Mark the reader begins to encounter a very different type of narration. Many stories are long, expansive, imaginative, filled with picturesque details, fresh and vivid in color, often endowed with dramatic tension. The Gospel of Mark exhibits two very different and distinct types of narration, types so different that they can hardly come from the same mind and hand, but point to two different strains of narrative from two independent narrators, which have been conflated to form the Gospel of Mark by a final editor who made extensive contributions of his own, which are characterized by a lack of originality.5 Dibelius 6 classifies stories of the type found in Mk 4:35 - 5:43 as tales or novelettes. They are characterized by their length, their expansiveness, and their introduction of secondary and incidental circumstances. They are not built up around striking key-words of Jesus. Interest centers entirely in what is narrated. They exhibit the technique of the naturally gifted or professional story-teller. They are profane and worldly to the extent that there is evident gratification in the mere telling, in providing entertainment for the hearer or reader, in satisfying curiosity, and in provoking awe and wonder. Their colorful details are not evidence of personal memory but the product of the free play of a fertile imagination, a part of the story-telling art. Their primary purpose is to exalt the wonder-worker. His divine nature is for a moment revealed in such acts of power; they are epiphanies. In such stories the humanity of the hero fades into the background, and his figure assumes god-like proportions. Such stories represent a degeneration in the tradition, a loss of feeling for reality and history. Their primary historical value consists in the fact that they reflect the mythical phase in the growing conception of Jesus in the early Christian mind and faith. From the modern point of view this sea sequence in Mk 4:35 - 5:43 is historically and religiously the most barren section of the Gospel of Mark. Lk 8:22-56 reproduces this sea sequence in Mark's order, story for story, with only incidental differences within the stories themselves. As already noted (p. 133f ), Matthew did two things to this sea sequence of Mark. ( 1 ) He transposed the entire section to a much earlier point in the story and included the four wonder-works in his cycle of ten, back in 8:1-9:34. (2) Matthew split the sequence in half, reporting the first two 5 For this form of the hypothesis known as Urmark, see H. Frhr. von Soden, Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu (2. Aufl.; Berlin: Glaue, 1909); Wendling, Ur-Marcus (1905); Die Entstehung des Markus-Evangelium (1908). See Appendix II, p. 581. See Rudolf Thiel, Drei Markus-Evangelien (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1938). 0 Cf. Tradition to Gospel, p. 70f.

240

Β.1146

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

wonder-works at the end of his second digression (8:23-34 ^[57—58 ) and the last two at the beginning of his third digression (9:18-26 1|63). 146. The Stilling of the Storm Mk 4:35-41 Lk 8:22-25 Mt 8:23-27 p7 Mark's attempt to join this new complex to the parable section is not too successful. ( 1 ) It is evening on the day of parables. Such close chronological connections are rare in Mark, and this one does not agree with what follows: no night or new day is noted in the sea sequence. (2) Verse 36 is editorial patchwork. In 35 Jesus is in the boat from which he spoke the parables (4:1-2), but in 36 he seems to be entering the boat for the first time. The clause, "even as he was," seems to be designed to cover up the confusion. (3) In 35 Jesus is giving the instructions, but in 36 others seem to be in charge of the situation. ( 4 ) In the parable section only one boat figured; in 36 the presence of other boats is noted. This mention of the other boats is strange, but they may have been a natural part of the story in its primitive form. It has been suggested that the original statement may have been negative: "other boats were not with them." 1 The impersonal character of Mark's story deserves attention. The disciples are not mentioned, just an indefinite "they" throughout. The disciples were not a part of the seaside scene in 4:1-2. They figured only in the insert in 4:10-25, and they were mentioned editorially in 4:34. The impersonal character of Mark's story is clearest at the end (41), "Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" Such a reaction is not natural from disciples, only from those to whom Jesus is a total stranger. It recalls the public reaction back in 1:27. The fear in 41 is wholly different from that in 38. There it was a physical fear for personal safety, but in 41 it is a religious awe in the presence of a divine disclosure. The interest in 41 is dogmatic, not psychological. Such a reaction enhances the miracle and exalts the miracleworker. Verse 38 of Mark contains a good example of epic distortion: 2 Jesus is asleep "in the stern," "on a cushion." The story is embellished with picturesque details which leave a vivid impression and an illusive appearance of truth. For Mark, the stilling of the storm is just another exorcism: Jesus rebukes the wind as though it were a living thing. Mark even adds a dramatic flourish, an actual command to the sea: "Peace, be still." The unity of this story in Mark is open to question. (1) There are two motifs resulting in two different pictures of Jesus.3 In 38 and 40 Jesus calmly trusts God in the midst of danger; in 39 and 41 he is the mighty miracleworker who removes the danger. (2) The original story may not have inCf. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 90. - For definition, see p. 87f. 3 Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 184; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 92. 1

241

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE

GOSPELS

B.1146

eluded 39 and 41.4 The word about faith in 40 comes too late, after the danger is past (39). Verses 37-38 + 40 would make a complete story involving no miracle. The addition of 39 and 41 transformed it into a miracle. Many critics are of the opinion that a simple historical incident, similar to that about Paul in Acts 27:22ff, lies behind Mark's miracle version. The present tale may have been inspired by certain Old Testament passages, 5 and it certainly has very close affinities with the story of Jonah (1:4-6). Sea stories similar to Mark's stilling of the storm were current in the Jewish and Gentile world,® and it may be that some wandering Jewish or pagan legend has acquired a Christian dress and lodged in the story of Jesus. 7 There are a number of items in this story in which Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark which might indicate that their Mark differed somewhat from the present Mark. ( 1 ) Matthew and Luke mention the disciples at the very outset; they do not figure at all in Mark's form of the story. (2) In Matthew and Luke Jesus is in full charge of the situation, not any unnamed companions as Mark ( 36 ) suggests. ( 3 ) In Matthew and Luke there is no mention of other boats as there is in Mark (36). (4) In Matthew and Luke the depictive color, "in the stern," and "on the cushion," — both perhaps later touches added to Mark ( 38 ) — does not reappear. ( 5 ) The stilling itself is a bit less dramatic in Matthew and Luke, for they avoid the direct command to the sea (Mk 39). Lk 8:22-25. In addition to his agreements with Matthew against Mark, Luke has some peculiarities of his own. (1) Luke (22) makes no connection with the parable section either in time or place; there is a complete break with what precedes. (2) Luke's omission of the notice of time (evening in Mk 35 ) makes Jesus' sleep less natural but it fits better into the sea sequence with no notices of a night or a new day following. (3) In Luke Jesus is entering a boat for the first time at this point in the story. Luke did not associate the parable of the soils with the sea or a boat (8:4). In 22 Luke seems conscious of having omitted the seaside scene where Mark reported it (4:1-2). (4) Luke's story is less impersonal at the end, for "they" refers to the disciples throughout; however, the reaction in 25 is still not natural for disciples. Mt 8:23-27 (1(57) used this Markan story much earlier as the fourth in his series of ten wonder-works in 8:1-9:34. Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 183. " C f . Ps 104:7; 106:9; 107:25-30. " For a discussion of the Jewish and pagan parallels to miracle-stories in the Gospels, see R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1906); 1

W e i n r e i c h , Antike

Heilungswunder;

P. F i e b i g , Jüdische

testamentlichen Zeitalters (Tübingen: Mohr, 1911). 7

C f . J . W e i s s , Schriften,

I, 1 1 8 ; D i b e l i u s , Gospel

242

Wundergeschichten

Criticism,

p . 6 2 ; et al.

des

neu-

Β.1147

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

147. The Gerasene Demoniac Mk 5:1-20 Lk 8:26-39 Mt 8:28-34 ||58 This long story was probably a part of the miracle-complex that came down to Mark in his sources.1 Topographically, this story joins well on to the preceding: Jesus leaves the western shore in 4:35 and arrives at the eastern shore in 5:1. The geographical locality is uncertain for the tradition varies in the Gospels and in the Greek MSS (Gadara in Matthew; Gerasa in Mark and Luke; Gergesa in Origen, et al). The body of the story associates the expulsion with a city (14), but no large city is known to have been located on the eastern shore itself. The story as a whole assumes nonJewish soil: the swine, the raising of which was everywhere forbidden to Jews; the superstitions of the people; the novel and unusual elements in the story itself. Chronologically, the two stories have no clear connection, for the evening in Mk 4:35 is not followed by a night or a new day. Again in Mark, there is no mention of the disciples. This is the second demoniac story featured in Mark. It is a "show-piece."2 It differs from the first (1:23-28 f l 2 ) in several respects: in the breadth of its epic description and narration; in the role which the demon plays in the expulsion; in the visible proof of the expulsion, the destruction of the swine; in the subsequent scene with the cured demoniac (18-20); in the order to publish the news, the very opposite of the usual order for silence. Mk 5:1-20 has all the features of the typical profane miracle-story. The affliction is elaborately depicted, and the healing technique is described. The healing word is dramatically reported, and proof of its success, the destruction of the swine, is given. It is possible that the whole was originally a pagan tale that has found its way into the story of Jesus.3 This story of Mark reads like one that has grown from a simpler, briefer form to its present length and expansiveness. Incidental items seem to have been elaborated, and elements unnecessary to the story's gist and point seem to have been added. Portions of the account like 3-6, 3-8, 6-8, or 8-10 can be deleted without disturbing the narrative's progress. In 7-10 Jesus and the demon converse like disembodied spirits. The general unity of the story is also disturbed by the fact that the demon sometimes speaks in the first person singular, again in the first person plural. There is also confusion at the end of the story. As it now stands, it seems to have a double conclusion: one in 14-17, another in 18-20. The story would lose nothing if 18-20 were severed entirely.4 It is rather generally agreed that the whole central section of the story, Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 142; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 130. Cf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, II, 183. 3 Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 111; Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the New Testament, p. 41. 4 Cf. Dibelius, Formgeschichte, p. 39; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 94. 1

2

243

JESUS A N D THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B.1148

the episode of the swine, can and should be removed.® It gives the story a bizarre, almost farcical character. The story of the swine may have been a wandering pagan legend or fable about the devil who outwitted himself or brought about his own destruction. The story has a worldly character; it is told with relish, perhaps even with a touch of humor. The narrator is interested only in the magnitude of the miracle; he is equally indifferent toward the damage done and the relief of the afflicted person. The function of the swine episode is to prove the reality of the expulsion.6 Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in two items. ( 1 ) Mark's numerical estimate, about 2000 swine ( 13 ), does not reappear in Matthew and Luke. It is the first of three such estimates in Mark (6:37; 14:5) which are not reproduced by Matthew and Luke, and all three may be later additions to Mark. (2) The name Decapolis (Mk 20) does not reappear in Matthew and Luke. It never occurs in Luke's Gospel, only once in Matthew (4:25) in an editorial passage. Lk 8:26-39 is otherwise a faithful reproduction of Mark's form of the story. Luke mentions the city at the outset; Mark, in the middle of the story (14); Matthew, at the very end (8:34). Matthew (8:28-34 fl58) used this story as the fifth in his cycle of ten wonder-works in 8:1 - 9:34. 148. Jairus' Daughter — A Woman Healed Mk 5:21-43 Lk 8:40^56 Mt 9:18-26 fl63 In Mark it is not unusual for one story to break into another, but ordinarily it is a mechanical insert and a purely literary phenomenon. In this double story of Mark the reader seems to encounter something different, a story within a story, one incident interrupting another as though they happened that way. The two stories have little in common that might bring them together: in both there is a strong emphasis on faith, and there is the numerical coincidence — the twelve years — of the age of the child and the duration of the woman's affliction. The two stories, otherwise, are very unlike: the one is a simple healing, perhaps to be credited; the other is a miracle of incredible proportions, a raising from the dead. Yet the two are brought together in a very artistic way to form a natural whole. The story of the woman fills in the time-gap between the first phase of the Jairus' story (23) and the second phase (35). This delay caused by the woman increases the dramatic tension for the reader. Some critics 1 feel that these two stories were originally single and 5

Cf. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1921), p. 61; Gunkel, Das Märchen, p. 87f; et al. "Josephus, Antiquities viii. 2, 5, and Philostratus, Life iv. 20, give similar visible proofs of expulsions. 1 Cf. Β. Weiss, Das Evangelium des Markus in Meyer, Kritisch exegetischer Kommentar

244

Β.1148

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

separate. The story of the woman can be lifted, and the two parts of the Jairus story brought together. The story of the woman requires a crowd about Jesus; that of Jairus does not. Mark may be responsible for the joining of these two stories, or he may have found them already joined in his sources. Other critics 2 feel that their joining is not literary but due to coincidence in occurrence: the two incidents were always remembered together and told together for the simple reason that they happened together. These dovetailed stories conclude Mark's sea sequence which began with 4:35. However, there is no assurance that they actually followed and were a part of this round-trip across the sea of Galilee. The Jairus story really begins with 22, for verse 21 is a literary transition and joins the double story to the sea sequence. Verse 21b is vague, but it shows Mark's fondness for crowds at the seaside (2:13; 3:7; 4:1). It is a better introduction for the story of the woman than for that of Jairus; 21b and 25 would form a good connection. The name Jairus is probably a later addition. It is not found in some ancient MSS (D), and it does not appear in the rest of the story in which the man is referred to by his title (35 and 38), "the ruler of the synagogue." Such proper names are often a novelistic feature. Later legend has a tendency to name persons unnamed in the primitive tradition. In the first phase of the Jairus story the disciples are not mentioned, and 22-23 could be an encounter between Jesus and Jairus alone. Verse 24 is a transition to the story of the woman in which a dense throng is necessary. Verse 26 is typical of miracle-stories in the ancient world with its caustic comment on the medical profession. The emphasis on the seriousness of the affliction and the failure of the physicians highlights the magnitude of the miracle and the greatness of the miracle-worker. The cure is by autosuggestion: the woman heals herself by her own faith without the conscious cooperation of Jesus. Verse 30 presents a half-superstitious, half-materialistic conception of Jesus' healing power. It does not reside in his will but in his body and garments. It operates automatically, independent of his own volition. The flow of this power comes too late ( 30 ) to effect the cure (29). In 30 Jesus' knowledge does not match his power: he must ask who touched him. Verse 34 is strange, for Jesus speaks as though the healing were only now being effected, not as though the woman were already cured (29). This may be a relic of an earlier, simpler form of the story which is actually found in Matthew. In 37 the disciples are mentioned for the first time in Mark's miracle(8. Aufl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892), Abt. 1, 2. Hälfte, p. 188; Α. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Markusevangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1927), p. 40; et al. 2 Cf. Benjamin W. Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1909), p. 60; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 121; et al.

245

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f 148

complex (4:35 - 5:43). This is also the first of the three appearances of the famous trio Peter, James, and John in the Synoptic tradition. Some critics 3 feel that the selection of the three is only an invention of Mark and that wherever this trio appears, the reader has to do with a later and secondary stratum of tradition. This appearance of the special three may have been prompted by the religious feeling that the Divine is about to manifest itself and that such epiphanies are for the favored few, not for the profane public.4 Verse 39 presents another strange element, for Jesus knows that the child is not dead even before he has seen it — a very different knowledge from that back in verse 30: "Who touched my garments?" With 39 the Jairus story breaks down at its most vital point. If the child is not dead and the statement of Jesus is taken seriously and not as a mere dramatic device, it simply annuls the story in which it appears, and there is no miracle. The use of magical formulas in foreign tongues, here "Talitha cumi" (41), was very common among wonder-workers of the ancient world. It gives the miracle a solemn esoteric quality and greater mystery. This is one of several so-called Aramaicisms in the Gospel of Mark, none of which reappear in Luke and only one in Matthew (Golgotha). Mark's Jairus story ends in confusion. Verse 43 should precede 42b, or a better arrangement still: 43b -f- 43a + 42b. The story has an ultra-secular conclusion. It ends without any expression of praise or thanksgiving in a religious sense. The child's walking and the order about food are intended as proofs of the reality of the miracle. The command for silence is extremely artificial here. Under the circumstances depicted, such a miracle could not have been kept secret. Even if the order had been strictly obeyed, the living child would have been perfect publicity. This is again positive proof that Mark's theory of silence and secrecy is pure dogma, a stereotyped formula often superimposed upon uncongenial materials and in wholly improbable situations. This story of a raising from the dead is common to all three Synoptic Gospels. It is the only such story in Matthew and Mark; it is the second and last in Luke (7:11-17 j|108). There are stories of raisings from the dead in both the Jewish and the pagan literature of the ancient world.5 Lk 8:40-56 reproduces Mark's double story in Mark's order with a number of variations in detail. (1) Luke does not mention the return by boat (Mk 21) but he seems to assume it. (2) In Mark (21) the people gather about Jesus; in Luke (40) they are already gathered and waiting. (3) In Mark (23) Jairus reports on the condition of the child; in Luke (42) the report comes to the reader from the Gospel writer. (4) In Luke (42) Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 328; Bousset, Kyrios Christos ( 1921 ), p. 61, Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 51f. 5 E.g., Philostratus Life iv. xlv. 3 4

246

Β.H149-152

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

it is "an only daughter" which seems to be a novelistic and legendary feature carried over from Luke's first raising from the dead (7:12). ( 5 ) In Luke the numerical coincidence, twelve years, between the child's age and the duration of the woman's affliction are brought close together (42 and 43); in Mark they are widely separated (25 and 42). (6) In 43 Luke tones down Mark's caustic comment on the medical profession (Mk 2 6 ) : the woman was beyond such help. ( 7 ) Lk 45b removes the suggestion of the disciples' exasperation with Jesus in Mk 31. ( 8 ) What Mark as writer states in 30, Jesus himself states in Lk 46. ( 9 ) In Mark (37) Jesus selects the favored three before he reaches the house; in Luke (51) only when he enters the house. (10) Mark has Jesus enter Jairus' house in 39 and the child's room in 40, and the situation is clear. Luke notes only the entry into the house, and the result is confusion. (11) In Mark the mourners are expelled; only the parents and the trio of favored disciples witness the miracle. In Luke the mourners are not expelled, and the miracle has a limited public. (12) Luke (55b) joins the order about food to the raising itself, an improvement over Mark, but the pointless command for silence is tacked on at the end in imitation of Mark. Matthew (9:18-26 j[63) used this double story as the seventh and eighth in his collection of ten wonder-works in 8 : 1 - 9 : 3 4 . It requires no great amount of historical imagination to realize what a tremendous impression this series of miracles must have left on Mark's firstcentury Christian readers. Since 4:35 the reader has been "ascending a ladder of miracles." 6 The raising of Jairus' daughter brings a definite pause in Mark's story. After this breath-taking series of wonder-works the reader deserves a pause,7 and Mark's narrative descends to the prosaic level of the visit to Nazareth and the mission of the twelve. Mk 6:1-13 P49-152. There is obviously a break between chapters 5 and 6 of Mark. In 6:1-13 the reader encounters two detached fragments of tradition ( l - 6 a ; 6b-13) which have no organic connection with each other or with this particular section of Mark's story. Mark's miracle-complex in 4 : 3 5 - 5 : 4 3 may have its more natural continuation in 6:14 with 6:1-13 an insert.8 149. The Rejection at Nazareth Mt 13:53-58 M k 6 : l - 6 a Lk 4:16-30 PO Mark's Nazareth episode is a stray, detached story. It has no connection with what precedes or with what follows, and there is no evident plan or purpose in its appearance at this particular point in the Galilean story. Its " Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 486. ' Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 154. * Cf. Wendling, Ur-Marcus, p. 14.

247

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. |149

present place in Mark may be due to sheer accident. It contrasts with the Jairus story in two respects. ( 1 ) In that story Jesus' powers knew no bounds, even to the raising of the dead; in Nazareth he can do no mighty works because of unbelief. ( 2 ) The Jairus story exhibited an expansive type of narration; the Nazareth story belongs to the terse, compact type encountered in the early chapters of Mark with emphasis falling on a key-word of Jesus. Verse la, "And he went out from thence," is a conventional literary link with no value for any possible itinerary. The story proper begins with verse 2, but lb brings Jesus into "his own country." This could be inferred from the story itself: Jesus' audience knows him and his family, and the key-saying speaks of the prophet's "own country." The name Nazareth does not appear here, but it is familiar to Mark's readers since 1:9. Mark probably omits the name Nazareth in favor of "his own country" in order that the episode may conform more closely to the proverb, its discourse heart. The disciples are mentioned in the transition (1), but they play no part in the body of the story. The sabbath and the synagogue remind the reader of the earlier phases of the Galilean story. This is the last appearance of Jesus in a synagogue in Mark. Jesus' audience here seems to have no knowledge of his public work as a teacher and healer. Their knowledge of him down to this point is based on the pre-public period: a "carpenter" and "the son of Mary." "The son of Mary" in Mark is equivalent to Paul's "born of a woman" (Gal 4:4); it is more specific by one item, the name Mary. In the birth tradition of Matthew and Luke the reader had the impression (with the exception of "firstborn" in Lk 2:7) that Jesus was the only child of Mary. Now in Mark the reader learns that Jesus is one son among five named and among unnamed sisters, not even the firstborn or eldest. The absence of any reference to Jesus' father recalls Mk 3:31-35 (^128). The name Joseph, father of Jesus, was not a part of the tradition that came down to Mark. The list of the names of the members of Jesus' family probably goes back to primitive Galilean tradition. It is curious that Jesus' family is not an active part of the Nazareth episode but is referred to objectively as absent. Several critics 1 feel that the only authentic element in the story is the proverb in verse 4. The narrative, they surmise, was invented as a dramatization of the proverb which originally was a detached saying. That the proverb did circulate as a settingless saying apart from the Nazareth story is clear in Jn 4:44 and in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (1897), in which a fuller form appears: "A prophet is not acceptable in his own country; neither does a physician perform cures on those who know him." The proverb may have had a Jewish or pagan origin. The phrases, "among his own kin, and in his own house," may have been added to make the proverb conform more closely to the story. These two phrases strengthen the proverb, and they 1

Cf. Brano Bauer, Kritik, II, 34Θ; Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, p. 64; et al.

248

Β.1149

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

may reflect the breach between Jesus and his family suspected back in Mk 3:19b-21 ( P 1 5 ) and 3:31-35 (1[128). Verse 5 approaches self-contradiction: Jesus can do no mighty work (5a), and yet he heals a few sick (5b). Verse 5b does not reappear in Matthew, and it may be a later addition to Mark, intended to save Jesus from utter failure in Nazareth. However, Mark here may be making a favorite distinction between mighty works ( expulsions of demons ) and mere healings and cures.2 The unity of the Markan story is open to question.3 It begins with the people's surprise, perhaps even admiration for Jesus' wisdom and wonderworks ( 2 ) ; it ends with their offense, perhaps even contempt, and Jesus' failure. The first half of the story seems to contradict the second half, yet within the story there is no provocation for the reversal of feeling from verse 2 to verse 3. Mt 13:53-58. In 13:34 Matthew left the order of Mark (4:34), and now in 13:53 he rejoins Mark's framework at Mk 6:1. Mark goes from his parable section (4:1-34) to the sea sequence ( 4 : 3 5 - 5 : 4 3 ) and then to the Nazareth story ( 6 : l - 6 a ) . Matthew goes directly from his parable section (13:1-52) to the Nazareth incident (13:53-58), for the reason that he reported the four miracles of Mark's sea sequence back in his cycle of ten wonder-works ( 8 : 1 - 9 : 3 4 ) . In fact, Matthew joins the Nazareth story directly to the parable section, "And it came to pass, when he had finished these parables" (53a). This is the third occurrence of this transition formula in Matthew (7:28; 11:1), and it is the dividing line between Books IV and V of Matthew. Book V comprises Mt 1 3 : 5 4 - 1 8 : 3 5 and it completes the Galilean story. In Matthew's reproductions of Mark there are some omissions and changes. ( 1 ) Matthew makes no mention of the disciples or the sabbath; however, he may assume the sabbath since the scene is the synagogue. ( 2 ) Matthew makes an interesting change from Mark relative to the identity of the carpenter. In Mark Jesus is the former carpenter, but in Matthew he is "the carpenter's son." Matthew may have been offended at the idea that the exalted object of the Christian faith once followed such an ordinary occupation. In making Jesus "the carpenter's son," Matthew has contradicted his own tradition of the supernatural birth (1:18-25). ( 3 ) From the proverb Matthew omits Mark's phrase, "among his own kin," with the result that the proverb is weakened and the suggestion of a break between Jesus and his family becomes more remote. ( 4 ) Matthew softens the naïve and realistic ending of Mark (5a) from Jesus' inability to do any mighty work to the simple statement that "he did not do many mighty works there." 2 3

Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 125. Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 346; Wellhausen, Marci, p. 43; et al.

249

JESUS AND THE F I R S T THREE GOSPELS

B. f 1 5 0 - 1 5 2

However, this statement in Matthew may be simply a condensation of the whole of Mark's verse 5. It removes the seeming contradiction in Mark's double assertion. Luke (4:16-30 jjlO) reported the Nazareth rejection at the very beginning of his public story. Luke seems to identify his version there with Mark's version here, at least to the extent that he now omits it in Mark's order. THE ADDRESS TO THE TWELVE AND THEIR MISSION

Mk 6: 6b-13

Lk 9:1-6

fíl50-152

Mt 9:35 -11:1 H66-80 Lk 10:1-20

11202-208

In Mark the mission of the twelve comes early in the latter half of the Galilean story. According to Mark, too, Jesus had the mission of the twelve in mind when he appointed them back in 3:13-15 (1f93); thus, the choosing of the twelve and their mission are two widely separated events in Mark. There is no evident reason why the mission of the twelve should come at just this point, no earlier and no later, in the Galilean story. There are no antecedents in the situation that would lead up to it or demand it, and there are no evident changes in the situation as the result of it. This little mission section stands isolated and detached in its immediate context. There is a complete break between the Nazareth story and the mission, and the mission in turn is unrelated to the Herod-John section (6:14—29) which follows. Although Mark knows and says little about this mission, he apparently did not want it to drop out entirely. He seems to have known enough to have felt obliged to report something. The meagreness of Mark's knowledge is clear in his cursory and compact style. Apart from some few instructions, Mark's statements are general and conventional rather than specific and concrete, so much so that it has been thought that Mark is giving a résumé. It is certain that Mark is not giving a fresh, first-hand report, but it is more probable that he is building up and inferring on the basis of fragments of tradition than that he is condensing a fuller account. Mark does not even touch on the deeper considerations which such a mission would involve: namely, Jesus' purpose, or what he can have hoped to accomplish by it. It results in no evident changes in Jesus himself or in the disciples. They are just as dependent and passive afterwards as before. 1 There is no change even in the master-disciple relationship. Mark's account of the mission of the twelve is no clearer than his account of their choosing, and many critics 2 have been as skeptical of the mission as they were of the 1 2

Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 44. Cf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, I, 337; Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 206; et al.

250

Β.1150-151

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

choosing. If the fixed group of the twelve does not belong in the life of Jesus, neither does their mission. If the college of the twelve is the work of the early church, so is their mission. The missionary command came from the Risen Lord,3 not from the historical Jesus. It was only after Jesus' death that the disciples became apostles. The mission of the twelve, then, would be another example of what the professional historian calls anachronism: the apostolic consciousness and the missionary conviction of the early church are carried back into the life and work of Jesus. Lk 9:1-6 reproduces Mark's mission of the twelve in Mark's order, and the section is just as isolated in Luke as it is in Mark. Owing to Luke's omission of Mark's Nazareth episode at this later point, the mission of the twelve in Luke follows on the sea sequence, but Luke makes no attempt at a connection between the two. Luke knew the fuller Q form of this mission material, and he reports it a little later in connection with a new mission by a new group, the seventy, in 10:1-20 (^203-208). Matthew reported the mission of the twelve earliest of all, and he solemnized it with a long discourse in 9 : 3 5 - 1 1 : 1 ( j[66-80 ) · 150. A Teaching Tour Mk 6:6b Mt 9:35 ÏÏ66 This little notation has no historical significance whatever, as though Jesus' own itinerant teaching may have suggested similar work for the disciples. It is the editorial contribution of Mark, a literary device by which he finds his way from one piece of tradition to the next, from the Nazareth story to the mission of the twelve. It may be that this little notice is not a transition at all, but should be joined to the Nazareth story as its conclusion.1 This may have been Luke's feeling, for he omits this Markan notice along with Mark's version of the Nazareth story. Matthew (9:35 fl66) followed the lead and suggestion of Mark (6:6b). Just ahead of his version of the mission of the twelve, Matthew placed a similar but more elaborate notice about Jesus' itinerant teaching and healing. 151. Equipment and Conduct Mk 6:7-11 Lk 9:1-5 Mt 10:7-16 f71; Lk 10:8-12 j[205 Mk 6:7 really returns to 3:14^15 and, in substance, repeats it. The two passages, the choosing of the twelve and the mission of the twelve, could be joined, and they may have been so in Mark's sources.1 There has been only one mention of the twelve in Mark (4:10) since their appointment Cf. Mt 28:16ff; Lk 24:44ff. Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 158f. 1 Cf. E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 137. 3 1

251

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1151

in 3:14. The sequel to the mission (6:30-31 Ρ 5 6 ) speaks of the apostles, not of the twelve. Mark has the twelve sent out by two's, as Matthew did not. This idea is not carried out in Mark, for there is no notice of their returning by two's. There could be an Old Testament background for this idea of two's (Dt 19:15). Or, it could be a generalization drawn from pairs of disciples on missions in Mk 11:1 and 14:13. Or, the listing of the twelve names in pairs (3:16-19a) may have suggested the idea of two's. The usual conception is that six pairs went out leaving Jesus alone, but it may be that they were sent out in relays of two's with one pair absent at a time.2 In Mk 6:30, however, they seem to return in a body. Mark's instructions in 8-11 3 are very brief and hardly merit the name "address." In spite of their brevity, these instructions in Mark are composite and represent a compilation of discourse fragments. That separate discourse fragments have been joined, is clear in the fact that Jesus is introduced as speaker three times in three successive verses. This lack of unity is also evident in the fact that the instructions begin in indirect discourse (8-9a) and then suddenly turn into direct discourse ( 9b ) which continues throughout. This joining of fragments and the confusion of direct and indirect discourse would suggest the use of written sources, a documentary patchwork. Any author writing with a free hand could surely contrive to maintain a flow of discourse through three verses. Mark says nothing of the message of the twelve, but it is assumed in 11, "and they hear you not." In 3:14 the twelve were to preach, and in 6:12 they preach repentance. In the instructions themselves, Mark seems to take their preaching and message for granted. The permission to carry a staff and to wear sandals, both forbidden in Q, may reflect a later stage in Christian missions — travel over the rugged terrain of Asia Minor where such equipment was necessary. Verse 10 seems to assume a house-to-house propaganda; verse 11, place-to-place. Some critics 4 feel that these instructions would have no point for disciples on a mission during Jesus' lifetime. Their background is the mission experience and practice of the early church. They are community precepts which grew out of mission activity. They presuppose the existence of Christian households where missionaries may find hospitality as they move from place to place. Lk 9:1-5 introduces the mission of the twelve and these instructions even more abruptly than Mark, without even a transition (Mk 6:6b). In Luke there is not the close connection between the mission and the choosing 2 3

ΠΙ.

4

Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, I, 404. For a comparison of the Markan and Q forms of these instructions, see Mt 10:7-16 Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 176; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 272; et al.

252

Β.1152-155

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

that there is in Mark, for Luke (6:12-13) did not mention the mission as part of Jesus' plan at the choosing as did Mark (3:14-15). Luke does not have the twelve sent out by two's as Mark does, but later (10:1) he has the seventy sent out in pairs. These Markan instructions to the twelve in Luke are tinged with items from the Q instructions: the message of the kingdom (2), the prohibition of the staff ( 3 ) , and the mention of the city ( 5 ) . This seems to be the involuntary work of memory rather than the result of actually consulting the Q instructions at this point. Luke's instructions ( 3 - 5 ) have greater unity than those of Mark with continuous direct discourse throughout, all pure imperatives and prohibitions — a definite improvement over Mark. Matthew ( 10:7-16 1(71) conflated the Markan and Q forms of the instructions to the twelve. 152. The Departure of the Twelve and Their Mission Mk 6:12-13 Lk 9:6 Mt 11:1 fl80 This is an editorial summary similar to earlier ones in Mark (1:14-15; 1:39; 3:7-12; 6:6b). Mark here generalizes on the work of the twelve as he did earlier on the work of Jesus. The passage contains nothing concrete or specific, nothing that could not be inferred from the instructions themselves, nothing in the way of actual information — the duration of the mission, the territory covered, or what Jesus did in the meantime. These two verses simply cover a gap in Mark's knowledge and story. Mark shows a bit of ingenuity at two points which exceed the instructions: the twelve preach repentance and use oil in healing. Lk 9:6 reproduces Mark's parallel in Mark's order but in condensed form. In Luke the twelve preach the (conventional) gospel. Luke omits the use of oil in healing, and he mentions no expulsions although they were singled out as a part of their task in 9:1. Matthew (11:1 fl80) noted the departure of Jesus on a teaching and healing tour, with the result that the departure of the twelve, their actual mission, and their return dropped out of Matthew's story. P53-155

Mt 14:1-12

Mk 6:14-29

Lk 9:7-9

Mk 6:14-29. This section of Mark has unity of subject matter, Herod and John, but it is a complete change of subject from what precedes and from what follows. The primary function of this section is to fill in the lull or pause in Mark's story created by the absence of the twelve. The thread of narrative was broken with the departure of the twelve (6:12-13), and it is not resumed until their return (6:30-31). Mark's story does not follow the twelve on their mission nor Jesus during their absence. This section of

253

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f l 5 3

Mark is a temporary digression from the story of Jesus, in which Mark completes his story of John the Baptist. It is an entr'acte (Loisy), a sort of interlude which holds the attention of the reader and leaves the impression of filling in an interval of time. This impression is illusory, for the section itself is actually a retrospect: John's death lies in the remote past. The section, then, is a literary filler, and it is not well integrated into the story. Mt 14:1-12 reproduces Mark's Herod-John section in Mark's order, allowing for some omissions and some abridgment by Matthew. In Matthew, however, this section loses the parenthetical character it has in Mark. There is no lull or pause in Matthew's story at this point, for in Matthew this section has no association with the mission of the twelve. On first glance, Matthew seems more successful than Mark in integrating this section into his Galilean story. It begins as a reaction of Herod to Jesus' activity thus far, and at the end the death of John has an immediate bearing on the course of Jesus' action. However, Matthew's literary imagination leads him astray. The section begins as a retrospect: John's death lies in the past. But the section ends as though John's death had just taken place and as though Jesus were the first to receive the news of it and be affected by it. At the end (12b, 13a) Matthew forgets the parenthetical nature of this section in Mark.1 Lk 9:7-9. Luke has no Herod-John section at this point in his Gospel. He gave his account of John down to his imprisonment at the beginning of the public story (3:1-20), and he never again digresses from the story of Jesus, as Matthew and Mark now do, to complete his story of John. Luke reproduces just the first (|fl53) of Mark's three units in this section in Mark's order. Luke's parallel to John's imprisonment in Mark ( ^[154 ) concluded his section on John as the beginning of the public story (Lk 3:19-20 fl5). Luke omits Mark's gruesome story of John's death (|{155) entirely. Luke's one parallel (1fl53) to Mark's Herod-John section is a sort of aside between the departure of the twelve (9:6) and their return (9:10), and its interest centers on Herod and Jesus rather than on Herod and John. 153. Herod's Superstition about Jesus Mt 14:1-2 Mk 6:14-16 Lk 9:7-9 This passage of Mark brings a complete change of subject, and very abruptly: Herod is a new name and character in Mark's story, and the reader suddenly learns that John is dead — the first note on John since his imprisonment in 1:14. Mark calls Herod a king which he was not. The verb "heard" (14) has no object, and this passage originally must have had a context which made it clear what Herod heard. It can hardly have been 1

Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 377.

254

THE P U B L I C

Β. f153

TRADITION

the work of the twelve (12-13), for Herod's question centers on Jesus' person, not on the disciples. As already noted, some critics 1 feel that Mark thinks of Herod as hearing of the wonder-works in 4 : 3 5 - 5 : 4 3 and that 6:14 should join on to that complex with 6:1-13 as an insert. Then 6:14-16 would be the sequel or aftermath to 4 : 3 5 - 5 : 4 3 . Herod's reference to Jesus' powers would almost demand wonder-works as the provocation for his perplexity. Some MSS of Mark (B, D, W, it) read "they said" or "it was said" in 14, not "he said" as in the present text of Mark. This removes the absurdity of Herod repeating himself in verse 16. It might be inferred from 14 that the Baptist performed miracles: those of Jesus recall those of John. However, the Synoptic tradition ascribes no miracles to John, and the Fourth Gospel denies that he performed such (10:41). Several critics 2 feel that 15-16 of Mark is an insert, a reflective comment from the writer and not a part of the narrative. Verse 15 is repeated in 8:28, and 16 repeats 14. Verse 17 is really the narrative continuation of verse 14. The way the opinions in 15 are joined on to the opinion in 14 recalls how the opinion of the scribes in 3:22 was joined on to the opinion of Jesus' family in 3:21. To the outside and disinterested observer there may have been a strong similarity between the work of Jesus and that of John, but it would be naïve to suppose that a crafty and worldly character like Herod entertained any such superstition as Mk 16 ascribes to him. Verse 16 elaborates on 14: in 14 John is dead, and in 16 the reader learns that he was beheaded at the order of Herod. In Mark ( 16 ) Herod's interest in Jesus has no sequel, and Mark's narrative drifts off into a story of Herod and John. Many critics 3 feel that Herod, as a matter of history, had an important bearing on the subsequent career of Jesus and that Mk 6:14 is the turning-point in the Galilean story, the beginning of the end. Wellhausen4 calls the period which follows ( 6 : 1 4 - 8 : 2 6 ) a period of restlessness: Jesus auf unsteter Wanderung. The blow struck at John was a dangerous threat to Jesus, and henceforth Jesus avoids the territory of Herod or travels incognito in Galilee. Eventually, Jesus had no choice but to leave Galilee for Jerusalem. Mark's story of Herod and John (6:17-29) has covered up the actual situation. Lk 9:7-9 parallels Mk 6:14-16 with a freedom that might point to a non-Markan source, or Luke's differences from Mark here might be due to his effort to harmonize this Markan notice about Herod with his own 1 Cf. et al. 2 Cf. 3 Cf. et al. 4 Cf.

Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 59; Bacon, The Gospel of Mark, p. 161; Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 255; Goguel, Jean-Baptiste, p. 46; et al. Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen, p. 284; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 110; Marci, p. 44.

255

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. f 153

non-Markan materials on Herod which he reports later (13:31-33; 23:8). Herod the tetrarch is not new to Luke's readers (3:1, 19; 8:3). Luke gives the report that reaches Herod a still wider perspective: he hears "of all that was done." There is no reference here to Jesus' powers which in Mark suggested wonder-works. In Luke Herod is not superstitious as he is in Mark. That Jesus was "John risen from the dead" is a rumor that reaches him, not his own opinion. He is at first perplexed, then curious. Luke leaves the reader's curiosity unsatisfied: he has Herod say, "John I beheaded," and that is all that Luke ever reports about John's death. Luke is not led off into a digression about Herod and John as are Matthew and Mark. Luke's final statement, "and he sought to see him," is repeated almost verbatim in Luke's account of the Roman trial where Jesus does appear before Herod (23:8). However, this desire to see Jesus out of curiosity does not accord with Herod's design in the warning to Jesus by the Pharisees: "Get thee out, and go hence: for Herod would fain kill thee" (13:31). Some critics 5 feel that this later passage of Luke (13:31-33 fl269) belongs at this point in the Galilean story and that 9:9b should read, "And he sought to kill him," not "And he sought to see him." To the remainder of Luke's Galilean story one critic β gives the title: "Jesus' Flight from Herod." Mt 14:1-2 reproduces Mk 6:14 in Mark's order, but in Matthew this notice about Herod follows on the Nazareth episode due to Matthew's omission of Mark's mission of the twelve at this point. Matthew uses one of his favorite connecting links, "At that season" (11:25; 12:1). In Matthew the verb "heard" has an object, "the report concerning Jesus." It is strange that the fame of Jesus' powers should reach Herod immediately following the Nazareth episode in which these powers did not assert themselves. Matthew must be looking further back in his story. This is the first mention of Herod in Matthew who, like Luke, uses the correct title tetrarch. However, in 14:9 Matthew reverts to the title king which Mark uses throughout the section. Matthew omits 15-16 of Mark, and thus avoids two repetitions in his Gospel. In Matthew Herod's opinion appears just once (14:2) and the public rumors only once (16:14). In relation to Mark the first half of Matthew's public story (chapters 5-13) differs greatly from the second half (chapters 14-27), the two halves exhibiting very different methods of composition. In chapters 5-13 the reader finds an independent principle of arrangement which is Matthew's own — a topical method of composition with a catechetical purpose. The author's aim is not simple narration but systematic presentation. The materials appear in great blocks: teachings, wonder5 6

Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 44f; Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 446. Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, pp. 214-267.

256

Β.1154-155

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

works, addresses to the disciples, disputes with opponents, and parables for the people. In the first half of his public story, just completed, Matthew has been discursive, after the manner of Herodotus,7 passing from one thing to another. Nevertheless, some of the individual sections within this first half show more careful and thoughtful composition than appears in almost any other part of the Synoptic tradition. In chapters 5-13 Matthew digresses from Mark, transposes Markan material, and expands Markan sections. In the second half of his public story Matthew's method of composition changes, and he follows Mark and reproduces Mark almost unit for unit. Beginning with chapter 14, Matthew makes no long digressions from Mark, no radical transpositions, only a few short inserts, and no great expansions of Mark until he comes to his last great discourse section in chapters 23-25. Mk 6:17-29 P54-155. These next two units of Mark have been described as footnotes,8 which is a very apt description. Mk 6:17-18 (P-54) is a footnote which elaborates on 1:14a (j[9) : "Now after John was delivered up." Mk 6:19-29 (|fl55) is a footnote which expands on Herod's statement in Mk 6:16: "John, whom I beheaded." 154. The Imprisonment of the Baptist Mt 14:3-4 Mk 6:17-18 Lk 3:19-20 fl5 Mark has lost John from view since 1:14 where he noted John's arrest and imprisonment. Now in 6:17-18 Mark reports something which, in point of time, preceded what he reported in 1:14: he tells what led up to John's arrest and imprisonment. Mark here confuses the first husband of Herodias with the husband of her daughter, namely, Philip. Herod Antipas divorced his first wife and married Herodias, the wife of his step-brother (another Herod). 1 From the Jewish point of view, this marriage involved a double violation of the law: adultery and incest. Mark does not say whether John's denunciation of this marriage was made in public, or in private with Herod face to face. Whether John was actually as bold as Mark here represents might be a matter of doubt. Furthermore, according to Josephus,2 Herod's action against John was inspired by political considerations, not for such personal reasons as Mark gives. This passage of Mark is purely Jewish, with John appearing in a wholly Jewish light, more or less as a Jewish hero, the champion of the sanctity of marriage and the family. This matter does not relate itself in any way to Mark's conception of John as providential forerunner of Jesus ( 1 : 4 - 8 ) . Except for its lack of confirmation by Josephus, this bit of tradition could have a purely Jewish origin. Cf. Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians, p. 87. Cf. F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission (3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark 1911), p. 35. 1 Josephus tells of this marriage in Wars xviii. 109-110. 2 Cf. Wars xviii. 116-119. 7 8

257

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1155

Mt 14:3-4 reproduces Mark's parallel in Mark's order almost verbatim and, along with it, Mark's historical confusion. Luke (3:19-20 fl5) reported his parallel to Mk 6:17-18 as the conclusion of his initial section on John at the beginning of the public story (3:1-20). 155. The Execution of the Baptist Mt 14:5-12 Mk 6:19-29 This story is neither a logical development nor a natural continuation of the preceding notice about John's arrest and imprisonment. It is an independent story elaborating on the less remote antecedent three verses back (6:16): "John, whom I beheaded." Furthermore, Herod's favorable impressions of John in this story do not accord with his vigorous action against John in the preceding passage. John's condemnation of their marriage (18) would seem to have united Herod and Herodias against him and not to have set them at cross-purposes as this story represents. This story of John's death is really only a tale told mostly for its own sake and with no concern for history. It is built up around a legendary theme: a rash promise which has tragic consequences. Herod here is a typical mythical king offering half of a kingdom which, historically, he did not possess. Herodias is portrayed as a fictional fury who victimizes her husband in contradiction to her known history. The daughter, a princess, in the role of entertainer is inconceivable. The narrator exerts every effort to make the story as gruesome as possible. It is a folk-tale, a fairy story, in which things are no sooner said than done. Josephus shows no knowledge of this tale recorded by Mark. He says nothing of any favorable impressions of John on Herod. He depicts Herodias as loyal to Herod, even to sharing voluntarily in his exile. Josephus' account assumes no interval of imprisonment between John's arrest and death such as Mark's story involves. According to Josephus, John was not imprisoned in Herod's residential palace but at Macharías near the Dead Sea. This story of John's death must have had a Jewish origin. Its interest and point of view are entirely Jewish and without a trace of Christian color. John is portrayed as a Jewish martyr. According to Josephus, 1 the Jews generally believed that Herod's defeat was a divine retribution for his murder of John. The details of the story have an Old Testament background. Herod's tragic vow has a close parallel in the story of Jephtha (Jud 11). The role of Herodias is patterned after that of Jezebel (I Kgs 19:1-2; 21:5-10). The banquet and the role of the daughter suggest the story of Esther and King Ahasuerus (Esther 5:2-6; 7:2). 1

Cf. Antiquities xviii. 5, 1-2.

258

Β.1156

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Mt 14:5-12 reproduces Mark's parallel in Mark's order with some changes, none of which is an improvement. Matthew mentions no favorable impressions of John on Herod such as Mark features. In Matthew it is Herod himself, not Herodias (Mark), who desires John's death and is restrained by public sentiment favorable to John. This accords better with the preceding notice about Herod's arrest and imprisonment of John. Matthew revises and condenses the first half of Mark's version of the story, and the result is confusion. In Mark Herod's grief is natural, for he has not plotted John's death. In Matthew (9) his grief is not natural, for he has desired John's death from the outset. The first half of Matthew's story is inconsistent with the second half for the simple reason that Matthew has revised the first half but not the second half to agree with it. In 14:1 Matthew spoke of Herod as a tetrarch, but in 14:9 he uses the title king; first Matthew follows history, then legend. In Mark the disciples of John appear in a natural role: they pay their last respects to their master. In Matthew they play a less natural role: they report their master's death to Jesus as though he were the first and most affected. This assumes a closeness and congeniality between the religious groups headed by John and Jesus, which is at variance with the New Testament tradition generally in which the two groups appear rather in contrast and competition. Mark makes no effort to integrate the story of John's death into this section of his Gospel; in Mark it is just a parenthesis. Matthew's attempt at integration is not successful. At the beginning of the section he treats John's death as an event of the remote past, but now at the end he treats it as a concurrent event which has an immediate bearing on the course of Jesus' action (14:13). Luke does not reproduce Mark's story of John's death. If he read it in his Mark, he omitted it.2 In his Gospel as a whole it is evident that Luke has no liking for such gruesome stories. Since Mark's story is a parenthesis, perhaps a later insert, it may not have been in the Mark known to Luke. 3 156. The Return and Report of the Twelve Mk 6:30-31 Lk9:10 After his parenthetical footnotes on John and Herod, Mark now resumes the broken thread of his narrative: 6:12-13 (14-29) 30-31 — a manner of composition and style of writing identical with 3:19b-21 (22-30 ) 31-35. Thus, there is the illusion of an interval of time between the departure of the twelve and their return allowing time for their mission. Mark tells of the return of the twelve, not only to complete the account of their mission, but because the presence of the disciples is necessary in the incidents which 2 8

Cf. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 5. Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 440; Spitta, Grundschrift,

259

p. 19.

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. ^156

follow. In verse 7 Jesus sent out the twelve disciples; now in verse 30 they return, literally, as apostles, the only occurrence of this term in Mark's Gospel. The noun apostles in 6:30 is very clearly a play on the verb from which it stems in 3:14 and 6:7. Mark's notice about the return of the twelve is as colorless as his notice about their departure (6:12-13), and as uninforming. It leaves the mission itself a blank except for vague generalities: they report all things that they have done and taught. Mark suggests that their work has been exhausting; Jesus is aware of their need for rest. Verse 31a is not a word of Jesus in the ordinary sense of a saying. It is one of the few bits of casual conversation in the Synoptic tradition. It gives 30-31 the semblance of an actual incident. Like the rest of 30-31, it is probably the editorial invention of Mark to prepare the way for the shift of scene which follows. Mark seldom troubles to give any such motivation for shifts of scene. Verse 31 looks ahead to what follows rather than to what has preceded, and it might well be joined to 32-33 as an introduction rather than to 30 as a conclusion.1 On the mission of the twelve Mark seems to have found in his sources only the fragmentary instructions in 6:8-11. These instructions made it clear that Jesus sent the disciples on a mission. On the basis of these meagre instructions Mark reconstructed an event in the life of Jesus, the mission of the twelve in 6:6b-13. Mark as editor contributed the introduction (7), the notice of their departure (12-13), and that of their return (30-31). This entire framework for the instructions deals in generalities characteristic of editorial writing. Lk 9:10 rejoins Mark's framework, after omitting Mark's Herod-John parenthesis, to report the return of the apostles, not a new term in Luke (6:14) as it is in Mark. Luke's notice about the return is even briefer and more vague than that of Mark, and it loses all semblance of being a concrete incident. Mark's casual word of Jesus, his concern for the disciples' welfare, their need of rest as the reason for the retreat — all disappear in Luke's condensed reproduction. Luke omits the throngs in Mk 31b as he did in Mk 3:20. In Mark Jesus and the disciples retreat to a desert place; in Luke, to the vicinity of Bethsaida. Luke's mention of Bethsaida is strange, for the feeding of the multitudes which follows has its scene in the desert far from any city. Bethsaida here in Luke probably comes from Mk 6:45 — the first verse of the long section of Mark (6:45-8:26) omitted by Luke. Matthew naturally omits Mark's notice of the return of the twelve. Matthew did not note their departure and, if he had, his mission of the twelve lies too far in the past to note their return at this late point. In the 1

Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 181.

260

Β.1157-17Θ

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

interval since Matthew's mission (11:1), the disciples have not been absent but have been mentioned as in Jesus' company (12:1, 49; 13:10, 36). P57-176

Mt 14:13-16:12 Mk 6:32-8:26

Lk 9:11-17

Mk 6:32 - 8:26. This section of Mark exhibits some curious literary phenomena. The reader of this section cannot escape the impression of duplications and repetitions, of reading the same thing twice, at least in substance. The section falls into two parts: series A in 6:32 - 7:37; series Β in 8:1-26. Series Β is shorter, and the materials are in some disorder, but the same general plan and gist appear in both. This plan is developed, sometimes with identical materials, again with different materials. The parallelism between the two series is close enough to be catalogued: A (1) 6:32-44 (2) 45^56 (3) 7: 1-23 24-30 (4) 31-37

Β 8: 1-9 10 11-21 22-26

A Feeding A Sea Trip A Conflict A Cure

This outline with four parallel elements seems simpler than it is. ( 1 ) Both series begin with a feeding of the multitudes: A with that of the five thousand, Β with that of the four thousand — virtually duplicate accounts from which each series stems. (2) The sea trip in series A includes the story of the walking on the water. The sea trip in series Β is just a crossing without incident. (3) Series A reports the controversy with the Pharisees on the issue of unwashen hands. Series Β tells of the Pharisees' demand for a sign which is followed by a warning to the disciples about the leaven of the Pharisees. (4) Series A includes one story without parallel in series B, the journey to the north and the cure there (Mk 7:24-30). (5) Both series end with very similar cures, both peculiar to Mark and both unique in their nature. Series A ends with the cure of the deaf-mute; series B, with the cure of the blind man of Bethsaida. These two series are so similar that many critics speak of duplicate cycles of tradition, of parallel accounts of the same events, of history repeating itself. Some critics find here positive proof of Mark's use of at least fragmentary written sources, or of Mark's having joined parallel documentary versions of the same series of events.1 This duplication of material reappears in Matthew except for the ending of each series. Matthew does not reproduce the story of the deaf-mute ( end of series A) nor that of the blind man of Bethsaida (end of series B). 1 Cf. R. H. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation in the Gospels (New York: Harper, 1934), p. 29; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 130; et al.

261

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 1 5 7

Matthew inserts a few bits of non-Markan matter into the section, but this does not alter the impression of repetition and duplication. This duplication of material does not reappear in Luke because of his so-called Great Omission. Luke reproduces only the first story, the feeding of the five thousand, and he omits the rest of this long section of Mark: 6 : 4 5 - 8 : 2 6 . Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Luke thus avoids all the duplications and repetitions which appear in this section of Mark's Gospel. 157. The Compassion of Jesus Mt 14:13-14 Mk 6:32-34 L k 9 : l l Some have thought that this sea trip locates the feeding of the five thousand on the eastern shore of the sea of Galilee. However, Mark's notice in 33, the people "outwent them," would suggest a coastwise trip rather than a crossing. The trip, in any case, is very probably the editorial work of Mark. From this point on in Mark's Galilean story the reader encounters frequent shifts of scene by land and sea. However, Mark's geographical notices in this section are in such a state of confusion that no definite itinerary of Jesus can be reconstructed. There may be a more natural break between 32 and 33 than between 31 and 32. Mark delights in Jesus' failures to escape the people. He cannot have this particular attempt successful, for the multitudes must be about Jesus for the feeding which follows. The situation in 33 is difficult to imagine: the people anticipate Jesus' destination and arrive there before him. It is probably a case of exuberance in story-telling. Verse 34 has a clear literary purpose: it sets the scene for the main event, the wonder-work which follows. Mark presents the feeding as an act of compassion; this compassion, however, must have been provoked originally by the people's hunger, not by the pastoral impulse expressed in the figure of the "sheep without a shepherd." At the end of 34 Mark revives the theme of Jesus' teaching for the first time since the parable section and the visit to Nazareth; as usual, he does not report any actual teachings. It is not more than a convenient conventional notice. Matthew 14:13-14 reproduces Mark's parallel with some changes and omissions. Matthew begins 14:13 with the same clause he used back in 4:12: "Now when Jesus heard." In each case the fate of John has a bearing on the course of Jesus' action. In 4:12 the news of John's imprisonment brought Jesus into Galilee; now the news of John's death causes Jesus to retreat by boat. John's death lies long in the past, but Matthew weaves it into the texture of these later events. Matthew avoids Mark's confusing notice about the people outstripping Jesus and waiting for him. He also omits the figure of the sheep without a shepherd; he lifted it from this late point in Mark

262

Β.1158

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

and used it much earlier in the introductory matter leading up to the mission of the twelve (9:36 fi67). Matthew mentions the healing where Mark mentions the teaching. The reader would naturally expect just the reverse. Lk 9:11 condenses Mk 6:32-34 in Mark's order. Luke makes no mention of a boat, and he may be thinking of a retreat by land. In 9:10 Luke mentioned the vicinity of Bethsaida as the place of retreat. The feeding which follows is in a desert place in Luke (9:12), the place of retreat in Matthew and Mark. In Luke the multitudes follow, but they do not outstrip Jesus, as they do in Mark. In Luke there is no notice of Jesus' compassion; he welcomes the people. Luke omits the figure of the shepherdless sheep; it nowhere occurs in his Gospel. In Luke Jesus speaks of the kingdom and heals — another safe, conventional notice. 158. The Feeding of the Five Thousand Mt 14:15-21 Mk 6:35-44 Lk 9:12-17 This story of Mark falls into two parts: 35-38 presents a spirited dialogue between Jesus and the disciples; 39-44 is a piece of epic narration. The dialogue builds up suspense for the action which follows. This is clear in Jesus' command in 37, "Give ye them to eat," a command impossible of fulfillment by natural means in the situation. The depiction has the vividness of so many of Mark's stories: the people are seated "upon the green grass" "in ranks." The Greek term translated "ranks" is taken from landscaping. The people are grouped like well-arranged flowerbeds. Such color in depiction does not point to an eye-witness but to a fertile literary imagination. It is not clear whether the author regards this division into groups as facilitating the feeding or the numbering of the multitude. The background of 41 is Jewish. Prayers of thanksgiving preceded and followed the partaking of food and drink. The blessing, breaking, and sharing of bread was a common Jewish custom with both larger and smaller groups. The mention of the fish at the end of 41 reads like a later addition or afterthought. The amount of fragments left over (43) is rather grotesque. It exceeds the amount of food on hand at the beginning (38), but for the writer and the original readers it served both to verify the miracle and to enhance it. Stories of miraculous feedings are not unusual in the ancient world; they are to be found in the Old Testament, in the rabbinical writings, and in profane literature. In this story of Mark no miracle is actually narrated or stated. At no point is the reader told that the food multiplies or increases. The miracle is between the lines and behind them. The reader is left to infer the miracle from the small amount of supplies on hand, the great number fed, and the amount of fragments left over. Furthermore, the account does not have the usual aftermath of Mark's miracle-stories. There is no amazement on the

263

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 1 5 8

part of the witnesses, no fresh spread of Jesus' fame. The very quiet with which the incident closes suggests a devotional occasion rather than a miracle. Back of this story there may have been a simple incident in the life of Jesus which involved nothing miraculous. The miraculous element was acquired in the telling and retelling. The original occasion did not involve a miraculous multiplication but a devotional division of food — a religious sacrament in which Jesus shared consecrated food (bread and fish) with the multitudes as on the last night he shared bread and wine with the disciples. The emphasis in all three Gospels falls on the blessing, breaking, and giving — the same solemn language used at the Lord's Supper. J. Weiss spoke of the feeding of the five thousand as "an anticipation of the Lord's Supper." 1 For Albert Schweitzer, the whole of Mark's story is historical except for the notice, "and all were filled."2 This act of Jesus was "an eschatological sacrament," 3 "an anticipation of the messianic feast" in the new order to come.4 Matthew and Luke reproduce the feeding of the five thousand in Mark's order, but they agree together against Mark in certain items which might indicate that they are following the form in the Mark known to them which gave a somewhat simpler and, in some respects, superior version of the story. (1) In Mark (38) the disciples do not know the supplies on hand until they investigate; in Matthew ( 17 ) and Luke ( 13 ) they know offhand without having to check. ( 2 ) Matthew and Luke do not reproduce Mark's numerical estimate, "two hundred shillings' worth" (37), and there is the possibility that it is a later addition to Mark. This is the second numerical estimate in Mark that has failed to reappear in Matthew and Luke (Mk 5:13). (3) The vivid color in Mark, "the green grass" (39), "in ranks" (40), does not reappear in Matthew and Luke, suggesting that it is due to a later retouching of Mark. ( 4 ) In Mark there are two distributions of food, first the bread (41a) and then the fish (41b), giving the act more of a sacramental character. In Matthew ( 19 ) and Luke ( 16 ) there is one distribution of consecrated food, the bread and the fish together, with less suggestion of a sacrament. Mt 14:15-21 condenses the dialogue in the first part of the story with the result that it is smoother and simpler than in Mark. Matthew has two new commands of Jesus in 16 and 18 which indicate a planned miracle. Matthew does not mention the division into groups. At the very end Matthew greatly increases the size of the multitude. In Mark and Luke the five Cf. Das älteste Evangelium, p. 213. Cf. Die Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, p. 421. 3 Ibid., p. 424. 4 Cf. Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis, p. 103. 1

2

264

Β.1159-176

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

thousand "men" are five thousand "people," but in Matthew there are five thousand men, "besides the women and children." Lk 9:12-17 is closer to Mark than Matthew except in the items where Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark. Luke (12) mentions the twelve at the very beginning, but in the body of the story Luke speaks of the disciples as Matthew and Mark do throughout. Luke (14) gives the size of the multitude just ahead of the feeding, not at the very end as do Matthew and Mark. Luke retains the division into groups from Mark. LUKE'S GREAT OMISSION

Mk 6:45 - 8:26 H159-176 There is no satisfactory explanation for what follows or, rather, for what does not follow in Luke. The simple fact is that a long and eventful section of Mark's later Galilean story drops out of Luke, the whole of Mk 6:45-8:26 which is known as Luke's Great Omission. Luke has only three brief parallels, a total of three verses, to any of the materials in this section of Mark, and these occur in a non-Markan section of Luke's Gospel and seem to be of non-Markan origin. The failure of this Markan section to reappear in Luke results in a radical contraction of events at this point in the Galilean story. In Matthew and Mark the feeding of the five thousand (|fl58) and Simon's confession at Caesare Philippi ( ||177) are two widely separated events. In Luke, however, the feeding of the five thousand (9:12-17) and Simon's confession (9:18-21) come immediately together. The failure of this Markan section to reappear in Luke also results in a radical curtailment of Luke's Galilean story. Seventy-four (75) verses of Mark's Galilean story simply drop out with the result that Luke, a Gospel half again as long as Mark, has a shorter Galilean story — less than seven chapters in Luke to nine full chapters in Mark. A variety of conjectures and shades of theory have been proposed to account for this strange literary phenomenon in Luke. A common proposal is that Luke used a defective copy of Mark,1 or a shorter version of Mark to which this section was added later.2 In either case, it was a section of Mark unknown to Luke and not an omission at all. This theory encounters difficulties in the following considerations. (1) Mk 6:45 - 8:26 was a part of the Mark known to Matthew, for he reproduces it en bloc with the exception of two cures which are probably later additions to Mark. Luke cannot have used Mark at a much later date than Matthew, and it is hardly probable that Mark received such a major expansion be1 Cf. V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents (2 vols., Cambridge: The University Press, 1903 and 1909), II, 152; Williams in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 418; et al. 2 Cf. Wendling, Ur-Marcus, p. 15f; Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, I, 162f; et al.

265

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1159-176

tween the time of Luke's writing and that of Matthew. ( 2 ) At two points in his Gospel Luke may betray a knowledge of this omitted section of Mark. Bethsaida in Lk 9:10 may come from Mk 6:45; and the background of Lk 11:38 may be Mark's controversy on unwashen hands (Mk 7:1-23). ( 3 ) Mk 6 : 4 5 - 8 : 2 6 seems to come from the same hand that wrote the rest of the Gospel.3 It exhibits the same language and literary style, the same interest and imagination, the same sort of conception and depiction found elsewhere in Mark's Gospel. If this section was in the Mark known to Luke, then it is an omission by Luke. Here again there are opposed possibilities. ( 1 ) Such an omission could have been accidental, an oversight on Luke's part.4 The section begins with the mention of Bethsaida (6:45) and it ends with a Bethsaida story (Mk 8:22-26). Luke's eye may have skipped from one Bethsaida to the next and, inadvertently, the section was passed over — a not infrequent occurrence in transcription. ( 2 ) If this omission is not accidental, then it must have been intentional on Luke's part. There are two possibilities in this case, ( a ) There may have been a purely physical or material reason for this omission.5 Many ancient writings have almost exactly the same length due the nature and form of materials for recording in the ancient world, the roll or scroll. Luke may have had more material than he could compress within the standard book-length, and pressure for space may have led him to omit this section of Mark, ( b ) Luke may have omitted this long section because of the nature of the materials themselves.6 Fairly good reasons can be given for Luke's omission of each unit or group of units within the section. Some of this matter he may have regarded as duplications of what he had already reported. Some of it is Jewish and would be of no real interest to Luke's Gentile-Christian readers, and some of it might be positively offensive to them, or even to Luke himself. A deliberate omission on Luke's part seems to be the most plausible explanation. The Proto-Luke hypothesis has its own special explanation for the absence of this long Markan section from Luke. According to this theory, the non-Markan sections of Luke's public story are basic and constitute the first draft of Luke's Gospel.7 The present Markan sections of Luke are inserts into Proto-Luke, or into this first draft. The absence of this Markan section from Luke is not an omission but "a non-insertion."8 The final author of Luke's Gospel did not choose to insert this particular section of ' Cf. Hawkins in Oxford Studies, p. 64ff; Benjamin W. Bacon, The Story of Jesus (New York: Century, 1927), p. 113; et al. 4 Cf. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 277; O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, p. 18. 5 Cf. Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen, p. 42; Sanday in Oxford Studies, p. 25f; et al. " Cf. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 6; Goguel, The Life of Jesus, p. 364; et al. 7 Cf. V. Taylor, The First Draft of St. Luke's Gospel (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1927). 8 Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, pp. 139, 189f.

266

Β. f 159

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Mark because it contained duplications and was generally unsuited to his purposes. In some respects, Luke's omission of this long section might be regarded as an improvement over Mark. By this omission Luke's account is more coherent, and he avoids the duplications and geographical confusions found in this section of Mark. As a result of this omission, Luke has an uninterrupted ministry of Jesus in Galilee; there are no excursions into Gentile soil such as Mark's journey to Tyre and Sidon. Mt 14:22-16:12 reproduces Mk 6:45-8:26 en bloc, unit for unit, with the exception of two cures now peculiar to Mark (7:32-36; 8:22-26). Within the units Matthew makes some minor additions and omissions, and he inserts three small non-Markan units, a total of five verses, into this section of Mark. 159. A Retreat for Prayer Mt 14:22-23a Mk 6:45-46 This passage of Mark has a twofold function. ( 1 ) It concludes the story of the feeding of the five thousand by dispersing the multitudes who have no natural place in the action which follows. (2) It sets the stage for the walking on the water by bringing about a temporary separation between Jesus and the disciples. Mark has Jesus himself set the stage as though he had planned what is to follow. Mark must be looking ahead to this new miracle, for the presence of the disciples would not interfere with the dismissal of the multitudes, and Jesus could pray alone without sending the disciples across the sea. In this editorial passage, Mark is finding his way, as best he can, from one piece of tradition to the next. The term constrained is very strong; it suggests an urgency not evident in the situation depicted. This sea trip in 45 so soon after the one in 32 is surprising. Both seem to start from the western shore; "the other side" usually refers to the eastern shore. How Jesus plans to rejoin the disciples across the sea is not clear. Bethsaida is the first of a series and variety of geographical proper names in the late stages of Mark's Galilean story. Down to this point in Mark's story, names of cities, localities, and regions have not been numerous. Bethsaida was outside the territory of Herod. Some critics 1 have made a great deal of this: Jesus is avoiding the territory of Herod; he is an exile and fugitive. Verse 46 is not organic to Mark's narrative at this point and it could be deleted leaving a good connection between 45 and 47. The mountain is probably the editorial "mountain" which figures now and then in Mark. Verse 46 is the second (1:35) and last notice of Jesus praying, in the course of Mark's Galilean story. Again, Mark does not elaborate; as yet he has no inclination to pry into the inner life of his hero. 1

Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 51; Burkitt, Gospel History, p. 91f.

267

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 1 6 0

Mt 14:22-23a reproduces Mark's parallel verbatim except for the name Bethsaida which he also omits at the end of this section (Mk 8:22). Matthew's only mention of Bethsaida comes from Q, in the bitter indictment on that city in 11:21. Matthew may omit Bethsaida here because this intended destination is not reached (Mk 6:53). Verse 23a is Matthew's only notice of Jesus praying in the course of the Galilean story. With this passage of Mark the reader begins to encounter the great body of Markan matter which does not reappear in Luke. Under ordinary circumstances a notice about Jesus praying would appeal to Luke, but he probably omits this notice because of its association with what follows. Luke reproduces neither of Mark's two notices of Jesus praying in the course of the Galilean story (Mk 1:35; 6:46). 160. The Walking on the Water Mt 14:23b-33 Mk 6:47-52 There is confusion in the narrative point of view of this story. Verse 48 is told from the point of view of Jesus on the land; the rest of the story is more from the point of view of the disciples in the boat. This might be explained by the conflation of two separate stories: one, a didactic narrative in which Jesus went to the rescue of the disciples; the other, a dogmatic piece in which Jesus appeared to the disciples in glorified form.1 One story was associated with the evening (47); the other, with the fourth watch of the night (48). There is almost enough material for two independent stories: a rescue story in 47-48a + 51-52; an epiphany story in 46 + 48b-50. The evening in 47 involves two difficulties. ( 1 ) It was evening when the five thousand were fed in 35, and it is still evening in 47. This would indicate that the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water were both evening stories, originally separate and unjoined. ( 2 ) The evening in 47 is also confused by the fourth watch of the night in 48: Jesus seems to leave the disciples in distress most of the night, before coming to their rescue. Jesus' knowledge of the distress of the disciples belongs to the evening rescue, not to the apparition in the darkness of the fourth watch of the night. Verse 48 ends with a strange notice, "and he would have passed by them," which belongs to the epiphany story and which cannot be fitted into the rescue story. The conclusion in 52 is both editorial and dogmatic. It renews Mark's dogma of the dullness of the disciples, and it seeks to join the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water more closely together. Mt 14:23b-33 reproduces Mark's story of the walking on the water in Mark's order with minor differences in the first half of the story and major differences in the second half. In Matthew there is no confusion in the narra1

Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 135.

268

Β.f160

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

tive point of view such as exists in Mark; the whole story in Matthew is told from the point of view of the disciples in the boat. Matthew omits Mark's strange notice, "and he would have passed by them," as something without evident purpose or point in the story. Matthew enriches the story with a new episode, Simon's attempt to walk on the water (28-31). This is the same literary procedure which Matthew followed in his story of Jesus' baptism where he added the new dialogue between Jesus and John (3:14-15). This new Simon episode in Matthew complicates rather than enhances the miracle-story. It may once have been a separate and independent story.2 It may stem from Jn 21:7 transforming that passage into a miracle, or it may be a dramatization of the predicted failure of Simon's faith in Lk 22:31-32 (||405).3 In this little episode Simon is not the sponsor or author of tradition; he has become a tradition.4 In Matthew the story of the walking on the water has an altogether different ending with a very different picture of the disciples. In Mark ( 52 ) the disciples are dull; they do not understand. Matthew's picture is just the opposite: the disciples comprehend perfectly, they confess and worship Jesus as the Son of God — the first such confession from the disciples in the Synoptic tradition. This confession from the disciples seems to anticipate the climax of Mark's Galilean story, Simon's confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8:27-30 ]|177), and to rob it of its intended drama. However, as will be clear, Matthew reserves his real climax for that later point in connection with Simon's confession. If Luke found the story of the walking on the water in his Mark, he omitted it along with its introduction ( |[159 ) and conclusion ( j|161 ) probably because he regarded it as a duplication of the stilling of the storm which he had already reported (8:22-25 fíl46). The stilling of the storm and the walking on the water are certainly related pieces of tradition.5 The two stories could stem from the same basic tradition which has taken two different turns in transmission. A sea miracle has acquired two different forms with different centers of interest. Didactic interest is predominant in the stilling of the storm; dogmatic interest, in the walking on the water. Even as they now stand the two stories have not entirely freed themselves of each other. The subsiding of the storm is noted in the second story, "and the wind ceased" (Mk 6:51); and an epiphany is suggested in the first story, "Who then is this?" (Mk 4:41). Cf. Cf. 4 Cf. 5 Cf. formen, 2 3

Bleek, Synoptische Erklärung, II, 22. Strauss, Leben Jesu, p. 502; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 150. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 47. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 355; Wendland, Die urchristlichen Literaturp. 264; et al.

269

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

B. 1161

The legend of the walking on the water has closer affinities with the resurrection tradition than with any other element in the Synoptic story. ( 1 ) Mark's notice, "and he would have passed by them," has a parallel only in the Easter story (Lk 24:28). (2) The idea that Jesus is a ghost is found elsewhere only in the resurrection tradition (Lk 24:37). (3) The disclosure of Jesus' identity is the very heart of the resurrection visions. The assurance, "Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid," belongs on the lips of the Risen Jesus. (4) The state of the disciples' mind —fear, confusion, amazement — is the same as that found in the Easter story. Matthew's form of the story, including the Simon episode, has equally close affinities with the resurrection tradition. (1) The Simon episode has its only parallel, a remote one, in the Easter story (Jn 21:7). (2) Simon's skepticism and desire for proof, his fear and lack of faith, are all typical of the disciples' frame of mind in the resurrection tradition. In fact, Mt 14:28-31 might be a remnant of the lost appearance of the Risen Jesus to Simon (I Cor 15:5a; Lk 24:34). (3) Mt 14:33 is a perfect ending for an appearance of the Risen Jesus to the disciples. Apart from this one notice in Matthew, the only notices of the disciples worshipping Jesus are in the resurrection tradition (Mt 28:9,17; Lk 24:52). The walking on the water in Matthew and Mark is presentèd as an experience of the disciples in Jesus' company during his liftime, but originally it may have been an appearance of the Risen Jesus to the disciples in Galilee.6 It, and especially Mk 6:48b-50, might also be a remnant of the lost appearance to the disciples promised in Mk 16:7 but never fulfilled. There are pagan parallels to the story of the walking on the water, stories of lévitation, especially in the legends of India.7 161. The Landing at Gennesaret — Cures Mt 14:34-36 Mk 6:53-56 The connection of this passage with what precedes is not good. Verse 53a is virtually repeated in 54a. The whole of 53 could drop out leaving 54 to join on to 52 as the continuation of the story of the walking on the water.1 Verse 53 involves another difficulty. The destination announced in 45 was Bethsaida, but in 53 the landing is at Gennesaret. No explanation for this change is given. It is not stated that the storm changed the plan or destination, as is often assumed.2 Verse 56a of Mark repeats 55; it may be ' Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 942ff; Schniewind, Markus, p. 95; et al. 7 Cf. Philostratus Life iii. xv. xvii; Seydel, Die Buddha-Legende, p. IlOf; G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, Indische Einflüsse auf evangelische Erzählungen (2. Aufl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1 9 0 9 ) , pp. 52-56. 1 Cf. Cadoux, The Second Gospel, p. 215. 2 Cf. G. Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels, auth. trans. Paul P. Levertoff ( N e w York: Macmillan, 1 9 3 5 ) , p. 175f.

270

Β.1162-167

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

regarded as a later addition to Mark because it does repeat 55 and because it does not reappear in Matthew.3 This little notice of Mark tells more of the people than it does of Jesus. The general situation in 55-56 recalls that in 32-33. The people anticipate Jesus' route and have their sick waiting as they anticipated his destination and were waiting in 32-33. At times, Mark's multitudes are almost psychic. This landing and healing notice, dealing entirely in generalities, seems to be the editorial contribution of Mark. It is in the same style and manner as the earlier passage: 3:9-12. It is intended primarily as a conclusion for the sea trip which precedes rather than as a transition to what follows. Mt 14:34-36 reproduces Mark's notice in Mark's order and, in general, is an improvement over Mark. Matthew avoids Mark's repetitions by omitting Mk 54a and 56a. Matthew thinks of Gennesaret as a definite locality where Jesus lands and remains and where the sick are brought to him. If Luke read this landing notice in his Mark, he naturally omitted it along with the walking on the water which it concludes. THE ADDRESS ON UNWASHEN HANDS

Mt 15:1-20

Mk 7:1-23

P62-167

This is the third so-called major address of Jesus in Mark, but this section does not merit the name "address" any more than the meagre instructions to the twelve (6:8-11) or the brief Beelzebub section (3:22-30). Actually, this section on unwashen hands is a controversy along the lines of the Beelzebub dispute. It has the same threefold structure: ( 1 ) there is a provoking situation in 1-4, (2) a critical comment growing out of it in 5, and ( 3 ) an extended reply or refutation in 6-23. This section of Mark appears in utter isolation. It is made up of dialectical materials which contrast strongly with the narrative matter which precedes and follows. The entire section could drop out, leaving 6:56 with a narrative continuation in 7:24. 1 The episode depicted is timeless and placeless. It might even be more appropriate later as a part of the Jerusalem story.2 It has been suggested that Mark has a definite design in introducing this section at this particular point. The section exhibits Jesus' liberality, his freedom from ordinary Jewish prejudice, and it prepares the way for his excursion into a Gentile region in Mk 7:24-31 ( j|168).3 This section of Mark is composite, built up of originally separate and independent units which are only loosely joined together. The lack of unity Cf. Cf. " Cf. * Cf. 3 1

Goguel, Marc, p. 150. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 132. Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 38; McNeile, St. Matthew, p. 221. Rawlinson, St. Mark, p. 93.

271

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B. 11162

in this section is clear in three things. ( 1 ) There are three different responses of Jesus to the critical comment in verse 5: 6-13, 14H5, 17-23 — neither of which is a satisfactory reply. ( 2 ) Beginning with verse 6, Jesus is introduced as speaker five different times, "And he said," which disrupts the continuity of the discourse. ( 3 ) There are three different scenes, each with a different audience, and a different thought or theme appears in each. Some critics 4 would reduce the original account to 1-2 + 5 + 14-15. Others 5 feel that only the key-utterance in 15 is authentic and that the other materials have been gathered about it by the compiler and editor. The section is built up along rabbinical lines with the rabbinical method of reasoning — the quotation and exposition of Scripture. This section in 7:1-23 exhibits striking similarities with the earlier parable section in 4:1-34. The kernel in each section is a parable or series of parables. There is the same conception of parable in each case: it is a mystery spoken in public and explained in private. Both sections feature the dogmatic dullness of the disciples. Both sections use the same literary device: shifts of scene from public to private. These two sections of Mark must come from the same dogmatic mind and the same literary hand.® Mt 15:1-20 reproduces this section of Mark in Mark's order. Matthew's changes from Mark are improvements. The section makes smoother and simpler reading in Matthew where the breaks and repetitions in Mark are avoided. The result in Matthew is that the whole comes nearer to having the form of continuous discourse. Matthew's materials are better organized and are presented more systematically, giving the section greater unity. Matthew makes a slight non-Markan expansion of three verses in 15:12-14 (P65-166). The only echo of this Markan section in Luke is distant and faint, and uncertain: 11:38 (j[232). If Luke found this section in his Mark, he probably omitted it because of its ultra-Jewish character. Such a debate on such an issue would have no interest or importance for Luke's Gentile-Christian readers. One issue in the section, clean and unclean foods, Luke does not carry back into the life of Jesus as Mark does, but he leaves the apostles to meet and solve this problem after Jesus' death (Acts 10). 7 162. The Disciples' Conduct Questioned Mt 15:1-2 Mk 7:1-5 If Mark were thinking and writing in terms of sequence, he would have resumed the interrupted trip to Bethsaida (6:45). Instead he introduces Cf. Cf. " Cf. 7 Cf. 4

n

Rawlinson, Sf. Mark, p. 93; Crum, Si. Mark's Gospel, p. 23. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 145; Bacon, The Gospel of Mark, p. 147. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 87. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 2, 73.

272

Β. 1 1 6 2

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

something new and unrelated — a controversy on unwashen hands. Verses 1-2 seem to refer to something typical, an habitual neglect on the part of the disciples, rather than to a particular instance observed by the critics. The appearance of this issue in the lifetime of Jesus can be doubted. According to rabbinical evidence, the rule about washing hands before meals became obligatory for laymen only toward the close of the first century. Earlier it was required only of the priests.1 The combination of Pharisees and scribes, so frequent in Matthew, occurs only here in Mark. This is the first mention of the Pharisees since 3:6. Mark seems to think of the scribes, not the Pharisees, as having come down from Jerusalem. Mark introduces the Jerusalem authorities twice in the course of the Galilean story (3:22; 7:1); Matthew, only this one time (15:1); Luke, never. This appearance of the Jerusalem authorities suggests that the report of Jesus' Galilean work has reached Jerusalem and that the authorities have come down to investigate — neither of which seems probable. The parenthesis in 3-4 is an aside for the reader, one of the few instances in Mark where the reader is addressed directly. It may be a later addition to Mark, for it is not reproduced by Matthew. It is a long, cumbersome sentence in which the writer seems to pride himself in his knowledge. The statement is too sweeping, for most of these things were observed by sectarian Jewish groups, not by all Jews. Mark uses the term Jews here for the only time in his Gospel. This parenthesis is instructive, for it makes it clear that Mark is writing for readers who have no knowledge of things Jewish. The term tradition, used here by Mark (and Matthew), occurs at only this one point in the Synoptic Gospels. Mark (Matthew also) speaks of "the tradition of the elders." Josephus writes: "The Pharisees have imposed upon the people many laws which are not written in the law of Moses." 2 These Christian and Jewish references are to a great body of regulations which grew up beside the Mosaic law of the Old Testament. It was an oral or unwritten law, a rabbinical code.3 One rabbinical writing (Sanhédrin xi. 3) states: "It is more serious to offend against the decrees of the scribes than against the decrees of the law." The question put to Jesus in Mk 5 is more academic than hostile. Jesus is addressed as though he were the head of a school. He is asked to explain a neglect rather than a violation of a tradition by the disciples. Again (2:18, 24), it is the conduct of the disciples that is questioned. This might point to the later Christian origin of the issue.4 Mt 15:1-2 reproduces Mark's parallel in Mark's order, but in simpler and briefer form. Mark's long explanatory parenthesis (3-4) does not reCf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 135. Antiquities, xiii. 10, 6. 3 Cf. Moore, Judaism, I, 251-2Θ2. 4 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 16. 1

s

273

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 1 6 3

appear in Matthew; it may not have been in his Mark. If he did read it in his Mark, his omission of it is equally instructive. Matthew and his readers have no need of such explanations. They are familiar, not only with things Jewish, but with special things about special groups. In Matthew both the Pharisees and the scribes, not just the scribes (Mark), seem to come from Jerusalem. The question they put (2) is less academic than in Mark; it is more critical, even hostile. The disciples are charged with transgressing a tradition, not with a neglect of it as in Mark. 163. Commandment and Tradition Mt 15:3-9 Mk 7:6-13 Two discourse units, 6-8 and 9-13, originally separate and independent of each other, are here joined. Their primitive separateness is clear in the repeated introduction, "And he said unto them." Their joining results in a repetition: the end of the first unit (8) is repeated at the beginning of the second (9). The one does not continue or develop the other; they are parallels or duplicates. Both deal with the relation of tradition to the Old Testament. Both begin alike with "Well." Verses 6-8 speak of "the tradition of men"; 9-13, of "your tradition." The first generalizes; the second particularizes. In 6-8 the proof is based on Isa 29:13; in 9-13, on Ex 21:17. Neither answer is a proper reply to the question in verse 5. Instead of explaining the neglect by his disciples, Jesus attacks the questioners. The Isaiah passage has no real argumentative value. The Corban oath is mentioned by Josephus.1 Some critics 2 feel that the charge in 10-11 is beside the point and unfair, and they express the hope that, for the sake of Jesus' own integrity, these statements are unauthentic. Mark ends with a sweeping generalization, "and many such like things ye do" (13). This is probably a later editorial addition, for it is not reproduced by Matthew. Mt 15:3-9 reproduces Mk 7:6-13 in Mark's order with some changes, mostly improvements. Matthew reverses the order of materials within the paragraph: Mark begins with Isaiah, while Matthew ends with Isaiah. By reversing the order of materials, the argument in Matthew goes from the particular to the general, and it is more forceful. The two separate discourse units in Mark are welded into one in Matthew with a single introduction, "And he answered and said unto them." In Matthew the critical question in 2 is met by a counter-question of Jesus in 3. Matthew sharpens the antithesis between divine and human precepts: Mark reads, "Moses said"; Matthew reads, "God said." Matthew does not reproduce the sweeping generalization at the end of Mk 13. Cf. Against Apion, I, 167. Cf. R. T. Herford, The Pharisees (New York: Macmillan, 1924), p. 206; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 150f. 1

a

274

Β. Τ[ 164

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

164. The Parable concerning Real Defilement Mt 15:10-11 Mk 7:14-15 Mk 14 brings a change of audience. The Pharisees and the scribes are forgotten, and the multitudes take their place. The controversy disappears, and public preaching is resumed. Mark is not thinking of the last multitude mentioned or of any particular multitude; it is the editorial "multitude" always as near as Mark's pen. The word "again" appears often in Mark's editorial introductions. It does not refer to some previous occasion; rather it calls the reader's attention to something typical.1 Jesus was in the habit of calling the multitudes to him. It would be difficult to imagine any particular multitude standing by, waiting for Jesus' call. Verse 15 brings a complete change of thought and theme. The issue of clean and unclean hands gives place to the question of the source of cleanness and uncleanness in general. Mark regards 15 as a parable, but it is rather an analogy or comparison. It is difficult to imagine it as spoken in any actual concrete situation.2 It is a theoretical formulation, detached and categorical in nature. If this is an authentic utterance, Jesus himself probably did not realize its full implications and wide ramifications.3 From the orthodox Jewish point of view, it is his most radical and revolutionary statement. The orthodox Jew and the Old Testament itself make no distinction between some laws and other laws 4 — between ritualistic and ceremonial laws, on the one hand; moral and spiritual laws, on the other. All are in the law, all equally divine and authoritative. Mk 15 amounts to a redefinition of the province of religion. This position has been accepted by liberal Judaism. Montefiore speaks of Mk 7:15 as "one of the greatest utterances in the history of religion." 5 There are naturally no rabbinical parallels to this saying; from the rabbinical point of view, it is pure heresy. A trace of Pauline influence has been detected in Mk 7:15.® Verse 16 is not found in the best Greek MSS of Mark (Aleph, B, L, etc.). It is a conventional formula used now and then to highlight certain sayings of Jesus. Mt 15:10-11 reproduces Mark's parable in Mark's order. In Matthew this saying has better literary balance than it has in Mark, the second half conforming exactly to the first. Matthew speaks of things that go in and out of the mouth, not in and out of the man (Mark). The idea is more explicit and restrictive: Matthew is thinking of unclean foods and of sins of speech. He "Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 152. 2 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 88. * Cf. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 255. 'Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 156. s Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 133. "Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 91.

275

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 1 6 5 - 1 6 7

is closer to the issue at the beginning (2) but further from the explanation at the end (15-20). There is less need of explanation in Matthew than in Mark.7 Mt 15:12-14 (jf165-166) is obviously a non-Markan insert between Mk 7:15 (16) and 17. It breaks the natural connection between the parable in Mt 15:11 and its explanation in Mt 15:15-20. The sayings in Mt 13 and 14 are polemical in nature and admit of an anti-Pharisaic turn to Matthew's way of thinking. These three non-Markan verses expand the private scene with the disciples ( 12-20 ) which, in Mark, includes only the explanation of the parable (7:17-23) 165. Plants Planted not by the Father Mt 15:12-13 Verse 12 is the editorial work of Matthew. It returns to the Pharisees and the controversy at the beginning of the section (15: 1-2). Mark never gets back to the critics and the issue in 7:1-5. The substance of the disciples' remark in 12 is a safe surmise by Matthew: any Pharisee would be offended at Jesus' statement in 11. The saying in 13 is entirely peculiar to Matthew. The analogy of men and plants has an Old Testament background (Isa 60:21; 61:3; Ezek 17:22-23). The saying is vague and colorless, and it has no special application to the Pharisees above others. The expression, "my heavenly Father," is unusual on the lips of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. 166. The Parable of the Blind Guides Mt 15:14 Lk 6:39 fllOl Luke included this Q parable in his Sermon on the Plain where it had no natural place. Matthew senses the polemical nature of the saying and gives it a better context in general, part of a controversy, and an antiPharisaic point in particular. Matthew's introductory sentence, "Let them alone: they are blind guides," is editorial and fits the parable into the dialogue with the disciples. One Syriac MS (Syr sin ) reads: "They are guides of the blind," which would be a polemic against the Pharisees' followers.1 In the parable itself Luke is thinking of two blind men ("both"), one trying to lead the other. Matthew, with the reference to the Pharisees ("they" in 14a), seems to be thinking of one group of blind trying to guide another group of blind, thus adapting the saying to its context. 167. The Explanation of the Parable in Private Mt 15:15-20 Mk 7:17-23 This is the third scene and change of audience in this section of Mark. Jesus is alone with the disciples in the editorial "house." Mark seems to feel 7 1

Cf. Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 95. Cf. Merx, Oie vier kanonischen Evangelien,

276

II, 1, 246.

Β. 1 1 6 7

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

the bluntness of the parable in 15, for he hastens to explain it; there is no break between the parable and the explanation as there is in Mt 15:12-14. This is the fourth and last formal explanation of a parable in the Synoptic tradition. It is the second and last in Mark, and it recalls the first such explanation and its situation which it virtually duplicates (Mk 4:10-20). 1 In both, following a parable spoken in public, there is a shift of scene to private with the disciples. In both, the disciples request an explanation of the parable, and Jesus' reproach for their lack of understanding is in almost the same words in both cases. In both situations an explanation follows, and this second one, like the first, does not do the parable justice. Both explanations are products of later Christian reflection and study. In the conclusion of this so-called address ( 17-23 ) there is the same lack of unity found at the beginning (6-13). There are two separate discourse units: 18-19a and 20-23, each with its own introduction, "And he said." 2 These are either two different explanations, or the second is an expansion on the first. In the first, emphasis falls on the physical; in the second, more on the moral.3 Neither explanation measures up to the radical nature of the parable.4 In between the two explanations there is a note from the editor to the reader, "This he said, making all meats clean" ( 19b ). This comment is probably a later addition; it may have been at first only a marginal note which later found its way into the body of Mark's text.5 In substance, it is a piece of religious reflection. It is not likely, as a matter of fact, that Jesus ever ignored or violated the Mosaic regulations on food.® The catalogue of vices in 21-23 is not only Christian in general but Pauline in particular. Of the thirteen vices listed, ten have a place in Paul's catalogue in Romans 1:28—31.7 The vices named are Gentile rather than Jewish.8 The list might be regarded as a negative counterpart to a table of Christian virtues. Mt 15:15-20 reproduces Mark's explanation of the parable in Mark's order. Matthew's shift of scene to private came earlier (12), and his explanation simply continues the dialogue with the disciples which began there. Matthew makes no mention of Mark's editorial "house." In Matthew the parable (11) is separated from the explanation (15-20) by the non-Markan insert in 12-14. The request of Peter ( 15 ) ignores this insert and the preceding parable (14), and it pertains to the key-parable in 11. Cf. Cf. 3 Cf. 4 Cf. 5 Cf. ° Cf. 7 Cf. 8 Cf. 1 2

Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 88; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 197; et al. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 54; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 137. Loisy, Marc, p. 209f. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 220f. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 299. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 65. I Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, p. 154f.

277

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1168

In verse 15 Matthew dramatizes. He puts the request for explanation on the lips of Peter ( Mark, the disciples ), and he converts Mark's indirect discourse into direct discourse, as he so often does from this point on in his reproductions of Mark. In the explanation itself Matthew makes the same improvements over Mark that he made back in 15:3-9. The discourse in Matthew is briefer, smoother, and continuous. Jesus is introduced as speaker only once, and Matthew omits the editorial comment in Mk 19b — that is, if he read it in his Mark. In the last line (20b) Matthew rounds out the section as a whole by returning to the beginning ( 2 ) , the issue of unwashen hands. It is the same sort of literary device that Matthew used back in 12:45 (11127) when he rounded off the section on the demand for a sign. Mark's explanation is more appropriate to the parable than Matthew's. The sins catalogued in Mark are sins of the whole man (7:15). The sins catalogued in Matthew are not just sins of speech, not just "things which proceed out of the mouth" (15:11). Matthew catalogues seven vices where Mark has thirteen, seven being a favorite number with Matthew and the Jewish rabbis. The sins in Matthew are more Jewish than in Mark, and four of the seven seem to have the background and sequence of four of the ten commandments.9 168. The Journey to the North — One Cure Mt 15:21-28 Mk 7:24-30 This journey to the north is not the natural narrative continuation of what precedes. It is a new, abrupt beginning. Some critics 1 feel that Mark may have had a definite didactic design in reporting this journey at just this point. It is a sort of supplement to the section on unwashen hands, a practical illustration of the freedom from Jewish prejudice declared there. The majority of critics have accepted this journey as historical. It was not necessarily a long journey, for the region of Tyre extended down to the northern borders of Galilee. This journey is variously described as a period of voluntary retirement, a period of enforced inaction, or a period of exile. It has been regarded as a long absence from Galilee (June to January), 2 or as covering the fall and winter before Jesus' death at the Passover season in the spring.3 Since Mark himself gives no reason for this journey, critics have resorted to surmises of great variety. ( 1 ) Older conservative critics 4 regarded it as a • Cf. Bartlet, St. Mark, p. 225; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 142. 1 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 92; A. Drews, Das Markusevangelium als Zeugnis gegen die Geschichtlichkeit Jesu (Jena: Diederichs, 1 9 2 8 ) , p. 212; et al. 2 Cf. Burkitt, Gospel History, p. 93f. * Cf. Schweitzer, Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis, p. 98. 1 Cf. H. H. Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus ( 2 Vols.; New York: Scribner, 1 8 9 2 ) , II, 198; B. Weiss, Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen (Berlin: Verlag von Wilhelm Hertz, 1 8 7 2 ) , p. 256; et al.

278

Β. 1168

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

period of retirement from public work in which Jesus devoted himself to the private instruction of the disciples, preparing them for the critical days ahead. ( 2 ) Others 5 connect this journey with what precedes, the controversy with the Pharisees and scribes. It is a retirement from the growing opposition and hostility of the Jewish authorities. ( 3 ) Others β go still farther back and connect the journey with the Herod-John section in 6:14-29. It is a flight from Herod; in the north Jesus is a political fugitive. ( 4 ) Albert Schweitzer 7 goes still farther back and connects the journey to the north with the mission of the twelve (Mk 6:6b-13). The return of the twelve (Mk 6:30-31), he surmises, was a deep disappointment to Jesus. He had not expected to see them again in this world; he had expected the kingdom to come before they had completed their mission (Mt 10:23). Jesus went north for purely personal reasons. It was a period of reorientation, of adjustment to the unexpected delay of the kingdom. In the north he arrived at the momentous decision to go to Jerusalem and, with his death there, compel the kingdom to come. Other critics,8 however, reject the journey to the north as historical and regard it as pure phantasy. The journey is simply the editorial inference of Mark drawn from the nationality of the woman encountered, "a Syrophoenician" (Mk 7:26). The story of Jesus' encounter with this woman is complete in 25-30 of Mark, and this is probably all that came down to Mark. From the fact that the woman is a native of the region to the north, Mark inferred that Jesus must have visited this region, and as editor he contributed verses 24 and 31.9 The journey to the north, then, is the editorial invention of Mark; 24 and 31 are his framework for the story that came down to him in 25-30. Tyre, Sidon, and Decapolis are instances of geographical proper names which occur often in the latter part of Mark's Galilean story and which always appear at the beginning or at the end of the stories to which they are attached. They never appear in the body of the stories, and they are unorganic to them. In general, they are to be regarded as the editorial contribution of Mark, as his attempt to give unlocalized stories a known scene and setting. Furthermore, Mark knows little of this supposed journey to the north, only its geographical limits and one cure. There is no mention of the disciples, no indication of the time involved, and, above all, no hint as to the reason for it. The words "and Sidon" should probably be deleted from 24. They are not 5 Cf. Α. Müller, Geschichtskerne in den Evangelien nach modernen Forschungen (Glessen: Töpelmann, 1905), p. 106; H. D. A. Major, Incidents in the Life of Jesus in The Mission and Message of Jesus (New York: Dutton, 1938), I, 101; et al. " Cf. Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen, p. 300; Burkitt, Gospel History, p. 93; et al. 7 Cf. Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis, p. 87f; Die Geschichte der LehenJesu-Forschung, pp. 398f, 412. β Cf. Bacon, The Story of Jesus, p. 173; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 300; et al. "Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 19; Lohmeyer, Marcus, p. 145.

279

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f 1 6 8

found in some MSS (D, L, W, it, Syrsin), and Sidon is more naturally mentioned in 31. Jesus is in the editorial "house." He is travelling incognito, as later in 9:30; both notices are dogmatic in nature and purpose. The cure in 25-30 is the only cure at a distance in Mark, but the interest of the narrator seems to center less on the cure and more on the spirited dialogue associated with it in 27-29. The key-utterance of Jesus in 27 is commonly regarded as a parable which may be older and earlier than the story which is built up around it.10 The materials are of homely origin, drawn from a domestic situation: the interior of a humble Galilean home with children eating at the table and dogs waiting at their feet for crumbs.11 The saying is framed in a harsh, almost contemptuous manner. In the rabbinical writings the term dog is used in a tone of insolence, even of insult. It was applied by the rabbis to ignorant and godless persons, and to Gentiles.12 However, the dogs here are a part of the word-picture with no odious comparison. The full force of the parable in Mark is broken by the introduction, "Let the children first be filled." 13 This represents the later Christian conception found in Paul (Rom 1:16) and Acts: first, the Jews; then, the Gentiles.14 It may have been suggested by the woman's reply in 28. Her reply is a clever play on the parable, and in the exchange Jesus seems to come off second-best. Verse 28 is the only instance in Mark of Jesus being addressed as Lord.15 It is a respectful form of address in Greek, and natural on this woman's lips. Mt 15:21-28 reports this story in Mark's order, but there are close textual agreements between Matthew and Mark at only one point in the story, in Jesus' parable and in the woman's reply. Otherwise, Matthew has a very different, perhaps even an independent, version of the story. Matthew does not actually bring Jesus on to Gentile soil or into a Gentile house (Mark); the woman comes out of the borders of Tyre and Sidon. The idea of Jesus travelling incognito does not reappear in Matthew. The scene is not indoors in Matthew, but seems to be in the open street with the woman following and crying after Jesus. Matthew's version of the story is more dramatic; it doubles the amount of dialogue over Mark. The disciples figure in the dialogue in Matthew; they are not even mentioned in Mark's form of the story. Matthew's version is much more Jewish than that of Mark. Matthew uses the Old Testament term for the woman's nationality, "Canaanitish," and she addresses Jesus with a Jewish title, "son of David." Jesus himself is much more Jewish in Matthew: "I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of Cf. Cf. 12 Cf. ,: 'Cf. " Cf. '·' Cf. 10

11

Loisy, Marc, p. 218; Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 258. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 148. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 724f. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 38. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 139. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 269.

280

Β. 1f 169

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

the house of Israel." This utterance has a close parallel only in Mt 10:5-6. It may once have been an independent saying. Both forms in Matthew stand in sharp contrast with the commission as the end of Matthew's Gospel (28:19). The parable in Mt 26 retains its full force: Matthew does not reproduce Mark's attenuation, "Let the children first be filled." In Matthew it is not the woman's cleverness that persuades Jesus (Mark), but her persistence and faith (28). Several critics 16 feel that Matthew is giving the Q version of the story of the cure, not that of Mark. They conclude this because of the striking similarity between this story in Matthew and his Q story of the cure of the centurion's servant (8:5-13 fl53). Both healings are at a distance; Jesus does not come into the presence of the person healed. In both, interest centers on the dialogue rather than on the cure. Both are encounters with Gentiles, and in each there is an impressive comment from Jesus' dramatic counterpart. In both, Jesus praises Gentile faith. The two stories in Matthew end almost verbatim with die same sentence. If Luke found the story of this cure in his Mark, he may have taken an aversion to it because of Jesus' seeming reluctance to help a Gentile, an impression which would not be gratifying to Luke's Gentile-Christian readers. Furthermore, the word "dogs" on Jewish lips had unpleasant associations for Gentiles. The absence of this story and journey from Luke leaves Jesus an uninterrupted period of activity in Galilee. In Luke there are no journeys beyond the northern borders of Galilee such as Mark reports (7:24; 8:27). 169. South Again — Cures — The Deaf-mute Mt 15:29-31 Mk 7:31-37 Verse 31 may belong to the preceding story as its editorial conclusion. The geographical localities named join it to what precedes (24), not to what follows. Nothing in the story of the deaf-mute ( 32-35 ) indicates that Jesus is on Gentile soil. Mark associates the preceding cure with Tyre, for Jesus proceeds still farther north through Sidon. These geographical notices are confusing: the detour north through Sidon is a strange route when the destination is south and east (Decapolis). With the exception of Jericho on the way to Jerusalem, Sidon is the only way-station mentioned in Mark's Gospel. Verses 32-35 are one of the only two cures peculiar to Mark (8:22-26), and it may be that it is a later addition to Mark since it is not reproduced by either Matthew or Luke. It has the typical impersonal beginning of the detached story; an indefinite "they" bring the deaf-mute. This harmonizes with the fact that the cure is not localized in time or place. The author 10

Cf. Bolliger, Markus der Bearbeiter, p. 16f; Schniewind, Matthäus, p. 108; et al.

281

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 1 6 9

dwells with special relish on the technique of the cure. It is sixfold: withdrawal to private, touch, the use of saliva, the glance to heaven, the sigh, and the magical formula Ephphatha. This is another instance of Aramaic expressions in Mark (5:41) in connection with cures. The strangeness of the foreign sounds added solemnity and mystery to the healing technique. Professional pagan healers used similar magical formulas.1 The whole procedure, however, seems slow and laborious, even to require exertion.2 It is less a miracle, more a cure rationalized and explained by healing media known and natural in the ancient world. It is accomplished by human effort rather than by supernatural powers. Along with its companion in Mk 8:22-26 it differs from any cures reported by Matthew and Luke, or elsewhere in Mark. The story of the cure is complete with 35. Verse 36 is the contribution of Mark and a reappearance of his theory of mystery. Such orders could not be carried out in actual practice. Even Mark notes their futility and delights in it as narrator. Verse 37 is not only unorganic to the story of the cure but excludes it. It is a collective reaction to mass healings, some deaf and some dumb, not to an individual cure of a double affliction. This would indicate that Mark at one time had a general notice of many cures at this point, not a single cure (32-35). Verse 37 is also a choral conclusion, a sort of Amen, from the believing group.3 Healings of double afflictions were quite common in the legends of holy men of the ancient world.4 This story of Mark has a rather striking similarity to a tale told by Tacitus.5 Mt 15:29-31. Matthew in his parallel passage approaches the text of Mark only at the beginning (29a) and at the end (31). Matthew has no detour through Sidon (Mark); he located the preceding cure in the general region of Tyre and Sidon. He omits the name Decapolis as he did earlier (Mk 5:20). Matthew's "mountain" is editorial as it was back in 5:1. It is a better place for teaching than for healing. The bringing of the sick would be difficult. Matthew does not reproduce Mark's story of the deaf-mute; it was very probably not in his Mark. If Matthew had found it in his Mark, he probably would have omitted it because of the healing technique, and the human exertion in Mark's story would seem to lower Jesus to the level of the professional pagan healer of the ancient world. Matthew's general notice of many cures (30) accords with Mark's notice in 37, and the Mark known to Matthew must have had some such general notice of which Mk 37 is a relic. Although Matthew does not mention Decapolis, he seems to think of Jesus Cf. Cf. " Cf. 4 Cf. ' Cf. 1

s

Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, p. 48. Goguel, The Life of Jesus, p. 74. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 151; Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, p. 76. Weinreich, Antike Heilungswunder, p. 175ff. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 79.

282

Β.1170-171

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

as on Gentile soil. The people glorify "the God of Israel," the God of another people.® Matthew uses this passage, especially 30-31, as an introduction leading up to the story of the second feeding of the multitudes which follows. Luke has no journey to the north and naturally no return to the south. The story of the deaf-mute was probably not in the Mark known to Luke and, if it were, it would appeal to him as little as it did to Matthew. Luke would probably be even more sensitive to its pagan and professional character than Matthew 170. The Compassion of Jesus Mt 15:32 Mk 8:1-3 With 8:1 Mark makes a new beginning; there is a complete break with what precedes. The vagueness of the opening phrase, "In those days," shows the lack of continuity. There are no concrete notices of time, or place, or circumstance. The multitudes here are new; it is not the "they" of the preceding story. The multitude is simply produced because it is necessary to what follows. The scene is not necessarily set on Gentile soil; writer and reader do this by connecting it involuntarily with the last geographical notice, Decapolis in 31. Mk 8:1-10 was originally a separate unit of tradition apart from its present context. The parallelism between the two feeding stories (Mk 6:32-44 and 8:1-10) manifests itself at the very outset. Both are introduced by notices of Jesus' compassion. In the first story it is aroused by the people's spiritual need; in the second, by their physical need, which is more natural. The "three days" are new in this second story; they are intended to indicate the urgency of the situation and to justify the miracle which follows. One wonders what transpired during the three days, why Jesus' compassion was aroused so late, why he did not send the multitude away or feed them sooner. The "three days" are literary; they do not indicate an actual lapse of time. In the former feeding, the emergency was spontaneous. The situation was brought to Jesus, and the feeding was an improvisation. The second feeding, however, is planned: Jesus is setting the stage for his own miraculous action. Mt 15:32 omits the first half of Mk 8:1 and there is no break with what precedes. The multitude is the same that gathered about Jesus two verses back (30). Matthew condenses Mark's text by almost half. 171. The Feeding of the Four Thousand Mt 15:33-39 Mk 8:4-10 Mark's two feeding stories, the five thousand and the four thousand, are so similar that they can be paralleled line for line, at certain points almost * Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 331; Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 135.

283

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

B. 1fl7l

word for word. There are, however, a number of differences between the two stories. (1) The story of the four thousand is briefer and contains fewer vivid details, but there is a stronger emphasis on the miraculous. ( 2 ) In the story of the five thousand the disciples took the initiative and suggested that something be done; in the story of the four thousand Jesus takes the initiative in the situation. ( 3 ) The principal difference between the two stories is in the numbers, the one element most likely to vary in transmission: supplies on hand, five loaves and two fishes in the first, seven loaves and a few fishes in the second; the number fed, five thousand and four thousand; the basket of fragments left over, twelve and seven. (4) In the first feeding the disciples did not know the supplies on hand until they investigated; in this second feeding they know without having to check. (5) The five thousand were divided into groups; the four thousand are not. (6)Two separate sacramental acts, first the bread and then the fish, only suggested in the story of the five thousand, are clearly defined in the story of the four thousand. (7) Both feedings are followed by a sea trip, but with different destinations. In relation to the story of the five thousand, that of the four thousand is variously described as a companion-piece, a repetition, a duplication, a variant version, or an imitation. Some critics 1 explain this duplication in Mark by his use of two different written sources or strains of tradition. There is twofold evidence for this. (1) The two stories use different Greek words for "bless": in the story of the five thousand, eulogein; in that of the four thousand, eucharistein. (2) The two stories use different words for "basket": in the story of the five thousand, kophinoi; in that of the four thousand, spurides. Some critics 2 allow the two feedings to stand as two separate incidents in the life of Jesus. They feel that Mark has a definite plan in the two feedings and that he is not merely repeating himself: the feeding of the five thousand is on Jewish soil; that of the four thousand is on Gentile soil. Mark certainly regards the two feedings as two different events, for he reports them as such and he refers to both as two different feedings in 8:19— 20. The strangest thing about Mark's two feeding stories is that neither shows any knowledge of the other. The dialogue between Jesus and the disciples which introduces the second feeding is inconceivable if there had been an earlier feeding. The attitude of the disciples, their perplexity and confusion, indicates that the whole situation is new to them. Mark's depiction of the dullness of the disciples is simply incredible if they had witnessed an earlier feeding: they do not even possess the ordinary faculty of human Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 228; Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, III, 29; et al. Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evengelium, p. 218; Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, p. 84; et al. 1

2

284

Β.1172-174

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

memory, for they do not recall the former feeding. This is the strongest evidence against the notion of two feedings, also the strongest evidence for two different versions of a story of one and the same event. Some critics 3 have the story end with 9a or 9, leaving 9b-10 or 10 as an editorial link or as a notice to be joined to what follows. Dalmanutha ( 10 ) is another instance of a geographical proper name attached to a story of which it is not an organic part. As a locality it cannot be identified. Mark may have felt that these geographical proper names lent an air of accuracy to his account. Actually, they introduce confusion rather than provide connection. Mt 15:33-39 reproduces Mark's story of the four thousand with two differences. ( 1 ) Matthew keeps the bread and the fish together as he did in the first feeding, and there is only one sacramental act, not two as in Mark. ( 2 ) For Mark's unknown Dalmanutha, Matthew substitutes Magadan, equally unknown. Matthew's last geographical notice was the sea of Galilee (29), and the praise for the "God of Israel" (31) suggested the eastern shore. However, Matthew's connection of the feeding with the return from the north is due to his revision of Mk 8:1. The parallelism between the two feedings in Matthew, five thousand and four thousand, is even closer than it is in Mark. Luke's Great Omission continues. He does not reproduce Mark's feeding of the four thousand or the notice of Jesus' compassion leading up to it. If he found this second feeding in his Mark, he may have omitted it as a duplication. It is easier to understand Luke's omission than it is to understand its repetition in Matthew and Mark. P72-174

Mtl6:l-4a

Mk 8:11-12

Mk 8:11-12. It would be difficult for a writer to narrate more tersely than Mark does in this little episode; in two verses he depicts an incident, a demand for a sign and Jesus' flat refusal. Mark's brevity contributes to the tension and drama of the situation, but not to the reader's understanding of what is involved, especially in the demand. Mt 16:l-4a. Matthew reported the Q version of this episode back in 12:38-42 ( P 2 5 - 1 2 6 ) , and he added a Q parable in 12:43-45 (p.27). Here Matthew reports the episode a second time, now in Mark's order, in 16:1, 4a ( |fl72, P 7 4 ) with a Q expansion between the demand and the reply in 16:2-θ ( P 7 3 ) . Luke passes over the Markan form of the demand for a sign; it is part of his Great Omission. The split Q form Luke reports later in 11:16 (i[221) 3

Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 51; Klostermann, Marcus, p. 86.

285

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1172-173

and 11:29-32 (fl228). This is the first passage in this long section of Mark omitted by Luke to which Luke has a parallel, from a non-Markan source. 172. The Demand for a Sign Mt 16:1 Mk 8:11 Mt 12:38 fíl25; Lk 11:16 j[221 There is a certain parallelism between the aftermaths to the two feedings in Mark. Each is followed by an encounter with hostile critics and a polemical exchange: the five thousand, by the dispute on unwashen hands; the four thousand, by the demand for a sign. It seems strange that this demand should follow upon the feeding of the four thousand. It might seem that that spectacular miracle would be sign enough. However, the specification, "a sign from heaven," may demand something transcendental, perhaps even an apocalyptic display. Mark's demand for a sign has no setting in time or place, and no natural provocation is given. The situation in 11 could easily be inferred from Jesus' utterance in 12,1 and 11 may be the editorial work of Mark on the basis of 12. The Pharisees are the conventional opponents of Jesus; to them Christian tradition ordinarily ascribed attempts to discredit Jesus or compromise him. As usual, they appear out of nowhere; they are always at Mark's editorial command. Mt 16:1. In his second form of the demand for a sign, Matthew is nearer both of his sources than he was in the first instance (12:38 1jl25). Like both Mark and Q, Matthew now specifies a sign "from heaven" and ascribes the demand to hostile intent, "trying him." Matthew attributes the demand to the Pharisees and Sadducees, a favorite combination in Matthew which never occurs in Mark. The Sadducees, however, belong in Jerusalem, where they appear exclusively in Mark, rather than in Galilee as they do here in Matthew.2 173. The Signs of the Times Mt 16:2-3 Lk 12:54-56 1f258 This Q passage is probably a later insert into Matthew. It is not found in some of the best MSS of Matthew (S, B, Syrsin). It has an altogether different point from what precedes and what follows. It has to do with "the signs of the times," something obvious and evident, not with "a sign from heaven," something as yet nonexistent. "The signs of the times" can have nothing to do with Jesus personally, his credentials, power, or authority.1 The passage is introduced by mere verbal association, the word "sign" — a method of joining materials which appears often in Matthew. Cf. Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 49. Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 203. 'Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 122. 1

2

286

Β. 1174-175

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

In Luke ( 12:54-56 lf258), and apparently in Q, this saying has no connection with the demand for a sign or with Jesus' reply. 174. No Sign - The Sign of Jonah Mt 16:4a Mk 8:12 Mt 12:39 fll26; Lk 11:29 fl228 Mk 8:12 includes a touch of emotional color: Jesus "sighed deeply in his spirit." It suggests exasperation which accords with the bitter tone of the utterance it introduces. This emotional color is probably due to a later retouching of Mark, for it does not reappear in Matthew's parallel. If Mark did not know what provoked the demand for a sign, it is not likely that he knew the emotions that attended Jesus' reply. The first half of Jesus' reply is interrogative, a favorite way of introducing sayings of Jesus in Mark. The reply proper in 12b does not conform entirely to the demand in 11. The reply is sweeping; it strikes the contemporary generation en masse, not just the Pharisees.1 Mark heaps no epithets on "this generation" as does Q, "evil and adulterous." Jesus' reply in Mark is completely negative, "no sign"; it amounts almost to a curse.2 It probably is more authentic than the compromised form in Matthew and Luke (and Q), "no sign. . . but the sign of Jonah." Some critics 3 feel that Mark's form must be an authentic word of Jesus, for there is no appeal to Jesus' cures or wonder-works, such as is made in other passages of the Synoptic tradition (Mt 11:5; 11:20-24) and as was made by the early Christians generally. The saying could hardly be a later Christian invention because of its utterly negative character. Some critics4 regard Mk 8:10-12 as an insert interrupting the sea trip, and they would join verse 13 directly to verse 9. Mt 16:4a ignores Mk 8:12 except for order, and it simply repeats the beginning of the Q form of the reply from 12:39 ( j{126). This is not the only instance in which Matthew uses the Q form of a word of Jesus twice and ignores the Markan form entirely 175. The Leaven of the Pharisees Mt 16:4b-12 Mk 8:13-21 Lk 12:1 ^243 Verse 13 of Mark repeats verse 10, and thus two crossings of the sea are separated by only two verses. If, as noted, 13 joined on to 9, the connection would be good. Verse 14b is very probably a later addition,1 for it does not reappear in Matthew. It leaves the impression that the discussion which follows takes place in the boat during the crossing. Verse 14b might Cf. Cf. 8 Cf. 4 Cf. 1 Cf. 1 2

Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 995. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 156. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. lSlf; Goguel, The Life of Jesus, p. 219. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 60f; Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 76f. Hauck, Markus, p. 99.

287

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. |175

be the beginning of a new feeding miracle, for it states the supplies on hand as was done in the two feeding stories.2 Verse 15 is a later insert and unorganic to the passage.3 It breaks the natural connection between 14 and 16, and it distorts the point to the discussion which follows. It is an erratic discourse unit, originally single and separate, as Luke's parallel in 12:1 proves. Mark's figure of the leaven is double as though there are two different leavens, one of the Pharisees and another of Herod, which have something in common. About the only thing a Jewish religious sect (the Pharisees) and a political official (Herod) could have in common would be opposition to Jesus or, later, to his disciples. The actual meaning of Mark's figure of the leaven is obscure, as unclear to the modern reader as it was to the disciples and to the Gospel writer. Mark leaves it in its obscurity with no attempt at an explanation either by Jesus or by himself. Verse 16 does not make sense following 15, but it does make sense if it is joined to 14a with 14b-15 an insert. The remainder of the passage ( 17-21 ) is discourse rather than dialogue. All the utterances ascribed to Jesus have question form with only two one-word responses from the disciples. Verses 17-18 repeat the thought, even the language, of Mk 4:12 with an important difference. In 4:12 the Jewish people are dull and deaf and blind; in 8:17-18 it is the disciples. Thus the same dogmatic theory appears here that appeared there, and it must be the work of the same mind and hand. Mark continues to develop the caricature of the disciples which runs through the central section of his Gospel. Verses 19 and 20 refer to the two feedings as separate and independent events. The Greek words used for "basket" in 19 and 20 are different as they were in the two stories themselves which thus retain their individualities even in these allusions. Neither feeding story referred to the other, but here the compiler-editor refers to both. Verses 19 and 20 can have been written only after both feeding stories were an established part of a larger narrative whole nearing completion. Such references belong to the final stage in the composition of the Gospel of Mark.4 The whole of this passage ( 13-21 ) is the work of a commentator, not of a narrator. Mt 16:4b-12 reproduces Mark's parallel in Mark's order with some variations. Matthew does not mention the boat, but he does seem to have a crossing in mind. The discussion in Matthew seems to take place after the landing, not during the crossing as in Mark. Matthew's figure of the leaven is just as out of place as that of Mark, and verse 7 should join on to verse 5. In Matthew there are not two different kinds of leaven, as in Mark, but the single leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, two Jewish sects - Cf. Klostermann, Markus, p. 61. 3 Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 61; Dehn, Le Fils de Dieu, p. 149. J Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 144; Bousset, Kyrios Christos ( 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 67; et al.

288

Β. 1176

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

which did have some things in common. The Pharisees and Sadducees here may be only an echo of the same combination five verses back (16:1). Matthew goes beyond Mark and removes the mystery of the leaven: it is the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (12). The speech material in Mt 8-11 loses the dialogue form that it has in Mark and becomes uninterrupted discourse on the lips of Jesus. It is made up entirely of rhetorical questions with no responses from the disciples. Matthew features the disciples' lack of faith, not their dullness (Mark). Matthew does this by omitting almost half of Mk 17-18 and by noting the disciples' comprehension at the end (12). Luke does not reproduce Mk 8:13-21. The dogma of the dullness of the disciples, uncongenial to Luke, and the reference to the feeding of the four thousand would cause him to omit it — if he found this passage in his Mark. The figure of the leaven Luke has from a non-Markan source (12:1 |[243), in a different form and with a different meaning. This is the third and last sentence in Luke's Gospel paralleling anything in the Great Omission: Mk 6 : 4 5 - 8 : 2 6 . 176. The Blind Man of Bethsaida Mk 8:22-26 In Mark's travel scheme Jesus now reaches Bethsaida, the destination announced back in 6:45. Verse 22a is the editorial work of Mark: "And they come to Bethsaida." 1 It is ill-suited to the story of the blind man which it introduces. Bethsaida was a large and prosperous city,2 but this cure of the blind man is located in a village (23). This is a striking example of the external and unorganic nature of many of Mark's geographical proper names in relation to the traditions with which they are associated. The story of the blind man is really timeless and placeless except for the village background, and it has the impersonal beginning typical of such stories: "And they bring to him a blind man." Verse 26 is Mark's stereotyped editorial conclusion carrying his dogma of mystery. This story has striking similarities with that of the deaf-mute (7:32-35 |fl69), also peculiar to Mark. ( 1 ) Both stories have an impersonal beginning: "And they bring unto him." ( 2 ) Neither story ascribes the affliction to a demon, and faith plays no part in either cure. ( 3 ) In both, interest centers on the technique of the cure which is virtually the same in each case, the use of medicaments. ( 4 ) Neither cure is presented as a miracle but as the work of a professional human healer. The two stories are really companions or duplicates. They differ chiefly in the affliction cured. No emotional effect (Mk 7:34) is noted in this second cure, and there is no 1 2

Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 206. Cf. Josephus Antiquities xviii. 2, 1.

289

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 1 7 7 - 3 1 6

charm-word. The new feature in this cure, also unique in the Synoptic tradition, is that it goes through two stages, first a partial (24) and then a full restoration (25) of vision. It is not clear whether the narrator is thinking of the cure as gradually effected or as so difficult as to require two supreme exertions. These two stories, so alike in themselves and yet so different from the Synoptic healing tradition generally, have very close parallels in the profane literature of the period. Tacitus 3 tells how the Emperor Vespasian cured a blind man in Alexandria by the use of saliva. There is also a similar story of the cure of a blind man by Apollonius of Tyana.4 These profane parallels feature the technique of the cure as Mark does in both instances. These two stories do not reappear in either Matthew or Luke. If Matthew and Luke read them in their Mark (which is doubtful), these two cures would not be congenial to them as writers, nor gratifying to their readers. Each of the two cures requires a supreme exertion of human effort; there is no display of divine power in word or touch, such as flashes forth in most of the Synoptic wonder-works and cures. One wonders how these two unedifying stories ever found their way into Mark. Both belong to the later apocryphal stage of tradition. Some critics 5 feel that Matthew has not ignored Mark's blind man of Bethsaida entirely, and that the two blind men cured back in 9:27-31 ( j[64 ), or the two cured later in 20:29-34 (|J316), may compensate for this omission. The story of the blind man of Bethsaida concludes the long section of Mark ( 6 : 4 5 - 8 : 2 6 ) omitted by Luke. However, the absence of this Markan story from Luke may not be due to omission at all, for it was probably not in the Mark known to Luke. The long section of Mark omitted by Luke may have ended with 8:22a: "And they come unto Bethsaida," the destination announced at the beginning of the section (6:45). P77-316

Mt 16:13 - 20:34

Mk 8 : 2 7 - 1 0 : 5 2

Lk9:18-18:43

Mk 8 : 2 7 - 1 0 : 5 2 is a new special section of Mark's Gospel.1 Like the preceding section ( 6 : 1 4 - 8 : 2 6 ) , it begins with public opinions and rumors about Jesus. In this new section there is a marked change in the nature and tone of the materials. There is little now about the demons, heretofore in the foreground of Mark's story. The messianic theme is continued, but now this conviction is carried by the disciples, not by the demons. In this section teaching is in the foreground; wonder-works are incidental. It is a didactic section with narrative receding in favor of words and sayings of Jesus. Cf. Cf. ° Cf. 1 Cf. 3 4

Histories iv. 82. Philostratus Life ìli. xxxix. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, 409f; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 202. Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 72ff; Marci, p. 62ff; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 160ÉF; et al.

290

Β. 1177

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

There is here, too, less of public message, less of the multitudes. Jesus devotes himself primarily to the private instruction of the disciples. The dominant interest is catechetical with Jesus and the disciples in a sort of secluded seminar.2 There is a decided change in the nature of Jesus' teaching: his own person, not the kingdom, is in the foreground. Most of the sayings involve the disciple's relation to his Master: belief, obedience, loyalty, self-denial, even martyrdom. This section contains an abundance of words and ideas which belong to the technical terminology and esoteric faith of the early church. 3 It is the most deeply christianized section of Mark's Gospel. It is dominated by the idea of Jesus' destiny, his providential death. Heretofore there has been only one veiled hint of tragedy in Mark (2:20). The three prophecies of death set the theme in solemn tone: 8:27 -10:52 is the prelude to the death drama in chapters 14-15, not an introduction to what follows immediately in chapters 11-13. Mt 16:13-20:34. Matthew's parallel section has the same general character as this new section of Mark, owing to Matthew's faithful reproduction of the Markan materials which make it up. Catechetical interest is still stronger in Matthew than in Mark, owing to his non-Markan supplement (Mt 18:10-35) to Mark's Galilean story. Lk 9:18-50 and 18:15-43. Luke's parallels to this new section of Mark are briefer because of Luke's omissions of Markan materials associated with it. The dramatic force and unity of this new section of Mark is destroyed in Luke by his Great Non-Markan Section (9:51-18:14) which splits his parallels to Mark into two widely separated parts: 9:18-50 and 18:15-43. 177. Simon's Confession at Caesarea Philippi Mt 16:13-20 Mk 8:27-30 Lk 9:18-21 Simon's confession stands at the middle point in Mark's Gospel. It is variously referred to as the pivot on which his story turns, as its center of gravity, or as the keystone in his Gospel arch. Simon's confession, however, is not a climax in any historical sense.1 It is not the result of events or action that have immediately, or even remotely, preceded. Neither is it a psychological climax, for Mark has not noted any change of attitude on Jesus' part or any new developments in the convictions of the disciples. The reader of Mark is accustomed to episodic narration, but, when he comes to Simon's confession, he is confronted with the ultimate in abruptness. No single story of Mark stands so utterly isolated and apart. It has ' Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 161. 3 Cf. Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 72. 1 Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 227; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 375; et al.

291

JESUS A N D THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1177

neither near nor remote antecedents. It transcends its immediate surroundings; it is, in reality, in conflict with them. The questions put on Jesus' lips are unlike anything from him in what precedes or in what follows. They provoke a train of thought which elsewhere he avoids or suppresses. The confession of Simon is like a flash of lightning out of a clear sky. It stands in sharp contrast with the deep dullness which has engulfed the disciples since 4:10 and which sweeps over Simon again only three verses later (8:32). Mk 8:27-30 is a climax only in a dogmatic sense. Mark here reaches the second phase in his development of the dogma: Jesus is the Messiah, announced in the first line of his Gospel. In the first phase, only the demons recognized Jesus as the Messiah. Now this knowledge dawns on the disciples, and the remainder of Mark's story presupposes this conviction on their part. The drama is now ready to move toward its culmination, an avowal from Jesus himself (Mk 14:62). Mark's account of the confession of Simon is not essentially different from his stories of the confessions of the demons.2 Both are developed by dialogue with one necessary difference. The dialogues with the demons are on a supernatural plane; Simon's confession is on a natural plane as part of a dialogue with the disciples. In both types of dialogue, with the demons or with the disciples, the issue is the same: Jesus' messiahship. There is the same positiveness on the part of both demons and disciples. In both there is the same non-committal attitude on the part of Jesus. This dialogue with the disciples ends in the same way as those with the demons, with an order for silence which endows the exchange with mystery. The order for silence in Mk 8:30 is no more real or historical than the earlier orders to the demons. This order in 30 is only loosely attached to the dialogue in 27-29. If it were organic to the dialogue, it would be in direct discourse and a part of the dialogue itself. Some critics 3 feel that Mark's dogmatic theory in 30 has suppressed or severed the original ending of the dialogue. Mk 8:27-30 is a piece of dramatic writing. It is developed by dialogue, the chief vehicle of drama. The dialogue has question-and-answer form carefully calculated to make the desired point by means of contrast. The first question has an air of artificiality. There is no good reason why the disciples should be better informed on public opinion than Jesus himself. The first question is just a foil designed to lead up to the second question. The reply to the first question is a repetition of Mk 6:15. The reply to the second provides an emphatic contrast between public opinion and the conviction of the disciples. The absence of any real reaction of Jesus to Simon's confession is pure dramatics; it preserves the suspense. The great majority of critics have accepted Mk 8:27-30 as historical. 2

Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 118. Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 116; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 277; et al. 3

292

Β. Ρ 7 7

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

However, the passage reads more like creative writing than transmitted tradition. Its form is that of dialogue rather than story. Such dialogue was not adapted to preservation in Christian memory or to transmission by word of mouth. It probably never existed in oral form. The whole scene is so dogmatic in interest, so dramatic in design, that one may well be skeptical of it as an actual incident in the life of Jesus. Mk 8:27-30 is primarily dramatized dogma. It does not record the convictions of the individual actors at the moment depicted; it registers in dialogue the resurrection faith of the later Christian community. The location at Caesarea Philippi does not lend any historical quality to the scene depicted.4 Mark's fantastic dialogues with the demons were set in known localities, in the synagogue in Capernaum and in Decapolis. Legend, by its very nature, seeks points of contact with known geography, for such lends an air of actuality. The ingenuity that invented the dialogue, questions carefully calculated to provoke the correct dogmatic answers, would have no difficulty in finding for it a setting in a known locality. Bultmann calls Mk 8:27-30 eine Glaubenslegende.5 Lk 9:18-21. Luke now rejoins Mark after his Great Omission (Mk 6 : 4 5 - 8 : 2 6 ) with the result that Simon's confession follows at once upon the feeding of the five thousand (Lk 9:12-17), but Luke makes no attempt to join the two incidents otherwise. For the fourth time 6 Luke introduces a notice about Jesus praying where Matthew and Mark have none. This notice is not found in two important MSS of Luke (D and Syrsin). It may be borrowed from Mk 6:46 toward the very beginning of the long section of Mark just omitted. Luke has no geographical localization for Simon's confession: Caesarea Philippi in Matthew and Mark is not organic to the account which, in Luke, is just as complete without it. This is the second excursion to the north (Matthew and Mark) which disappears from Luke. Owing to his Great Omission, Luke's two recordings of public opinion come close together: 9:7-8, 18-19. This second notice repeats the first almost verbatim. Luke's form of Simon's confession is less dramatic and more Hebraic, "The Christ of God." At the end Luke leaves the same uncertainty that Mark does relative to Jesus' attitude and reaction, neither affirmation nor denial. Mt 16:13-20, after the omission of the preceding cure in Mark, reproduces Simon's confession from Mark; but Matthew makes an important addition in 17-19 which alters the nature of the episode entirely. In Mark and Luke there is no actual reaction of Jesus to Simon's confession: he neither accepts nor rejects the messianic title and role. In Matthew, however, For the contrary view, see Hauck, Markus, p. 102. Cf. Geschichte (1931), p. 276. 0 See Lk 3:21; 5:16; 6:12. 4

5

293

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 1 7 7

all uncertainty vanishes, and in 17-19 Jesus gives his unqualified approval to Simon's confession. He even extols Simon's confession as a disclosure from heaven. Matthew's confession scene is not the climax of the Galilean story in the same sense that it is in Mark. This is not the first messianic confession from the disciples in Matthew; that came from all the disciples after the walking on the water (14:33). However, there is still a climactic effect at this point in Matthew: Jesus, now for the first time, confirms that confession. Verses 17-19 amount to a counter-confession. Matthew's new addition with its exalted language and style has altered the dialogue that leads up to it. Matthew uses the formal term Son of Man in Jesus' first question; it anticipates the reply; in fact, it provokes it. Matthew uses the full name Simon Peter which occurs only once elsewhere in the Synoptic tradition (Lk 5:8). The confession itself has its fullest and most ornate form in Matthew: "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God." There is an obvious reason for this: in Matthew Simon is not speaking for himself or for the disciples; he is the spokesman for heaven. Mt 16:17-19 possesses undisputed religious and liturgical beauty, but it is to be rejected as an authentic utterance of Jesus. From the literary point of view alone, 17-19 is an insert. Verse 20 joins naturally on to 16 and ignores the new matter in 17-19. 7 From the standpoint of content, 17-19 is of later Christian origin. The solemn liturgical language is that of the early church, very probably that of Jewish-Christian circles within Palestine.8 The passage is an officious pronouncement from an organized religious body, expressing a community of conviction; it is not the spontaneous utterance of an individual like Jesus. It is a full and formal expression of later ecclesiastical theory, especially in its Catholic form. It contains the cardinal doctrines of the Catholic Church: Jesus, during his lifetime, formally and personally, founded the church; at its head he set the Apostle Peter and prescribed his infallible authority. These three verses alone are sufficient to explain why Matthew has always been the favorite Gospel of the Catholic Church. The word "church" occurs, within the Synoptic tradition, only in the Gospel of Matthew, and there only twice — both times on the lips of Jesus. This is a Christian anachronism which carries a later Christian term and idea back into the life and mind of Jesus. The idea of the church does not fit into the religious perspective of Jesus, and it is contradicted by Jesus' purely Jewish and religious outlook. Jesus did not look forward to an organized following, an institution, to succeed him, but to the advent of a new supernatural order, the kingdom of God. Mt 16:17-19 is one of the very latest passages to find its way into the Synoptic tradition. It reflects a stage in the development of ecclesiastical Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 13. "Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 277.

7

294

Β.1177

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

thought which belongs to the second century.9 Jesus himself could not have used such terms or have entertained such ideas, and they could have meant nothing to his disciples during his lifetime. In its solemnity 17-19 has the tone and quality of a farewell charge, and it would be more natural at the end of Matthew's Gospel as a mandate to Simon from the Risen Jesus. 10 In this famous passage the heavenly Christ is speaking, not the historical Jesus. 11 For more than a century the majority of critics have accepted Jesus' messianic consciousness as historical. They have felt that this deep personal conviction was the dominant factor in Jesus' mind and ministry. It was this conviction that brought him out of private life into public, from which point on he lived and worked and died as the Messiah.12 Within the present century several critics 13 denied it altogether. They feel that the messianic conviction came into existence only after Jesus' death; it was an early Christian conviction, the result or product of the resurrection faith. They deny the existence of this conviction during Jesus' lifetime, either in his own mind or in that of the disciples. According to this view, all messianic scenes and incidents in the Synoptic public story are unhistorical and represent projections backward of the later Christian faith. This view has a solid twofold basis in the New Testament tradition. ( 1 ) The great body of the Synoptic materials are unmessianic in nature. Passages assuming a messianic conviction on the part of the disciples are few, and those ascribing it to Jesus are extremely rare. In the Synoptic Gospels generally Jesus speaks and acts as a Jewish rabbi, apocalyptic preacher and healer, not as the Messiah. ( 2 ) In the Christian sermons recorded in the Book of Acts, especially in chapters 2 and 10, Jesus is spoken of as a man who during his lifetime taught and healed, who went about doing good, but who became the Messiah after his death by the miracle of the resurrection. In the Book of Acts the messianic faith is that of the apostles and the early Christians, not that of Jesus and his disciples during his lifetime. To all this, a simple and sober historical consideration might be added: it seems inconceivable that a man of sane mind and sound heart, such as Jesus certainly was, could ever have regarded himself as the Messiah. Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 258. Cf. Rohrbach, Die Berichte über die Auferstehung Jesu Christi, p. 55. 11 Cf. Weine], Biblische Theologie des NT, p. 201; Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 138f; et al. Cf. W. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der tnessianischen Hoffnungen seiner Zeit (Strassburg: Heitz, 1888), p. 19lf; Schweitzer, Das Messianitätsund Leidensgeheimnis Jesu, p. 76f; et al. 13 Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 213ff; Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 147; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 157; et al. 0

10

295

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1[178

178. The First Prophecy of the Passion Mt 1 6 : 2 1 Mk 8 : 3 1 Lk 9 : 2 2 Mark introduced this new section (8:27-10:52) with Simon's confession of Jesus' messiahship. It is, however, really 8:31 that sets the theme for this section: the Son of man who is destined to die. This theme is carried by three formal prophecies of death which occur at exactly the same point in three successive chapters (8:31; 9:31; 10:32-33), and it reaches its climax in 10:45 where the Son of man will give his life as a ransom for many. Nowhere in the Gospel of Mark are dogma and drama to be found in purer, more unveiled form than in the three prophecies of death which give the sombre note to the entire section. Both the Son of man and his providential death belong to the realm of dogma, not to that of history.1 These three prophecies do not emerge naturally from the narrative or from the reported events with which they are associated. They represent religious theory superimposed upon the narrative and the reported events. No one of the three has any organic connection with its immediate context. Any one, or all three, can be lifted without disturbing the flow of Mark's narrative.2 Not one of the three depicts a concrete scene, although Mark seeks to endow them with some life and color by contributing editorial introductions and conclusions. Each is a broad generalization on the known outcome of the story. They do not belong to history but to the redaction of history.3 The three prophecies of death are wholly subjective in nature and origin. They belong to the realm of Christian theory. In general, they interpret Jesus' death as providential. In particular, they are a part of Mark's literary plan and dramatic design. They are not vague premonitions of disaster such as might assail even an ordinary individual in a critical situation. They are detailed predictions, enumerating concrete circumstances. This fact shows conclusively that they were conceived and composed after the event, with items borrowed from the death drama itself.4 They are vaticinio, post eventum or vaticinio· ex eventu. Mark did not find these three prophecies in the tradition of the words of Jesus that came down to him.5 Not one of the three has the form or nature of a spontaneous oral utterance. They are careful formulations — reflective, cold, and detached. No normal human and historical figure could announce his own death in any such impersonal and academic fashion.® They contain nothing of the imaginative and emotional elements which 1

Cf. Schweitzer, Die Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, p. 432ff. Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 226; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 218, et al. Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 243. * Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 88. s Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 92. • Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 33. 2 3

296

Β. 1178

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

the actual prospect of death would naturally evoke. These three prophecies never existed as words of Jesus in oral form. They belong to the written stage of tradition; they are literary creations. As Bruno Bauer wrote: "They were written for a book." 7 Only the substance of these prophecies came down to Mark, only their general gist and line of reasoning. Each expresses the same proposition of the early Christian faith relative to Jesus' death.8 They register Christian belief and are essentially confessional in nature.9 Their conception of Jesus' death was a vital element in the early Christian message, and their gist was formulated in early Christian preaching.10 In all three Mark is preaching the Christian gospel of the cross.11 There is only one element in these three prophecies that does not conform to the general Christian conception of Jesus' death. Elsewhere in the New Testament, Jesus died "according to the Scriptures." These three prophecies of death are apologetica! in nature and purpose. In relation to the messianic idea, they proclaim that Jesus was the Messiah in spite of his suffering and death. These forecasts assure Mark's readers that Jesus' death was not a freak of fortune or the result of a curious combination of circumstances; it was part of the divine plan. Jesus was consciously aware of this divine plan; he foresaw everything, foretold it, and cooperated with it. From the literary point of view, these three prophecies belong in the category of dramatic writing and composition. Like all drama, they interpret events in the light of their known outcome, and they read the end back into the beginning. As J. Weiss wrote: the Gospel of Mark is "the passion story extended backwards." 12 The three prophecies introduce a deeper design, a higher plan, into the events of history. Catastrophe and defeat are transformed into triumph and victory. The three prophecies are a dramatic device. They are monologues detached from the action of the story, asides for the benefit of the reader. They have no bearing on the behavior or attitudes of the actors in the story, for they are surprised and shocked when the catastrophe does strike. These three prophecies prepare the readers, not Jesus or the disciples, for what is to come. From them the reader learns what the actors in the story learn only in the course of subsequent events. They are placed periodically, at carefully measured intervals, for dramatic effect; the same thing is intoned solemnly three different times.13 All three of these forecasts exhibit the same basic structure and Brano Bauer, Kritik, III, 33. Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 218. 8 Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 218. 10 Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 164; Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 60f; et al. 11 Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 70. 12 Schriften, I, 43. 13 Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 218. 7

8

297

JESUS AND T H E FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B.fl78

pattern; they differ only in detail. Yet they are independent of each other; neither refers to the others. It is the reader who relates them as he comes to them and gathers their mounting tone and increasing volume. This first prophecy of Mark is a strange sequel to Simon's confession.14 That confession was intimate and personal, "Thou art the Christ," but in this first prophecy the term Son of man is used in a cold, impersonal sense by Jesus himself. For the early Christians, the terms Messiah and Son of man were interchangeable when applied to Jesus. This first prophecy, then, amounts to a momentous modification of Simon's confession. It has the force of a strong adversative: Jesus is the Messiah, but he must die. Mark's use of the word "began" might suggest that he is initiating a new phase or departure in Jesus' teaching. However, there is nothing genetic about Mark's treatment of the death-theme. He introduces it here abruptly without having depicted its emergence in the pattern of events or the dawn and development of this conviction in the mind of Jesus. He uses the word "began" to introduce the third and last prohecy, and it must be simply the Semitic usage as an auxiliary.15 This first prophecy is the only one of the three in Mark in indirect discourse. It also features the word "must" and the idea of necessity as the last two do not. It is a divine necessity, not the pressure of historical events. It lifts Jesus' destiny above and beyond the reach of human and historical factors and makes it a part of a providential purpose and plan. Mark's phrase, "after three days," is strange, for it does not conform to his own Easter story according to which the tomb is discovered empty on the third day. The phrase, "after three days," may have been an idiom in popular speech, not meant numerically, but indicating a short interval of time. Lk 9:22. In Luke there is no editorial break between this first prophecy and Simon's confession. Luke joins the two so closely that the forecast appears almost as Jesus' response to Simon. The connection is all the closer because Luke converts Mark's indirect discourse into direct discourse as though the preceding dialogue were still in progress. Luke corrects Mark's "after three days" to "the third day" in conformity with the Easter tradition. Mt 16:21. Matthew's break with the preceding scene is sharply defined. In fact, Matthew is introducing a new major phase of Jesus' teaching. In 16:21 there is a formal repetition of the beginning of 4:17: "From that time began Jesus." In 4:17 Jesus' public message is introduced; in 16:21 his special private message to the disciples. Matthew is keenly aware of the different nature and tone of Jesus' teaching from this point on. Matthew retains the indirect discourse of Mark, but he does not use the term Son of man, perhaps for the reason that he used it in the preceding " Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 90. 15 Cf. Klostennann, Markus, p. 91.

298

Β. 1179

THE

PUBLIC

TRADITION

dialogue. In Matthew all indirection and circumlocution are gone; Matthew uses the personal pronoun: "He (Jesus) must go unto Jerusalem." Matthew names the scene of Jesus' death in this very first prophecy; in Mark the reader learns this only in connection with the third prophecy. Matthew agrees with Luke in correcting Mark's "after three days" to "the third day." Matthew is consistent on this point in all three of these prophecies, but twice in his Gospel he speaks of the resurrection "after three days" (12:40; 27:63). 179. Peter's Rebuke and Rebuff Mt 16:22-23 Mk 8:32-33 Verse 32a, "And he spake the saying openly," could well be joined to 31 as its conclusion. As a statement it is unclear, and this may explain Matthew's omission. "Openly" can hardly mean publicly, for the multitudes are not called in until two verses later (34). One cannot read this little episode of Mark without being reminded of the Q temptation story of Matthew and Luke. Some critics 1 feel that it is Mark's historical parallel to the highly imaginative third temptation of Matthew (4:8-10) and the second of Luke (4:5-8). In Q this temptation followed on the baptism vision but in Mark on Simon's confession.2 The opposition between "the things of God" and "the things of men" is found in the rabbinical writings.3 Jesus' word in 33b has been spoken of as the purest piece of Paulinism in Mark's Gospel.4 The Greek term to mind (phronein) appears frequently in Paul's letters,5 but only at this one point in Matthew and Mark in the Synoptic tradition. The majority of critics feel that this little episode must be historical and that Mark here is doing some realistic reporting. This little scene puts the famous apostle in such an unfavorable and uncomplimentary light that it could hardly be an invention. It would invite suppression (Luke) rather than fabrication. Like the story of Simon's denial, this little fragment testifies to the basic honesty of Christian tradition. The picture of Simon here (32-33) stands in sharp contrast with that in 29. There Simon was the one who understood Jesus best and made the great confession; here he is not only without understanding but makes a diabolical protest. There is also a sharp contrast in the picture of Jesus himself. In 27-29 his interest centered on the opinions of others about himself; here he is wholly indifferent to everything human and minds only "the things of God." 1 Cf. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, p. 361; H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, 149; et al. 2 Cf. Weyhausen, Einleitung, p. 65f. 3 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 748. * Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 114; Hauck, Markus, p. 103; et al. 0 Cf. I Cor 2 : 1 1 ; Phil 2 : 5 ; 3 : 1 9 ; 4 : 2 ; Col 3:2.

299

I,

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1180-182

Some critics 6 feel that Jesus' word in 33 should be joined to 27-29 with 30-32 an insert: 27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am? 28 And they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but others, One of the prophets. 29 And he asked them, But who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. . . . 33 But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. The dialogue in 27-29 was incomplete, for it gave no actual response of Jesus to Simon's confession. Verse 33 could form a natural and logical conclusion to the dialogue in 27-29 between the same two characters. Verses 32-33, as they now stand, contain a dramatic scene which does not grow naturally out of the theological proposition in 31. The matter in 30-32 which cuts off 33 from 27-29 is of later Christian origin. If 33 is joined to 27-29 as Jesus' response to Simon's confession, it amounts to Jesus' utter rejection of the messianic title. However, this would accord better with the unmessianic nature of the great mass of the Synoptic materials and with general historical probability. Mt 16:22-23 enhances Mark's parallel. Matthew dramatizes by expanding the dialogue with the rebuke from Simon in direct discourse. Jesus' reprimand is fuller and sharper in Matthew than in Mark: Simon is a stumbling-block in Jesus' path. The contrast between this scene and the confession scene is even stronger in Matthew than in Mark. In his confession of Jesus' messiahship, Simon was greeted as the spokesman of heaven; now he is the spokesman of Satan. Luke omits this little episode, perhaps out of pietas toward the apostles generally and toward Simon in particular. Luke systematically passes over materials which might compromise apostolic prestige.7 This realistic fragment in Mark would not appeal to the man who wrote the Book of Acts which features the Apostle Peter as one of the great heroes of the early church.8 P80-182

Mt 16:24-28

Mk 8 : 3 4 - 9 : 1

Lk 9:23-27

Mk 8 : 3 4 - 9 : 1 . This is the second little series of shorter sayings of Jesus in Mark (4:21-25), a total of five units of discourse. Originally, they were single and separate, and have been brought together by Mark or his source. Among themselves they have no proper unity. Their general theme is devoCf. Wendling, Or-Marcus, p. 49f; J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 438f; et al. ' Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 269. 8 Cf. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 31. 6

300

Β. 1180

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

tíon and discipleship which require sacrifice and suffering, even martyrdom. They seem to appear at this point in Mark by association of ideas: the tragic destiny that awaits the Master also awaits his disciples. Thus, it is a catechetical series. Three of the five sayings have a strong Christian cast and color. They read like watchwords in a period of persecution, and they are inspired by the Christian motivation for sacrifice and suffering, "for my sake and the gospel's." Except for Luke's omission of Mk 37, Matthew and Luke reproduce the entire series in Mark's order and sequence. Three of the five sayings have a parallel in Q. Matthew reported his Q forms earlier in his address to the twelve; Luke's Q forms come later, in his Great Non-Markan Section (9:51-18:14). 180. The Passion Path of the Disciples Mt 16:24-26 Mk 8:34r-37 Lk 9:23-25

Mt 10:38-39 ][78 Lk 14:27 11275; 17:33 j[300 In 34 Mark makes a complete break with what precedes by expanding the audience. The multitudes are not appropriate here, for the sayings themselves assume an intimate and devoted audience of disciples. Perhaps Mark is thinking of no actual audience of Jesus but of the Christian public of his own later day, the readers of his Gospel. The first two sayings reported together in Mark were also reported together (the Q form) in Mt 10:38-39 (ÎÏ78), but Luke's Q forms are widely separated in 14:27 (tf275) and 17:33 (POO).1 The metaphor of the cross in the first saying is Roman and Christian, but it was not unknown to the Jews of Palestine.2 A more natural Jewish figure would be "yoke." 3 The Q form of this saying (Mt 10:38; Lk 14:27) about bearing one's cross is negative and does not include the idea of self-denial (Mark). In 8:31 the specter of death rose before the reader; now in 8:34 the shadow of the cross casts itself forward in the story. Mark's paradox in 35 has a Christian motivation, "for my sake and the gospel's." Mark is fond of such double phrases. He uses the term gospel in the same absolute sense that he did in the first line of his Gospel; it is one of his editorial peculiarities. In the phrase "for my sake" the person of Christ is the center of loyalty and devotion. In the rabbinical writings there are similar phrases, but they are broader and less sectarian in their religious orientation: "for heaven's sake," "for God's sake." 4 The third saying (36-37) stands apart from the first two. It has no Christian cast or color; there is no reference to the person of Christ. It is For fuller notes on these sayings, see these passages of Matthew and Luke. Cf. Josephus Antiquities xvii. 10, 10. 3 Cf. Torrey, The Four Gospels, p. 293. 4 Cf. Moore, Judaism, II, 101. 1

2

301

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 1 8 1

not necessarily religious in nature but could be an expression of practical worldly wisdom. It may have been originally a profane saying.5 It could be a comment on or a paraphrase of the preceding paradox.® Verses 36 and 37 could be separate sayings; at least, 36 is complete in itself without 37.7 Mt 16:24-26. In Matthew there is no break with what precedes and no change of audience; these words are for the disciples. Matthew reported the Q form of the first two sayings together ( 10:38-39 j[78) as he does here from Mark. In the second saying Matthew (Luke also) has the single phrase "for my sake." Mark's "and the gospel's" may not have been in the Mark known to Matthew (and Luke). It probably comes from the final redactor of Mark's Gospel. Lk 9:23-25. Luke's audience is very vague: Jesus is speaking to "all," perhaps to Christians everywhere. The meaning of the first saying in Luke ( 23 ) is completely changed by the word "daily." The metaphor of the cross is spiritualized. It is no longer a symbol for martyrdom but for the burdens of life. This new spiritual meaning is of still later Christian origin. The heroic days are past, and Christians are confronted with the routine of ordinary existence. In the second saying Luke agrees with Matthew in the single phrase "for my sake." In the third saying Luke seems to be thinking of the soul, "his own self." It is a more psychological, a less biological point of view than that of Mark. Luke omits Mk 37. 181. Admonition to Open Confession Mt 16:27 Mk 8:38 Lk 9:26 Mt 10:33 p6; Lk 12:9 ^245 This is a stray piece of discourse material which has no natural connection with its surroundings. The statement itself is confusing. The first part is in the first person where Jesus speaks of himself and his teaching. The second part is in the third person where he speaks objectively of the Son of man. Even the point is unclear. Is Jesus distinguishing sharply between himself and the Son of man? Or, does this shift from the first person to the third imply that Jesus is the Son of man who will come? There is a complete contrast between the use of the term Son of man in 8:38 and in 8:31. In 8:31 the Son of man was an earthly figure who will suffer and die; in 8:38 he is a heavenly figure who will appear in glory. Mk 38 is a piece of early Christian dogma with a Jewish background (Dan 7:13-14). 1 Its Christian nature and origin are clear in several considerations. It is a solemn pronouncement of the believing group, not that of a "Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 107f. • Cf. Loisy, Les Evangiles, II, 25; Marc, p. 249f. 7 Cf. Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, I, 25. 1 Cf. Bousset, /ems, p. 93; Κ. Knudsin, Primitive Christianity in the Light of Gospel Research in F. C. Grant, Form Criticism (Chicago: Willett, Clark & Co., 1934), p. 100; et al.

302

Β.1182

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

single religious individual. Both Jesus and his teachings are objects or centers of religious loyalty and devotion. "To be ashamed" (of Christ) belongs to the technical language of the early church, and it is more characteristic of Paul and his letters than it is of the Synoptic tradition.2 The background of Mk 8:38 is the church's experience with the weakness of human nature. In times of adversity weaker Christians have been ashamed of Christ and his words, and they have recanted their faith. There is a Q parallel to this Markan saying. Matthew included his Q form in his address to the twelve (10:32-33 H76); Luke's Q form comes later (12:8-9 |f245). In Q this saying is double: first a promise, "confess me"; then a warning, "deny me." The Markan form parallels only the warning, "ashamed of me." Lk 9:26 reproduces Mk 8:38 practically verbatim except for Mark's highsounding phrase, "in this adulterous and sinful generation." Mt 16:27 reproduces only the second half of Mk 8:38 and adds not only a new statement (27b) but a new point of view. In Matthew this saying is completely altered, and it loses entirely the Christian character it has in Mark and Luke. In Matthew there is no shift from the first to the third person. The whole is in the objective third person with no reference to Jesus and his words, with nothing about being ashamed of him or them, and there is no possible confusion of Jesus' person with the Son of man. In Matthew the confessional and sectarian point of view is gone: men are not judged by their loyalty to Jesus and his words, but by their deeds ( 27b ). This saying in Matthew is a piece of pure Jewish eschatology, closely related to what follows (28) and its Old Testament prototype (Dan 7:13-14), and it has a far better chance of being an authentic word of Jesus than the parallels in Mark and Luke. 182. The Kingdom in This Generation Mt 16:28 Mk 9:1 Lk 9:27 This saying may appear here through association of ideas. The preceding saying (8:38) dealt with the coming of the Son of man; this saying, with the coming of the kingdom. This is the first that the reader has heard of the kingdom in Mark since the parables in chapter 4. It is a separate and independent saying introduced by the simplest and most primitive formula, "And he said unto them." The saying relates itself closely to other authentic words of Jesus on this theme in the Synoptic tradition. In substance, it is probably an authentic utterance, but the time-limit is new and may be of later Christian origin. Jesus must have expected the kingdom in the near future (Mt 10:23; Mk 14:25), generally speaking, in the lifetime of all, but 2

Cf. Rom 7:16; 6:21; et al. Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 26.

303

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1183

here it is postponed to be witnessed by the last survivors of his generation. This saying could be of later Christian origin, for it can be dated fairly accurately — toward the end of the first generation of Christians.1 Some of Jesus' disciples must have been alive when this saying took its present form.2 The belief in the coming of the kingdom is still strong, but disappointment in the long delay is deep. It approximates the situation in the earlier letters of Paul, and it reads like a word of assurance for those who are about to despair. Mk 9:1 could have its natural continuation in 11-13 as the provocation for that discussion.3 Mt 16:28 and Lk 9:27 omit Mark's introductory formula, "And he said unto them," and this saying becomes continuous discourse with the preceding. The connection is still closer in Matthew, for he features the Son of man in both 27 and 28. 183. The Transfiguration Mt 17:1-8 Mk 9:2-8 Lk9:28-36a The transfiguration seems to be a detached unit foreign to its present context in Mark.1 It breaks the natural connection between Mk 9:1 and 11-13, and it is probably an earlier or later insert. That it once existed as a single and separate unit is clear in II Pet 1:17-18. The "six days" are Mark's only notice of an interval of time outside of the Jerusalem story. This timenotice was perhaps always a part of the transfiguration story.2 It needs an antecedent, some major event six days earlier; originally, the transfiguration may have been one of a series of stories separated by brief intervals of time. The appearance of the special trio Peter, James, and John is abrupt. There is no clear reason why the rest of the disciples should be excluded. This is the second appearance of the favored three in Mark (5:37.) The only clue to the origin of this special group is the fact that they head the list of twelve names back in 3:16-17. The mountain here is not the usual editorial "mountain." It is the mythical "mountain" which towers above the earth, the ideal setting for divine disclosures. For the Gospel writers, however, this mountain is real. It remains as the scene for events which follow immediately. The reader follows Jesus and the disciples down the mountain (Mk 9:9), and witnesses the cure at its base (9:14-27). The role of Moses and Elijah is not clear unless it is simply symbolical: Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 128. * Cf. Paul Wernle, Die Reichsgotteshoffnung in den ältesten christlichen Dokumenten und hei Jesus (Leipzig: Mohr, 1903), p. 41; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 476; et al. "Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 128. 'Cf. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1921), p. 61; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 157; et al. 2 Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 222. 1

304

Β. f 183

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Moses representing the law; Elijah, the prophets. Both men had acquired mythical proportions in Jewish legend. Here, as shades from the remote past, they say and do nothing; they seem to appear solely as dramatic counterparts to the transfigured Jesus. Originally, they may have been two unnamed heavenly figures, just "two men" (Lk 9:32; 24:4; Acts 1:10). Peter's proposal in 5-6 is awkward. It is presented as an answer, yet there has been nothing said to which Peter could reply. His proposal in 5-6 is ignored in what follows ( 7 - 8 ) . The pronoun "them" in 7 seems to refer to the heavenly figures in 4, not to Peter and his companions in 5-6. The story of the transfiguration is complete without 5-6, and it may be a later addition.3 The cloud has an Old Testament background. It is the traditional Jewish sign and symbol for the divine presence which must be veiled from profane human eyes. Men may hear God but not see Him. Mark's transfiguration story approaches a clinical record of a religious vision with its reported subjects and its glorified object. The progress of the vision is delineated stage by stage until it reaches its climax in the heavenly disclosure: "This is my beloved Son." Mt 17:1-8 reproduces Mark's parallel with only minor variations. This is the first appearance of the trio Peter, James, and John in Matthew. The special favor they enjoy is still less clear in Matthew than in Mark, for they are not grouped as a trio at the head of Matthew's list of the twelve (10:2) as they are in Mark. In Mark the fear of the disciples ( 6 ) seems to be allayed by the appearance of the cloud and the utterance of the voice ( 7-8 ). In Matthew the cloud and the voice arouse their fear which is overcome by Jesus' special assurance. Lk 9:28-36a differs from Mark's parallel to such an extent that some critics 4 advocate a non-Markan source for Luke's version of the transfiguration story. Luke introduces a number of novel details and features not found in Mark. Luke has an interval of eight days where Mark (and Matthew) has six. For the fifth time 5 in the Galilean story Luke introduces a notice about Jesus praying where Matthew and Mark have none. Twice Luke speaks of the "two men" as though originally they had no names.6 The names Moses and Elijah may be borrowed from Mark. Mark ( Matthew also) did not give the subject of conversation among Jesus, Moses, and Elijah; in Luke they discuss Jesus' approaching death in Jerusalem, the first indication of the scene of the tragedy in Luke. Luke introduces new Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 257f; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 207; et al. Cf. Β. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1907), p. 184; Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 89; et al. 5 Cf. Lk 3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18. 6 Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 238. 8 4

305

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1183

matter in 31-33a which features the Apostle Peter even more than he is featured in Mark. In Luke the disciples have been sleeping, suggesting that the transfiguration may have taken place during the night (Lk 9:37). In Luke Simon's proposal (33b) is better integrated into the story than in Mark due to the new matter in 32-33a. In Luke the fear of the disciples comes between the appearance of the cloud and the utterance of the voice, as though the cloud aroused it and the voice allayed it. Luke also seeks to integrate the transfiguration more closely into this section of his story. He dates the incident eight days after the preceding sayings (9:23-27). He also relates it to the first prophecy of death (9:22): Moses and Elijah are conferring with Jesus about his approaching death in Jerusalem. With the transfiguration, the trio Peter, James, and John make their second (8:51) and last appearance in Luke. The transfiguration relates itself almost automatically to other prominent elements in the Synoptic tradition: Simon's confession at Caesarea Philippi, the story of Jesus' baptism, and the resurrection reports. Most critics feel that the transfiguration relates itself in one way or another to Simon's confession at Caesarea Philippi. There are three principal views. Most critics 7 feel that the transfiguration is in its correct place chronologically: it follows Simon's confession by six days and is a sequel to it. The voice at the transfiguration puts the divine seal on Simon's confession; it is the heavenly confirmation. A few critics 8 feel that the present arrangement should be reversed for both chronological and psychological reasons: the transfiguration should precede Simon's confession. What the three disciples learned at the transfiguration, Simon confessed at Caesarea Philippi. The transfiguration was the original disclosure of Jesus' messiahship to any of the disciples. According to Schweitzer, Jesus died because two of his disciples failed to observe his order for silence and secrecy. Simon's confession was really a "betrayal." What he learned at the transfiguration, Simon "betrayed" to the rest of the disciples at Caesarea Philippi. What Judas learned from Simon at Caesarea Philippi he betrayed to the authorities in Jerusalem. Still other critics 9 feel that the transfiguration and Simon's confession are so closely related that they can be identified and regarded as parallel or duplicate accounts of one and the same episode. The story of Simon's 7 Cf. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, p. 188; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 153; et al. 8 Cf. Schweitzer, Oie Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, p. 428ff; Warschauer, The Historical Life of Christ, p. 198ff; et al. ' Cf. O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, p. 268f; Cadoux, The Second Gospel, p. 63; et al.

306

Ë. | Í 8 3

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

confession gives the objective account; it records what a neutral observer might have seen and heard. The transfiguration is the subjective account of the same incident, depicting it from the point of view of the inner experience of the disciples. They are, respectively, the prose and the poetic versions of one and the same event. 10 In Mark's plan and scheme as a whole the transfiguration relates itself organically to the story of Jesus' baptism. 11 The theme of the two visions is identical: Jesus is the Son of God. In both, a voice from heaven malces the same proclamation. The only difference between the two is due to the development of Mark's dogma. What Jesus learned at the baptism is now disclosed to the three disciples at the transfiguration. At the baptism Jesus was the reported subject to whom the divine disclosure was made; at the transfiguration Jesus is the object of the divine disclosure to new subjects, the three disciples. The transfiguration is more than an appendix or supplement to the baptism vision; it marks progress and expansion in the divine disclosure. It is the second phase in the development and dramatization of the dogma announced in the first line of Mark's Gospel: Jesus is the Son of God. 12 Many critics 13 have noted the close affinities between the transfiguration story and the resurrection tradition. In fact, the transfiguration originally may have been a part of the Easter story — an appearance of the Risen Jesus to the disciples, not an experience of theirs in his company during his lifetime. In the transfiguration story Jesus appears in glorified form as he does in the resurrection reports. The transfiguration is a vision of the disciples as are all the so-called appearances of the Risen Jesus. The transfiguration story ends with no notice of Jesus' figure resuming its normal form or state which might suggest that this glorified form is permanent. Several details appear in the transguration story which are found elsewhere only in the resurrection tradition. (1) The six or eight days may give the interval of time between Jesus' death and the appearance to the disciples in Galilee;14 or it may be an interval of time between appearances such as is found in the Easter tradition of John (20:26). (2) A mountain in Galilee is the scene of the only appearance of the Risen Jesus to the disciples in Matthew (28:16). (3) The Greek word translated "was transfigured" is exactly the same which Paul uses in speaking of the form and figure of the Risen Jesus (I Cor 15:35-49; II Cor 3:18). (4) The Greek word translated "there appeared" (Mk 9:4) is used by Luke in recounting the appearances 10

Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium,

11

Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 260; Wellhausen, Marci, p. 69. Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 156; Wellhausen, Marci, p. 69f.

12

" Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, evangeliums, p. 53; et al.

p. 139f; Bacon, The Story of Jesus, p. 160.

p. 455; A. Meyer, Die

" Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 71.

307

Entstehung

des

Marcus-

JESUS A N D THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. | 1 8 4

of the Risen Jesus (24:34; Acts 9:17). (5) The "two men" in Luke's transfiguration story are also a part of his Easter story, at the tomb (24:4) and at the ascension (Acts 1:10). (6) The cloud also plays a part in Luke's ascension story (Acts 1:9). (7) The state of the disciples' mind is virtually the same in the transfiguration and in the Easter appearances: confusion and fear are overcome by assurance and disclosure. It has been suggested that the transfiguration originally may have been the experience of Peter alone.16 James and John are static and passive; only Peter plays any part in the action and dialogue. It might be the lost story of Simon's vision of the Risen Jesus (Lk 24:34; I Cor 15:5). The transfiguration has been variously described as a piece of fiction, a myth (Strauss), a faith-legend (Bultmann), an epiphany (Dibelius and Lohmeyer), or as a didactic narrative (Volkmar) designed to instruct and demonstrate. In the light of Mark's over-all plan and purpose, it is perhaps best described as dramatized dogma. The details of the transfiguration story have certainly been influenced by, if not borrowed from, the story of Moses' vision on Mt. Sinai with its six days, the three named companions, the cloud veiling the divine presence, and the voice out of the cloud. 184. The Command for Secrecy Mt 17:9 Mk 9:9-10 Lk 9:36b Mk 9:9-10 is presented as though it were the sequel or aftermath to the transfiguration story. Actually, however, 9-10 (along with 11-13) relates itself more closely to the first prophecy of the passion (8:31). Verses 9-10 ( + 11-13 ) are a supplement or commentary on the theme of death and resurrection; they are almost a new second prophecy of both.1 This order for silence resembles other such orders encountered thus far in Mark. However, it has two new features. (1) The silence imposed here has a time-limit, until after the resurrection; then they may speak. (2) The silence imposed here is upon the three disciples as though the transfiguration were a secret to be withheld from the rest of the twelve. Mark himself, then, associates the transfiguration with the resurrection tradition. The transfiguration seems to have been a story that was never known, never told, never even existed, before the belief in Jesus' resurrection had established itself in the early Christian mind. One critic 2 regarded Mk 9:9 as one of the most important sentences that Mark ever wrote. Here he believed he had discovered the key to Mark's treatment of the theme of Jesus' messiâhship. He found here positive proof that the belief in Jesus' messiahship did not come into existence until after Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 445; J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 248; et al. Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 70; Wendfing, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 1 2 2 ; et al. 2 Cf. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, p. 6 6 f ; see also E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 144. m

1

308

Β.1185

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Jesus' death. It was the product or result of the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection. Mark carries this later belief back into the lifetime of Jesus which explains why Mark always treats Jesus' messiahship as a mystery and a secret. Verse 10 may be a later addition to Mark,3 although there is good reason why Matthew and Luke would omit it. It is another stroke in Mark's dogmatic portrayal of the disciples as habitually dull. It reads as though Jesus were speaking of his death and resurrection for the first time.4 The three disciples seem to have no memory of the first prophecy.6 Mt 17:9 agrees with Mark in the shift of scene; they are coming down the mountain. The transfiguration vision is over. Matthew also agrees with Mark in having the silence imposed by Jesus on the three disciples. As is so often the case, Matthew converts the indirect injunction in Mark into direct discourse in so many words. Verse 10 of Mark does not reappear in Matthew, and no reflection is cast on the comprehension of the disciples. Matthew has consistently avoided Mark's portrayal of the disciples as dull and obtuse. Lk 9:36b is wholly independent of Mark. There is no order for silence from Jesus; the silence of the disciples is voluntary and self-imposed, as their reaction to the transfiguration vision. In Luke there is no shift of scene or break with what precedes; 36b is a part of the vision itself, its conclusion giving the reaction of the reported subjects. Luke does not resume the death (and resurrection) theme from the first prophecy (9:22), and the timelimit disappears from Luke. Luke uses the phrase "in those days," thinking perhaps of the lifetime of Jesus in the past. Mk 10 does not reappear in Luke who has never shown any real liking for Mark's dogmatic portrayal of the disciples. 185. The Discussion Concerning Elijah Mt 17:10-13 Mk 9:11-13 A number of critics 1 feel that 11-13 should follow on 9:1 with 2-10 (the transfiguration) an insert. Verses 1 + 11-13 do give smooth, logical reading. Furthermore, the word "first" appears twice, in the question of the disciples and in Jesus' reply. This suggests that Jesus has just spoken of another coming, as he has in verse 1, the coming of the kingdom.2 This Elijah passage, however, may be introduced here through association of ideas, or even by verbal association (ad vocem).3 The mention of Cf. Goguel, Marc, p. 180; Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, I, 39; et al. Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 228f. 5 Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 574. 1 Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 262; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 208; et al. 2 Cf. Volter, Das messianische Bewusstsein Jesu, (Strassburg: Heitz, 1907), p. 32f. 3 Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 232f; A. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Markusevangeliums, p. 44. 8 4

309

JESUS A N D T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1fl85

Elijah in the transfiguration story may have suggested another piece of Elijah tradition (9:11-13). This association, however, is not good for two reasons. (1) Elijah has just appeared. How can the disciples, who have just seen him, ask if he must first come? (2) The Elijah in the transfiguration story is the Elijah of the Old Testament and Jewish legend. The Elijah in 9:11-13 is a figurative "Elijah," an impersonator (John the Baptist) playing the role of Elijah. 4 Verse 12b of Mark is a solemn pronouncement renewing the theme of death from the first prophecy (8:31). It is an awkward insert which breaks into Jesus' reply in 12a + 13.5 Mark here twice refers to the fulfillment of Scripture, but there are no known Scriptures which predict either the death of the Son of man or that of the returned Elijah. One critic 6 feels that 12a and 13 should not be joined because they are two separate and different replies to the disciples' question. Verse 12a reads as though this Elijah were yet to come; 13, as though he had come already and had met his destiny. Mt 17:10-13 reproduces Mark's parallel with some changes. Matthew speaks of "the disciples," apparently of the twelve, and he seems to have forgotten that Jesus is still with the favored three. Matthew omits both of Mark's references to the fulfillment of Scripture; perhaps he knew that there were no such predictions. Matthew improves the composition of Mark by avoiding the interruption in Mk 12b. In Matthew Jesus' word on Elijah is complete and continuous in ll-12a. The prediction about the Son of man comes at the end (12b) and does not interrupt as it does in Mark. In 13 Matthew clarifies the mystery and obscurity of Mark as he did back in 16:12 when he explained the figure of the leaven. The same mind and the same editorial hand has been at work in both passages. Mark left the reader to guess who this Elijah might be; Matthew assures his readers that Jesus is speaking of John the Baptist. A number of critics 7 feel that this passage is of later origin, a piece of Christian dialectic and debate, not a discussion of Jesus with the disciples during his lifetime. The passage is retrospective; it looks back, not only on the death of John, but on the death of Jesus, both as matters of the past. The passage reflects the later Christian conception of history: John is the forerunner; Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus here is identified with the Son of man. In this passage an ancient Jewish tradition appears in a modified Christian dress. Mk 9:11-13 is omitted by Luke. It is an instructive example of Luke's * Cf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, II, 285ff. Cf. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1921), p. 7; Loisy, Marc, p. 263f; et al. 6 Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 71. * Cf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, II, 285; Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 61f; et al.

6

310

Β. | 1 8 6

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

suppression of materials too Jewish to be of interest or importance to his Gentile-Christian readers. 186. The Cure of the Epileptic Boy Mt 17:14-18 Mk 9:14-27 Lk 9:37-43a This is Mark's final wonder-work of Jesus in Galilee, also the last of his three demoniac stories (1:23-28; 5:1-20). It differs from the earlier demoniac stories in that there is no dialogue with the demon, no confession of Jesus' messiahship from the demon and, naturally, no order for silence from Jesus. This deviation from the earlier pattern is natural since the demons no longer carry the dogmatic theme of Jesus' messiahship, as they did in the first phase of Mark's development of this dogma. Since Simon's confession (8:27-30) this theme is carried by the disciples. Thus this story does not relate itself well to this particular section of Mark's Gospel which is dominated by the prospect of death.1 This story was once single and separate apart from its present context. Mark seeks to join it closely to what precedes: Jesus and the favored three have descended from the mount of transfiguration and are rejoining the rest of the disciples. The body of the story which follows, however, assumes that Jesus has been separated from all the disciples and is now rejoining them. The mention of the scribes in 14b and 16 is pointless; after 16 they disappear from the story, and Jesus' question in 16 receives no reply. Verse 15 is an interruption which breaks the natural connection between 14b and 16. Mark's general setting in 14—16 recalls the story of Moses, especially in Exodus 32 and 34.2 The story proper begins with the appearance of the father of the afflicted boy. The failure of the disciples in 18 is strange since they possessed the power to cast out demons on their mission (6:7, 13). This is a new development in Mark's caricature of the disciples. Heretofore, they have been dull of comprehension; now they are incapable of effective action. Verse 19 is not organic to the story.3 It is not even a part of the dialogue between Jesus and the father. It is a detached monologue, an apostrophe, with no contemporary audience. The lack of faith here is not that of the disciples, or the father, or the multitudes, but that of a whole generation. Verse 19 is a transcendental, cosmic utterance in which the figure of Jesus assumes mythical proportions. He speaks as an incarnate deity whose human form and earthly existence are only temporary,4 as one who already has one foot in the next world.5 In its sentiment it expresses a divine impatience Cf. Cf. 3 Cf. 4 Cf. 5 Cf. 1

2

Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 227. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 86; Loisy, Marc, p. 266; et al. Spitta, GruTidschrift, p. 251f; Loisy, Marc, p. 269. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 27; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 187. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 73.

311

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 1 8 6

and exasperation, even a divine resignation to the perverseness of human nature. It is a lament such as the prophets, even God, make in the Old Testament.6 This monologue in 19 is not a part of the story of the epileptic boy; it is rather a lesson drawn from it. Its Christian origin is clear in the fact that Jesus' person is an object of belief, better perhaps, an object of unbelief on the part of a whole generation. It expresses Christian embitterment over the world's general failure to respond to the Christian message. From 21 on, the story takes a new turn. The disciples and their failure are forgotten, and the scene is between Jesus and the father with only one incidental reference to the multitude (25). Verse 21 introduces a unique item in Mark's stories of cures: Jesus inquires into the health-history of the case, the first step in diagnosis. The long duration of the affliction, however, may be intended to enhance the wonder-work. In this new phase of the story, success hinges on the faith of the father, and it reaches its highpoint in a much more impressive key-utterance (23) about the power of faith than the monologue on the faithless generation (19). Mark's story does not have the usual conclusion giving the impression on the witnesses and their reaction. In style of narration the story relates itself to the expansive, picturesque type which keeps appearing and reappearing in Mark's Gospel. Dibelius 7 classifies it as a tale or novelette. It is also a piece of didactic narration, for the emphasis on faith is fully as strong as the interest in the cure. This is the most confusing and repetitious story in Mark. The scribes in 14b and 16 belong to the controversy, not to the story of the cure. The repetitions are obvious: the crowds gather twice (15 and 25); the convulsions are described twice (18 and 20); there are two key-utterances (19 and 23). This confusion and repetition in Mark might be explained by the conjunction of two similar stories: 8 one story in 14-20 which features the disciples lack of faith; a second story in 21-27 featuring the father's struggle for faith. The father is incidental in the first story, and the disciples are not even mentioned in the second story. The afflicted boy in the first story is a dumb epileptic (17); in the second story, a deaf and dumb demoniac (25). Mt 17:14-18 and Lk 9:37-43a reproduce this story in a much simpler and briefer form which does not have the confusions and repetitions found in Mark's present version, and there is no suggestion of a conjunction of two similar stories. The scribes are not a part of the story in Matthew and Luke; the crowds gather only once, and there is only one key-utterance ascribed to Jesus. The dialogue between Jesus and the father (Mk 9:21-24) drops out, and the last three verses of Mark (25-27) are condensed into Cf. Dt 32:5; I Kgs 19:4; Nu 14:27; Isa 42:11; 46:4; 63:15. Cf. Formgeschichte, p. 37. · 8 Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 271; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 226f.

6

7

312

Β.1187

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

one verse (Mt 18) or less (Lk 42b). Matthew and Luke agree so closely together against Mark that it can hardly be accidental. They are probably giving the simpler, briefer form of the story as they found it in their Mark,9 or they might even be giving a non-Markan form of the story.10 Mt 17:14-18 compresses the fourteen verses of Mark into five. In Matthew Jesus and the disciples (17:10) are rejoining the multitudes; Jesus and the three are not rejoining the rest of the disciples as in Mark. Matthew has forgotten the three since 17:10; yet 16 of Matthew assumes (like Mark) a separation from all the disciples. Matthew avoids the repetition in the description of the convulsions. He specifies the affliction as "epileptic" as he did in 4:24. Matthew concludes the story with the same formula, "from that hour," he used back in 9:22 and 15:28. Lk 9:37-43a. Luke joins this cure directly to the transfiguration. He reported no incidents during the descent (Mk 9:9-13). Luke has the descent come on "the next day," again (32) suggesting that the transfiguration may have come during the night spent on the mountain. Luke adds a characteristic and novelistic touch to the story: the boy is an "only child" as was the son of the widow of Nain (7:12) and the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue (8:42). He "gave him back to his father" (42) is an exact parallel to 7:15. Luke gives the story a conventional ending (43a) by reporting the public reaction, "And they were all astonished at the majesty of God" —a type of conclusion of which Luke is fond (5:26; 7:16). 187. Why the Disciples Failed Mt 17:19-20 Mk 9:28-29

Lk 17:6 |f291 Mt 21:21 = Mk 11:22-23 fl333 This scene, in the usual editorial "house," is typical of the central section of Mark's Gospel: an incident in public is followed by a scene in private with the disciples asking Jesus for an explanation of their failure, not, as usual, to understand, but to heal the epileptic boy. Mark presents this scene as an epilogue to the preceding story, but Jesus' reply in 29 is not at all appropriate. In the preceding cure Jesus neither prayed nor fasted. Fasting is usually a protracted process requiring hours, even days, and it was not applicable in cases brought to Jesus on the spur of the moment.1 The didactic point in the story of the cure was faith, not the religious exercises of prayer and fasting recommended in 29. Evidently, 29 is a prescription for expulsions,2 but it is that of the early church,3 not one followed by Jesus during his lifetime. There is no evidence that Jesus ever resorted even to ' Cf. Cf. 1 Cf. 2 Cf. 3 Cf.

10

Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 49; Spitta, Grundschrijt, p. 250. Β. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums, p. 187. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 190. Dibelius, Formgeschichte, pp. 44, 94. Hauck, Markus, p. 112; Carpenter, The First Three Gospels, p. 23.

313

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. f Í 8 8

prayer in his healing practice; he and his disciples did not practice fasting. The early church, however, planned and prepared for healings and cures by periods of prayer and fasting. Mt 17:19-20 has closer and better connections with the preceding story. Mark's prescription of prayer and fasting disappears from Matthew who features faith as the decisive factor in such cures. These two verses of Matthew are a sort of moral attached to the story of the cure. The scene in Matthew is private but not in the "house" (Mark). Most MSS of Mt 20 read "little faith." In such a reading a maximum of faith is required. One Syriac MS ( Syrsin ) reads "no faith." 4 In this reading only a minimum of faith is required, which is better suited to what follows, "faith as a grain of mustard seed." In 20 the reader meets Jesus' famous saying about mountain-moving faith for the first time in the Synoptic tradition. Matthew associates it with the cure of the epileptic boy. Later in Matthew (21:21 fl333) and Mark (11:22-23 ]j333) it is one of a short series of sayings joined to the story of the cursing of the fig tree. In Luke it appears as a stray saying (17:6 tf291) with no connection with a wonder-work in his Great Non-Markan Section ( 9 : 5 1 - 1 8 : 1 4 ) . This saying was found in both basic sources of the Synoptic tradition: Mark and Q. Luke seems to give the pure Q form which differs from the Markan form in two respects. ( 1 ) In Q faith is compared to a grain of mustard seed; in Mark it is not. ( 2 ) In Q it is a little fig tree that is to be uprooted by faith; in Mark faith will remove a mountain — much stronger hyperbole. In this first instance Matthew is conflating the Markan and Q forms: the comparison with the grain of mustard seed is from Q; the mountain to be removed by faith is from Mark. Faith as a mover of mountains was a proverbial expression. It is found in the Jewish Talmud. Paul's use of this hyperbole ( I Cor 13:2b) may stem from this particular word of Jesus. Luke omits this epilogue to the preceding cure, and again Markan matter derogatory to the disciples fails to reappear in Luke. Again, too, Luke does not use Mark's editorial device, the retreat to the "house." The recommendation of prayer and fasting seems to have impressed Luke as little as it did Matthew 188. The Second Prophecy of the Passion Mt 17:22-23 Mk 9:30-32 Lk 9:43b-45 There is a complete break at this point in Mark's story. In fact, it may be a decisive turning-point. Jesus is passing through Galilee, and the journey to Jerusalem may be under way, although the departure from Galilee is not noted until 10: l. 1 The reason for Jesus' incognito is no clearer here (30b) 4 1

Cf. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, I, 1, 255f. Cf. Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen, p. 70; O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, p. 271; et al.

314

Β.1188

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

than it was back in 7:24.2 This second prophecy has no organic connection with this particular section of the Galilean story. It appears here by deliberate literary and dramatic design; the periodic spacing intones the death-theme. It reads as though this death-theme were being introduced for the first time. Mark does not remind the reader of the earlier prophecy (8:31); he is left to recall it. It is possible that this second prophecy should be the first.3 This second prophecy is briefer than the first, more general, and borrows fewer details from the death story. It reads more like a doctrinal fragment, an extract from a sermon, than a prediction.4 It begins ("is delivered") as though the end were at hand, nearer than it actually is in Mark. The idea that the Son of man must die, so emphatic in the first prophecy, does not appear in the second. The Jewish color of the first prophecy (elders, chief priests, scribes ) disappears, and the Son of man is delivered "into the hands of men." However Mark retains his phrase, "after three days," as he does in all three prophecies. Mark's delineation of the disciples in 32, their lack of understanding, is pure dogma. There is no psychological progress, no growth in the comprehension of the disciples, from one prophecy to the next. Mark's dogma seems to reverse the normal learning process: the more Jesus speaks of his death, the less the disciples understand. If these formal prophecies are unhistorical (as they certainly are), so also is this dense dullness of the disciples. They cannot have heard, still less have misunderstood, prophecies that were never uttered. Mt 17:22-23 reproduces Mark's parallel with some typical changes. Matthew's text is unclear: "they abode in Galilee." At least, there is no break in Matthew suggesting that the journey to Jerusalem may have begun (Mark). Matthew passes over Mark's incognito here as he did earlier (Mt 15:21). Matthew puts the prophecy in the future tense, and the end is more remote than it is in Mark. Again he corrects Mark's "after three days" to "the third day." Matthew ignores Mark's depiction of the dullness of the disciples here as he has done consistently. In Matthew the disciples do understand, so well indeed that they are sorry. Lk 9:43b-45. Luke has his own introduction for this second prophecy (43b) in which he seeks to integrate it into its context by linking it up with the cure of the epileptic boy which immediately precedes in Luke. Luke not only passes over Mark's incognito, but he seems to be thinking in terms of popularity and publicity. The prophecy itself begins with a solemn ad2 For modern surmises, see Klostermann, Markus, pp. 62, 106; Loisy, Les Evangiles, I, 93. 3 Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 234; Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, I, 165. 4 Cf. J. Weiss, The History of Primitive Christianity, trans, four friends, ed. F. C. Grant (2 vols.; New York: Wilson-Erickson, 1937), I, 110.

315

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

B. f l 8 9

monition: "Let these words sink into your ears." Luke cuts the prophecy itself short; it predicts arrest, but not death and resurrection. The disciples' failure to understand in Luke is not due to natural incapacity but to divine design: the truth is concealed from them; they are not supposed to understand. 189. The Temple Tax Incident Mt 17:24-27 Matthew has an odd way of inserting this story into the Markan framework. He does not insert it between Mk 9:32 and 33, but right into the middle of 33, from which he takes the arrival in Capernaum (24a) and the entry into the house (25). The background of this story is the Jewish temple tax. According to Ex 30:13-14, each male Jew who had reached his majority (20 years) must pay an annual assessment to the support of the temple and its cult. This tax was imposed on Jews both in the homeland and abroad.1 The main body of Matthew's story here is dialogue with interest centering on its didactic point. Only at the very end does the story turn in the direction of miracle, and this may be a later, secondary development. The story in its primitive form may have ended with no reference to the coin in the fish's mouth: "But, lest we cause them to stumble, . . . take (a shekel), and give unto them for me and thee" (27). In its present form the story is instructive, for it is a miracle-story in the making, but halted at the half-way point; a miracle is in prospect but not actually accomplished. If the story could have remained a little longer in a fluid state, it probably would have ended with Simon catching the fish, finding the coin, and paying the tax. However, such a miracle would be below the usual level of the miracle-stories in the Synoptic tradition. The theme of Matthew's prospective miracle is legendary; there are non-Christian parallels.2 The later Christian origin of Matthew's story of the temple tax is obvious.3 It assumes the existence of the Jewish-Christian group which has not yet broken with the mother-religion. These Jewish Christians are still aware of their obligations to the temple — a situation which approximates that in the early chapters of Acts. Furthermore, Peter appears here as the head of the Jewish-Christian group. The issue here presented would be of importance to Jewish Christians who were conscious of the newness of their faith and yet felt bound to their religious past. The conclusion reached is conservative: there is no break with the temple and its cult. This story must have taken form before 70 A.D. while the temple was still standing. 1 2 3

Cf. Moore, Judaism, II, 70; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 762; et al. Cf. Fiebig, Jüdische Wundergeschichten des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters, p. 62f. Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 63; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 35; et al.

316

Β.1190-200

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

11190-200 Mt 18:1-35

Mk 9:33-50

Lk 9:46-50

Mk 9:33-50. This is the concluding section of Mark's Galilean story. Mark ends his Galilean story in a very prosaic fashion. There is no dramatic climax; this came earlier with Simon's confession at Caesarea Philippi (8:27-30 1fl77). Mark ends with a loosely joined complex of sayings, one with a narrative setting (9:33-34) and a dialogue fragment in 9:38-40. It is a compilation of small heterogeneous units brought together by catchwords and verbal association. This discourse material is presented as instructions of Jesus to the disciples. Actually, however, these sayings are practical admonitions for the life of early Christians. This is especially clear at the very end: "Be at peace one with another" (50b). The section forms "a sort of little catechism." 4 Lk 9:46-50 does not follow the lead of Mark in concluding the Galilean story. Luke's thought is not carried away by the needs of his contemporary Christians. Luke reproduces only the first two units in Mark's order (Mk 9:33-40) as episodes in the life of Jesus before beginning the journey to Jerusalem. Luke omits Mark's last three sayings (Mk 9:41-50) in this connection. When Luke ends the Galilean story, he ends it quickly. Mt 18:1-35. Matthew not only follows the lead of Mark in concluding the Galilean story but he expands upon it. Matthew does omit three of Mark's five units in this connection, but he makes a substantial expansion beyond Mark with six non-Markan units ( jfl95-200 ). The result in Matthew is a long discourse section, the whole of chapter 18, a major address interrupted at only one point by a bit of dialogue (21-22). This longer discourse section of Matthew has greater unity than the briefer section of Mark. The materials are more homogeneous and congenial among themselves. The entire section in Matthew is dominated by the thought of the local church and the ordering of its life. It is disciplinary in nature with its precepts and principles governing the relation of the member to the believing group, and of member to member. Chapter 18 of Matthew is "a little manual of instruction,"5 and it belongs primarily to the inner life and history of the early church. 190. The Contention concerning Rank Mt 18:1-5 Mk 9:33-37 Lk 9:46-48

Mk 10:15 = Lk 18:17 fl308 Mt 20:26-27 = Mk 10:43^4 ρ 15 Mt 23:111(347; Lk 22:26 P 0 3 Mt 10:401179; Lk 10:16 1(207 In verse 33 Mark mentions Capernaum for the last time. There has been a real house in Capernaum, that of Simon (1:29), but this may again be the 'Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 91. 5 Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels, p. 58.

317

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1190

editorial "house." The reference to what happened "on the way" is uncertain, but it may allude to 9:30 where Jesus was passing through Galilee. Verse 34 is Mark's own elucidation on this reference, and it is another characteristic touch of realism: Mark does not hesitate to depict the disciples as ambitious and quarrelsome. The saying in 35 is generally regarded as an insert.1 It is missing in one important MS ( D ) , and 35a joins directly on to 36. Verse 35 may be a condensation of the later fuller form of this saying in Mk 10:43-44 ( P 1 5 ) ? The original utterance may have been pure paradox, minus "and servant of all." In 36a Mark adds another of the human traits in his picture of Jesus: he takes the child in his arms. Verse 37 has no natural connection with the question of greatness in 34, nor with the children in 36. The child in 36 is a real child; the children in 37 are not real children but humble Christians. Verse 37 is to be regarded as a later Christian admonition rather than as a word of Jesus. The term receive has a special Christian meaning, and the reason for receiving is Christian, "in my name." Verse 37 assumes that Jesus is no longer with his disciples on earth; he can no longer be actually and personally received by them. However, his humble followers are on earth,3 and they can be received in his name and in his stead. Verse 37 has the cast and color of many sayings in the Gospel of John. Few passages of Mark exhibit greater confusion than 9:33-37. The disciples are about Jesus in 33, and yet in 35 he calls the twelve to him. There are really three separate settings ( 33, 35a, 36 ), any one of which might introduce a word of Jesus. There are two separate key-utterances (35 and 37). In 36 there is one child, an object-lesson; in 37 there are many "children," Christ's representatives on earth. All of this confusion may be due to the fact that two separate stories have been joined: one about a dispute of the disciples built up around the key-word on service (33-35); the other about the child,as an object-lesson for the twelve (36-37). 4 The themes of service and children are treated separately later in Mark: 10:13-16 ( |f308) and 10:42-45 (ÍJ315). Mt 18:1-5 treats Mark's parallel with the greatest freedom. Matthew removes all reflection cast on the disciples in Mark. In Matthew they have not quarrelled about which of them is greatest, but they ask directly, "Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" In Matthew's version there is far less confusion than in that of Mark. There is a single scene and setting followed by continuous discourse. Matthew mentions only the disciples with no referCf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 469; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 261. Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 193. 8 Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 76. 4 Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, I, 553; H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 153; et al. 1 2

318

Β.1191

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

enee to the twelve (Mark). He omits the word on service in this connection ( Mk 35 ) and holds to the theme of the child and children. Matthew omits the human trait, the embracing of the child, perhaps because it is so human. Verse 3 is an addition, another saying about children — perhaps an anticipation of Mk 10:15. Verse 4 continues verse 2 and answers the disciples' question in verse 1; 1 + 2 + 4 form a complete and impressive episode. In 5 Matthew seems to be thinking of a real child, not Christ's humble believer and representative on earth. Lk 9:46-48 passes over Mark's localizations: Capernaum, the house, and the way. Luke tones down Mark's aspersion on the disciples: they have been discussing, not disputing, about which of them was greatest. Luke makes no reference to the twelve here. Like Matthew, he suppresses the notice about Jesus embracing the child (Mark). In general, Luke simplifies Mark's version relative to scene, companions, and sayings. Luke has a single utterance of Jesus at the end, a combination of Mk 35 and 37 in reverse order. Luke, like Matthew, seems to be thinking of a real child to be received in Christ's name, not a figurative "child" who is Jesus' representative. 191. The Strange Exorcist Mk 9:38-40 Lk 9:49-50 Mt 12:30 1(121; Lk 11:23 ||225 This passage of Mark is commonly regarded as an insert. It introduces dialogue abruptly into a series of sayings, and it is a complete departure from the thought and spirit of the sayings around it. Verse 41 joins well on to 37,1 or 41 may be a part of the insert,2 for 37 and 42 join still better — as they are joined in Matthew, where Mk 9:41 as well as 9:38-40 are omitted. Verses 38-40 ( 41) of Mark seem to be introduced here because of the catch phrase "in my name." The joining of materials by catchwords and catch phrases was common in Jewish writings; it was considered an aid in memorizing. This little episode has an abrupt beginning, "John said unto him." The verb tenses are strange. John refers to the exorcist in the past tense, perhaps to an encounter during the mission of the twelve. Jesus' reply, however, refers to this exorcist as though he were still active. Verse 39 alone is an adequate reply from Jesus.3 Verse 40 may be a superfluous addition, a separate saying or proverb as it was in Q (Mt 12:30 fll21; Lk 11:23 j[225), but in inverted form. According to Mark, if one is not against, one is for; according to Q, if one is not for, one is against. This little episode has a remarkably close parallel in the story of Moses (Nu 11:26-29). 1 Cf. C. G. Wilke, Der Urevangelist (Dresden und Leipzig: Verlag von Gerhard Fleischer, 1838), p. 218; Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 367; et al. 2 Cf. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 389; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 220f; et al. 3 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 12; Klostermann, Markus, p. 107; et al.

319

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. f 192

Mark presents this little episode as an incident in the life of Jesus. However, there is good reason for believing that it dramatizes a situation and issue which came into existence only after Jesus' death.4 It is known from the Book of Acts (19:13) and other sources that rank outsiders experimented with the name of Jesus as a magical formula. The sacramental and liturgical use of Jesus' name came only after his death; the name was a substitute for his personal presence.5 The issue in Mark here is not loyalty to Jesus but to the Apostles and the recognition of their authority — a later Christian issue evident in Paul's letters and in the Book of Acts. This little dialogue points to sectarianism within the Christian movement: there are some who do not recognize the authority of the original Apostles. It has been suggested that the strange exorcist here might be none other than the Apostle Paul whose work is defended over the protest of the pillar Apostles.® Lk 9:49-50 reproduces Mark's parallel with the exception of Mk 39b. Owing to this omission by Luke, the proverb (50b) becomes the heart çf Jesus' reply, and it is not an appendix as it is in Mark. In this proverb Luke uses the second person plural ("you") where Mark uses the first person plural ("us"). The "you" of Luke is more appropriate, for the issue is not loyalty to Jesus (included in Mark's "us") but to the Apostles. This little dialogue concludes Luke's Galilean story. Luke gives the Galilean story in its briefest form, and he is the first to conclude it. With the next verse of Luke (9:51) Jesus begins the long journey to Jerusalem. After 9:50 Luke suddenly abandons his use of Mark for no clear reason, and, for more than a third of his Gospel, goes over to his Great Non-Markan Section (9:51-18:14). Matthew omits Mk 9:38-40, perhaps because it refers to something which Matthew never actually reported — the mission of the twelve. Furthermore, this dialogue on exorcism may have had no interest for Matthew who does not feature expulsions as Mark does. 192. A Cup of Cold Water Mk 9:41 Mt 10:42 fl79 As already noted, Mk 9:41 could join on to 37, or, along with 38-40, be regarded as an insert. Matthew reported this saying much earlier as a part of his address to the twelve. In the pronoun "you" the Christian community is being addressed. The clause, "because ye are Christ's," is Christian and Pauline.1 It expresses the group consciousness, the feeling of fellowship and 4 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 103; M. Werner, Der Einfluss der paulinischen Theologie im Markusevangelium (Glessen: Töpelmann, 1923), p. 19; et al. 5 See W. Heitmüller, "Im Namen Jesu" : eine sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903). ' Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 645; J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 258; et al. 'Cf. Rom 8:9; I Cor 1:12; 3:23; II Cor 10:7.

320

Β. 1193

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

the sense of solidarity within the Christian community. The clause imposes a strong sectarian restriction on what is promised. In this clause some early Christian is speaking to his fellow-believers. The historical Jesus could not have spoken in this fashion. The term Christ here is a personal name, not a title. This is the only instance in the Gospel of Mark where the term Christ appears without the article, "the Christ."2 If the clause, "because ye are Christ's," be deleted, then the saying becomes Jewish and a possible authentic utterance of Jesus. Luke, for some unknown reason, omits Mark's saying about the gift of a cup of water, and it nowhere occurs in his Gospel. 193. Concerning Offense and Occasions of Stumbling Mt 18:6-9 Mk 9:42-48 Lk 17:1-2 j[289; Mt 5:29-30 fl27 This passage of Mark includes two separate and independent units of utterance: 42 and 43-48. They are brought together by verbal association, "cause to stumble," but they express very different, really opposed ideas. Verse 42 warns against being a cause of stumbling to others; 43-48 warns against causes of stumbling in one's own person.1 (a) Mk 9:42 joins well on to 37 and supports the suggestion that 38-41 may be an insert. Verse 42 may have been originally a profane proverb which has been recast as a word of Jesus. Execution by drowning was not practiced by the Jews but it was by some ancient peoples.2 The Greek term used for sea here was usually applied to major bodies of water, not to small inland bodies like the sea ( or lake ) of Galilee. However, 42 may be a word of Jesus that has undergone Christian revision.3 The "little ones" here are Christian believers, and the term believe is used in the absolute sense. The passage makes it clear that subversive forces are already at work within the church and already have claimed their victims. This saying was found in both basic sources of the Synoptic tradition: in Mark and in Q. The Q version (Lk 17:1-2 |f289) is longer and has woeform as Mark's version does not. Mt 18:6-7 reproduces Mk 9:42 and more. Owing to Matthew's omission of Mk 9:38-41 at this point, verse 6 of Matthew joins well on to verse 5. However, the "little ones" in 6 are believers, not children as they seem to be in 5. Matthew, as usual, conflates the Markan and Q forms of this saying. He reproduces the Markan form in 6 and the first half of the longer Q form in 7. 2 1 1 8

Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.

Werner, Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie, p. 32f. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 108; Klostermann, Markus, p. 108; et al. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 78. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 163.

321

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f 194

Luke omits Mk 9:42 in favor of the Q form of this saying which he reports later (17:1-2 fl289). (b) Mk 9:43-48 is a more extended discourse passage in threefold rhythmic structure on the hand, the foot, and the eye as causes of stumbling. In some ancient MSS (A, D, etc.) the Isaiah passage (66:24b) in 48 is a threefold refrain repeated in 44, 46, and 48. Such care in construction suggests literary composition rather than spontaneous oral utterance. In the first two statements one's destiny is to "enter into life"; in the third, to "enter into the kingdom of God." The word "fire" furnishes a verbal association for what follows in verse 49.4 Mt 18:8-9 reproduces Mark's parallel with two principal differences. (1) Mark's two separate statements on the hand and the foot (43-45) are contracted into one statement on the hand and the foot together (Mt 18:8). ( 2 ) Matthew omits the refrain from Isaiah ( Mk 48 ) altogether. This is the second appearance of this saying in Matthew. His first form, probably from Q, he reported early in his Sermon on the Mount (5:29-30 j|27). Luke omits Mk 9:43—48 and he nowhere has a parallel to this (for him) shocking passage. 194. The Parable concerning Salt Mk 9:49-50 Mt 5:13 fl20; Lk 14:34-35 fl277 These two verses of Mark contain three separate sayings of very different nature and origin. The three have only a verbal association with each other, the word "salt." As Strauss noted,1 they are arranged like words in a dictionary where verbs and nouns of the same stem are listed alphabetically. The word "fire" may have brought 48 and 49 together. Verse 49 is a stray fragment, perhaps of Jewish origin, especially if one accepts the fuller form found in some MSS (A, C, D, etc.) which add: "and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt" —an echo of Lev 2:13. Verse 49 begins with the word "for" as though it were a substantiation for something that preceded; 2 this verse may at one time have had a definite antecedent. Salting with fire is a strange figure of speech; baptism with fire would be more natural. The fire may be carried over from the Isaiah passage in the preceding verse (48). Verse 50a may well be an authentic parable of Jesus, and it gives the parable in its simplest and most pointed form.3 Verse 50b is an allegorical application of the parable in 50a. Here at the Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 81; Wellhausen, Marci, p. 76. Cf. Life of Jesus, p. 338. 1 Cf. F. F. von Edelsheim, Das Evangelion nach Markos psychologisch dargestellt (Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer Verlag, 1931), p. 221. ' For a comparison of the Markan and Q forms of this parable, see Mt 5:13 1120. 1

1

322

Β. 1Ϊ195-200

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

end Mark seems to be returning to the very beginning of this section, the dispute in 33-34.4 However, 50b reads more like a Christian admonition than a word of Jesus, and Mark here is probably addressing himself directly to his readers and to Christians generally of his own later day. The background of this admonition is discord and dissension within Christian circles. It is an appropriate conclusion for a series of religious instructions.5 "Be at peace one with another" has an almost verbatim parallel in I Thess 5:13b. The Greek verb translated "be at peace" is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Paul's letters,® and it is another possible trace of Pauline influence in the Gospel of Mark. This is a strange and colorless conclusion for Mark's Galilean story. A person reading Mark for the first time would never suspect that one major phase of Jesus' public work (in Galilee) ends with 9:50 and that a new major phase is about to begin in 10:1. Matthew and Luke both omit Mk 9:49-50. Both use the Q form of the parable of the salt: Matthew in his Sermon on the Mount (5:13 jf20); Luke in his Great Non-Markan Section (14:34-35 ^277). Mt 18:10-35 P95-200. The Galilean story is ended in both Luke (fll91) and Mark (fíl94). In the next verse of each (Lk 9:51; Mk 10:1) Jesus is leaving Galilee for Jerusalem. Matthew, however, does not conclude the Galilean story with Mark and Luke. He goes ahead to add six new units of discourse before ending the Galilean story. All six of these new units are non-Markan; three are from Q, and three are peculiar to Matthew. Mt 18:10-35 is not only a supplement to Mark's Galilean story, but it is a long extension of the catechetical instructions which began in 18:1-9. In this extension Matthew's thought is dominated by the interests and needs of contemporary Christians. In its pastoral plan and purpose 10-35 is homogeneous with 1-9, and chapter 18 of Matthew forms a well-rounded catechetical whole. 195. The Parable of the Lost Sheep Mt 18:10-14 Lk 15:3-7 fl279 Verse 10 of Matthew is a transition to what follows. It returns to the theme of the "little ones" back in verse 6. The "little ones" are humble Christian believers, but originally the author of 10 may have had real children in mind.1 What is said of the "little ones" in 10b is more appropriate for real children than for figurative "children." Back of 10b is the ancient belief that each individual on earth has a counterpart, or double, in heaven. Cf. "Cf. •Cf. p. 109. 1 Cf. 4

Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, p. 187. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 91. Rom 12:18; II Cor 13:11; I Thess 5:13; Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 88; Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 149.

323

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

Β. P 9 6

Verse 11 is not found in some of the best Greek MSS ( S, B, etc. ) of Matthew. The statement in 11 is much more typical and characteristic of Luke than of Matthew, and it may have been borrowed by some later Christian scribe from Lk 19:10. Matthew introduces the parable with an appeal to ordinary human judgment, "What think ye?" This and similar interrogatives often introduce Jesus' parables in Matthew. In Matthew this Q parable is one of Jesus' last words in Galilee; in Luke (15:3-7 11279) it comes somewhat later in the story as a part of his long account of the journey to Jerusalem. From the standpoint of narrative and story-telling, Luke's version of this parable is far superior to that of Matthew. Matthew's version is less pure, and the story-form is almost gone. Luke's version is vivid, colorful, detailed, and full of action. Matthew's version is vague and colorless; it is directly didactic, more like an observation than a parable. Matthew may have pruned away details and action because they did not contribute to the lesson or point. He has adapted the parable to the thought and theme of chapter 18 with the result that a masterful wordpicture (Luke) has become a piece of church discipline. Verse 13 concludes the parable in Matthew. Verse 14 is a lesson drawn from it, and it returns to the "little ones" whose needs and interests dominate chapter 18. The parable must have had no lesson drawn from it in the source of Matthew and Luke, for they derive very different lessons from it. In Luke the lost sheep is the out-and-out sinner who has never belonged to the Christian fold, but in Matthew the lost sheep is the wayward Christian who has strayed from the fold. The splitting of the number 100 into 1 and 99 is frequent in the rabbinical writings.2 Some critics 3 find the two forms of this parable in Matthew and Luke so different that they hesitate to assign them to a common source like Q. 196. Primitive Christian Discipline Mt 18:15-17 Lk 17:3 'fl290 Mt 18:15-17 (Î1196) and 21-22 (If 199) are one of the most interesting and instructive examples of new growth and development in the Synoptic tradition. These two units in Matthew are based on a word of Jesus that appears as a single unit in Lk 17:3-4 (1J290). What appears as a simple saying in Luke has become split to form two separate units in Matthew. The first half of the primitive saying (Lk 17:3) has been expanded into a paragraph on church discipline in Mt 18:15-17 (t[96); the second half (Lk 17:4) has been dramatized into an episode and dialogue in Mt 18:21-22 ( ÌJ199). From one germ-saying two new units of tradition have stemmed:

2 8

Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 784f. Cf. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 81; Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 245.

324

Β. f196

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Mt 18:15 is paralleled by Lk 17:3; the rest of the passage is new and peculiar to Matthew. In Matthew the brother is a brother in belief, a fellowChristian; in Luke the term brother is broader, perhaps one's fellow-man. In Matthew the sin is a personal injury, "against thee," but if this phrase is omitted as it is in some MSS of Matthew (Aleph, B, etc.), then the term is broader as in Luke and has to do with sin of any sort. Luke has no measures for dealing with the sinning brother beyond the personal rebuke. In Matthew this is the first of three stages in a formal process for dealing with the offender. If the first step fails, one or more witnesses are called in; if this fails, then the matter is taken before the whole congregation. If the offender still remains adamant, nothing is left but the ban of excommunication. Only the first stage in this process is based on any word of Jesus (15), and the rest of the provisions are a later Christian expansion on a Jewish, Old Testament basis. The religious precept in 15 goes back beyond Jesus to Lev 19:17. Verse 16 is based directly on Dt 19:15. Back of 17 is the ban of excommunication from the Jewish synagogue. Similar provisions are recorded in the regulations of the synagogue in the rabbinical writings. 1 This passage of Matthew is an extract from some ecclesiastical tract or manual which defined ordinances, rules, and statutes governing the inner life of the local Christian community. The spirit and language of the passage indicate its origin within the Palestinian church, 2 perhaps within the mother-church in Jerusalem. It represents an ultra-Jewish, legalistic, even Pharisaic conception of Christianity. Paul dealt with this issue in better spirit in I Cor 6:1-6.

In verse 17 the word "church" appears for the second and last time in Matthew's Gospel, and in the Synoptic tradition. However, the term here denotes something very different from what it denoted in 16:18. There the church was the church universal, the official world-wide institution with its infallible authority. Here the church is the local Christian community, the autonomous congregation, still in the democratic stage, solving its own problems, with no appeal beyond the assembled congregation. This passage breathes a spirit very different from that found in many authentic words of Jesus. The contemptuous reference to the Gentile and the publican (17) cannot be reconciled with Jesus' sympathy and solicitude for publicans and sinners evident throughout the Synoptic tradition. Even the attitude toward the unworthy Christian here is very different from that in the story of the tares (Mt 13:24-30 P 3 7 ) . There the attitude was realistic and tolerant, a patient resignation to the coexistence of the good and the bad until the separation at the divine judgment. Here, however, the attitude is one of impatience and intolerance, and the church takes judgment into its own hands: the offender is to be reclaimed or weeded out. 1 2

Cf. Moore, Judaism, II, 154f. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 151.

325

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f l 9 7 - 1 9 9

197. Concerning Binding and Loosing Mt 18:18 Mt 18:18 repeats Mt 16:19 almost verbatim except for one difference which causes the two passages virtually to neutralize each other. The infallible authority conferred upon the Apostle Peter alone in 16:19 is here conferred upon a group ( "ye" ). It is not clear whether the "ye" refers to the collective and corporate authority of the whole Christian group or just to the Apostles who form a hierarchy handing down decisions for that group. Both passages belong to nascent Catholicism. Mt 18:18 seems to represent an earlier stage in the development of this doctrine than 16:19. 198. Concerning Agreement in Prayer Mt 18:19-20 The word "again" shows how loosely Matthew is joining sayings in this section. The passage leads the reader straight into the midst of the early Christian group gathered for prayer. This is not prayer in the inner chamber (Mt 6:5-6), but the corporate, concerted prayer of the Christian group assembled in Jesus' name. The background of this passage is the death of Jesus and the belief in his resurrection. The two or three gathered together on earth contrast with the assurance which comes from heaven. Jesus here is a mythical figure; it is the communal Jesus whose spiritual presence is sought in prayer and who has become a prayer-value. This assurance is on exactly the same level as the one which concludes Matthew's Gospel: "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." In both instances it is the Risen Lord who is speaking.1 Some critics 2 have felt that this passage is only a Christian version of a famous saying of the Jewish fathers: "If two sit together and exchange words of the Law, the divine presence abides with them. Even when one person occupies himself with the Law, the Schechinah rests upon him." (Aboth 3:7). 199. Concerning the Frequency of Forgiveness Mt 18:21-22 Lk 17:4 fl290 This is the fourth Petrine episode which Matthew has featured in the latter part of his Galilean story,1 giving this apostle a prominence he does not have in Mark and Luke. This passage is one of the finest examples of Matthew's dramatization of materials. What appears in Luke as a simple saying on forgiveness without scene or setting or definite audience, in Matthew takes the form of an episode and dialogue between Jesus and Peter. Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 284. Cf. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1921), p. 51; Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 267. ^ f . Mt 14:28-31 U160; 16:17-19 fll77; 17:24-27 11189.

1

2

326

Β.1200

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

The thought and point are the same in Matthew and Luke, but Matthew's more dramatic form catches the imagination and makes both more forceful than the bare discourse in Luke. It seems certain that the numbers seven and seventy times seven have an Old Testament origin in the song of Lamech in Gen 4:24. 2 The numbers are pure hyperbole. Jesus is setting no numerical limit to forgiveness: this is to be granted whenever and wherever the occasion arises. The Gospel of Hebrews, quoted by St. Jerome, has a variation of this passage which some critics regard as superior to Matthew's present form.3 200. The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant Mt 18:23-35 This parable is peculiar to Matthew. It concludes his Galilean story and also his catechetical section in chapter 18. Matthew uses his favorite "Therefore" to introduce the parable as though it were a conclusion drawn from what precedes. However, the preceding passage dealt with forgiving often; this parable deals with the duty of forgiving little or much. The story itself exhibits some confusion. It begins with a king, but the transactions in the body of the story suggest a wealthy merchant and his servant rather than a king. However, the order at the end (34) is more like that of a royal tyrant than that of a private person. The first sum owed is huge; the second is trivial in comparison. This bold contrast may be deliberate exaggeration for the sake of dramatic effect. The social background of the parable is primitive: wife, children, and property are sold to collect a debt. The parable ends with 34. Verse 35 is a sort of moral attached to it. Such morals are rare in connection with Jesus' parables in Matthew. Verse 35 virtually repeats Mt 6:14-15 —the appendix to the Lord's Prayer. It also has a parallel in thought in Mk 11:25. Luke has no parallel; perhaps this peculiar treatment of the theme of forgiveness did not appeal to him. Verse 35 of Matthew is thoroughly rabbinical; the rabbis, too, felt that unforgiving men exclude themselves from the divine forgiveness.1 This parable is much longer than the average parable in the Synoptic tradition, but its thought and point are perfectly clear. It could very well be an authentic parable of Jesus, but there is the possibility that it is a later Christian dramatization of some briefer utterance like "Blessed are the merciful" (Mt 5:7), 2 or the petition for forgiveness in the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6:12). 3 Cf. Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 90. * Cf. M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), p. 151; O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, p. 37. 1 Cf. Moore, Judaism, II, 154; Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 268. * Cf. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 313. ' Cf. Bacon, Studies in Matthew, p. 130. a

327

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. |201-304

LUKE'S GREAT NON-MARKAN SECTION (The Journey to Jerusalem) Lk 9:51 — 18:14

H201-304

This long section of Luke's Gospel has received various captions: Luke's Special Section, Central Section, Perean Section, Travel Journal, and so forth. For those who accept the Markan hypothesis for the composition of Luke's Gospel, this section is Luke's Larger Interpolation, made after Mk 9:50, over against his Smaller Interpolation ( 6 : 2 0 - 8 : 3 ) , made after Mk 3:19a. The best neutral title for Lk 9:51 - 18:14 is Luke's Great Non-Markan Section, over against his Small Non-Markan Section in 6 : 2 0 - 8 : 3 —the two obvious masses of non-Markan matter in the body of Luke's Gospel. This section is not only the greatest single body of non-Markan matter in Luke's Gospel but in the whole of the Synoptic tradition. From the standpoint of source, the section is about equally divided between Q matter and matter peculiar to Luke. There are very few traces of Markan matter, even of Markan influence, in this section. From the standpoint of material, discourse matter predominates over narrative. In this section Luke presents the Q form of four major addresses of Jesus, and there are numerous parables and shorter sayings. There is relatively little narrative matter. There are four stories of cures and a few episodes, usually in dialogue form. Finally, in this section there are more editorial contributions than in any other part of the Synoptic tradition. When Luke introduced this Great Non-Markan Section at this particular point, between the end of Mark's Galilean story and the beginning of Mark's account of the journey to Jerusalem, he had three choices. Since Luke did not bring the Galilean story to a formal conclusion, he could have joined this Great Non-Markan Section to what precedes and have presented it as a long extension of the Galilean story. This Luke did not choose to do. Luke could have presented this great body of matter as a new central section, a period of work falling between the earlier activity in Galilee and the later activity in Jerusalem, a Perean Period with Jesus working east of the Jordan. This view, sometimes accepted, is to be rejected simply because Luke does not treat this section in this fashion. Neither here nor later does Luke have Jesus east of the Jordan. The only new localities mentioned between the end of the Galilean story and the arrival in Jerusalem in Luke are Samaria and the city of Jericho in Judea. Luke's third choice was to seek to integrate this mass of matter into the story which follows. This Luke does, and he presents all of these materials as things said and done on the way to Jerusalem. Luke relates this entire section to the journey to Jerusalem by means of three editorial notices which designate Jesus' destination as Jerusalem: 9:51; 13:22; 17:11. Thus, the journey to Jerusalem becomes the most eventful single period of Jesus'

328

Β.1201-304

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

public work in Luke, extending from 9:51 to 19:28 —nine and one-half chapters as against the one chapter devoted to the journey in Mark (10) and the two chapters in Matthew (19-20). From the standpoint of source, Luke's journey to Jerusalem falls into three parts: Mt 19-20

Mk 10

Lk 9 : 5 1 - 1 8 : 1 4 non-Markan 18:15-43 Markan 19: 1-28 non-Markan

The eventfulness of the journey to Jerusalem in Luke cannot be accepted as historical. Matthew and Mark together have parallels to about half of the matter in Luke's Great Non-Markan Section, but they associate their parallels either with the earlier story in Galilee or with the later story in Jerusalem. Some of the materials in this section of Luke have a Galilean atmosphere and background, or even assume that Jesus is still in Galilee. Much of the material, especially toward the end of the section, relates itself better to the Jerusalem story where most of the parallels of Matthew and Mark are found. Furthermore, very little of the material in this section is journal or travel material. Most of the single units of tradition within it are timeless and placeless. The three journal notices are merely a slender editorial thread too weak to support such a mass of matter. This section of Luke overloads the journey to Jerusalem; so much is said and done that the reader loses his bearings. Luke himself is conscious of this over-eventfulness, and three different times within the section he reminds the reader that Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem (9:51; 13:22; 17:11). The outstanding feature of this section of Luke is the utter disorder of materials. It has been referred to as a "catch-all" ( Bruno Bauer ), "a regular lumber-yard of confused pieces" (Strauss), "a pell-mell chaos" (Loisy), "a hodge-podge" (Guignebert), "a pigeon-hole" stuffed full of odds and ends (Wellhausen), and as a "jumble" of fragments (Bacon). In this section of Luke there is no evident effort at organization of material or at actual literary composition. There is no systematic presentation of materials, no narrative progression, no dramatic development. There is only a semblance of action in the three journal notices; toward the end of the section (17:11) Jesus is no nearer Jerusalem than he was at the beginning (9:51). Luke's Great Non-Markan Section is a formless mass of matter with no literary plan or purpose beyond the desire to record and preserve the traditions which it contains. In this section Luke seems to have done the best he could with what he had to work with.1 Various theories have been advanced about the origin of this section of Luke. It might have come to Luke as a separate document, a fragment of a Gospel.2 It could be Luke's own literary work, combining Q matter with 1 2

Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 27. Cf. E. D. Burton, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the

329

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 2 0 1

peculiar matter and adding frequent editorial notices.3 Luke's Great NonMarkan Section is the cornerstone of the Proto-Luke hypothesis, the socalled first draft of Luke's Gospel.4 According to this theory the section is not an interpolation at all, for such non-Markan sections are basic and the Markan sections are inserts. In this case, too, Luke did not use Q directly but only indirectly; the Q matter in this section came to him already combined with peculiar matter.5 Whatever the origin of this section of Luke's Gospel, Luke seems to have left this great body of matter very much as he found it in his source or sources, contenting himself with occasional editorial contributions. This is a piece of great good fortune for the critical student of the sources of the Synoptic tradition: in this section of Luke he sees the fragmentary, chaotic, and disordered condition of the materials that came down to the Synoptic writers and how difficult it must have been to frame and form them into a complete narrative whole. This section of Luke also provides an important check and control on all parallels in Matthew, particularly those from Q, for Luke seems to have been more faithful to that source than Matthew, and to have taken fewer liberties with the materials. From the historical angle, Luke has made here an important contribution to the total story of Jesus. Luke alone preserves a dozen or so parables, among them some of the most famous and familiar of Jesus' parables, without which any historical knowledge of Jesus would suffer irreparable loss. 201. To Jerusalem via Samaria Lk 9:51-56 Luke inaugurates the second half of his public story in a very solemn manner. Both parts have a pessimistic beginning: the Galilean story began with Jesus' rejection at Nazareth (4:16-30 fîlO); the Jerusalem story, with his rejection in Samaria. Verse 51 reads as though Jesus himself were conscious of this solemn moment: a dogmatic reason, his providential destiny, turns him toward Jerusalem. This turning-point is not just the beginning of the fateful journey, but it is also the first step in his exodus from this world. Luke seems to be thinking of the ascension ("received up") which he reports at the very end of his Gospel (24:50-52a C. j{12) and again at the beginning of the Book of Acts (1:9-11). Synoptic Problem. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1904), p. 241; Feine, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung des Lukas, p. 127ÉF. 8 Cf. Dean Rockwell Wiekes, The Sources of Luke's Perean Section (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912), p. 43ff. 4 Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 195; Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 222. Proto-Luke thus far, allowing for minor inserts from Mark, would include: Lk 3 : 1 - 4 : 3 0 + 5:1-11 + 6:12-19 + 6 : 2 0 - 8 : 3 + 9:51 - 18:14. 5 Cf. Β. and J. Weiss, Lukas, p. 445.

330

Β . 11201

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Verse 51 is the editorial work of Luke, the first of six notices of Jesus' ultimate destination in Luke's total account of the journey to Jerusalem.1 Verse 51 does not introduce what follows immediately (52-56), but it inaugurates the journey and applies to everything down to 13:22 where the second reminder of Jesus' destination occurs. Verse 51 reads as though the end were nearer than it actually is. After 51 the reader would expect a short, rapid journey —not the long, slow journey through almost ten chapters. Luke has the journey start through Samaria, the shorter route directly south, in opposition to Matthew and Mark who have Jesus take the longer route down the east side of the Jordan, avoiding Samaria entirely. However, Luke's route may be nothing more than his own editorial device for introducing his meagre bits of Samaritan tradition. The first episode in Luke's journey to Jerusalem begins with 52, and it is located in Samaria. In Matthew and Mark Jesus never sets foot in Samaria, and in Matthew (10:5) Jesus forbids the twelve to enter "into any city of the Samaritans." Luke is the only Synoptic writer who reports any Samaritan traditions. Even in Luke they are rare and historically uncertain. The localization of this episode in Samaria may be simply the editorial invention of Luke.2 The hostile attitude of the Samaritans here, however, accords with what Josephus reports of the maltreatment of Galileans passing through Samaria on their way to Jerusalem.3 In the manuscript tradition the account of this episode in Luke has had a history. Some MSS (A, C, D, W, etc.) expand the proposal of James and John in 54, and they add, "even as Elijah did" — an allusion to II Kgs 1:10. The present text of the story is unusual in that it reports no key-word of Jesus, simply that "he rebuked them." Some MSS (D, F, Κ, M, etc.) add the words of the rebuke, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of"; or even expand this reply with, "For the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them" (Lk 19:10). Thus it seems to be a story that took form in slow and halting stages. The story proper ends with verse 55. Verse 56, "And they went to another village," is contributed by Luke — a vague notice which tells the reader nothing. Is this next village in Samaria or in Galilee? Does Jesus give up the Samaritan route, or does he defy the Samaritans by continuing through their country? This hazy, uncertain itinerary runs through the whole of Luke's Great Non-Markan Section. Luke ended his Galilean story with an episode involving John (9:49-50 IJ191), and he begins his account of the journey to Jerusalem with a story featuring James and John. The name John may have brought the two stories together in Luke. Luke passed over the surname of James and John, sons of thunder (Mk 3:17), in his list of the twelve and this story could be an exLk 9:51; 13:22; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28. 'Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 12. * Cf. Antiquities xx. 6, 1; Wars ii. 12, 3. 1

331

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 2 0 2 - 2 0 8

planation or dramatization of that surname.4 Or, this story could be a substitute for the Markan story of James and John (Mk 10:35-41 |f314) which Luke omits later.5 202. Would-be Disciples Lk 9:57-62 Mt 8:18-22 1,56 The first clause, "And as they went on the way," is a journalistic notice of Luke fitting the Q matter it introduces into his long journey to Jerusalem. The body of this Q passage Matthew reported early in his Galilean story as a part of his second digression where Jesus was on the point of crossing the sea of Galilee to the eastern shore. As noted there, these harsh demands are more natural where Luke reports them, almost at the very beginning of the journey to death. In Matthew both would-be disciples are volunteers, but in Luke the second is called: "And he said unto another, Follow me." Jesus' shocking utterance about the dead burying their own dead stands in its full force in Matthew. In Luke ( 60b ), however, it is toned down; there is a higher duty and destiny, preaching the kingdom. It is not clear whether 60b was in Q and omitted by Matthew, or whether it was added by Luke to neutralize the almost unfeeling statement to which it is attached. The third would-be disciple ( 61-62 ) is peculiar to Luke — whether added by Luke to Q or found in Q and omitted by Matthew is a matter of opinion. This third instance might be only a variation of the second,1 or 62 might be an authentic saying of Jesus, touched perhaps by pathos, and 61 a not very appropriate provocation for it.2 In any case, this third instance in Luke leaves the impression of anticlimax, an unoriginal creation patterned after I Kgs 19:20. Neither Matthew nor Luke notes any reactions from any quarter to these harsh demands of Jesus. THE ADDRESS TO THE SEVENTY AND THEIR MISSION

Lk 10:1-20 1J203-208

Mt 9:35 -11:1 ^66-80 Mk 6:6b-13 = Lk 9:1-6 P50-152 Mk 6:30-31 = Lk 9:10 fil56 This section is the outstanding instance of repetition and duplication in the Gospel of Luke. It is all the more striking because the two versions of this material come so close together: the mission of the twelve at the beginning of chapter 9, and now the mission of the seventy at the beginning of chapter 10. This duplication in Luke is due to the fact that Luke preserves both the Markan and Q forms of the mission address to the disciples. Cf. * Cf. 1 Cf. 2 Cf. 4

Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 116. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 102. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 47. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 28.

332

Β.1203

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Matthew had both forms before him, but he identified them, combined them, expanded the combined form, and had the whole address delivered to the twelve in 9 : 3 6 - 1 0 : 4 2 (fl66-79) — his only mission of the disciples. Luke did not identify the Markan and Q forms but regarded them as two different addresses connected with two different missions by two different groups. The Markan version Luke reported in Mark's order as the mission of the twelve in 9:1-6 151-152); now he presents the fuller Q form as the mission of a new and much larger group (the seventy) in 10:1-20. Luke's mission of the seventy is not to be regarded as historical. Matthew and Mark know of only one mission of the disciples, that of the twelve. There is no new discourse matter here in Luke. With one exception (Lk 10:13—15 11206), all of these sayings, in one form or another, were addressed to the twelve back in Galilee on the occasion of their mission. The only novel element here in Luke is the new large group mentioned at the very beginning (10:1) and at the very end (17-20), the only two references to thé seventy in the whole of the New Testament. In Lk 22:35 at the table with the twelve on the last night, Jesus reminds the disciples of this mission in 10:1-20. However, this reminder is addressed to the twelve as though they were the ones on this mission, not the seventy. This mission of the seventy is simply Luke's own editorial device for introducing the Q form of this address and for providing it with a narrative framework as a new and separate incident in the life of Jesus. In his source Luke found only the discourse material in 10:2-16; and Luke as editor contributed the introduction in 10:1 and the conclusion in 10:17-20. Thus, he has created a new mission by a new group of disciples. Luke's two missions may belong to the realm of prophetic symbolism.1 The symbolic and prophetic treatment of materials has already appeared in Luke's version of Jesus' rejection at Nazareth (4:16-30 P 0 ) . The mission of the twelve may be symbolic and prophetic of the later Christian mission to the Jews; the mission of the seventy, of the later Christian mission to the Gentiles. This same scheme — first the Jews, then the Gentiles — dominates Luke's story of the beginnings of Christianity in the Book of Acts. Luke's mission of the seventy may symbolize a salient feature of both his New Testament writings, his universalism or his conception of the world-wide destiny of Christianity. At the end of his Gospel (24: 47) the command to preach to all nations is given to the eleven, not to the seventy. 203. The Seventy as Advance Agents Lk 10:1 This section has only the loosest connection with what precedes. It is introduced by the vague phrase, "Now after these things." Some MSS ( A, C, S, W, etc. ) read seventy; others ( B, D, etc. ) read seventy-two. Both 1

Cf. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 433: Loisy, Luc, p. 51.

333

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

B. | 2 0 4 - 2 0 5

numbers have a background in the Old Testament and in Jewish tradition. Luke sets this mission off from the earlier one ( 9 : 1 - 6 ) by the word "others," as though he is aware of the duplication. It is not clear whether the word "others" excludes or might include the twelve in this new mission of this new group. The sending out "by two and two" is one of the few possibilities of Markan influence in this Great Non-Markan Section of Luke, for Mark had the twelve sent out "by two and two" ( 6 : 7 ) . However, Luke has a predilection for deputations of pairs of disciples in his Gospel (7:19; 19:29; 22:8) and for having the apostles appear in pairs in the Book of Acts. This two-by-two scheme does not accord with the conclusion (10:17) where the seventy seem to return in a body, not in pairs. The idea that the seventy are advance agents, quarter-masters ( ? ) , who go ahead to prepare the way for Jesus, seems improbable, and it is not carried out in what follows. It does not seem physically possible that Jesus could cover the territory covered by thirty-five (or 36) pairs of disciples. The instructions which follow assume that the work of the seventy is selfsufficient and not to be supplemented by his own; they are his representatives. In the remainder of the section Jesus makes no effort to follow up the work of the seventy with his own. At the end they return to him; he does not follow them. Lk 10:1 — the whole idea of the mission of the seventy — is the editorial invention of Luke or of his source. 204. Harvest Plenteous — Laborers Few L k 10:2 Mt 9:37-38 fl68 This saying, as noted in connection with Matthew's parallel, must have opened the mission address to the disciples in Q, for it comes at the very beginning in both Matthew and Luke. In Matthew ( |f68 ) it was cut off from the body of the address by the list of the twelve ( jf69 ). In Matthew this saying was addressed to the twelve; in Luke here it is addressed to the seventy. It is more appropriate addressed to the twelve, for their number is few. This shortage of laborers may have suggested Luke's much larger group, the seventy. Addressed to the twelve (Matthew) this saying has a local Jewish and Palestinian perspective; addressed to the seventy, as it is in Luke, the horizon lifts, and the field is the world. 205. Equipment, Conduct and Message Lk 10:3-12 Mt 10:7-16 1J71; Mk 6:7-11 = Lk 9:1-5 fll51 There is no good connection between these instructions and the preceding discourse unit. The word about the harvest and the laborers was general and sweeping; these instructions are detailed and specific. "Go your ways" is Luke's attempt at a transition. Luke's instructions here are in general closer to the original Q form than are those of Matthew which are conflated with borrowings from the Markan version of these instructions. Matthew and

334

Β. 1f206-207

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Luke differ in the order and arrangement of the instructions, in the number given, and in the instructions themselves. Luke's instructions have a definite organization. Verses 5-7 have to do with conduct in a house and may reflect an early stage in Christian missions when the disciples moved from house to house. The instructions in 8-12 concern conduct in a city and may point to a later public stage when the missionaries moved from city to city.1 The order to "salute no man on the way" is new in Luke. It suggests the urgency of the apostolic mission and gives Luke's instructions a distinctly eschatological quality. Twice (7-8) Luke's instructions warn against what must already have appeared as an apostolic weakness — a sampling from house to house for the best fare. At two points (9, 11) Luke's instructions have a decidedly Catholic color: the apostles do not preach the nearness of the kingdom (Mt 10:7); they are the kingdom come nigh, its representatives 206. The Woes on the Galilean Cities Lk 10:13-15 Mt 11:20-24 fl88 Matthew reported these woes early in the Galilean story, in fact too early, for such a retrospect is natural only toward the very end, or after the conclusion, of the Galilean work. Luke has them at a better place in the story as a whole for, in Luke, the Galilean work is ended. However, these woes are wholly out of place in the address to the seventy in which Luke includes them. These woes are addressed to whole cities, literary and imaginative audiences not possibly present. Association of ideas may have led Luke, or his source, to insert them here. The instructions in 10-11 dealt with rejection in a city, and these woes single out three cities in which Jesus failed. Furthermore, Luke's instructions ended with the same statement ( 12 ) that concludes Matthew's second woe (11:24), and this may have seemed to Luke to be an appropriate place for such an insertion. Matthew's two woes have perfect literary balance and symmetry; they are constructed exactly alike. In Luke, however, the second woe breaks off without a conclusion corresponding to the first. Luke may have omitted the conclusion of the second woe (Mt 11:24) because it would be a verbatim repetition of the end of the instructions three verses back (12). These woes are plainly a literary apostrophe. A woe on a city, or on a group of cities, is not addressed except in imagination and then only in writing. They may be a later Christian oracle and not a word of Jesus at all. 207. Concerning Hearing and Rejecting Lk 10:16 Mt 10:40 fl79 Mt 18:5 = Mk 9:37 = Lk 9:48a ||190 Verse 16 really joins on to 12, or even better on to 11. The woes inserted addressed a remote imaginative audience. This final word returns to the 1

Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 460.

335

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

B. Tf208

real audience, the seventy. This Q saying came toward the very close of Matthew's address to the twelve, and it concludes Luke's address to the seventy; hence, it must have concluded the Q form of the address. This utterance has the tone of ending and dismissal. Luke uses the strong negative term reject, and the statement has the nature of a warning proclamation. Matthew uses the milder, more positive term receive, and it has more the quality of an assurance. This Q saying is very much like a saying reported by Mark (9:37 fll90) and reproduced by Luke (9:48a fll90) a little earlier. Both the Markan and the Q forms reflect the Christian sense of solidarity with Christ and, through Christ, with God. In Q this sense of solidarity is that of the Christian preacher whose message is accepted or rejected; in Mark it is that of the average Christian who receives a fellow-Christian, perhaps originally a child (Mt 18:5). In either case the passage is of later Christian origin; it is the Risen Jesus, not the Jesus of history, who is speaking.1 208. The Return and Report of the Seventy Lk 10:17-20 Luke here is narrating with seven-league boots. He strides from Jesus' final word of instruction to the return of the seventy, with no notice about their departure or their work during their mission. There is no literary interlude to produce the illusion of an interval of time such as Luke provided in 9:7-9 ( P 5 3 ) between the departure of the twelve and their return. Luke is giving a sort of fairy-tale treatment: a thing is no sooner said than done. This passage of Luke is composite. Verses 17 and 20 should be joined, for 18 and 19 are fragmentary inserts. With "And he said unto them" from 18, verse 20 joins well on to 17 as an adequate conclusion for the mission of the seventy: 17 And the seventy returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in thy name. 18 And he said unto them, . . . 2 0 In this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.

Verses 18 and 19 are fragmentary bits of stray tradition which have no bearing on the mission of the disciples. Verses 17-20 are the editorial work of Luke, or of his source, on the basis of discourse fragments, whether traditional or invented. Luke's notice of the return of the seventy is not as colorless as his notice about the return of the twelve 9:10 1J156): the seventy return flushed with their successes. The work of the seventy in 17 does not conform to their appointed task in 1 and in the instructions. In verse 1 they were to prepare the way for Jesus; in 17 he does not follow them, but they return to him. 1

Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte

(1921), p. 86.

336

Β.1209

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

In 17 the seventy are elated over their successful use of Jesus' name in expelling demons, about which not one word was said in the instructions (only "heal the sick" in verse 9). Jesus' response in 20 depreciates the miraculous in favor of names recorded in heaven. The idea of books, records, and archives in heaven was common among ancient peoples. According to the Jewish rabbis, there were four different sets of records in heaven.1 This idea lived on in Christian form in the New Testament and in the church down through the centuries. Verse 18 is a word of Jesus peculiar to Luke without even a remote parallel elsewhere in the Synoptic tradition. It has the appearance of a discourse fragment which has been torn from its context, and it is one of the most disputed passages in Luke's Gospel. Some critics 2 regard it as an authentic saying of Jesus referring to some unusual psychic experience or vision, and it has been accepted as evidence of the presence of an ecstatic strain in Jesus' nature. Other critics 3 regard it as an authentic saying of Jesus, but they take the language as imaginative and poetic with no psychological implications. Still others 4 feel that it is as fictitious and apocryphal as the mission of the seventy to which it is attached. The background of 18 is mythological, the ancient story of Satan as a fallen angel cast out of heaven. In Jewish belief Messiah would eventually destroy Satan. In this Christian fragment, however, Jesus is a witness of Satan's fall, a passive observer, not the one who accomplishes it. Verse 19 is another stray discourse fragment as is clear in its rough parallel in Mk 16:17-18 where it is a word attributed to the Risen Jesus, as it should be. It conceives of religion as a sort of magical spell which surrounds the adherent and protects him from harm, a conception that is hardly above the level of primitive superstition. The same general idea is worked out in story-form in the episode of Paul and the viper on the island of Malta (Acts 28:1-6). In all three instances it represents an inferior, fanatical form of the Christian faith. 209. Jesus' Prayer of Praise Lk 10:21 Mt 11:25-26 |f87 This is the first reported prayer of Jesus in Luke, and it is a part of his Great Non-Markan Section and journey to Jerusalem. Luke had five notices of Jesus praying in the course of the Galilean story but he reported no prayers. Matthew included this prayer in his Galilean story toward the close of his third digression. In Q it may have followed close upon the mission Cf. Cf. p. 15. " Cf. 4 Cf. 1

2

Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 169ff. J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu (1900), p. 93; O. Holtzmann, War Jesus Ekstatiker?, Bacon, The Story of Jesus, p. 144. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 51; Loisy, Luc, p. 299.

•337

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

B. 1210-211

address to the disciples. It is not far removed from the mission of the twelve in Matthew ( 1 1 : 1 and 11:25-26). In Luke it is a sort of epilogue to the mission of the seventy,1 and Luke seems to intend to connect it directly with their return, "In that same hour." In Q, however, this prayer may have followed on the woes on the Galilean cities as it actually does in Matthew (1186 and fl87); even in Luke these woes ( j|206 ) and this prayer (11209) are close together. 2 Luke gives the prayer a more colorful introduction than Matthew, one which shows perhaps finer feeling for the exalted nature of the utterance: "He rejoiced in the Holy Spirit." This is the same source of inspiration that Luke used for Elisabeth, Zacharias, and Simeon in his birth stories. In the rabbinical writings the phrase, "in the holy spirit," designates inspired utterance, "in the spirit of prophecy." 3 The prayer itself is rather remote and abstract, as much apostrophe and monologue as prayer. 4 As Loisy noted, it seems to hover between heaven and earth. 5 210. The Father and the Son Lk 10:22 Mt 11:27 fl88 Matthew and Luke both preserve the connection between this passage and the preceding prayer. In the prayer it is the Father who does the revealing, a Jewish ( and later a Christian ) conception; in this passage it is the Son who reveals the Father, a purely Christian conception. Matthew reads "no one knows the Father" which seems better than Luke's "knows who the Father is." This is "a christological confession of the apostolic church phrased in the solemn liturgical language of the hymn." 1 211. Blessed Eye-witnesses Lk 10:23-24 Mt 13:16-17 fll31 This passage retains the exalted mood of the two which precede. All three have a strong note of confidence, even of triumph. Matthew introduced this Q unit into a Markan context in his parable section back in Galilee; in Luke here it is just another stray saying in his Great Non-Markan Section and journey to Jerusalem. Luke speaks of blessed eyes; Matthew, of blessed eyes and ears. Matthew's form is better, for the second half of the saying speaks of both seeing and hearing. In Matthew the eyes and ears are blessed because they function, because they see and hear; in Luke the eyes are blessed because of what they see. In this respect Luke's text is superior, for Cf. Bleek, Synoptische Erklärung, I, 465; Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 906f. Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 447. 3 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 17Θ. 4 Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 51. 5 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 911. 1 Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 436. For fuller notes on these two passages, 1Í209210, see Matthew's parallels, H87-88. 1 2

338

Β.1212-213

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

the saying ends with emphasis on the things seen and heard. Matthew's combination of "prophets and righteous men" is more natural and more Jewish than Luke's "prophets and kings." Religious longing was certainly not a trait of some of the kings in Hebrew history. Lk 10:25-37 fl212-213. From the standpoint of scene, setting, and characters involved, this passage of Luke forms a literary unit: the whole is a dialogue between Jesus and a lawyer. The primary function of this dialogue is to furnish a setting for the parable of the good Samaritan. The parable is the show-piece, and the dialogue introducing (25-28) and concluding it ( 36-37 ) is simply narrative dressing. There is no doubt about the source of the parable; it comes from a special source peculiar to Luke, the first of a dozen or so new parables in Luke's Great Non-Markan Section. However, the narrative setting and the dialogue, especially the first part (25-28), have close affinities with other elements and sources in the Synoptic tradition, and their actual source is a debated issue. 212. The Great Commandment and Eternal Life Lk 10:25-28 There are three possibilities relative to the source of this dialogue leading up to the parable of the good Samaritan. Lk 10:25-28 can be regarded as a revision of Mk 12:28-34 (fl340) with the initial question of the lawyer borrowed from the lips of the rich man in Mk 10:17 (1J309).1 If Luke is using these two widely separated Markan passages and rewriting them to suit his own special purpose, then this becomes the outstanding instance of Markan influence in the whole of Luke's Great Non-Markan Section. Luke's lawyer does not use the question of Mark's scribe, "What commandment is the first of all?" (Mk 12:28). This question was too Jewish and academic to be of interest or importance to Luke's Gentile-Christian readers. Luke's lawyer uses a more pertinent question of vital interest to Christians, even to religious persons, everywhere: "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" — borrowed perhaps from Mk 10:17. In Mk 12:29-31 the two Old Testament quotations are separate because they are from two different writings (Dt 6:5; Lev 19:18). In Lk 10:27 they are run together as though they were a continuous passage in the Old Testament. Lk 10:25-28 could be a non-Markan version (Q, Proto-Luke) of Mark's episode in 12:28-34 (H340).2 Mt 22:34-40 (1J340) and Luke here agree together against Mark that Jesus' dramatic counterpart is a lawyer with hostile design ("trying him"), not a scribe asking a sincere and honest ques1 Cf. Burkitt, Gospel History, p. 164; Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 26; et al. ' Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, I, 585; Hawkins in Oxford Studies, p. 45; et al.

339

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 2 1 3

tion. Furthermore, the very fact that Luke's dialogue occurs in his Great Non-Markan Section would point to a non-Markan source. There is also the possibility that Luke is recounting a similar but altogether different incident over against Mark's anecdote of Jesus and the scribe.3 In Mark and Luke the same Old Testament passages are quoted, but the persons quoting are reversed. In Mark's story the quotations from the Old Testament are the highpoint of the encounter; hence, they are on the lips of Jesus. In Luke the Old Testament quotations are secondary and incidental; hence, they are on the lips of the lawyer. The highpoint of the encounter in Luke is the parable of the good Samaritan with Jesus as its author. However, it is evident that Luke himself does not regard his story of Jesus and the lawyer as an episode independent from Mark's story of Jesus and the scribe, for when Luke comes to Mark's story in Mark's order ( |f340 ) he omits it as though he is conscious of having reported it already. By this subsequent omission Luke might seem to identify his story with that of Mark. Lk 10:25-28 can be regarded as an episode complete in itself apart from the parable which follows. The lawyer's question in 25 is met by a counter-question from Jesus in 26. In 27 the lawyer answers the counterquestion, and in 28 Jesus assures him that he has answered his own question in 25. Verse 28 returns to the theme of eternal life with which the encounter began (25) and rounds out the whole. 213. The Parable of the Good Samaritan Lk 10:29-37 Verse 29 is an awkward transition from the preceding dialogue to the parable, a rickety bridge between the two. The question in 29 is theoretical and academic, and it reflects the rabbinical liking for sharp distinction.1 The parable does not answer this question unless the neighbor is the victim of the robbers, that is, any one in need. However, the parable features the Samaritan, not the unfortunate victim. In the question ( 29 ) the neighbor is the object of the action; in the parable the neighbor is the subject of the action.2 The parable does not answer the question, "Who is my neighbor?" Rather it answers the question, "Whose neighbor am I?" It has been surmised by some that the parable originally featured an Israelite, not a Samaritan.3 The familiar classification in the Jewish congregation was priest, Levite, and Israelite. The antithesis, then, would be between the Jewish clergy (priest and Levite) and the Jewish layman 8 1 2 3

Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.

Rengstorf, Lukas, p. 123; Goguel, Introduction, I, 313f. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 447. Zahn, Lucas, p. 434; Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 52. Halévy in Abrahams, Studies, II, 34; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 467.

340

Β. |213

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

(Israelite). It would be an anticlerical tale told at the expense of the clergy with the moral: mercy is better than sanctity. The parable of the good Samaritan is one of a special group of four parables,4 all peculiar to Luke and all found in his Great Non-Markan Section ( 9 : 5 1 - 1 8 : 1 4 ) . There are no parables of this peculiar type in Matthew and Mark. They differ from all other parables in the Synoptic tradition in that they do not narrate something that is generally true and that can and does happen again and again. They depict something unusual, a unique episode that will never happen in exactly the same way again. In all other parables the lesson is not in the word-picture or in the action of the story; it is on a higher parallel plane, as is usual in pure parable. In these four parables, however, the lesson or point is in the story itself; they are narrative examples or object-lessons. The parable of the good Samaritan is a short, short story with a plot — something unusual in the Synoptic parables. There is an unusually large number of characters — primary, secondary, even tertiary — each playing his proportionate part. The choice of the primary characters is perfect for the action developed: the priest and the Levite (the elite of Israel), and the Samaritan (the outcast). The dramatic role and function of the priest and the Levite are indispensable: the parts they play highlight the action of the Samaritan. The parable would lose most of its forcefulness if the indifference of the priest and the Levite did not precede and form a contrast to the mercy of the Samaritan. Like so many of Jesus' parables, this one is not told to the end, a fact which adds to the art of its design. The reader never learns whether the victim recovered, whether the Samaritan kept his promise to return, and so forth. The story is developed to the point where the lesson is clear, and then it ends abruptly. This parable is wholly unique in one respect: actual places are named. The action is localized between Jerusalem and Jericho. This has led to the occasional surmise that it is based on an actual occurrence and that it is not an invention of Jesus. However, the story is generally regarded as pure fiction. The localization might suggest that it was spoken originally to a Jerusalem audience and that it was a part of the Jerusalem story, which may have been the case.6 The parable as it now stands is a piece of creative writing. There is, however, no sound reason for doubting that it is based on an equally impressive and original oral composition from the lips of Jesus himself. In such a literary and religious masterpiece the reader begins to realize the importance of the contribution which Luke has made in the new parables which he preserves in his Great Non-Markan Section. It is of such materials 'The other three are found in Lk 12:16-21 11249; 16:19-31 11288; 18:9-14 J[304. See Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 585-641. 5 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 448; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 446; et al.

341

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 2 1 4

that the modern mind would construct its conception of Jesus as a great religious genius of history. Verses 36-37 resume and conclude the dialogue begun in 25-28. Jesus' question in 36 does not conform to the lawyer's question in 29. Verse 36 reads more like a question from writer to reader than a question from Jesus to the lawyer. Verse 37b returns to the very beginning of the episode (25), the matter of doing. Originally this parable was independent and separate apart from its present narrative and dialogue framework.® Luke, or his source, must have provided the narrative framework which makes it a part of an episode. The parable and the narrative built around it do not go too well together. Their joining is artificial, due perhaps to verbal association, or association of ideas: the term and idea of neighbor is about all that holds them together as a larger narrative whole. 214. In the House of Mary and Martha Lk 10:38-42 There is no good reason why this episode should appear at just this point in Luke, but this is true of most of the materials in his Great NonMarkan Section. Luke may be following a continuous written source; certainly he is not writing with a free hand. Luke as editor contributes 38a: "Now as they went on their way, he entered into a certain village." Luke's "they" probably includes the disciples, but they are not mentioned in the story which follows, not even as passive observers. The primary function of 38a is to fit the Mary-Martha story into the travel scheme of this Great Non-Markan Section. The village is a way-station on the journey to Jerusalem which thus far in Luke has taken its course through unnamed villages (9:52, 56). The sisters Mary and Martha are unknown to Matthew and Mark, and this is their only appearance in Luke. They are known to the Gospel of John where they play a prominent part in chapters 11 and 12. In John they have a brother Lazarus, and their home is Bethany near Jerusalem. Luke here shows no knowledge of a brother Lazarus, and the sisters live far from Jerusalem in some village of lower Galilee or upper Samaria. These sisters are another of several points of affinity between the Third and the Fourth Gospels. This episode, like so many in the Synoptic tradition, climaxes in a keyutterance of Jesus (41-42). In such instances the reader often has the impression that the key-saying might be older than the narrative setting in which it occurs. Here, however, the key-word is built up around Mary and Martha, especially around what they represent. The saying and the story 6

Cf. Feine, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung, p. 106; Loisy, Luc, p. 303; et al.

342

Β.H215-218

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

are so closely integrated that they must have been conceived and composed together with a view to each other and have always existed together. 1 This story with its utterly christocentric nature must be regarded as a piece of pure Christian invention: Christ is served (Martha); Christ is adored (Mary). It is pure legend featuring the piety of saintly persons. Mary and Martha are types and ideals rather than real persons. The church fathers regarded them as symbols of the two great ways of Christian living: Martha, vita activa; Mary, vita contemplativa. The story expresses a clear preference for Mary and the life of mystical contemplation. It is the purest piece of Christian mysticism in the Synoptic tradition. It stands in sharp contrast with the parable of the good Samaritan in which the vita activa was idealized. Lk 11:1-13 |f215-218. The next four units of Luke are discourse, dealing with the theme of prayer. However, they are very different types of discourse and give very different treatments of the prayer-theme. This little series seems to be an accidental or a loose topical grouping rather than one aiming at systematic presentation. 215. The Lord's Prayer Lk 11:1—4 Mt 6:9-15 j[35 Matthew reported his version of the Lord's Prayer in the address that inaugurated Jesus' public work; he included it in his Sermon on the Mount in connection with other words on prayer, a purely topical association. Luke reports his version of this prayer here in his Great Non-Markan Section and journey to Jerusalem. In Luke it is not a part of any special discourse; it is a stray unit for which he provides a special provocation in verse 1. The Lord's Prayer probably came down to Matthew and Luke as bare discourse without scene, setting, or provocation. In 11:1 Luke gives his sixth notice about Jesus praying. It is the last such notice in the Synoptic tradition until the final and most dramatic of all, in Gethsemane. This notice, like the previous ones, is probably the editorial work of Luke suggested perhaps by the prayer which it introduces. However, this editorial contribution of Luke may contain some historical tradition. The Jewish rabbis, as Jesus here, were often requested to formulate prayers, and some of them did compose special prayers for themselves and their disciples. The reference to the prayer-practice and the special prayer which John taught his disciples may rest on historical tradition, although no prayer of John or of his disciples has survived. A system of prayer and a formulary prayer would be a natural corollary to the rite of baptism and the periodic fasting practiced by John and his group. Luke mentioned the "supplications" 1

Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 311; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 33.

343

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.f216

of John's disciples back in 5:33. The request of Jesus' disciples here certainly casts no reflection on the praying or the prayer of John and his disciples. In fact, it concedes the priority and originality of John and his group over against Jesus and his disciples. It seems certain that at least three early Christian practices came from John and his group: baptism, systematic fasting, and formulary prayer. Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer is briefer than that of Matthew. Luke has only five petitions to Matthew's seven; Luke has no parallel to the second and seventh petitions of Matthew. It is not probable that Luke condensed a fuller form like that of Matthew, for the tendency of liturgy is in the opposite direction —to expand and embellish. There is some evidence, particularly from the heretic Marcion,1 for an additional petition in Luke's version of the prayer: "Thy holy spirit come upon us and cleanse us." This new petition is obviously a later Christian addition; it nullifies the petition, "Thy kingdom come," and robs the prayer of its eschatological outlook. It may have been suggested by the promise a few verses later (11:13). Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer is fresher, less formal and liturgical, and harder to read and repeat than that of Matthew. It does not have the balance, finish, and smoothness of Matthew's version. In fact, Luke's form has the roughness and abruptness of spontaneous oral utterance, and it is probably nearer the form in which it left the lips of Jesus — if the prayer goes back to him. Luke's version does not bear the traces of liturgical use in early Christian services of worship, although Luke seems to regard it as a formulary: "When ye pray, say." As noted in connection with Matthew's parallel, it is not probable that either Matthew or Luke would take any liberties with such a sacred saying as the Lord's Prayer. In all probability, Matthew and Luke simply reproduce the forms of the prayer as it was known to them in their respective Christian circles. The two versions are so different that one might hesitate to ascribe them to a common source like Q, 2 or one might account for the variations by different versions of Q used by Matthew and Luke. 216. The Parable of the Friend at Midnight Lk 11:5-8 The prayer-theme continues, but the discourse takes the form of parable. This is the second parable peculiar to Luke in his Great Non-Markan Section, and it is one of the most obscure parables ascribed to Jesus. It has never appealed to the Christian imagination because of its unembarrassed realism. This parable is interrogative throughout ( 5 - 7 ) , an appeal to ordinary human experience, and it draws its own conclusion ( 8 ) . It is 1 2

Cf. Klostermann, Lukas, p. 124. Cf. E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 220.

344

Β.1217-218

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

a homely sketch from the petty life of plain people; a borrowing neighbor at night can be a nuisance. Human nature appears here off guard. The man in bed is an egoist wholly selfish in his motives — to be rid of the borrower and back to sleep. He has no real sympathy for his neighbor's plight, and he is not actuated by any sense of duty or desire to help. There is, then, a great remoteness between the materials and the theme they dramatize. This fact, however, does not prejudice the point to the parable: if an annoyed neighbor responds to importunity, so certainly the One to whom prayer is addressed. The conception of prayer here is naïve and primitive; it is a stormy, unrelenting insistence that persists until its request is granted. It is a good example of pure parable because it is true to life and because it defies the Christian disposition to allegorize. The Christian might think of himself as the needy neighbor but he could hardly imagine God as the lazy man in bed. This parable has an almost identical twin in the parable of the widow and the unjust judge in Lk 18:1-8 ( j[303 ), also peculiar to Luke. If they occurred together they would form a good parable-pair.1 They have the same form, length, and structure. Both use unideal materials to dramatize an ideal theme: selfish persons who grant a request to end an annoyance. Both deal with the answer to prayer in the same naïve and primitive manner. Lk 11:9-13 1J217—218. In these two sayings the theme of prayer continues but in an altogether different mood and spirit. These sayings occur together in Luke as they did in Matthew (and Q) who used them to expand his Sermon on the Mount in 7:7-11 (^44-45). 2 217. Concerning Asking, Seeking, Knocking Lk 11:9-10 Mt 7:7-8 1144 This saying deals with exactly the same theme as the preceding parable — answer to prayer, but the treatment and the attitude are changed completely. The impatient importunity in the parable gives place to the quietest trust and confidence: one has only to ask in order to receive, and so forth. Taken alone, this saying does not apply to prayer in particular, and it is not necessarily religious in its general character. It could be a bit of popular, even secular, wisdom that could be applied to any human quest.1 218. The Parable of the Requesting Son Lk 11:11-13 Mt 7:9-11 If45 There are two principal differences between Matthew and Luke in their versions of this Q parable. (1) Matthew has a double contrast: loaf, stone; 1 Cf. Feine, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung, p. 92; Bowen, The Gospel of Jesus, p. 148; et al. 2 For fuller notes, see Matthew's parallels, 1144-45. 'Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 318f; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 64.

345

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. ^[219-226

fish, serpent. Luke has a triple contrast; the first two are the same as in Matthew but a third is added: egg, scorpion. Some MSS of Luke (B, Syr sin , etc.) omit the first contrast: loaf, stone. This is an improvement, for the three contrasts overload this brief parable, and the last two of Luke form a better balanced statement: the good and the useful (fish, egg) over against the dangerous and harmful (serpent, scorpion). (2) In Matthew Jesus promises "good things" which balances well with "good gifts" in the first part of the concluding statement. In Luke Jesus promises "the Holy Spirit" which destroys the balance with "good gifts" and amounts to a "christianization of a pre-Christian saying," 1 The Holy Spirit as used here by Luke falls outside of the religious perspective of Jesus. It is a religious conception and value of the early church. The Book of Acts, still unwritten, with its gift and role of the Holy Spirit is already in the mind of the author of the Third Gospel.2 THE BEELZEBUB ADDRESS

Lk 11:14-26 P19-226

Mt 12:22-37 = Mk 3:19b-30 Ρ15-124

Matthew reported the Beelzebub section in Mark's order back in Galilee, and he gave a combination of the Markan and Q forms with some other matter added. Luke, however, passed over Mark's Beelzebub section, and now he gives the Q form in his Great Non-Markan Section and journey to Jerusalem. Luke must have been looking ahead to this later point in the story when he omitted Mark's version of this material. Luke here shows no influence whatever from the Markan form of this matter, and his form of this section is a good example of his preference for Q over Mark when he does choose between them. Six of Luke's eight units are to be found in Matthew's Beelzebub section and in the same arrangement. These six units at least must belong to the Q form of this address to which Luke seems closer than Matthew. Luke introduces his Beelzebub section abruptly with no effort at integration. It is just an isolated body of matter in his chaotic mass of non-Markan material in 9:51 -18:14. 219. The Cure of the Dumb Demoniac Lk 11:14 Mt 9:32-33 fl65; 12:22-23 flll6 Matthew used this Q cure twice, once in his cycle of ten wonder-works (|[65) and again as the introduction to his Beelzebub section (tfll6) where undoubtedly it belonged. Luke's form here is closer to Matthew's first form because Matthew added blindness and recovery of sight when he repeated the story in connection with his Beelzebub section. Luke reports no public reaction to this cure such as Matthew did in both instances (9:33b; 12:23). 1 s

Cf. Windisch, Der Sinn der Bergpredigt, p. 143. Cf. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 68.

346

Β.1220-222

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

These reactions were probably added by Matthew for they are extremely Jewish, in fact, too Jewish for Luke and his Gentile-Christian readers — if they should happen to go back to Luke's source. 220. The Beelzebub Charge Lk 11:15 Mt 12:24 = Mk 3:22 Ρ 1 7 ; Mt 9:34 fl65 In Matthew and Luke (and Q) this charge grows out of the preceding cure: the expulsion of a demon leads to the charge of expelling by the prince of demons. This is a more natural and logical provocation than is found in Mark where the adverse opinion of Jesus' family (3:21) recalls another adverse opinion (3:22), that of the scribes: "He hath Beelzebub." Luke does not identify the persons or parties making the charge as do Mark ( scribes from Jerusalem ) and Matthew ( Pharisees ). Luke's "some of them" is more primitive than the conventional critics specified by Mark and Matthew. The known tendency of any live and growing tradition is to become more and more specific, to make the indefinite definite, rather than the reverse. 221. The Demand for a Sign Lk. 11:16 Mt 12:38 fll.25; Mt 16:1 = Mk. 8:11 fll72 Matthew reported both forms of the demand for a sign back in Galilee: the Q form in 12:38 ( P 2 5 ) ; the Markan form in 16:1 in Mark's order (Mk 8:11 Tf 172 ) - Luke passed over the Markan form of the demand for a sign; it was a part of his Great Omission. Now Luke reports the Q form but at a very awkward point, for it breaks the unity of two sections in Luke. Lk 11:16 breaks the natural connection between the Beelzebub charge (11:15) and Jesus' refutation (11:17-26), and the demand itself in 11:16 is separated from Jesus' reply in 11:29-32. Luke may not be responsible for this confusion; it may go back to his sources for the Great Non-Markan Section. As Luke's arrangement now stands, there is a double assault on Jesus (11:15, 16) and then a double reply (11:17-26, 29-32). Luke again does not specify the persons or parties making the demand, as does Mark in the one instance and Matthew in both. Luke says simply "others" which recalls "some of them" in the preceding verse. Again, Luke's indefiniteness is probably more primitive than the conventional opponents specified by Matthew and Mark. 222. The Parable of the Kingdom and the House Divided Lk 11:17-18 Mt 12:25-26 = Mk 3:23-26 flll8 This parable opens Jesus' reply in all forms in the Synoptic tradition. Matthew reported this parable in Mark's order, but he used the Q form as Luke does here. The Q transition, "knowing their thoughts," joins naturally to the Beelzebub charge in verse 15 but not to the demand for a sign

347

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.H223-225

in verse 16, for that demand seems to have been made openly. Matthew and Mark think of the house as a social unit, a family; Luke seems to take the term house literally as a building which collapses.1 223. Exorcism and the Kingdom of God Lk 11:19-20 Mt 12:27-28 p i 9 This little unit occupies the same position in the address in both Matthew and Luke, and it must have had this position in Q itself. Matthew and Luke read verbatim except for one item. Luke reads "finger of God" which is an Old Testament phrase (Ex 8:19) and which would be more natural in Matthew with his fondness for Old Testament expressions. Matthew reads "Spirit of God" which would be more natural in Luke's Gospel where the Holy Spirit is featured with a frequency that it is not in either Matthew or Mark. 224. The Parable of the Strong Man Lk 11:21-22 Mt 12:29 = Mk 3:27 1(120 This parable belonged to both the Markan and the Q forms of the Beelzebub section. Matthew reproduced Mark's form in Mark's order; Luke here seems to be giving the pure Q form. The Markan form is briefer than the Q form, and the two forms have a different narrative point of view. The Markan version is told from the point of view of the invader breaking into the house; the Q form, from the point of view of the strong man who defends his house against the invader. There is nothing necessarily religious about this parable in either form. Apart from its context, it could be a piece of profane wisdom.1 225. No Neutral Ground Lk 11:23 Mt 12:30 fll21; Mk 9:40 = Lk 9:50b p 9 1 This little Q unit reads more like a Christian pronouncement than a word of the historical Jesus. It is egocentric, that is, christocentric. It has the formal, officious, and dogmatic tone which expresses the agreed mind of the believing group. It reflects the situation of the later church, within which constructive and disruptive forces are at work. Even the figurative terms gather and scatter belong to the pastoral language of the early Christian community. The inverted Markan parallel to this saying (Mk 9:40 = Lk 9:50b If 191) was discussed in Mark's order. With this little discourse unit, agreement between Matthew and Luke in the content and composition of this Beelzebub section ends. 1 1

Cf. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 222. Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 324.

348

Β.^226-228

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

226. The Parable of the Unclean Spirit Lk 11:24-26 Mt 12:43-^5 fîl27 As noted earlier, each of the Synoptic writers has a different conclusion for the Beelzebub section. Mark ended with the word on the unpardonable sin (3:28-30 1[122); Matthew, with the warning about idle words (12:36-37 11124). Now Luke ends the section with this Q parable of the unclean spirit, and this may have been the conclusion in Q itself. However, this parable relates itself to the Beelzebub section only in the most general way — the expulsion of demons. In itself it seems too calm and detached to be the climax of a controversy that stemmed from such a serious charge at the beginning.1 Matthew used this Q parable ( 1}127 ) to conclude his little Q section on the demand for a sign ( lfl25-126 ). Its original context is unknown. 227. A Woman Extols Jesus' Mother Lk 11:27-28 This little episode is generally regarded as a variant of the Markan story in 3:31-35 (H128) which Luke reproduced in 8:19-21 (ljl45). Jesus' mother is involved in both episodes in Luke. In lfl45 she was present; here she is eulogized in absentia. The key-word of Jesus in Lk 11:28 is almost a verbatim repetition of Lk 8:21; and in each case this key-utterance involves a depreciation of natural kinship. The abrupt appearance of the episode at this point in Luke may go back to his source. In Mt 12:46-50 (11128) and in Luke here it follows upon the parable of the unclean spirit, and in Matthew it is only slightly removed from the Beelzebub section which immediately precedes it in Luke. The introductory formula (27a) is editorial and characteristic of Luke. The beatitude in 27b is in the style and spirit of Luke's birth stories, and it is one of the rare suggestions in the Synoptic tradition of a religious disposition which later found full form and expression in Mariolatry. The entire passage is probably an "ideal scene" 1 rather than an historical episode. A similar story is told of Buddha.2 228. The Sign of Jonah Lk 11:29-32 Mt 12:89^2 fil26; Mt 16:4a = Mk 8:12 fll74 In Matthew (1J125-126) and in Mark (1jl72, 1(174) the demand for a sign and Jesus' reply came immediately together to form a dramatic episode. In Luke the demand (H221) and the reply (1(228) are separated, and the dramatic effect is gone. Because of this separation, Luke provides a new editorial setting in 29a in which this reply is addressed to the multitudes. Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 393. C f . Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 30. 2 Cf. Seydel, Die Buddha-Legende, p. 26f; van den Bergh van Eysinga, Indische Einflüsse, p. 48ff. 1

l

349

JESUS A N D THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. | 2 2 9 - 2 3 0

Luke seems to have forgotten the multitude he reported as present two verses back (27). Luke reports only the Q form of both the reply and the demand ( j|221 ). Jesus' reply in 29b is clear until it reaches the sign of Jonah. As already noted, this sign of Jonah compromises the refusal which precedes ("no sign"), and it is wholly unclear and enigmatic in itself. Matthew and Luke both seek to derive a meaning from it, but neither is really successful. Matthew (40) interprets the sign of Jonah in the light of the Jonah story and adventure, "three days and three nights in the belly of the whale." Luke sees the sign of Jonah in his message of repentance. His interpretation may be no better than that of Matthew, but it does make a smoother connection with what follows. Matthew and Luke report the two Old Testament allusions in reverse order. The order in Luke is the correct chronological order: Solomon in 31, Jonah in 32. However, the inverted order in Matthew brings the two references to Jonah together ( 40-41 ).

229. The Parable of the Lamp on the Stand Lk 11:33 Mt 5:15 ]¡22; Mk 4:21 = Lk 8:16 ffl33 Matthew reported the Q form of this little parable early in his Sermon on the Mount; the Markan form (If 133) he omitted. Luke reported this parable first in Mark's order (fll33), conflating the Markan and Q forms, and now he presents the pure Q form in his Great Non-Markan Section. It is a stray settingless saying, but Luke presents it here as though it were continuous discourse with what precedes. Actually, however, Luke (or his source) is simply cataloguing sayings with no concern for time, place, or context. 1 230. The Parable of the Eye Lk 11:34-36 Mt 6:22-23 fí38 Verbal association, the catch-word 'lamp," brings these two Q passages together ( jf229-230 ). In Matthew's Sermon on the Mount these two units are widely separated ( ]¡22, |f38 ). Their original separateness and independence are clear in the difference in their nature. The parable of the lamp is objective and impersonal; the parable of the eye is subjective and in the second person singular throughout. Verses 35 and 36 may be two different attempts to explain 34. The explanation in 35 is a warning; it cautions. Matthew's parallel explanation (6:23b) is an exclamation. Verse 36 is new and peculiar to Luke. It is a "dull and obvious platitude" which ends with a repetition of the conclusion of the parable of the lamp (33b). It is missing in several ancient MSS of Luke (D, it, Syr c u r ). 1

For fuller notes on this parable, see Mt 5:15 1122; Mk 4:21 1133.

350

Β.1231-242

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

T H E ADDRESS AGAINST T H E PHARISEES AND LAWYERS

Lk 11:37-54

fl231-242 Mt 23:1S9 jf342-357 Mk 12:38-40 = Lk 20:45-47 1J342, |[345

Thus far in Luke's Great Non-Markan Section the reader has encountered numerous passages which Matthew and Mark associated with the earlier story in Galilee. But with the third Q address in this section of Luke the reader begins to meet materials which belong in the later Jerusalem story where the parallels of Matthew and Mark actually occur. Lk 11:37-54 is one of the seven major addresses ascribed to Jesus in the Synoptic tradition, but it is a major address only in Matthew and Luke on the basis of their Q source. Mark's only parallel (12:38-40) consists of three verses and does not merit the name "address." In Matthew and Luke (and Q) the address is made up primarily of an elaborate series of woes; the one brief parallel in Mark is an impersonal indictment of the scribes and does not have woe-form. Matthew reports the address in connection with Mark's indictment of the scribes as a part of the Jerusalem story (f342-357), but with virtually no influence from Mark otherwise. Luke, as usual, keeps the two forms separate: he reports the Q form here in his Great Non-Markan Section and journey to Jerusalem ( ]f231—242 ) ; the Markan indictment he reports in Mark's order in the course of the Jerusalem story (11342, fl345). Apart from the differences in scene and setting, Matthew and Luke differ in their forms and use of the basic Q address. Matthew has seven woes; Luke has six. Luke's six woes comprise the main body of his address, but Matthew's seven woes are just the central section of an expanded discourse. Matthew's seven woes run off in rapid unbroken succession, and all seven are directed against the scribes and Pharisees. Luke's six woes fall into two groups: the first three indict the Pharisees; the last three, the lawyers — a group that does not figure in Matthew's indictments. Matthew's woes have greater uniformity than those of Luke; six of Matthew's seven woes begin with the same stereotyped formula, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" Matthew and Luke present their woes in very different order and arrangement. Finally, some discourse units which have woeform in Luke do not have woe-form in Matthew, and vice versa. In his source Luke probably found only the eight discourse units which compromise the address proper. These are the only elements which Luke has in common with Matthew. Luke, as editor, has contributed four sentences which supply a narrative framework for the eight discourse units and which cause the whole to appear as an actual incident in the life of Jesus. Luke contributes a setting for the whole address in 37 (fl231); a provocation for the first three woes in 38 (fl232); a transition to the second

351

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1231-232

half of the address and a new audience in 45 (1(237); and a conclusion for the whole in 53-54 (1(242) : Discourse from Q

Editorial contributions 11231 Lk 11:37 1[232 38

Lk 11:39-44 H233-236 11237

45

11242

53-54

46-52 1(238-241 The narrative framework in the editorial contributions is entirely the invention of Luke; for the most part, on the basis of suggestions from the discourse units themselves. 231. Jesus at the Table of a Pharisee Lk 11:37 Luke introduces this new section as though it were an interruption of the preceding discourse, "Now as he spake." It is intended to leave the impression of continuity and sequence. The scene here, Jesus as a guest at the table of a Pharisee, is almost conventional with Luke: he used it earlier (7:36), and he will use it again later (14:1). This scene and setting was probably suggested to Luke by the first discourse unit which names the Pharisees and uses figurative speech taken from table service, the cup and the platter (39). This private setting is not suited to the address which follows. The address itself indicts whole classes, and it is not appropriate as a table-talk to a few assembled guests. Furthermore, such bitter castigations of a host and his class by a guest of honor would be an unpardonable breach of the ordinary rules of hospitality and propriety.1 The indictment of the scribes in Mark and Luke (1(342, 1(345) and Matthew's form of the address are delivered before the general Jerusalem public. 232. The Woes against the Pharisees Lk 11:38 This one verse is the only possible echo in the whole of Luke's Gospel from the long section he omitted from the latter part of Mark's Galilean story (Mk 6 : 4 5 - 8 : 2 e ) . 1 If it is an echo from Mark's controversy on unwashen hands (7:1-23), then it would constitute positive proof that Luke had read that long section of Mark and deliberately omitted it. In Mk 7:2 the neglect observed by the critics was that of the disciples; here in Luke it is that of Jesus himself. However, verse 38 of Luke seems to be purely 1 1

Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 362; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 478; et al. Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 331.

352

Β.1233-235

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

editorial in nature, and it could easily have been suggested by the first discourse unit (11:39) which deals with the cleansing of table service. As already noted in connection with the same issue in Mark (7:1-5 1(162), the rule on the washing of hands before meals had not yet come into effect for laymen at the time of Jesus. Lk 11:38 also reminds the reader of 7:39 where another Pharisee who was Jesus' host made a mental note, an unexpressed observation, to which Jesus replied openly. 233. The Inside of the Cup Lk 11:39-41 Mt 23:25-26 jf3S2 Luke again uses the term Lord instead of the name Jesus.1 The very fact that this peculiarity appears in tiny editorial contributions of Luke would suggest that he is responsible for its use wherever it appears in this special sense. In the first discourse unit from this Q address the reader realizes where Luke may have obtained his suggestions for his setting for the address: the host and table scene in 37 and the issue of washing in 38. In Luke this first discourse unit does not have woe-form; rather it seems to introduce the three woes which follow. Matthew's parallel, however, does have woe-form, and it is the fifth woe in Matthew's series. The rabbis contrasted the outside and the inside of a vessel,2 but this utterance as ascribed to Jesus seems to contrast container and content. Luke's reading toward the end, "give for alms," does not make sense. The reading should be "cleanse" as it is in Matthew. "Give for alms" is commonly regarded as a mistranslation or corruption of Luke's text.3 234. Woe 1 Things Done and Undone Lk 11:42 Mt 23:23-24 1(351 This discourse unit has woe-form in both Matthew and Luke, and it must have had woe-form in Q. It is the first woe in Luke, but it is the fourth in Matthew's arrangement. This woe has in part the background of a famous Old Testament passage: Mie 6:8. The second half of this woe (42b) is missing in some MSS of Luke (D, Marcion, etc.). Luke has no parallel to Matthew's striking aphorism (24) about straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel. 235. Woe 2 Lovers of Deferences Lk 11:43 Mt 23:6-7 = Mk 12:38b-39 = Lk 20:46 1(345 This is the second woe of Luke, but Matthew's parallel does not have woe-form. In Matthew this indictment is impersonal; it is not in the second See Cf. 3 Cf. Gospels: 1

2

notes on Lk 7:13 1fl08. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 188. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 61; Einleitung, p. 27; C. C. Torrey, Our Translated Some of the Evidence (New York: Harper, 1936), p. 102.

353

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.

1236-238

person plural ("ye") as it is in Luke. Furthermore, it occurs in the introductory section of Matthew's address which leads up to the woes. This is the only approach in the whole of the Q form of the address to Mark's single indictment against the scribes. 236. Woe 3 Hidden Tombs Lk 11:44 Mt 23:27-28 fl353 This is the third woe of Luke, the sixth of Matthew, and it must have had woe-form in Q. Luke's version is briefer and more compact than that of Matthew, even apart from the fact that Luke has no parallel to Mt 28. Matthew and Luke also have different imagery. Matthew is thinking of whitewashed sepulchres whose showy exterior contrasts with their gruesome content. Luke is thinking of an abandoned and forgotten burial-ground which one traverses without realizing that he is walking over graves. Luke may have changed the whited sepulchres to unmarked graves because the Jewish custom of whitewashing tombs was not familiar to his GentileChristian readers. However, Luke's imagery may be preferable to that of Matthew. Whitewashed tombs advertise themselves for what they are, and they can be avoided. But one can walk over unmarked graves without knowing it. Back of both versions is the law in Nu 19:16: contact with a grave defiles a person for seven days. 237. The Woes against the Lawyers Lk 11:45 This dialogue break in the address is a familiar literary device of Luke. He often introduces interruptions or creates pauses in continuous discourse. This break, however, does not seem to be arbitrary on Luke's part but dictated to him by the fact that the lawyers are named in the fourth and sixth woes. This would require a transition to a new audience in the middle of the address. The lawyers must have been named in Luke's source, for they are not conventional opponents of Jesus like the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. The lawyers as a class never figure in Matthew or Mark. 238. Woe 4 Makers of Burdens Lk 11:46 Mt 23:4 fí344 This fourth woe of Luke, the first against the lawyers, does not have woe-form in Matthew, where it is an impersonal indictment of the scribes and Pharisees in the introductory section of the address leading up to the seven woes. In such cases there is no sure way of knowing whether one Gospel writer has invented the woe-form or whether the other has suppressed it. This particular indictment would be more pertinent addressed

354

Β.1239-240

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

against the scribes and Pharisees than against the lawyers, but in either case the justice of such a charge is open to question.1 239. Woe 5 Builders of Tombs Lk 11:47-48 Mt 23:29-32 j|354 This fifth woe of Luke is the seventh and last in Matthew's series, and again the woe-form must go back to Q. Again, too, the text of Luke is briefer and more compact than that of Matthew. In Luke this woe does not single out a particular group for indictment; it is so general that it could strike the whole Jewish people. Luke's final clause, "and ye build their tombs," destroys rather than proves the point. Torrey 1 suggests a new translation, "and ye are their children." This makes sense and is nearer the text and thought of Matthew. 240. Words of the Wisdom of God Lk 11:49-51 Mt 23:34-36 fí356 This Q passage in Luke breaks into the series of woes, between the fifth and the sixth. In Matthew, however, it comes only after the full series of seven is completed. It seems, then, to have been a part of the Q form of the address, but its exact position is uncertain. In Matthew Jesus is represented as speaking, but in Luke he is quoting the wisdom of God. In Luke wisdom is speaking as in Proverbs 7-9. The Jews often personified the attributes of God. This passage is now generally regarded as an extract from some lost Jewish writing. It is obviously a piece of literary composition, not an extemporaneous oral utterance. It has the form, style, and tone of a divine oracle. The passage is transcendental and retrospective in its point of view; no human, historical person is speaking. God is speaking, surveying the centuries. The identity of the Zachariah in 51 is uncertain. It could be that the Zachariah referred to here is the priest, not the prophet, whose murder is recorded in II Chron 24:20-21. 1 If this is the case, then the murders referred to would be the first (Abel) and the last in the Jewish Scriptures. However, the allusion here may be to a Zacharias murdered by the Jewish zealots during the siege of Jerusalem in 68-70 A.D., 2 and recorded by Josephus.3 If this should be the case, then the allusion would be to the first and last murders in Jewish history. Such an allusion and quotation cannot have been 1 Cf. C. G. Montefiore, Some Elements of the Religious Teaching of Jesus according to the Synoptic Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1910), p. 159. 1 Cf. The Four Gospels, p. 146. 1 Cf. Spitta, Grundschirft, p. 333; T. W. Manson, The Mission and Message of Jesus, p. 395. 2 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 137; Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 441. a Cf. Wars ίν. 5, 4.

355

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 2 4 1 - 2 4 3

made by Jesus, for the date for the lost Jewish document would be around 70 A.D.4 The date for Q which quotes it would be still later, in the 80's.5 241. Woe 6 The Key of Knowledge Lk 11:52 Mt 23:13 fí348 Luke's form of this address ends abruptly. It does not have the artistic and rhetorical conclusion supplied by Matthew (23:33-39 P55-357). This sixth and last woe of Luke is the very first in Matthew's series. In Luke it is an indictment of the lawyers, but in Matthew it is directed against the scribes and Pharisees. The principal difference between Matthew and Luke is in the key-term and idea: Matthew reads "the kingdom of heaven"; Luke reads "the key of knowledge." Matthew's text is the more authentic, for the term kingdom of heaven is Jewish, and it is the basic theme of Jesus' message throughout the Synoptic tradition. The theoretical intellectual concept of knowledge is Greek and unnatural in a Jewish mind like that of Jesus. The term in Luke's text must be due to the influence of later Greek Christianity. Knowledge in the practical sense as a mastery of subjectmatter is rabbinical. The rabbis had a virtual monopoly on knowledge of the law. The verb "entered" which follows, even in Luke, is more appropriate in relation to the kingdom of heaven than to knowledge. 242. The Scribes and Pharisees Lk 11:53-54 At the very end of the address Luke forgets the beginning (37-38), the house and the table of the Pharisee. The reaction is a general public reaction from whole classes. It is not from the Pharisees and lawyers indicted in the woes but from the scribes and Pharisees, the groups indicted in Matthew's woes. The lawyers disappear and the scribes take their place. The hostile attitude and action here anticipate the later situation in Jerusalem where, in fact, the whole address belongs. Luke is ahead of his story. 243. The Leaven of the Pharisees Lk 12:1 Mt 16:4b-12 = Mk 8:13-21 fll75 Chapter 12 of Luke is a jumble of sayings ascribed to Jesus, principally from Q, and joined occasionally by conventional editorial formulas. Most of these sayings are addressed to the disciples, but the multitudes are in the background as here at the very beginning in la, which is the editorial work of Luke. This passage may be joined on to what precedes by verbal association, the word "Pharisees." Or, it may be joined on topically, for in substance it indicts the same group that was struck by the first three woes. * Cf. Paul Wernle, Sources of Our Knowledge of the Life of Jesus, Trans. E. Lummis (Boston: Beacon Press, 1907), p. 135. 5 Cf. Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 162f.

356

Β.f244

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

The saying itself is one of three fragmentary parallels to the long section of Mark which Luke omitted from the latter part of the Galilean story ( Mk 6:45 - 8:26), but there is no evidence that Luke here is in any way dependent on the parallel saying in Mk 8:15. In Mark this figure of the leaven was inserted into a dialogue between Jesus and the disciples during a crossing of the sea of Galilee. This dialogue framework in Mark casts a deep reflection on the intelligence of the disciples. In Luke this figure of speech is addressed to the disciples in the presence of the multitudes, and the situation in no way compromises the disciples. Mark had a double figure: the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod. Matthew had a single figure: the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Luke has the figure in its simplest form: the leaven of the Pharisees. In Mark the figure was left unexplained both by Jesus and the Gospel writer. Matthew explained the figure as "the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees" (16:12). In Luke Jesus himself explains the figure: the leaven of the Pharisees is their hypocrisy. Luke is probably giving the version of this saying from Q where the figure appeared in its simplest form and with its most natural meaning. The very fact that this saying is a part of Luke's Great Non-Markan Section would point to Q as the source for his version. "First of all" seems to single out the disciples for special warning, but purely private and esoteric instruction of the disciples to the exclusion of the multitudes is not characteristic of Luke as it is of Mark. "First of all" may not be a part of the setting but the beginning of the saying itself: "First of all beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees."1 The explanation, "which is hypocrisy," may be Luke's own contribution. If Jesus had meant hypocrisy, however, it would have been simpler for him to have dropped the figurative speech altogether and to have said plainly, "Beware of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees,"2 as he does in substance on other occasions. 244. The Parable of the Manifestation of the Hidden Lk 12:2-3 Mt 10:26-27 Íf75; Mk 4:22 = Lk 8:17 j|134 Matthew reported the Q form of this saying in his address to the twelve back in Galilee but the Markan form he omitted. Lk 8:17 reproduced Mark's form (4:22) in Mark's order ( P 3 4 ) , and now Luke gives the Q form as a stray saying in his Great Non-Markan Section and journey to Jerusalem. The second half of the Q form, which seems to be explanation, has no parallel in the Markan form. In the case of the Q form Matthew and Luke derive different meanings from the parable proper. According to Matthew (10:27), Jesus' private message to the disciples will later be their public message; according to Luke (12:3), the private message of the disciples will later become a public proclamation. Light and darkness form a 1 2

Cf. Klostermann, Lukas, p. 133. Cf. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, I, 55.

357

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1245-246

natural figurative contrast for publicity and secrecy. In itself the saying has no necessary religious character, and it could be a secular saying that has been transformed into a word of Jesus.1 245. Summons to Fearless Confession Lk 12:4-9 Mt 10:28-33 176; Mk 8:38 = Lk 9:26 1181 This passage and the preceding occur together in both Matthew (U7576 ) and Luke ( f244-245 ), and they must have stood together in the document Q. Matthew included both in his address to the twelve, but in Luke ( and in Q ) they are a part of no special address. The passage has greater solemnity in Luke than in Matthew because of the threefold repetition of "I say unto you" (4a, 5b, 8a) and the single "I will warn you" (5a). Verse 4a, "And I say unto you my friends," is an editorial resumption of speech. This is the only instance in the Synoptic tradition where Jesus addresses his disciples as friends, a term and idea better suited to the Gospel of John (15:14-15). Verses 8-9, by their own nature and the original Markan form, are a separate saying. Luke reported the Markan form, omitted by Matthew, earlier in Mark's order (|fl81). Luke's Q form here is more like Mark's form than Matthew's Q form. In both instances in Luke and in the one instance in Mark Jesus speaks of the Son of man objectively, but in Mt 10:32-33 (1J76) the term Son of man is dropped and the pronoun "I" takes its place; in Matthew Jesus himself becomes the arch-witness before the Father. The Christian nature and origin of this passage was pointed out in connection with the discussion of Mt 10:32-33 (ì[76). 246. The Unpardonable Sin Lk 12:10

Mt 12:31-32

= Mk 3:28-29

Ρ22

In Mark this discourse unit concluded the Beelzebub section, and it was addressed to hostile critics. Matthew reported it in Mark's order, giving a conflation of the Markan and Q forms, but it did not conclude Matthew's Beelzebub section. In Luke (and apparently in Q) this passage has no connection with the Beelzebub section, and it is a warning addressed to the disciples, perhaps to Christians generally. Luke seems to be giving the pure Q form of this piece of discourse. It is briefer than the Markan form, and in Q there is less emphasis on the eternal nature of the unpardonable sin. The greatest difference, however, is that in Q it is a Son-of-man saying, while in Mark it is not ("sons of men"). Luke joins it to the preceding Sonof-man saying, but it might be more appropriate after verse 12 than it is after 8-9. 1 The Christian nature and origin of this passage was pointed out in the course of the discussion of Mk 3:28-29 ( P 2 2 ) . 1 Cf. 1

Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 107f. Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 454; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 487.

358

Β.1247-249

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

247. Prompt Preparation at Trial Lk 12:11-12

Mt 10:19-20 fî72 Mk 13:11 = Lk 21:14-15 j|363 This passage of Luke seems to be a non-Markan form, perhaps that of Q, of the discourse unit in Mk 13:11 where it is a part of the great eschatological address in Jerusalem and which Matthew, in 10:19-20, included in the address to the twelve back in Galilee. Apparently it was not associated with the eschatological address in Q, for it appears here in Luke as a stray discourse unit without a larger context. Luke has still a different version of this assurance in his eschatological address in Jerusalem. Lk 12:11-12 presents a very different conception over against Mk 13:11. In Luke the Christian remains the speaking subject; his ego is not suppressed by the Holy Spirit as it is in Mark. Verses 11-12 of Luke would follow well on 8-9. Both passages have the background of trial and adversity for Christians, and both involve courageous confession for believers confronted with loyalty to their faith. Lk 12:13-21 |f248—249. This passage might be regarded as a self-contained unit held together by the theme of possessions with 13-14 providing a narrative setting for the parable which follows in 16-20.1 This matter is peculiar to Luke, and it breaks into a long series of Q sayings. The whole of 13-21 might be lifted, leaving 12:22 (Q) to join on to 12:12 (Q). 2 248. Concerning Covetousness Lk 12:13-15 This little episode may be the invention of Luke designed to introduce the parable which follows in 16-20.1 Or, it may be that 13-14 is an independent narrative and dialogue unit.2 It might even be a historical incident, for holy men in the Orient are often called upon to pass judgment upon purely worldly affairs. Jesus' reported reply in 14 is a reproach in rhetorical form and a very abrupt ending of the encounter. The exact purpose and function of verse 15 is uncertain. It could be a moral drawn from 13-14, a moral which actually is not there.3 It could be a discourse transition to the parable which follows.4 It could be a title or moral anticipating the point to the parable which follows.5 Or, 15 and 21 together could form literary brackets for the parable in 16-20.® Cf. Cf. 1 Cf. 2 Cf. 3 Cf. 4 Cf. 5 Cf. 6 Cf. 1

2

T. W. Manson, The Mission and Message of Jesus, p. 562. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 615. Loisy, Luc, p. 345. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 3 1 ) , p. 21. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 65. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 489. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 615; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 135. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 456.

359

JESUS AND T H E

FIRST

THREE

GOSPELS

B. 1 2 4 9 - 2 5 1

249. The Parable of the Rich Fool Lk 12:16-21 This is the second of Luke's four special parables which are narrative examples or object-lessons.1 It is developed primarily by monologue ( 17-19 ), the central element of which ( 18 ) is more for the benefit of the reader than for the rich man himself.2 There is nothing specifically Christian about the parable. Any orthodox Jewish rabbi could subscribe to its teaching. In fact, it may have had a purely Jewish inspiration; it could very well be a dramatization of Sirach 11:19: 3 W h e n he ( t h e rich m a n ) saith, I have found rest, And now will I eat m y goods; Yet he knoweth not what time shall pass, And he shall leave them to others, and die.

This parable originally may have had an eschatological point, warning of the nearness and suddenness of the end, not of the uncertainty of life.4 Verse 21 is not necessary to the parable whose point is clear without it. Verse 21 "underlines the obvious."5 It is not the only possible, or even the best, moral to be drawn from the parable. "Man proposes; God disposes" would be more appropriate.6 Verse 21 may be an editorial comment contributed by Luke (or his source) intended as a sort of transition to the thought and theme of the next passage. Verse 21 is not found in some MSS of Luke ( D, a, b ). Lk 12:22-34 1J250—251. These two Q passages, which occur together in Luke and are not a part of any special discourse, were a part of Matthew's expansion of his Sermon on the Mount where the two were separated and in reverse order (i[40, |f37 ). 250. Concerning Anxiety Lk 12:22-32 Mt 6:25-34 fl40 Luke cuts this long discourse unit off from what precedes with "And he said unto his disciples," which reaches back beyond 13-21 to the Q sayings addressed to the disciples in 1-12. Verse 26 is the turning-point or transition in the discourse proper. "Nations of the world" (30) is the most common rabbinical designation for non-Jewish peoples.1 Verse 31 is much stronger and more uncompromising than Matthew's parallel (33). The word "first" See Lk 1 0 : 2 9 - 3 7 H213, note 4. Cf. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 609. 3 Cf. Feine, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung, p. 82. 4 Cf. Dibelius, Gospel Criticism, p. 143. 5 Cf. B. T. D. Smith, The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels: a Critical Study bridge: University Press, 1 9 3 7 ) , p. 143. 6 Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 346. 1 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 191. 1

2

360

(Cam-

Β.1251-255

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

in Matthew, absent from Luke, weakens Jesus' position.2 Luke has no parallel to Mt 34. Verse 32 of Luke is a later Christian admonition; it is pastoral in its language, tone, and spirit. Back of 32 is the common Christian conception of believers as a flock with Christ as its shepherd.3 Verse 32 could be joined to what follows as well as to what precedes.4 251. Concerning the Laying Up of Treasures Lk 12:33-34 Mt 6:19-21 fl37 Luke's version of this Q saying is much stronger than that of Matthew owing to his new introduction: "Sell that which ye have, and give alms." This is another trace of the practical lay Catholicism that colors Luke's Gospel and the Book of Acts. Luke regards renunciation as a virtue, poverty as good, riches as evil and sinful. In Luke the contrast between treasures on earth and treasures in heaven is not as clear and sharp as it is in Matthew. Lk 34 continues the second person plural of 33, and it has less the appearance of a separate saying than it does in Mt 6:21 where it is in the second person singular. In Matthew it is a precept for the individual disciple; in Luke, for the believing community. Lk 12:35—48 ^252-255. The four discourse units which follow present a small body of eschatological materials, and from this point on the reader will encounter more and more of this type of matter, not only in Luke's Great Non-Markan Section, but in the Synoptic tradition generally. These particular eschatological units deal not with the end but with the duties of those who await the end. 252. The Parable of the Absent Lord Lk 12:35-38 This discourse unit of Luke is not parable in its pure form. It is a mixture of parable, allegory, and direct admonition. It contains three separate elements. ( 1 ) Verse 35 is a metaphorical admonition very similar to Eph 6:14 and I Pet 1:13. It may once have been an independent unit which Luke has used to introduce what follows.1 ( 2 ) Verse 37b is allegory and foreign to the possible parable in 36-38. It is not true to life: the master serves the servants.2 The true-to-life treatment of his theme will appear in a parable peculiar to Luke in 17:7-10 (fl292). Lk 12:37b would have a better place in connection with Lk 22:27b. 3 ( 3 ) 36 + 37a + 38 approaches parable form. This unit of Luke has certain affinities with the quasi-parable at the end of Mark's eschatological address (13:33-37 fl383). It also has affinities with Cf. Cf. 4 Cf. 1 Cf. 2 Cf. 3 Cf. 2 3

Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 74f. Loisy, Luc, p. 349. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 66. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 71. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 164f. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 67.

361

JESUS

AND T H E

FIRST

THREE

GOSPELS

B. 1 2 5 3 - 2 5 4

Matthew's story of the ten virgins (25:1-13 1|387): certain details and some similarity of thought and theme.4 In Luke this passage is followed by the same two Q parables (If253-254) which in Matthew ( jf385-386) precede the story of the ten virgins ( 1J387 ). This might indicate that the three parables were closely associated in Q.5 There may be some ragged remnants of words and thoughts of Jesus in Lk 12:35-38 but as the passage now stands it is primarily an early Christian formulation.6 The background is the death of Jesus. Faithful Christians await his return; they are sensitive to the long delay. The passage reflects repeated disappointment. Lk 12:39-46 H253-254. These two parables occur together in both Matthew and Luke, and they must have stood together in Q. Matthew includes both in his great eschatological address in Jerusalem (24:43-51 j[385-386). In Luke they appear here in connection with other eschatological fragments in his Great Non-Markan Section, but they are not a part of a major address on this subject. They do not seem to have been a part of the Q form of the address. 253. The Parable of the Thief Lk 12:39-40 Mt 24:43^44 P 8 5 This parable may once have had an antecedent. The beginning, "But know this," reads like an adversative statement to something that preceded. Verse 39 is the parable proper; verse 40 is the application or commentary. The whole falls within the religious perspective of Jesus, and it may be an authentic parable of his. It is genuinely Jewish and wholly free of Christian coloring. The idea of this imagery lived on in Christian form in the early church: the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night.1 The coming of a thief is something to be feared, not hoped for; thus, the analogy applied only to the suddenness and unexpectedness of the thief's coming. The prospect of the end aroused two strains of emotion in the early church. The end was something to be hoped for, contemplated with yearning. On the other hand, the end was something fearful and awesome. The earliest Christians contemplated the end with mixed emotions. 254. The Parable of the Faithful and Unfaithful Servant Lk 12:41-46 Mt 24:45-51 fí386 In Matthew this parable and the preceding one form continuous discourse. In Luke, however, these two parables are separated by a question Cf. Cf. β Cf. (1931), 'Cf. 4 6

Carpenter, The First Three Gospels, p. 301. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 458. Smith, The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels, p. 107f; Bultmann, p. 125. I Thess 5 : 2 ; Rev 3 : 3 ; 16:15; II Pet 3:10.

362

Geschichte

Β. 1Í255-256

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

ascribed to the Apostle Peter ( 41 ). This question may have been in Q, and Matthew may have omitted it because it broke into continuous discourse. Such interruptions of discourse, however, are characteristic of Luke's Gospel, and Peter's question may be Luke's own editorial contribution. This question pertains to the preceding parable; however, it goes unanswered. The new parable which follows is not a reply to it. In the case of this parable there is little difference between the versions of Matthew and Luke but enough to alter the implications. The duty of faithfulness falls upon all Christians in Matthew's form, but Luke seems to be thinking of the special responsibilities of the leaders of the church.1 In Luke the question is addressed to Jesus by Peter, the chief of the apostles, and it seems to distinguish between the leaders and the laymen, "unto us, or even unto all." Luke uses the term steward at the beginning of the parable which suggests higher and greater responsibility. After the first line, however, Luke uses the term servant as Matthew does throughout, and this would seem to have been the term used in Q itself. The parable depicts two contrasting eventualities neither of which is consummated because of the uncertainties pertaining to the future. The language of the parable has a strong Semitic color and flavor. At the end (46b) the depiction leaves the field of parable and moves over into the realm of allegory.2 The vicious punishment described is not that which a real master would inflict on a real servant; it is rather an allegorical description of the fate that awaits the religiously unfaithful. 255. Many or Few Stripes Lk 12:47-48 Luke joins this passage to the preceding as though there were no break in the flow of the discourse, "And that servant." This connection is not good, for the unfaithful servant in 46 was to be destroyed; in 47 he is to be flogged. Verses 47-48a may be a parable fragment,1 or a mutilated parable.2 Or, it might be that 48b was originally an independent proverb and that 47-48a was spun out of it.3 In 48b the thought and theme of Luke's parable of the pounds is anticipated (19:12-28 1|318). The distinction between unwitting and wilful sins is Jewish and rabbinical.4 256. Figures of Fire and Baptism Lk 12:49-50 These sayings appear here very abruptly. They are so detached and isolated that their meaning is hardly clear, especially that of the first. They 1 2 1 2 3 4

Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.

Β. and J. Weiss, Lukas, p. 494; Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 160; et al. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 152; Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1921 ), p. 100. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 452; Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 159. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 72. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1931 ), p. 125. Moore, Judaism, I, 464.

363

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.

1257-258

are companion utterances which are brought together by their figurative language and by the emotional tension with which they are charged. Both figures of speech are striking, but they do not refer to the same thing. The figure of the fire in some strange way refers to Jesus' mission, "I came," but the text and translation of 49 are so uncertain that the exact point is lost.1 Verse 49 has the transcendental and superhistorical implications involved in all the "I came" utterances. It might be regarded as an imitation and anticipation of what follows in 51a.2 The figure of the baptism seems to refer obviously to Jesus' destiny, his death. This figure, which is never used in this sense by Jesus in Matthew, is doubly attested. It occurs in Mk 10:38-39 ( 1J314) and in this non-Markan ( Q ? ) passage of Luke. It may very well be an authentic utterance of Jesus expressing his premonition of death.3 Both verses, 49 and 50, have been regarded by some critics as later Christian formulations; 4 however, they are too human emotionally to be later Christian inventions.5 257. Dissension in the Family Lk 12:51-53 Mt 10:34-36 ψΊ Matthew reported this Q passage toward the close of his address to the twelve back in Galilee. In Luke here it is a stray saying in his Great NonMarkan Section, and it seems to have had no connection with the Q version of the mission address. Matthew's figures of speech have better balance (peace; sword) than those of Luke (peace; division). However, Luke's term division is literal rather than figurative, and it is better suited to what follows, discord and dissension within a family. Luke is thinking of a family of five divided, three against two, and two against three. Matthew is not thinking of a divided family but of a general conflict between the younger and the older generations. The passage has no real originality; it seems to be a Christian paraphrase of Mie 7:6 —which fact is clearest in Matthew's form (10:36) 258. The Signs of the Times Lk 12:54-56 Mt 16:2-3 j|173 Matthew inserted this Q passage between the demand for a sign (Mk 8:11) and Jesus' reply (8:12) where it had an unnatural and uncertain place. At least, Matthew sensed the polemical nature of the passage, and he had it addressed to hostile critics. Luke has it spoken to the multitudes in spite of 1 2 3 4 s

Cf. Torrey, The Four Gospels, p. 150. Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 355; Les Évangiles, I, 892. See Mk 10:38-39 1Ï314. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 93f. Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 458; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 496.

364

Β.1259-260

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

the fact that the saying itself names a hostile audience, "Ye hypocrites" (56). The reference to the earth in 56 should be deleted (Matthew), for weather signs are in the sky. 259. The Parable on Going before the Judge Lk 12:57-59 Mt 5:25-26 j|25 This is one of the Q sayings with which Matthew expanded the early part of his Sermon on the Mount. In Luke it is just a detached unit in his Great Non-Markan Section. Verse 57 is discourse, yet it seems to be the editorial contribution of Luke, an attempt at transition. However, it does not lead up to the thought of the passage (58-59) which it introduces. Furthermore, it is in the second person plural while the saying proper is in the second person singular. Luke seems to be thinking of civil courts in Greek and Roman terms; Matthew seems to be thinking more in Jewish, Palestinian terms.1 In Luke the point is to escape the adversary, not to be reconciled with him as in Matthew. Luke's form may be superior to that of Matthew and nearer the original point and purpose of the saying.2 In and of itself, the saying has no necessary religious connotation, and it may once have been a precept of ordinary prudence or a profane proverb.3 260. The Galileans Slain by Pilate Lk 13:1-5 This passage presupposes familiarity with the Jerusalem locale, and it may properly belong in the Jerusalem story.1 Luke, however, includes a great deal of Jerusalem material in his Great Non-Markan Section and journey to Jerusalem. This passage is unusual in the Synoptic tradition because it contains allusions to contemporary events: an atrocity of Pilate and a local catastrophe in Siloam. There is no other record or reference to these two events. A local catastrophe like the second would hardly merit record by historians but the atrocity attributed to Pilate could hardly escape them. Josephus in his writing makes it clear that he is familiar with Pilate and his administration, but he nowhere mentions the massacre of the Galileans here referred to in Luke. In all probability Luke here is confused, and the reference should be to Samaritans, not Galileans. Josephus 2 tells of Pilate's slaughter of a group of Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim shortly after the Passover in 35 A.D. This mass murder led to Pilate's deposition. If this is the act of Pilate which Luke has in mind, Jesus could not have known of it since it happened after his death. This passage of Luke reads like a piece of pure literary composition Cf. Cf. 3 Cf. 1 Cf. 2 Cf. 1 2

Fiebig, Jesu Bergpredigt, p. 51. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 57f. Loisy, Luc, 358f. O. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, p. 329; Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 53. Antiquities xviii. 4, 1.

365

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 2 6 1 - 2 6 2

which never existed in oral form, especially the verbatim repetitions in 3 and 5 which are not at all in the usual style and spirit of Jesus' utterances. 261. The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree Lk 13:6-9 This is the fourth new parable which Luke has contributed in his Great Non-Markan Section. He introduces it simply with a listing or cataloguing device, "And he spake this parable." The parable itself is a clear and welldefined unit developed entirely by dialogue. It ends in suspension because of the uncertainty that pertains to the future, yet it makes its point without being told to the end. The reader is not told whether the owner granted the vinedresser's request; nor, if he did, whether the new year brought any change. The parable may belong to the Jerusalem story among other discourse materials which comment on the Jewish people and their history. There seems to be some actual connection between this parable of Luke and the story of the cursing of the fig tree in the Jerusalem story of Matthew and Mark (Mk 11:12-14 fl328; 11:20-21 j|332). The basic theme is the same in both: in Luke's parable a barren fig tree is threatened with destruction; in the cursing story of Matthew and Mark a barren fig tree is destroyed. The cursing story has been regarded by some critics 1 as primary and Luke's parable is derived from it. This, however, inverts the usual processes of traditions: things do not tend to become less miraculous but more so. It is more probable that the cursing of the fig tree is a degeneration or deterioration of the parable of the barren fig tree.2 Luke's parable here may be his substitute for the cursing story which he does not reproduce from Mark's Jerusalem story. 262. The Cure of the Infirm Woman Lk 13:10-17 This is a stray story, one of the few pieces of narrative in Luke's Great Non-Markan Section. It is also the first of three stories of cures peculiar to Luke in this section. This particular story has a Galilean atmosphere about it: the teaching in the synagogue, the sabbath cure, the controversy — all suggest the earlier part of the Galilean story where it probably belongs. As a piece of narration, this story is extremely Jewish in its thought, feeling, and language. Even Jesus himself appears in a stronger Jewish light (16) than is usual in Luke. Interest in the story centers on the controversy rather than on the cure. The cured woman disappears after 13. Jesus' critic here is new among his opponents in the Synoptic tradition, the ruler of the synagogue. The critical rebuke is to the people for bringing their sick on the sabbath, but it charges Jesus indirectly with professionalism and violation of 1 2

Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 113; Renan, Les Evangiles, p. 194. Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 354; Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 447.

366

Β.1263-264

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

the sabbath. The critical comment goes unrefuted, even unanswered, unless verse 16 be regarded as an adequate reply in which Jesus reasons and speaks out of a sense of racial solidarity — on the basis of the woman's rights as a Jewess. The analogy about the domestic animals in 15 is not a counterargument. An affliction of eighteen years' standing does not involve an emergency; the cure could have waited until after the sabbath. Verse 17 reads like a reaction to a series of wonder-works, not to a single cure.1 The relation of the analogy in 15 to the rest of the story is a problem. The whole story may be a fabrication built up around the analogy as a narrative framework for it,2 although the story and the analogy do not go too well together. On the other hand, the analogy could be a later insert, for it seems to have been a wandering unit that attached itself at will to sabbath cures. Matthew (12:11 1J91 ) used it in connection with a Markan cure, and he must have found it as a separate unit. Luke uses it a second time a little later in connection with another cure peculiar to his Gospel (14:5 fl271). Furthermore, the narrative framework around the analogy here uses the name Jesus throughout, but the analogy itself is introduced with "But the Lord answered him," which was perhaps its special introduction as an isolated saying. The analogy has its least impressive form here in Lk 13:15. The form in Mt 12:11 and Lk 14:5 depicts an emergency rather than a routine action on the sabbath. This story of Luke may be the result of the conflation of two originally separate narrative units. Verses 10-13 present a typical healing story with its conclusion in 17b, while verses 14r-16 depict a sabbath controversy with its conclusion in 17a.3 The originality of this story has been questioned, and it has been regarded as a fictitious duplication of Luke's story of the withered hand (6:6-11 1f9l). 4 In both stories interest centers on the controversy rather than on the cure. In neither of the two stories is there any request for cure or any show of faith on the part of the afflicted person or on the part of others. Each story involves an affliction the relief of which is not urgent, and in which the cure could wait until after the sabbath. Lk 13:18-21 |f26.3-264. Matthew (13:31-33 138-139) reported these two parables together in his parable section back in Galilee. In Luke they appear here at random in his Great Non-Markan Section as do most of the materials in this mass of non-Markan matter. Since these two parables occur together in both Matthew and Luke, they must have stood together in Q itself. In Q, too, they must have been settingless sayings with no indication as to when, where, why, or to whom they were spoken. Cf. Cf. 3 Cf. 4 Cf. 1

2

Loisy, Luc, p. 367; Les Évangiles, II, 119. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 5. Fascher, Die formgeschichtliche Methode, p. 89fF. Loisy, Luc, p. 364; Rengstorf, Lukas, p. 154.

367

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 2 6 3 - 2 6 5

263. The Parable of the Mustard Seed Lk 13:18-19 Mt 13:31-32 = Mk 4:30-32 fll38 This was the third of Mark's key-parables in his parable section (4:1-34) back in Galilee where Matthew reported it in Mark's order. Luke here seems to be giving the pure Q form of this parable which agrees with Mark's form in one respect, the double interrogative introduction. Otherwise, Mark and Q give different versions. In Mark all interest centers on the seed; there is no sower. In Q a man sows the seed in his own garden. The Q form of the parable is a piece of narration, but the Markan form reads more like an impersonal comment or observation on a natural process. The Markan form emphasizes the smallness of the seed and the greatness of the mature growth; the Q form does not feature this contrast. The same ideas are expressed in different language in Mark and Q. Mark reads "putteth out great branches"; Q, "became a tree." Mark has "under the shadow thereof"; Q, "in the branches thereof." Matthew gave a complete conflation of the Markan and Q forms. 264. The Parable of the Leaven Lk 13:20-21 Mt 13:33 fll39 In this Q parable, unknown to Mark, Matthew and Luke agree verbatim except for the introduction. Luke has a single interrogative introduction, and the term kingdom of God is a part of it. Matthew introduces it simply as "Another parable," and the term kingdom of heaven is a part of thé parable itself. This is one of the rare instances in Jewish or early Christian literature where leaven is a figure for something good. Usually it symbolizes something sinister and evil. 265. Teaching and Journeying to Jerusalem Lk 13:22 This statement differs from the usual editorial notices supplied by Luke. It is not a conclusion to what precedes; neither is it a transition or introduction to what follows. It is a detached independent notice interjected at this point to give the semblance of action to this actionless body of non-Markan matter in 9:51-18:14. Like 9:51 and 17:11, it has a bearing on the entire section and is designed to associate it with a definite period in the life of Jesus. This notice is intended to orient the reader, to remind him of Jesus' destination, and for a moment the journey to Jerusalem comes into the foreground. In terms of the stage, the journey to Jerusalem is the backdrop for this great mass of non-Markan matter. Appearing as it does in a great body of discourse material, this notice might suggest that Jesus intends to storm the Holy City with his message.

368

Β.1266-267

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

266. The Narrow Door Mt 7:13-14 fl47 Lk 13:23-24 Matthew reported this saying toward the close of his Sermon on the Mount. In Luke it is not a part of any continuous discourse, and he provides for it a special provocation in 23a: "And one said unto him, Lord, are they few that are saved?" This question was suggested by the saying it introduces, and it anticipates the reply as affirmative. Luke's version of this saying is briefer and more pointed, for it is an urgent appeal with a strong eschatological tinge. Matthew's version is a quiet, expansive admonition. In Matthew there is a choice between the narrow and the wide gates; in Luke there is no choice, for there is only one entrance — the narrow door. In Matthew the difficulty is in finding the narrow gate and the straitened way; in Luke the difficulty is not in finding but in entering by the narrow door. In his imagery Luke seems to be thinking of a crowded entrance. 267. The Parable of the Late Arrivals Lk 13:25-27 Mt 7:22-23 i|49 This saying and the preceding seem to have been closely associated in Q, for they occur together here in Luke and they are only slightly separated in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (7:13-14, 21-23) toward the very close of that address. Verbal association, the word "door," may have brought the two together; however, the doors in the two sayings are very different. In the preceding saying there is a narrow door which few can enter; in this saying there is a closed door which opens to no one. Verse 25 gives the passage parable-form in Luke. This verse has no parallel in Matthew and the parable-form disappears. In Matthew the terrible ban (23) will be pronounced by Jesus himself; in Luke it is the pronouncement of the master of the house and a part of the parable. In Luke this ban strikes unbelieving Jews, but in Matthew it falls upon the false teachers and leaders in the Christian community itself. The unity of this passage is open to doubt. Verse 25 might be an insert separating 24 from 26-27. 1 On the other hand, 26-27a might be an insert breaking the connection between 25 and 27b.2 Or, 25 could be a self-contained unit. Verse 27b is from Ps 6:8a and turns the parable into allegory; it is a divine pronouncement, not a ban from the master of the house in the parable. Furthermore, 25 parallels Matthew's appendix to the story of the ten virgins (25:10b-12 |f387) almost verbatim.3 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 122; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 146. Cf. D. Völter, Die Menschensohn-Frage neu untersucht (Leiden: E. J. Brill Verlag, 1916), p. 39. 3 Cf. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 459; Fiebig, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, p. 205f. 1 2

369

JESUS A N D T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f 2 6 8 - 2 6 9

268. The Assembly in the Kingdom of God Lk 13:28-30

Mt 8:11-12 fl53; 20:16 |f312 Mt 19:30 = Mk 10:31 fl311 Matthew's parallel to this isolated utterance in Luke was inserted into the Q story of the centurion where it was out of place except for a superficial association of ideas. Luke's form makes it clear that this saying was an independent unit in Q and had no connection with the centurion story. Luke uses the conclusion of the saying in Matthew at the beginning as a transition from what precedes. "The weeping and the gnashing of teeth," however, is more natural at the end in connection with the "outer darkness" as Matthew has it. The passage is a pro-Gentile, anti-Jewish statement which dissipates what Loisy called the "Jewish messianic mirage." Verse 30 is a separate and independent saying which has attached itself at three different points in the Synoptic tradition. This is the only appearance of this paradox in Luke, and it is apparently from a non-Markan source ( Q ) . Luke omits the Markan form later (Mk 10:31 |f311 ). Matthew reports this paradox twice and the two forms are very close together: first in Mark's order in 19:30 ( P l l ) and then in 20:16 (fl312) where it is attached to the parable of the laborers. The very fact that the saying is a paradox precludes any important difference between the Markan and Q forms.

269. Jesus Warned against Herod Lk 13:31-33 This bit of tradition certainly does not belong in the journey to Jerusalem, for such a warning is pointless unless Jesus is still in the territory of Herod, that is, in Galilee. If it is authentic, it probably belongs among the events that led up to Jesus' departure from Galilee. It would have a more natural place in connection with Lk 9:7-9 (1jl53) where Herod's attention was attracted to Jesus. These two Lukan passages would not go well together, for in 9:7-9 Herod is merely curious to see Jesus while here his design is to kill him, which actually may be nearer the facts of history. Luke's phrase, "In that very hour," aims to give close connection between events. It is, however, purely editorial: Luke used the same device back in 13:1. The role of the Pharisees is strange, for they seem to act in good faith — something rarely attributed to them in any form of Christian tradition. However, in Luke's Gospel as a whole the Pharisees do not present a solid hostile front to Jesus as they do in Matthew and Mark. Verses 32 and 33 read like two separate and different replies to 31. They have only one thing in common, the strange threefold designation of time: "to-day and to-morrow, and the third day." Verse 33 repeats and, to some extent, contradicts 32.1 Verse 33 might be cut off as a later addition, 2 or the 1 2

Cf. Goguel, Introduction, I, 474. Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 127; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 39.

370

Β.1270-274

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

episode might end in the middle of 32 with the word "to-morrow."3 Verse 32 is a veiled prediction of death, "I am perfected," in the same spirit and esoteric language as 9:51: "be received up." In 32 Luke seems to be writing rather than Jesus speaking, for the same sort of sketch of Jesus' work, "I cast out demons and perform cures," appears in the Book of Acts (2:22; 10:38). The prediction in 33 has an altogether different quality: Jesus expects to die in Jerusalem on the basis of historical calculation — the prophets have always died there. This is historical necessity rather than the divine necessity of the first formal prophecy of death in Lk 9:22 (fll78). Verse 33b is bitter irony, and it is interesting because Jesus thinks of himself as a prophet, not as the Messiah. The mention of Jerusalem at the very end is calculated to introduce the apostrophe which follows. 270. The Lament over Jerusalem Lk 13:34-35 Mt 23:37-39 1j357 In Luke this passage appears in a random manner, and it is joined to the preceding unit by verbal association, the word "Jerusalem." This passage has been used repeatedly by conservative critics 1 as Synoptic evidence in support of the Gospel of John in which there are repeated visits of Jesus to Jerusalem with his public work centering there. However, most critics now regard this passage as an extract from some lost Jewish writing, a quotation made by Jesus or by the later writers for him. Since Strauss,2 it has often been connected with Lk 11:49-51 (|f240) as an excerpt from the Wisdom of God. Both passages are evidently literary compositions, not spontaneous oral utterances. Both are written in the same prophetic style. In both it is God who is speaking, not any human historical person like Jesus. This second passage is in the style of the old Hebrew dirge or elegy, and it is touched with deep pathos. The address to Jerusalem may be purely rhetorical — an address, not to the city itself, but to the whole Jewish people. Verse 35 may be a later Christian addition from the story of the triumphal entry into the Holy City (Lk 19:29-38 fl319). Lk 14:1-24 1J271-274. This section of Luke is a unity so far as scene is concerned. This unity, however, is due entirely to Luke's editorial work. It is a sabbath scene with Jesus in the home and at the table of a Pharisee ( 1 ), the third and last such scene in Lk (7:36; 11:37). It begins with a cure (4-6) which is followed by a series of three table talks: one to the guests (7-11), one to the host (12-14), and the third (16-24) is provoked by the remark of a guest present ( 15 ). All of this material is new and peculiar to Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 7Θ; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 267. Cf. Β. and J. Weiss, Lukas, p. 510; Goguel, Introduction, I, 476; et al. 2 Cf. New Life of Jesus, I, 341.

3 1

371

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

B. 1 2 7 1 - 2 7 2

Luke except the concluding parable (16-24 ) which has a parallel later in Matthew (22:1-10 fl337). 271. The Cure of a Case of Dropsy Lk 14:1-6 Luke's table scene may have been suggested by the three talks which follow and which employ table materials entirely. However, this setting is not especially appropriate for the case of the cure reported. The story of the cure is complete in 2-A, including Jesus' defense for healing on the sabbath ( 3 ) which has a very close parallel in the Markan defense back in Mk 3:4a (1191). The Q analogy in 5, now employed a second time in Luke (13:15c T|262 ), has a very close parallel in Mt 12:11 ( jJ91 ) and seems to be a wholly superfluous addition here in Luke. It is external to the completed story in 2-4, and it has; the appearance of a stray saying that has been tacked on.1 The story of the cure certainly does not seem to have been built up around it, as has been suggested by some critics.2 The cure in 2-4 is closely related to the story of the cure in Lk 13:10-17 (11262) and to the Markan cure reproduced by Luke in 6:6-11 (1(91). In all three cases Jesus takes the initiative without request for cure from any one. In none of the three is any special faith exhibited by the afflicted person or by others, and each of the three results in a sabbath controversy. This third cure may be only a variation or duplication of the earlier stories.3 272. Concerning the Choosing of Seats Lk 14:7-11 Verse 7 is the editorial work of Luke. The first table talk is provoked by the conduct of the guests present, and it is addressed to them. The talk itself, however, is in the second person singular, to the individual and not to a group. Luke designates this passage as a parable, which actually it is not: the reader's thought is not lifted to a higher parallel plane, and the direct use of the second person, natural in admonition, is not suited to the objective depiction which pure parable requires. The first part ( 8 - 9 ) is negative, do not; the second part ( 10 ) is positive, do so and so. The advice in 8-10 is so worldly and secular, even selfish, that it is surprising that it was ever ascribed to Jesus at; all.1 The second person singular suggests that the passage might be an extract from some Jewish treatise on social behavior. It could be an expansion on Proverbs 25:6-7. 2 There is a close parallel in the rabbinical writings.3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.

Fascher, Die formgeschichtliche Methode, p. 91. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 94; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 10. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 474. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 78; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 62; et al. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 381; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 150. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 353.

372

Β.1273-274

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Verse 11 is an independent paradox that has deposited itself here and there in the Synoptic tradition, and in a different context in each instance. It occurs twice in Luke and both times in his Great Non-Markan Section (14:11 H262; 18:14b |f304). It occurs once in Matthew (23:12 fl347) in its pure form and once in a modified form (18:4 1J190). It occurs nowhere in Mark, and it must belong to the non-Markan sources of Matthew and Luke, to Q in which it perhaps occurred twice. The paradox itself is Jewish in nature, and it has a very close parallel in a saying of Hillel.4 Luke seems to intend the "parable" in 8-10 as a dramatization of the paradox in 11. However, the "parable" and the paradox are not at all congenial. The paradox speaks of a genuine and sincere humility. The conduct prescribed in 8-10, however, is almost anything but an expression of true humility. The assumption of the lowest seat is inspired by a scheming selfishness; it is simply a devious means of securing promotion and public approval —the very thing for which Jesus condemned the hypocrites in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (6:2, 5, 16). 273. Concerning the Bidding of Guests Lk 14:12-14 This is the second table talk, and it is addressed to the host without any fresh provocation from the situation (7). Luke does not designate this passage as a "parable," but it is so similar to the preceding passage that he must have regarded it as such. It is a companion-piece to 8-11. Both passages are in the second person singular. Both read like literary pieces rather than oral utterances. Both have the same form and structure: first, a negative (12); then, a positive (13). A moral is attached to each. The counsel in 12-14 is less secular and worldly than that in 8-11 because it ends with a promise ®f religious reward (14). However, 12-14 is just as Jewish as 8-11, even down to the religious outlook in 14b. Such a passage would be in place in a written treatise on such matters, but it would be a strange remark from a guest to his host. At the end of 13 Luke seems to be thinking of what is to come next when he lists "the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind" who appear in the parable which follows (21). 274. The Parable of the Great Supper Lk 14:15-24 Mt 22:1-10 p 3 7 In Matthew this parable is a part of the Jerusalem story, and it appears in a series of three parables in the midst of the conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish authorities. In Luke this parable concludes his series of three table talks in 14:7-24. It is provoked by the remark of a guest present in verse 15, a favorite type of editorial device in Luke. In Matthew the term kingdom of heaven is a part of the parable, but in Luke the term kingdom 4

Cf. Moore, Judaism, II, 274.

373

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 2 7 5 - 2 7 6

of God has been lifted to become the heart of a striking saying in the introduction. This saying is so unique that it is surprising that it does not occur on the lips of Jesus.1 It is very similar to Rev 19:9 "Blessed are they that are bidden to the marriage feast of the Lamb." The two versions of this parable in Matthew and Luke are so different that some critics 2 hesitate to ascribe them to a common source like Q. The two versions do have the same general structure: first, the call of the originally invited guests; then, the invitation of new guests. In Matthew (3, 4) there are two calls to the originally invited guests; in Luke, only one. Matthew has one invitation to new guests; Luke has two, first in the city (21) and then in the country (23). In Matthew a new group of servants carries out each of the first two missions; in Luke one and the same servant performs all the tasks. Matthew and Luke differ still more in the details of their versions. In Matthew a king is giving a marriage feast for his son; in Luke a private man is giving a great supper. Matthew ( 5 ) merely mentions the preoccupations of the declining guests. Luke makes a threefold elaboration on the excuses offered ( 18-20), perhaps for the dramatic effect, and they may have an Old Testament background in Dt 24:5ff.3 The parable proper in Luke ( 16-23 ) is free from allegory, but Matthew introduces allegorical elements in the murder of the servants (6), in the military expedition, and in the burning of the city (7). The recruiting of new guests in Matthew is indiscriminate, "both good and bad" ( 10 ) ; in Luke the new guests to be brought in are specified, "the poor and maimed and blind and lame" (13, 21). Matthew in his form of the parable seems to be thinking of unbelieving Jews rather than believing Gentiles. Luke seems to be thinking more in terms of social contrast — the great and the wealthy over against the poor and unfortunate. Luke depicts no scene at the feast itself as does Matthew in 11-13, the man without the wedding garment. Verse 24 of Luke is not a part of the parable. It is in the second person plural, addressed by Jesus to his audience, not by the host to his servant. Similar breaks from story to direct discourse are common in Luke. In verse 24 Jesus speaks as though he were the host giving the great supper. This comment is really a later allegorical application of the parable. Lk 14:25-33 f275-276. Luke seems to regard this passage as a unity, for at the end ( 33 ) he returns to the thought and theme, even to the phrasing, of 26-27. Luke may regard the twin parables in 28-32 as a dramatization of the theme of discipleship set forth in 26-27. This, however, is a conception that is open to question. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 113. Cf. Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 243f; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 512. " Cf. Abrahams, Studies, II, 33. 1

2

374

Β.1275-276

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

275. Conditions of Discipleship Lk 14:25-27

Mt 10:37-38 fl78 Mt 16:24 = Mk 8:34 = Lk 9:23 Ρ 8 0 Verse 25 brings the first break since 14:1. It is the editorial work of Luke and not very appropriate. The drastic demands which follow are made upon the individual, not upon the masses. Luke introduces the first saying, "If any man cometh unto me," just as he did the parable of the builders at the end of his Sermon on the Plain, "Every one that cometh unto me" (6:47). Matthew reported these twin sayings from Q toward the close of his address to the twelve, but here in Luke they are just a random unit in his Great Non-Markan Section. From the literary point of view, they are twin sayings in both Matthew and Luke; each is framed and phrased alike. Matthew's version is christocentric with Jesus' person in the foreground; it expresses the later Christian point of view, being worthy or unworthy of Christ. Luke's version remains within the perspective of Jesus' historical relationship to his followers, that of a leader demanding loyalty. Luke's form of the first saying is much more radical and uncompromising; no place is left for natural and normal human affection. In Luke Jesus requires the heroic. Jesus' position in Matthew is modified; a place is left for the love of family, although it is secondary to a higher love and loyalty. Luke shows his usual fondness for strong negative terms, "hate"; Matthew's language is milder and more positive, suggesting degrees of love. The two parallel statements in the first saying in Matthew are condensed into one in Luke. Luke seems to be thinking of those who are just becoming disciples; Matthew, of those who are already disciples and who must prove themselves as worthy or unworthy. Luke's statement is more sweeping: it includes wife, brothers, sisters, even one's own life. Mt 16:24 and Lk 9:23 reported the Markan form of the second saying in Mark's order (8:34 |J180), which is closer to the thought of Luke's Q form (discipleship) than to Matthew's christianized Q form (10:38). Both sayings may be later Christian formulations. Verse 26 of Luke seems to reflect experiences of adversity and persecution, even cases of martyrdom, within the Christian community. These sayings are wholly unrabbinical. 1 276. Parables on Careful Calculation Lk 14:28-33 These are the fifth and sixth new parables contributed by Luke in his Great Non-Markan Section, and they are the first parable-pair peculiar to his Gospel. Luke joins these twin parables to the preceding sayings with the word "for." This is not good, for these parables do not have the drastic, disconcerting quality of the preceding sayings. Originally they may have had ' C f . Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 355.

375

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 2 7 7 - 2 8 1

no association with the theme of discipleship.1 These two parables are really twins. They have exactly the same length, form, and structure. They begin alike with a rhetorical question which appeals to ordinary human judgment. Both present lessons taught by common sense and experience. They differ only in the materials used: one presents a private enterprise, a man building a tower; the other depicts a public enterprise, a king threatened with military invasion. Verse 33 is a moral appended to the two parables. It is only half-way adapted to the parables; it is not a logical deduction from them.2 The parables teach the examination and calculation of resources, not the renunciation of everything.3 Verse 33 seems to be a comment from Luke rather than from Jesus.4 It reads like the work of a writer who glances back a few lines and composes a literary bracket to conclude a paragraph on the theme with which it began. 277. The Parable of the Salt Lk 14:34-35 Mt 5:13 fl20; Mk 9:49-60 fll94 Luke here is giving the Q form of this parable which Matthew used toward the very beginning of his Sermon on the Mount. Both Matthew and Luke omitted the Markan form in Mark's order (Mk 9:50 P 9 4 ) . Luke gives this parable in its purest form. He does not apply or seek to draw a lesson from it. He does not say that the disciples are the salt ( Matthew ), or that they should possess the salt (Mark). Luke does not even provide it with a scene or setting. He presents it as discourse continuous with the preceding sayings. The relation of salt to the theme of discipleship is not evident, but the parable does seem to continue the note of warning which was clear in the preceding sayings. Lk 15:1-32 ^278-281. Chapter 15 is the highpoint of Jesus' teaching and message in the Gospel of Luke. It is an artistic whole in thought and theme as well as from the literary point of view. It is Luke's great parable chapter to be compared with those of Matthew ( 13) and Mark ( 4 ) . After the setting in 1-2, Luke presents three parables all dealing with the recovery of the lost. In theme they constitute a trilogy, and they belong among the finest specimens of Jesus' parable teaching. The first two parables are twins, a parable-pair, but the third is one of the longest parables ascribed to Jesus, and it does not conform to the literary pattern of the first two. The first parable seems to be from Q, but the second and third are peculiar to Luke — the seventh and eighth new parables contributed by Luke in his Great Non-Markan Section. The warm, reassuring nature of these parables stands Cf. Cf. 3 Cf. 4 Cf. 1 2

Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 209. Loisy, Luc, p. 391; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 515. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 184. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 209.

376

Β.1278-280

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

in sharp contrast to the perturbing, almost feelingless demands which just precede them. 278. Jesus' Associations Criticized Lk 15:1-2 Verse 1 marks a new beginning, the first break since 14:25. Verses 1-2 do not depict a concrete scene; they tell of something that happened not just once, but repeatedly. They generalize on particular instances like Lk 5:29-30 (tf61). Luke uses this setting as a provocation for the three parables which follow. This is extremely artificial, for the three parables by their very nature make it clear that they were not conceived or used as a personal apology or as a defense for Jesus' social habits or behavior. Jesus' association with publicans and sinners is a favorite theme of Luke, and this provocation was probably suggested to Luke by what he took over from Mark (2:15-16 1161) back in 5:29-30 (fl61). 279. The Parable of the Lost Sheep Lk 15:3-7 Mt 18:10-14 p 9 5 Matthew reported his version of this (Q ?) parable toward the close of his Galilean story in a special catechetical section of his Gospel. In Luke it is the first of a trilogy on the theme of the recovery of the lost. There is no way of knowing whether Matthew or Luke is giving this parable in its more authentic form. Luke's version is certainly superior to that of Matthew from the literary and artistic point of view. However, this very fact might arouse skepticism relative to Luke's form. The vivid detail, color, and action in Luke's version may be the product of the literary imagination and they do not necessarily augment the didactic forcefulness of the parable. 1 The parable serves pastoral ends in Matthew, and its perspective is confined to the needs and interests of the Christian community. This might suggest that Matthew's version of the parable is a later Christian revision designed to serve practical purposes. In Luke the parable is evangelical in nature and reflects a consciousness of religious obligation toward a world yet to be won. Luke's introduction in 3, "And he spake unto them this parable," would not suggest that others are to follow. 280. The Parable of the Lost Coin Lk 15:8-10 This parable as it now stands is peculiar to Luke; however, it may have stood in Q as a companion to that of the lost sheep. Matthew could have passed it over because it was not adaptable to his catechetical purpose: a wayward Christian could be compared to a lost sheep but hardly to a lost coin. As the two parables now appear in Luke they are the most perfect l

Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 184f.

377

JESUS A N D THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1281

example of a parable-pair in the Synoptic tradition. They are joined by "or" as twin parables should be. They conform exactly to each other phrase for phrase, and clause for clause. All this, however, points to careful literary composition rather than to spontaneous oral utterance. The two parables have the same social background, that of the small village community with rural surroundings, where the loss of a single sheep or coin is a serious matter and where the recovery of something lost is a cause for celebration by the community. Jesus himself seems to have been the product of just such an environment. Some critics 1 have felt that this parable of the lost coin is a later secondary formulation and that it was not originally a companion to that of the lost sheep. The very fact that Matthew uses the first parable but not the second would suggest that the first parable is primary and at one time circulated separately. Furthermore, each parable draws its own independent lesson (7, 10 ). If they had belonged together from the first, then the lesson would be drawn but once, at the end of the second, as in Lk 14:33 (|[276). However, this could hardly be done because of the difference in numbers: one and ninety-nine, one and nine. This perhaps explains why the lesson at the end of the second parable does not conform to that at the end of the first. In the lesson following the second parable there is no comparison between the sinner and righteous persons. One saved sinner against nine righteous persons would have sounded weak after the contrast between one repentant sinner and ninety-nine righteous persons. There is a rabbinical saying very similar to Luke's parable of the lost coin.2 281. The Parable of the Lost Son Lk 15:11-32 This parable is cut off from the first two by an introductory formula, "And he said." It was perhaps at one time independent and circulated alone. Apart from its length and complexity, this parable differs from the two which precede. The search for the lost which dominated the first two drops out of this parable entirely. No lesson is drawn from this parable corresponding to those in 7 and 10, unless the parable as a whole is intended to dramatize the contrast between the repentant sinner and the righteous person. The first two parables have nothing which corresponds to the second half of this parable, the story of the elder son. The narrative style is Hebraic with simple declarative statements joined by the primitive connective "and." The story exhibits a liking for "epic repetition" ( 18, 19, 21 ) -1 The unity of this parable has been questioned and 25-32 has been regarded as a later addition or appendix. 2 For some critics, the story seems 1

Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 395; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 155. Cf. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 355. 1 Cf. Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the New Testament, p. 30. 2 Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 83; Loisy, Luc, p. 402; et al.

2

378

Β.1282-288

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

complete with 24a. It is only the first part of the story, that of the younger son, that conforms at all to the thought and theme of the two preceding parables. They feel that the elder son introduces a new theme and is rather an anticlimax. This second part (25-32) seems to have a polemical point wholly absent from the first part ( l l - 2 4 a ) . The story of the elder son and the lessons drawn from the first two parables are the only elements in the three parables which seem to have any bearing on the critical comment ( 2 ) supposed to have provoked them. The notion that this parable is not a unity is based on a mistaken conception of the principal character in the parable. The principal character is not the younger son whom "the story follows into a far country and who gets most of the space. The elder son is just as important in the total story as the younger son. The two sons form a contrast, and together they highlight the attitudes and actions of the father who is the central figure in the parable and who alone gives the story full unity. The two sons are important but secondary characters. They have the same dramatic purpose and function as the priest and the Levite in the parable of the good Samaritan. Furthermore, the story begins with a man who has two sons (11), and the reader would expect to hear from both in the course of the story. Verse 24b, "And they began to be merry," is a perfect transition from the story of the one son to that of the other. There is only one discordant note in the whole story: both the elder son (29) and the father (31) speak as though no division of property had been made as was stated in verse 12. The whole story is a splendid specimen of parable at its best. The lesson or point is obvious as the reader's thought is carried to a higher parallel plane. From the standpoint of its teaching, it is perhaps the most comprehensive of Jesus' parables, and it is wholly free from any later Christian coloring. Christian tradition would have suffered irreparable loss without this parable preserved by Luke alone. Lk 16:1-31 ^282-288. With one minor exception (14-15), the whole of chapter 16 of Luke is devoted to private instructions to the disciples. Verse la, "And he said also unto the disciples," is the first break, a change of audience, since 15:1-2. The very nature of the materials reported would require the disciples as audience. The chapter begins and ends with longer parables which set the theme: the disciple's relation to property and possessions. Five short sayings come in between. 282. The Parable of the Unjust Steward Lk 16:1-12 This passage begins with a parable and it ends with a series of comments. The chief problem is to determine where the parable ends and the comments begin. There is no clear break in the discourse; it is continuous

379

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. |282

speech throughout. The parable glides so smoothly into the comments that there is no sure way of knowing exactly where the narrator stops and the commentator begins. The parable proper could be confined to verses 1-7. 1 The story is complete with verse 7 — just as complete as other parables of Jesus which depict, not a completed, but a proposed course of action (Lk 13:6-9 |[261). The point to the parable is made even though it is not narrated that or how the unjust steward carried out his plans. In this case, verses 8-12 are a series of comments. Verse 8a has been regarded as the conclusion of the parable.2 The lord in 8a would be the steward's master; however^ he would be a very strange and unreal person. He could hardly commend (8a) the steward for new swindles when he has already decided to dismiss him for earlier ones. How does the master learn of the new swindles which are still only in the planning stage? If he does know, why does he not act instead of allowing himself to be victimized again? Verse 8a is not a natural part of the story; it is a comment from the writer. It is he who, through Jesus, commends the steward in the story ( 1-7 ). Jülicher 3 extends the parable through the whole of verse 8. He feels that the first break in the discourse comes at the beginning of verse 9, "But I say unto you," which would cut off the parable in 1-8 from the commentary in 9-12. However, 8b contains expressions which are wholly Christian in nature — "sons of this world," "sons of light" ( I Thess 5:5; Eph 5:8) — which would indicate a Christian origin. Other critics 4 extend the parable through verse 8, but they regard verse 9 as a moral attached to the parable by Jesus himself. Verse 9 is introduced by the solemn formula which introduces so many of Jesus' sayings, and it comes nearer the thought and theme of the parable than any of the comments that precede ( 8 ) or that follow ( 10-12 ). The story of the unjust steward is the ninth new parable contributed by Luke in his Great Non-Markan Section. It is an obscure and neglected parable because the principal character is a swindler who plans to cover up old frauds with new ones. The story, however, may be regarded as a true parable in spite of the steward's character. The thought or point is not in the story itself but on a higher parallel plane: as this steward in his way secured his future, so the disciples in their way are to secure their future. The materials are profane and worldly, but they dramatize a religious lesson. Furthermore, this story has one of the chief requisites of the true parable: its principal character is true to life. The steward has no illusions Cf. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 97; Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 159f; et al. Cf. Klostermann, Lukas, p. 163. 3 Cf. Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 505. * Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 394; Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen, p. 135. 1 a

380

Β.1283-284

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

about himself or his situation. He does not deny his guilt; he feels no regret about his dishonesty. He thinks only of himself, of securing his future with fresh frauds rather than with honest labor. He does not hesitate to bribe and thus to compromise the honesty of others. This steward seemed so real to one critic 5 that he felt that the story may not be an invention of Jesus but an actual incident which came to his knowledge. However, others feel that this is not one of Jesus' best or most successful parables,6 or that it is an unedifying story, a feeble invention or a weak imitation of Matthew's parable of the unmerciful servant (18:23-35 |f200).7 It is generally agreed that 10-12 is commentary. These three verses single out details of the parable for comment rather than its principal point and theme. Verse 10 does not really apply to the parable at all. It approaches proverb form and could exist as a separate and independent saying. It anticipates the theme of the parable of the pounds which Luke has not yet reported (19:12-28 11318), but which he touched upon in 12:48b (fl255). The comments in 11-12 really join on to 9, not to 10. They, like 8-9, are products of later study and reflection on the parable, and they are even more obscure than the parable itself. 283. The Parable Concerning Double Service Lk 16:13 Mt 6:24 ^39 Matthew included this little parable in the central section of his Sermon on the Mount. In Luke here it is a stray saying in his Great Non-Markan Section except for its superficial connection with the preceding commentary, a mere verbal association, the word "mammon." This new unit cannot be regarded as having any logical connection with the parable of the unjust steward, for it distorts its point. The parable dealt with the wise and right use of mammon; this saying condemns any and all devotion to mammon. 284. In the Sight of Men and of God Lk 16:14-15 This is the first mention of the Pharisees since 15:2. One critic 1 would join this passage to 15:32 as the conclusion of the parable-trilogy with 16:1-13 an insert. Verses 14-15 are an unimpressive piece of editorial patchwork. The charge against the Pharisees is unjust; with all their faults the love of money was not one of them.2 Verse 15 expresses the strong antagonism to wealth that runs through the whole of Luke's Gospel. Verse 15b indicts human nature generally, not just the Pharisees; it is the ultimate in religious pessimism relative to human nature. Such a conception would have made Cf. Cf. Cf. 1 Cf. 2 Cf. 6

β 7

J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 471. Bowen, The Gospel of Jesus, p. 174. Loisy, Luc, p. 403; Les Évangiles, II, 157fiF. Β. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums, p. 250. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 533.

381

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 2 8 5 - 2 8 7

Jesus' public message and work impossible. The whole passage is primarily an eruption of bitter feeling rather than a sober factual statement. Some critics 3 feel that 14—15 would make a good introduction to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in 19-31. Lk 16:16-18 1J285-287. This little group of three sayings is brought together by the term and idea of the law. Such a grouping may go back to the oral stages of tradition in which sayings tended to group themselves in a way that would aid memory. Luke may have intended that these sayings prepare the way for the parable in 19-31 which ends with emphasis on the law and the prophets.4 The first two sayings really contradict or neutralize each other. Verse 16 abrogates the law; its era ended with John — a Christian conception. In 17 the law is more permanent than heaven and earth — a Jewish conviction. 285. The Stormers of the Kingdom of God Lk 16:16 Mt 11:12-13 ^83 Matthew included this Q passage in his address on the Baptist back in Galilee. It does not seem to have belonged to the Q form of this address, for it appears here as a random saying in Luke's Great Non-Markan section. In Matthew's version of this saying the person of John is in the foreground. In Luke's version the statements are in reverse order, and the law and the prophets come into the foreground. 286. The Permanence of the Law Lk 16:17 Mt 5:17-18 ^23 Matthew included this Q passage early in his Sermon on the Mount where it introduced his series of six antitheses to the Jewish law. Matthew related Jesus' mission organically with the law and the prophets (17): he came not to destroy but to fulfill. In Luke it is a pure Jewish saying unrelated to Jesus' mission, and it is even more Jewish in Luke than it is in Matthew. In Matthew the law will last as long as heaven and earth; in Luke the law will outlast heaven and earth. The most conservative and orthodox Jew could subscribe to either form of the statement. Matthew and Luke are both thinking of the written law with its little diacritical markings ("tittle"). 287. Concerning Divorce Lk 16:18 Mt 5:31-32 fl28; Mt 19:9 = Mk 10:11-12 |[306 Matthew included the Q form of this saying in his Sermon on the Mount where it was framed as an antithesis to the Old Testament teachings on divorce (Dt 24:1-4). In Luke it does not have this antithetical form, as it 8 4

Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 165f; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 533. Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 166.

382

Β.1288

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

probably did not in Q. This saying in Luke is framed entirely from the general Jewish point of view with no reference to the wife's right to initiate divorce proceedings (Mk 10:11-12 1(306). In Luke Jesus' position is absolute; there is no compromise as in Matthew where divorce is permitted in case of unfaithfulness. In its categorical condemnation of divorce this saying does not accord well with the preceding one on the law, for the law permitted divorce on certain grounds. This is the only instance in which Luke touches on the theme of divorce in his Gospel. Luke omits the Markan version of this saying when he comes to it in Mark's order (||306). 288. The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus Lk 16:19-31 This is one of the four special parables, all peculiar to Luke, in which the lesson is in the story itself as a narrative example or object-lesson.1 The story, however, has been regarded as a piece of invented didactic narrative nearer allegory than parable. 2 This is the only parable in the Synoptic tradition in which a character is named. The name Lazarus is necessary because of the complexity of the story, and especially since Lazarus is the subject of the dialogue in 24-25. This dialogue becomes awkward and colorless if the term beggar is substituted for the name Lazarus. From 24 on the parable is continuous dialogue between the rich man and Abraham in the next world, but this does not cover up the obvious lack of unity in the story. The parable falls into two parts: 19-26 and 27-31 — each part with its own conception of the factors that determine eternal destiny. Verse 26 can be regarded as a transition from the first part to the second. The first picture is complete in 25, and 26 adds nothing. Verse 25 is the moral to the first part; verse 31 is the moral to the second part. In 19-25 moral, ethical, and religious factors have no bearing on eternal destiny. Lazarus is not portrayed as good and pious, nor the rich man as bad and evil. It is not even stated that the rich man was aware of Lazarus and his misery or that he neglected him. Verses 19-25 express a crass proletarian philosophy. The next life will bring a reversal of earthly fortune: good here, bad there; and vice versa. The beggar does not become rich, neither does the rich man become poor, but the next life brings eternal punishment for the rich and eternal blessedness for the poor and unfortunate. The first part of the story is really a dramatization of Luke's first beatitude and his first woe: "Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (6:20b); "Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation" (6:24). It is generally agreed that 27-31 is a later supplement or appendix which was not prepared for in 19-26. In 27-31 wealth and poverty are no longer 1 2

See Lk 10:29-37 11213, note 4. Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 90.

383

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 2 8 9 - 2 9 3

factors in determining eternal destiny. A new factor, religious in nature, comes in to determine this: loyalty and obedience to the law and the prophets. The five brothers of the rich man are new; they were not mentioned in the first part of the story. This appendix in 27-31 might have a purely Jewish origin.3 It rejects the greatest of all miracles, a message from one risen from the dead, in favor of loyalty to Moses and the prophets. However, 27-31 may have a later Christian origin, presenting a pessimistic and ironical allegory on Jewish unbelief in Jesus' resurrection.4 This story, especially the first part with its wholly materialistic conception of this life and the next, cannot be ascribed to Jesus. The whole story, not just the appendix, may have a Jewish origin.5 Its ultra-Jewishness is clear in the fact that Abraham, not God, is the central figure in the next world, and the acme of eternal blessedness is to nestle in Abraham's arms. The story does not completely satisfy the reader's curiosity. The rich man and Lazarus represent the extremes in earthly fortune, and one wonders what would be the fate in the next world for those who are neither rich nor poor in this life. Luke's fictional character Lazarus is the only Lazarus known to the Synoptic tradition. In the Gospel of John, however, there is a Lazarus, brother of Mary and Martha, a contemporary and friend of Jesus, who dies and whom Jesus raises from the dead ( 11:1^14). It is possible that Luke's parable about the beggar Lazarus is the germ-cell from which the story of the raising of Lazarus grew. Lk 17:1-19 ^289-293. The first half of chapter 17 of Luke is made up of shorter sayings, a parable, and a healing story. There is no evident plan or purpose in this compilation beyond the natural desire to record and preserve these traditions about Jesus. In 17:1 the audience of 16:1 is repeated; the very nature of the sayings reported would require the disciples as audience. 289. Concerning Offense Lk 17:1-2 Mt 18:6-7 = Mk 9:42 fll93 Mark reported this saying toward the very close of the Galilean story where Matthew reproduced it in Mark's order, giving a conflation of the Markan and Q forms. Luke seems to be giving this saying in its pure Q version, also in its most logical and forceful form. Luke does not specify believers; the "little ones" might be plain, unpretentious persons, even children.1 ' C f . Wellhausen, 4 Cf. Jülicher, Die 'Cf. Loisy, Luc, 1 For fuller notes,

Lucae, p. 91; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 127. Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 639; Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 177; et al. p. 419; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 213. see Mk 9:42 Î193.

384

Β.1290-291

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

290. Concerning Frequency of Forgiveness

Lk 17:3-4

Mt 18:15fll96;21-22 fll99

The opening words, "Take heed to yourselves," seem to be intended as a discourse transition. They are addressed to a group in the second person plural, but the saying which they introduce (very probably from Q) is in the second person singular, a precept for the individual. In Luke this is a simple saying on forgiveness, a natural discourse unit. But in the tradition that came down to Matthew, unless Matthew himself is responsible for the new developments, the first half of this saying is developed into an elaborate paragraph on church discipline (18:15-17 |[196) and the second half is dramatized into an episode and dialogue between Jesus and Peter (18:2122 11199 ) — both in the closing section of the Galilean story. In Luke forgiveness is the spontaneous duty of the individual; in Matthew forgiveness is a duty ordained in a code of church discipline. Luke's seven times is simpler and less rhetorical than Matthew's seventy times seven, yet fully as forceful. 291. Faith as a Grain of Mustard Seed Lk 17:5-6

Mt 17:20 1187 Mt 21:21 = Mk 11:22-23 fî333 Verse 5 is probably the free editorial fabrication of Luke suggested by the very nature of the saying it introduces. Two considerations might confirm this. (1) The request in 17:5 is very similar to the request of the disciples back in 11:1 which was Luke's provocation for the Lord's Prayer. (2) Verse 5 contains two items typical of Luke's editorial hand: the term apostles and the term Lord as a substitute for the name Jesus. It has, however, been suggested that verse 5 of Luke is an echo from a Markan passage (9:24), the plea of the father of the epileptic boy, "Help thou mine unbelief!" which Luke did not reproduce in his form of that story.1 The hyperbole on faith (6) Matthew, giving a conflation of the Markan and Q forms, associated with a little epilogue with the disciples following the cure of the epileptic boy late in the Galilean story. The Markan form (11:22-23 fl333) Matthew will report later in Mark's order in the early part of the Jerusalem story (Mt 21:21 fî333). Luke here seems to be giving the Q version which compares faith to a grain of mustard seed and transplants a sycamine tree rather than removes a mountain (Mark). Planting a tree in the sea, as Luke reads, is a very strange conception. Luke's "sycamine tree" may be a diminutive term, a little fig tree; as such it might be an echo from the cursing of the fig tree (Mk 11:12—14 |J328) which Luke does not reproduce from Mark.2 However, Luke may be thinking of a different species of tree, for elsewhere he uses the common term for fig tree. Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 65; Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 289. - Cf. Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu, p. 65; Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 92f. 1

385

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 2 9 2 - 2 9 3

292. The Parable of the Servant with Many Duties Lk 17:7-10 This is an isolated parable that has no logical or other evident connection with its context, the eleventh new parable contributed by Luke in his Great Non-Markan Section. It is developed entirely by rhetorical questions; even the action depicted is in this discourse form. The principal character is the servant even though the master does all the talking. As in the case of so many of Jesus' parables, the point is made by contrast: an unreal situation in 7 is contrasted with the true-to-life condition in 8. Verse 10 is a moral attached to the parable. The word "unprofitable" should be deleted because it distorts the point to the parable. The servant in the parable meets every demand; he is indispensable, not useless. The emphasis in 10 falls on servants as a genus, not on different kinds of servants. The word "unprofitable" is missing in one important MS (Syr5'11).1 If the parable has a religious point, it seems to be that the faithful performance of duty is expected; it is not something meritorious or deserving of special reward. It reminds the obedient and faithful servant that he is still a servant. This disposition to moralize on Jesus' parables is strongest in Luke and especially in the new parables of his Great Non-Markan Section. 293. The Cure of Ten Lepers Lk 17:11-19 This is the fourth and last cure in Luke's Great Non-Markan Section, the third peculiar to Luke. It is the only instance of a mass cure in the Synoptic tradition. All other cures in Luke, as all in Mark, are cures of individual cases. Matthew has three stories of cures of two persons at once. This is also one of the few pieces of narrative in this long section of Luke, and it stands isolated in a mass of discourse matter. Luke seeks to fit this story into the larger context of the journey to Jerusalem with the notice in verse 11, "as they were on the way to Jerusalem." This notice like the earlier ones (9:51; 13:22) is intended to orient the reader, to remind him of Jesus' destination. Verse 11 resumes the narrative thread which came to the surface in 9:51 and 13:22 although no actual progress in the journey has been made. Jesus is still in the borders of Galilee and Samaria where the journey started in 9:51. However, this localization is not to be taken seriously. It is not only editorial in nature, but it was probably suggested by the story which follows. A mixed group of lepers, nine Jews and one Samaritan, would naturally appear along the border of the two provinces. Luke continues the vague route of the journey by an unnamed village (9:52, 56; 10:38). The story proper begins with verse 12, and it is commonly regarded as a variation, a revision, an allegorical duplication, or an exaggerated version 1

Cf. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, I, 245.

386

Β.1294-302

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

of the leper story which Luke (5:12-16 p2) took from Mark (1:40-45 j[52) early in the Galilean story.1 The secondary character of the story is clear in 14 and 19 where details are repeated almost verbatim from earlier stories (Lk 5:14; 8:48). This transference of details from one story to another is one of the most common things in the transmission of any body of tradition. Verse 19, however, introduces confusion into the story. Down through 18 the reader had the impression that all ten lepers were cured, but 19 reads as though the grateful Samaritan were the only one healed. This story has one thing in common with the parable of the good Samaritan: it, too, idealizes a Samaritan. The story is told at the expense of the nine Jewish lepers as that parable was told at the expense of the priest and the Levite. The emphasis falls at the end of verse 16: "and he was a Samaritan." This story is one of the two or three bits of Samaritan tradition in the Synoptic Gospels, and they are found only in Luke. This healing story may at one time have been a parable, the parable of the grateful Samaritan, which told how ten lepers were pronounced clean by a Jewish priest and only one, a Samaritan, returned to express his thanks.2 THE ESCHATOLOGICAL ADDRESS

Lk 17:20-37 fl294-302

Mt 24:3-25:46 = Mk 13:3-37 = Lk 21:7-36 H360-389

This is the first extensive body of eschatological matter in the Synoptic tradition, and it is not bound in any organic way with its present context in Luke. This matter seems to belong in the Jerusalem story where the great mass of it is reported later by all three Synoptic writers, at the conclusion of the public story and just ahead of the death drama. This body of matter came down to Matthew and Luke in at least two forms, that of Mark and that of Q. Matthew combines the two forms, expands the combined form with a great deal of other matter, and reports the result in Mark's order. Luke keeps the Markan and Q forms separate as he usually does. He reports the Q form here toward the close of his Great Non-Markan Section and as a part of the journey to Jerusalem. The Markan form he reports in Mark's order in the Jerusalem story where he seems to be drawing some new material from still a third source. If it be assumed that Q had no death drama and that Luke in his departures from Mark's death drama is not using Q, then this eschatological address is the last major body of Q matter in Luke. Thus, the last great discourse in Q, like the last in Mark, unfolded the cosmic panorama. The Markan form of this address devotes far more space to the collapse of the old order than it does to the appearance of the new. The Q form, Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 116; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 75; et al. Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, II, 173; Soltau, Hat Jesus Wunder getan?, p. 38. 1 2

387

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1294-295

however, hardly touches on the collapse of the old order but deals almost entirely with the appearance of the supernatural Son of man. The Markan form of the address is based on a framework of Jewish materials with considerable invasions of Christian matter and a sprinkling of what may be authentic utterances of Jesus. The Q form of the address is ultra-Jewish in its materials and outlook. There is only one sentence (25) that reflects the later Christian point of view. In conception and style of writing, the Q materials are generally Jewish, and only one saying (33) seems to bear the distinctive stamp of Jesus' thought and style. The Markan and Q forms of this address have only one discourse unit in common: Mk 13:15-16 and Lk 17:31 — so little, in fact, that they could represent two different addresses on the same general subject. 294. The Kingdom Cometh without Observation Lk 17:20-21 This is Luke's preamble to the address which follows. As an editorial contribution it is unusual in that it is made up chiefly of striking statements attributed to Jesus. It may have been suggested to Luke by the first passage of the address itself: verse 20 corresponds to 22, and 21 to 23. It is not an appropriate introduction. Interest in the address centers on the Son of man, not on the kingdom as in the introduction. The opening question ( 20 ) would be more natural from the disciples than from the Pharisees. It is the disciples who later provoke the Jerusalem form of the address, and Luke, in 22, names the disciples as the real audience. Verse 20b is contradicted by the body of the address where the end is not a secretive process but a cosmic event evident to all; 21b is also contradicted by the body of the address where the consummation is not a spiritual state, already at work, but an objective cosmic display wholly in the future. This introduction in Luke is not consistent within itself. The Pharisees ask when the kingdom will come, not how it will come, where or what it is, as Jesus replies in 20b-21. The Greek phrase at the end of 21 admits of two different translations: "within you" or "in your midst." The first is to be rejected for two reasons. (1) It does not make sense addressed to the Pharisees. (2) The idea of the kingdom as something purely spiritual is foreign to the Synoptic tradition; elsewhere it is a cosmic event, not a matter of psychology. The reading "in your midst" is to be preferred, for it accords with some other sayings of Jesus in which he speaks of the kingdom as in some sense already present. 295. The Publicity of the Parousia Lk 17:22-24 Mt 24:26-27 fl373 Matthew includes this passage toward the middle of his eschatological address in Jerusalem. In Luke here it is the beginning of the address proper

388

Β.1296-298

THE P U B L I C

TRADITION

as it may have been in Q. In substance the passage is traditional Jewish material which came to Jesus and to the early Christians as a matter of religious heritage. Verse 22 may be an editorial transition contributed by Luke, for it has no parallel in Matthew. It gives the address its proper audience, the disciples, not the Pharisees (20). Verses 23-24 seem at first glance to be only a variation of 20-21 with the difference that the Son of man replaces the kingdom.1 However, 23-24 really neutralizes 20-21: what was secretive and subjective in 20-21 is obvious and objective in 23-24. 296. The Son of Man's Rejection by This Generation Lk 17:25 This verse is clearly an insert which breaks into the flow of Jewish thought in what precedes and follows. In reality, 25 contradicts 24. Verse 24 presents the Jewish conception of the Son of man as a cosmic figure to appear in the future; in 25 the Son of man is a human historical figure, Jesus himself. Verse 25 belongs in the category of the three formal prophecies of the passion. It-is a Christian composition as they are: Jesus is the Son of man who is to suffer. Verse 25 conforms to Luke's second formal prophecy (9:44) which also does not predict either death or resurrection. 297. The Days of Noah Lk 17:26-27 Mt 24:37-39 fl381 Matthew also includes this Q passage toward the middle of his Jerusalem address. In Luke it continues the Jewish speculations about the Son of man in 22-24. It has the nature of a warning. Matthew stresses the ignorance of Noah's contemporaries; Luke, their unpreparedness. The passage belongs to the Jewish materials which form the framework of Luke's Q version of the address. 298. The Days of Lot Lk 17:28-30 This unit as it now stands is peculiar to Luke, and it may have been contributed by him.1 It is obviously, however, a companion-piece to the preceding passage. It, too, is an allusion to the Old Testament and a warning. The two passages are even framed and phrased alike. It may have been in Q, and Matthew may have omitted it. However, such an omission by Matthew would be strange, for he is fond of such companion-pieces which conform so closely to each other. Noah and Lot are brought together elsewhere in the New Testament (II Pet 2:5-7), and they are frequently associated in the rabbinical writings. 1 1

Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 3 1 ) , p. 128. Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 395: Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 96.

389

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 2 9 9 - 3 0 1

299. The Emergency of That Day Lk 17:31-32 Mt 24:17-18 = Mk 13:15-16 fl368 This one unit is the only point where Mark and Q meet on common ground in this address. Matthew and Mark include this passage in their Jerusalem address, where Matthew reproduces Mark's version in Mark's order, not that of Q as Luke does here. This passage, too, is traditional Jewish material. Verse 32 is peculiar to Luke and may be his own addition. The name Lot, however, ties the passage up with the preceding, and Luke may have found this admonition in his source. This would leave Matthew to make an omission. 300. The Paradox of Losing and Gaining Life Lk 17:33 Mt 10:39 f78 Mt 16:25 = Mk 8:35 = Lk 9:24 fll80 Matthew used the Q form of this paradox toward the close of his address to the twelve back in Galilee. Matthew and Luke reported it in Mark's form and order (Mk 8:35 fll80) late in the Galilean story. Now Luke includes the Q form of the paradox in the Q version of his eschatological address. It is a misplaced saying here in Luke, for it breaks into the continuity of the discourse. This paradox contradicts 31: in 31 life is saved by prompt flight; in 33 any effort to save life loses it. The paradox accords badly with what follows. In 33 one loses or saves his life by his own effort; in 34-35 effort does not count, for one is taken and one is left. Luke here gives this paradox in its purest form. There is no sectarian limitation, "for my sake"; it has a universal application. This paradox is the only discourse unit in Luke's Q form of the eschatological address that seems to bear the clear stamp of Jesus' thought and style.

301. The Selection at the Assembly Lk 17:34-35 Mt 24:40-41 H382 Matthew includes this Q unit in the first half of his eschatological address in Jerusalem. In Luke here (and apparently in Q) it comes toward the very end of the address. Verse 34 might join on to 27, as is the case in Matthew's parallel, leaving 28-33 an insert.1 Or, 34 might join on to 30 with 31-33 an insert.2 In any case, this passage resumes the traditional Jewish materials which constitute the body of the Q address. At the beginning of 34 Luke seems conscious of having broken the context with the paradox in 33, for he resumes the discourse with a solemn "But I say unto you." The imagery in 34, "in that night," is changed from that of 31, "in that day." 1 2

Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 92. Cf. Klostermann, Lukas, p. 176.

390

Β.1302-304

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

302. The Parable of the Body and the Eagles Lk 17:37 Mt 24:28 j|374 Matthew reports this parable in the first half of his eschatological address in Jerusalem, but in Q, as here in Luke, it seems to have concluded the address. This eschatological section in Luke began with the question, "When?" (20); now it ends with the question, "Where?" (37). This question is probably the editorial work of Luke who often breaks continuous discourse with interjections from the audience. The parable, however, does not answer the question. It may at one time have been a proverbial saying with no eschatological bearing. Its exact point and meaning are obscure. It may be that this word-picture in a single sentence is only a fragment of a parable, the first half, and the missing second half may have drawn some analogy about the Son of man.1 Lk 18:1-14 |f303-304. Luke concludes his Great Non-Markan Section with two parables, the twelfth and thirteenth new parables contributed by him in this section. Both parables deal with the theme of prayer, but they treat this theme in such different ways that they cannot be regarded as twin parables in thought. From the standpoint of literary structure, ^303 and |[304 are practically perfect literary companions. The same literary framework surrounds the two parables (2-5 and 10-13). Each parable is introduced by a moral (1 and 9) which anticipates the thought and point, and each is followed by a comment (6-8 and 14). Such close conformity in structure would point to the same literary mind and hand. 303. The Parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge Lk 18:1-8 Verse 1 is probably the editorial work of Luke, a lesson easily deduced from the parable itself.1 Verse 1, however, might go back to Luke's source, for it does not seek to fit the parable into its present eschatological context.2 The moral drawn is vague and general; it does not state what is to be prayed for. In its eschatological surroundings the moral should be endless praying for the end.3 The widow is the principal character in the parable although it is developed almost entirely by monologue recited by the judge. This monologue amounts to a self-portrait. The judge is a realistic example of pure egoism; he acts out of self-interest entirely. This realism in portrayal and the use of unideal characters to dramatize an ideal theme are especially prominent in the new parables contributed by Luke in his Great Non-Markan Section. As noted earlier, this parable and that of the friend at midnight Cf. Cf. 2 Cf. 3 Cf. 1

1

Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 133f. Loisy, Luc, p. 437. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 98. Bultmann, Jesus, p. 170.

391

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B.1304

(Lk 11:5-8 1f2l6) are generally regarded as companions or as a pair.4 They are perfect twins if this parable is cut down to verses 1-5 and lifted from its eschatological context. The comments in 6-8a are cut off from the parable itself by a sharp "And the Lord said." This is rather peculiar, for it cuts off one word of Jesus (the parable) from other utterances ascribed to him (6-8a). These comments are secondary, the result of later reflection on the parable. They derive a different lesson from that derived in verse 1. Verses 6-8a are an allegorical application, and they give the parable an eschatological point. Back of these comments is the distress of the persecuted church which longs for divine deliverance and vengeance. Verse 8b seems to be a separate and independent comment which reaches back beyond the parable to the eschatological address. It does not fit the parable: in the parable God is the One who will act; in 8b it is the Son of man. "Faith" in 8b is used in an absolute and objective sense, "the faith," not in a relative subjective sense. It is the true faith, a body of belief, orthodox Christianity over against heresy. 304. The Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican Lk 18:9-14 Verse 9 is a surmise or conjecture drawn from the parable itself and moralizing upon it. It designates a type or class of persons who could not possibly be assembled as an actual audience to hear the parable. The parable itself ( 10-13 ) begins as pure narration, as though the scene depicted were an actual occurrence. The parable may have been spoken in Jerusalem, for the Pharisee and the publican are praying in the temple, not in a synagogue. It is the last of Luke's four special parables, all narrative examples or object-lessons with the point in the story itself.1 This parable employs the same dramatic device used in other parables of Jesus, that of contrast: a bad example is set over against a good one. The Pharisee plays the same dramatic role that the priest and the Levite played in the parable of the good Samaritan. The Pharisee and his prayer highlight the publican and his prayer. The prayer of the Pharisee is a monologue, a self-felicitation; the prayer of the publican is the primer prayer of sinful humanity. The story would lose a great deal of its forcefulness if the publican prayed first or if the Pharisee did not pray at all. Jewish scholars have protested against the portrayal of the Pharisee in this parable. Such individual Pharisees may have existed, but the picture drawn here is too sweeping. This Pharisee is presented as normal, as typical of his group, which amounts to a distortion. Montefiore feels that it is "a 4 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 396; Schlatter, Das Evangelium des Lukas, p. 393; et al. 1 See Lk 10:29-37 1213, note 4.

392

Β. Τ305-448

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

ludicrous caricature of the average Pharisee, a monstrous caricature of the Pharisaic ideal." 2 The Pharisee could be, often was, humble and good, sincere and genuine. The parable is cut off from the concluding comment in 14 by an emphatic "I say unto you." 14a could be a conclusion drawn from the parable by Jesus himself. However, 14a addresses a real audience ("you"), not the theoretical group designated in verse 9. Verse 14b is a third lesson (9, 14a) drawn from the parable. This is the second and last appearance of this paradox in Luke. It has a better dramatization in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican than it had in the "parable" about choosing seats (Lk 14:7-11 |f272 ). However, the paradox is not organic to the parable to which it is attached, and it is probably a stray saying which Luke (or his source) felt was appropriate. It is, however, only half-way appropriate: the Pharisee is not humbled, and the publican is not exalted. The paradox is so sweeping that it weakens rather than strengthens the point of the parable. Luke has now completed his Great Non-Markan Section in 9:51 -18:14. The next section of Luke (18:15-43) is taken from Mark. According to the Proto-Luke hypothesis, 9:51-18:14 had its continuation in 19:1-28. Thus, in Proto-Luke two publican stories were brought together (18:9-14 + 19:1-10). 3 II. THE JERUSALEM TRADITION Matthew 19:1-27:66 Mark 10:1-15:47 Luke 18:15-23:56 In the Synoptic tradition there is just one principal shift of scene in the public story, from Galilee to Jerusalem, where Jesus dies shortly after his arrival there. The Galilean period must have covered a number of months, perhaps close to a year. The Jerusalem period is short in point of time, involving only the time necessary for the journey from Galilee and some days in Jerusalem itself. The whole would require not more, perhaps less, than two weeks — at least as this period is treated by the Synoptic writers. The Jerusalem tradition in Mark, including the account of the journey from Galilee, covers six chapters compared with the nine chapters devoted to the Galilean tradition. However, in these six chapters Mark is devoting far greater proportionate space to the amount of time involved than he did in the case of the Galilean story. The amount of Jerusalem tradition in Luke approximates that of Mark, but there are very important differences in some of this tradition, especially in the death drama. Matthew's Jerusalem tradition extends through nine chapters, and this greater amount and 2 3

The Religious Teaching of Jesus, p. 37. Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 170; Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 222.

393

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.

1305-318

length is due primarily to major expansions of discourse sections with extensive non-Markan matter. But, in general, Matthew's Jerusalem tradition is much closer to that of Mark than is that of Luke. The Jerusalem tradition of Mark falls simply and clearly into three parts : (1) The Journey to Jerusalem (2) The Jerusalem Days (3) The Death Drama

Chapter 10 Chapters 11-13 Chapters 14-15

This same threefold division reappears in Matthew and Luke for whom Mark furnished the framework of the Jerusalem story as he did for the Galilean story.1 Any differences in the treatment of these three final stages in the Synoptic story by Matthew and Luke will be noted as they appear. 1. THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM Mt 1 9 : 1 - 2 0 : 3 4

Mk 1 0 : 1 - 5 2

Lk 1 8 : 1 5 - 1 9 : 2 8 ÍI305-S18 Lk 9 : 5 1 - 1 8 : 1 4

H201-304

Mark's account of the journey to Jerusalem is made up of ten literary units which include narrative, discourse, dialogue, and editorial materials. The materials associated with this journey are not essentially different from the Galilean materials. They are just as loosely strung together as the materials reported thus far in Mark's Gospel. Most of the incidents and episodes in chapter 10 of Mark are timeless and placeless. They are not fitted into any chronological or geographical scheme. Only one incident is properly a travel episode (10:46-52 t[316). Most of the materials would seem as appropriate earlier in Galilee or later in Jerusalem. There is no actual sequence or progression in the joining of materials. The episodes and incidents are brought together by their inner affinity and by Mark's didactic purpose. Between the mention of Capernaum in 9:33 and the arrival in Bethany in 11:1 there are only three notices which furnish a skeleton outline of the journey; Jesus leaves Galilee for Trans-Jordan in 10:1; the destination Jerusalem is given for the first time in 10:32; and Jesus passes through Jericho in 10:46. Mark is just as vague about the duration of the journey as he is about other facts and factors connected with it. Chapter 10 of Mark is not a proper account of an actual journey; it is simply a literary bridge spanning the gap between the Galilean and the Jerusalem stories. It manages to effect the principal shift in the scene of the total story, that from Galilee to Jerusalem. Mark and the early Christians generally possessed little positive information about this journey. They had no real interest in the details of the journey, only in its providential purpose: Jesus went to Jerusalem to die — a post factum interpretation in the light of its known outcome. 1 Unless, of course, one accepts the Proto-Luke hypothesis for the composition of the Third Gospel.

394

Β.1305

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Mt 1 9 : 1 - 2 0 : 3 4 . Matthew's journey to Jerusalem is only a duplication of that of Mark. Matthew reproduces all ten of Mark's literary units in Mark's order, and he makes a slight expansion of Mark's account by adding a new bit of dialogue in 19:10-12 ( P 0 7 ) and a new parable in 20:1-16 (|f312), both of which are peculiar to Matthew. Lk 18:15 - 1 9 : 2 8 . In 18:15-43 Luke reproduces six of Mark's ten literary units associated with the journey. He omits the first two units in Mark (10:1-12 11305-306) and two units toward the close (10:35-45 H314-315). 1 This Markan section, however, is only a continuation of Luke's journey to Jerusalem which has been under way throughout 9 : 5 1 - 1 8 : 1 4 . Even this Markan section does not bring Luke's account of the journey to a conclusion. He extends the journey beyond Mark's conclusion (|f316) with two nonMarkan units in 19:1-28 (^317-318). 305. The Departure from Galilee Mt 19:1-2 Mk 10:1 Mk 10:1 begins like earlier sections of Mark's Gospel with: "And he arose from thence" (7:24; 9:30). This is a very vague notice, but it becomes immediately evident that Jesus is leaving Galilee. It may be that the journey began as early as 9:30 where Jesus was passing through Galilee with one pause in Capernaum (9:33). Mark's geographical notices are in confusion, in the exact reverse of their proper order.1 The crossing of the Jordan is strange, for none of the episodes which follow is located east of the Jordan.2 The first incident localized is in Jericho in Judea to the west of the Jordan. Except for the phrase "beyond the Jordan," the reader would suppose that Jesus went south through Samaria into Judea. The multitudes, seldom mentioned in the latter part of the Galilean story, are about Jesus again. They are in the background of the journey from the beginning, but they come into the foreground on the arrival in Jerusalem — the ovation in honor of Jesus on the mount of Olives ( Mk 11:1-10 |[319). The multitudes here could be the editorial "multitudes" so often introduced by Mark, or they could be pilgrims on the way to Jerusalem for the Passover. Jesus here teaches the multitudes, but his teachings on this journey are primarily for the disciples, not the general public. Verse 1 with its vagueness and generalities is very probably the editorial work of Mark.3 Mt 19:1-2. Verse l a is the fourth appearance of Matthew's famous transition formula, "And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these ' F o r the advocates of Proto-Luke, Lk 18:15-43 is a Markan insert into the first draft of Luke's Gospel. 1 Cf. Hauck, Markus, p. 119; Klostermann, Markus, p. 110. 2 Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 273. ' Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 238.

395

JESUS A N D THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1306

4

words." It is a transition from the discourse and catechetical section in chapter 18, the end of the Galilean story, to this new narrative section, the journey to Jerusalem. It marks the end of Book V of Matthew and the beginning of Book VI which extends through chapters 19-25. Otherwise, Matthew reproduces Mk 10:1 with only minor differences. Matthew avoids Mark's vagueness, "from thence," and notes the departure "from Galilee." Matthew brings Mark's two geographical phrases into one, "the borders of Judea beyond the Jordan." This change is not an improvement, for the borders of Judea were not beyond the Jordan. 5 Again Matthew (14:14) mentions Jesus' healing where Mark (6:34) speaks of his teaching, the exact reverse of what the reader would expect. Luke naturally omits Mk 10:1. He reported the beginning of the journey to Jerusalem more than eight chapters back, and he had Jesus starting over a different route - through Samaria (9:51-52 fl201).

306. Concerning Divorce Mt 19:3-9 Mk 10:2-12 Mt 5:32 1J28; Lk 16:18 fl287 This passage of Mark has no natural connection with 10:1. It is not a travel episode, and there is no evident reason why it should be a part of the journey. The passage is held together by the theme of divorce, but it obviously falls into two separate parts: the debate with the Pharisees in 2-9, and the private scene with the disciples in 10-12. The question put in verse 2 is unnatural and un-Jewish. 1 The law recognized divorce and permitted it. The rabbis debated the grounds for divorce, but they did not question a man's right to divorce his wife. According to Mark, the Pharisees are "trying" Jesus, but there is nothing insidious in the question put. Jesus answers the question (2) with a counter-question (3), not with a counter-argument. The whole of 2-4 should be perhaps on the lips of the Pharisees.2 The reply ascribed to Jesus in 5-9 plays one Scripture against another, Genesis against Deuteronomy, the natural law of creation against the written law of Moses. This method is unrabbinical. For the rabbis, all parts of the Scriptures were equally authoritative. They explained away differences and disagreements between conflicting passages, but they did not oppose Scripture with Scripture. In its reasoning from one Scripture to another Mk 10:2-9 is almost an exact duplicate of 7:6-13; and the two passages must be the work of the same mind and hand. Mk 10:2-9 reflects a feeling and conscience relative to divorce that is stricter than usual, and it may be a 4

See Mt 7:28; 11:1; 13:53. Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 482. Cf. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 402. 2 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 13; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 229. 5

1

396

Β.1306

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

later Christian pronouncement rather than an issue debated between Jesus and his critics during his lifetime.3 Verses 10-12 form a separate unit in Mark, and the key-word on divorce is spoken in private to the disciples and it is not a part of the public debate with the Pharisees. The house is probably Mark's usual editorial "house," and this is Mark's first mention of the disciples on the journey. The shift from public utterance to instruction of the disciples in private has been featured by Mark since 4:10. The dogmatic treatment of Jesus' teaching as a mystery and the equally dogmatic portrayal of the dullness of the disciples which began with 4:10 ends with 10:10-12. Mark's word on divorce originally may have included only verse 11, and verse 12 may be a later addition.4 The idea in verse 12, however, goes back to earliest Christian times, for Paul seems to concede divorce rights to the wife as well as to the husband.5 In any case, Mark's peculiar form of the word on divorce is a Christian adaptation of one item in the teaching of Jesus to a non-Jewish environment.® Mt 19:3-9. In Matthew the question put to Jesus ( 3 ) is not pointless as it is in Mark. It is Jewish and rabbinical in Matthew. Matthew's phrase, "for every cause," changes the issue entirely.7 It becomes a question of whether Jesus aligns himself with one rabbinical school or the other, the school of Shammai or that of Hillel.8 Shammai conceded divorce on one ground alone — unfaithfulness. Hillel advocated divorce on a variety of major and minor grounds, even for trivial reasons. In Matthew Jesus aligns himself with the school of Shammai. "Trying him" has no point in Matthew, for Jesus would not compromise himself by siding with either school. In Mark Jesus himself opposes the law of Moses with the creation law of Genesis. In Matthew the situation is reversed: Jesus' opponents appeal to Moses against Genesis. Matthew reverses the order of Mark's Old Testament materials here just as he did in 15:3-9 (1(163), and the parallelism between these two passages in Matthew is just as close as it is in Mark. Matthew has no shift of scene from public to private as Mark does (10), and he does not mention the disciples in this episode. In Matthew the key-word on divorce ( 9 ) is the climax of the debate with the Pharisees; it is not spoken in a house to the disciples in private as it is in Mark. Matthew does not reproduce Mark's form of the word on divorce; he simply repeats the Q form from his Sermon on the Mount (5:32). Luke omits this Markan debate. This quoting and counter-quoting of •Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 13. 4 Cf. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 143; Hauck, Markus, p. 119. 5 See I Cor 7:10-11; Rom 7:2-3. 8 Cf. Hausrath, Jesus, II, 57. 7 Cf. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 2, 112. 8 Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 227; Moore, Judaism, II, 123f.

397

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 3 0 7 - 3 0 8

Old Testament passages would have no real interest for his Gentile-Christian readers. Furthermore, Jesus' key-word on divorce Luke reported only a little way back, using the Q form (16:18). 307. Concerning Eunuchs Mt 19:10-12 Mark introduced a private scene with the disciples toward the close of the preceding passage (10:10-12). Matthew now introduces his own private scene with the disciples, but he does not borrow Mark's "house." The joining of this passage to the preceding in Matthew is a strange piece of composition. Verses 3-9 proclaimed the sanctity of the marriage relationship; 10-12 idealizes the opposite, namely, celibacy. Verse 10 may be a transition contributed by Matthew, or 10-11 may have been invented to introduce the key-saying in 12. Verse 12b amounts to a repetition of 11. Verse 12 is commonly regarded as of later Christian origin because it is so un-Jewish. The average Jew regarded marriage as the ordained state. It fulfilled the first commandment of God: increase and multiply. Celibacy was rare among the rabbis and, generally, they disapproved of it. 1 The idealization of celibacy is Christian, ecclesiastical, and Catholic. It accords with Paul's preference for the unmarried state (I Cor 7:25-40). However, it has been suggested that verse 12 may be an autobiographical flash-back into the obscure pre-public life of Jesus.2 It would then be confessional in nature, and it would reflect Jesus' own voluntary renunciation of natural and normal relationships in favor of the cause which he championed. 308. Jesus and the Children Mt 19:13-15 Mk 10:13-16 Lk 18:15-17 Mt 18:3 fll90 Mark here does not depict a travel episode, and it is not a necessary part of the journey to Jerusalem. The background of 13 is a Jewish custom: children were often brought to famous rabbis in order to receive their blessing. Verse 15 is commonly regarded as a later insert into the story; the episode is complete without it in 13-14 + 16.1 The original key-saying was 14 which itself has a Christian cast and color in the idea of the coming to Christ. Verses 14 and 15 have different points, and only 14 is natural in the situation. Verse 15 was probably once a separate saying, and it could be of later Christian origin.2 In fact, the whole episode might be regarded as an ideal scene rather than as an actual incident in the life of Jesus.3 Or, it may be only a variation or duplication of the scene with the child back in 9:33Cf. Cf. 1 Cf. 2 Cf. 3 Cf. 1

2

Moore, Judaism, II, 119. Bacon, Jesus - The Son of God, p. 44f. Klostermann, Markus, p. 113; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 236; et al. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 205. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 16.

398

Β. |309

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

37 ( P 9 0 ) . 4 In 9:37 the "child" was Jesus' representative on earth, the humble Christian believer. Here, however, the child stands on its own merits; it is an object-lesson for believers.6 In their reproductions of this episode in Mark's order Matthew and Luke are both briefer than Mark. Neither Mark's emotional color (anger) nor his human trait (embracing the children) reappears in Matthew and Luke. It may be that Matthew and Luke omitted them as too realistic and human, or they may not have been in the Mark known to them and are the result of a later retouching of Mark's story. Mt 19:13-15. Matthew again uses one of his favorite connectives, "Then." What Mark reports at the end of the episode (16), the laying on of hands, Matthew brings up to the very beginning as the reason for bringing the children.6 Matthew has just one key-saying (14) in the story. He omits Mk 15, but he reported a similar saying back in 18:3 (|fl90). Matthew notes Jesus' departure at the end, but this is probably borrowed from the beginning of the next episode in Mark (10:17). 7 Lk 18:15-17. Luke here rejoins the framework of Mark for the first time since his own 9:49-50 (|fl91). In the meantime, between Mk 9:50 and 10:1 Luke has recorded his Great Non-Markan Section in 9 : 5 1 - 1 8 : 1 4 . But in 18:15 there is no trace of a break to indicate that Luke is leaving one major source for another. However, this episode of the children follows abruptly on the two parables in 18:1-14. In addition to his agreements with Matthew against Mark, Luke retains both key-sayings from Mark, and he omits the narrative ending in Mk 16. 309. The Rich Young Ruler Mt 19:16-22 Mk 10:17-22 Lk 18:18-23 This Markan story has no setting in time or place. It is not travel or journal material, although Mark provides a semblance of movement in 17a, "as he was going forth into the way." The story proper begins impersonally in 17b, "there ran one to him." The body of the story is primarily dialogue with occasional depictive notices thrown in. It is a piece of well constructed dialogue; each statement by each speaker bears directly on the statement of the other.1 Interest centers on the didactic content rather than on the episode as such. The whole is told for the sake of the key-utterance in 21. Jesus' response in 18 does not answer the question put in 17; the pertinent reply comes only in 21. The statement in 18 seizes upon a single word * Cf. Cf. 8 Cf. 7 Cf. 1 Cf. 5

Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 398; Bacon, The Gospel of Mark, p. 144. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 485. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 275f. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 206. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 20.

399

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 3 0 9

in the question in 17, the word "good." Mk 10:18 is one of the most remarkable utterances ascribed to Jesus in the whole of the Synoptic tradition. Its implications run exactly counter to the disposition of the early Christian faith which believed in Jesus as it believed in God and worshipped him as such.2 The utterance in Mk 10:18 is a religious recoil at an irreligious suggestion from one who is keenly conscious of the great gap that yawns between divinity and humanity and who ranges himself on the side of God-fearing humanity, aware of its own imperfection. This recognition and admission of limitations of human worth is the basic element in what is known as the religious consciousness. At no point in the Synoptic tradition is the reader nearer the Jesus of history who was a devout Jew, a religious subject, not the exalted religious object which the early Christian faith made of him. The commandment, "Do not defraud," is out of place among the five from the Old Testament decalogue. It may be a later addition to Mark; it is missing in one MS of Mark (Syr s i n ). 3 In verse 20 the rich man speaks of his youth as past; he is no longer young. In 21 Mark adds another human trait in his picture of Jesus: he looks upon the rich man and loves him. Verse 22 seems to be designed to lead up to the sayings which follow (23-27) as well as to terminate the encounter with the rich man. In their reproductions of this Markan story in Mark's order Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in three items. Neither reproduces Mark's travel clause in 17a or his stray commandment, "Do not defraud." As usual, Mark's human trait, "And Jesus looking upon him loved him," does not reappear in Matthew or Luke. Lk 18:18-23 is closer to Mark than Matthew's reproduction. Luke's changes are minor and come at the very beginning and at the very end. Luke alone speaks of the rich man as a ruler. The question of the ruler in 18:18 repeats verbatim the question of the lawyer in 10:25; but Luke betrays no awareness of this repetition. Luke takes no offense at the implications of Mk 10:18 and he leaves it to stand with its full force, unaware perhaps of the nature of these implications. Luke retains the Markan form of the five commandments but he reverses the order of the first two. He does not note the departure of the ruler, and the encounter with him is not yet terminated (24). Mt 19:16-22. Matthew's principal change of Mark seems to be a deliberate revision in the interest of the positions of the later Christian faith. Matthew seems to realize fully the religious implications of Jesus' utterance in Mk 10:18; and he changes the rich man's question and Jesus' reply to 2 3

Cf. Heitmiiller, Jesus, p. 35. Cf. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, I, 85; II, 2, 120.

400

Β. 1310

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

remove the offensive suggestions. Mark's "Good Teacher, what shall I do?" in Matthew becomes "Teacher, what good thing shall I do?" Mark's "Why callest thou me good?" in Matthew becomes "Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?" In Matthew Jesus is not addressed as good, and he does not reject the attribute of goodness. However, Matthew does not carry his revision through, for the second half of Jesus' reply ( 17b ) states who is good, not what is good.4 Matthew enriches the dialogue with a new question from the rich man (18a) and a sixth commandment from Jesus (Lev 19:18). He gives the five commandments from the decalogue in their Old Testament form. Matthew twice (20, 22) speaks of "the young man"; consequently, he is forced to omit Mark's phrase, "from my youth." Mark's "One thing thou lackest" in Matthew becomes "If thou wouldst be perfect," which adds a fresh touch to the strong Catholic color of the First Gospel.5 This new clause in Matthew distinguishes between two levels of religious living, the lower lay level and the higher clerical level.6 This distinction not only belongs to nascent Catholicism but to nascent monasticism. The Gospel of Hebrews has a version of this story of the rich man which has close affinities with that of Matthew. 310. Concerning the Rich and Riches Mt 19:23-26 Mk 10:23-27 Lk 18:2^-27 There is no necessary connection or natural sequence between these sayings and the preceding episode. It is topical composition that brings them together. There is, however, a dramatic effect in their association: Jesus' attitude toward wealth and the wealthy becomes increasingly severe — actually it amounts to a radical rejection of both.1 This radicalism grows from one saying to the next: from the simple observation of difficulty in 23 to an emphatic statement of impossibility in 25. Verse 24 is certainly a later addition to Mark. It does not reappear in Matthew and Luke, suggesting that it may not have been in their Mark. Verse 24 compromises Jesus' radical position in 23 and 25. In 24 it is not the possession of riches but "trust in riches" that makes it difficult to enter into the kingdom. Verses 23 and 25 virtually exclude the rich from the kingdom, but 24 admits the rich who do not trust in their riches — a trace of growing worldliness in the early church. The radical sayings in 23 and 25 should be joined without the attenuation in 24, as they are actually joined in both Matthew and Luke. Verse 25 really repeats 23 in more emphatic form. It is pure hyperbole depicting sheer impossibility. It has an 4 Cf. p. 310. ° Cf. ' Cf. 1 Cf.

Schölten, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 38; Carpenter, The First Three Gospels, Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 157. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 587. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 244.

401

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1311

almost verbatim parallel in the Koran, and the Babylonian Talmud has the same hyperbole but substitutes elephant for camel.2 This Markan passage is more discourse than dialogue: Jesus speaks three times, the disciples only once. Mark highlights the emotional reactions of the disciples: they are "amazed" and "astonished exceedingly." These reactions are designed to suit the radical nature of the utterances which provoke them. Such emotional color is usually the editorial work of Mark, and ordinarily it is associated with Jesus' speech and action.3 The word "saved" in 26 is used in the technical ecclesiastical sense, the only time it is used in this special sense in the Gospel of Mark.4 Jesus' statement in 27 seems to qualify the radical utterance in 25, and it amounts almost to a partial retraction.5 Mt 19:23-26 is nearer dialogue form than Mark's parallel. Matthew brings the two radical sayings together (23-24) as continuous speech. He betrays no knowledge of the compromised position in verse 24 of Mark, unless the solemn beginning of Matthew's own 24 points to its omission, "But again I say unto you." 6 Lk 18:24-27 has a closer connection with the preceding episode, "And Jesus seeing him" (the rich ruler). Luke did not note the ruler's departure, and these new sayings are provoked by his continued presence. The disciples are not even mentioned in this passage of Luke ("they" in 26), and naturally Luke does not report their emotional reactions. In Luke these radical utterances stand in their full force without the attenuation in 24 of Mark. Luke condenses and simplifies the word of Jesus at the end (27). 311. Renunciation and Its Rewards Mt 19:27-30 Mk 10:28-31 Lk 18:28-30

Lk 22:30b 1J404 Mt 20:16 11312; Lk 13:30

fl268

Mark presents this little Petrine episode as though it were an aftermath to the preceding dialogue. Verse 28, however, is probably the editorial device of Mark. It could easily have been suggested by the saying which follows in 29-30. The saying itself is so general, so detached, that it can hardly have emerged from an actual episode. It is a piece of categorical discourse, and it has the appearance of being perhaps the editorial work of Mark. The use of the term gospel in the absolute sense is typical of Mark's editorial writing. Whether or not it is the work of Mark, 29-30 seems certainly to be a Cf. Cf. 4 Cf. 6 Cf. β Cf. 2 3

Lagrange, Marc, p. 253; Box, St. Matthew, p. 290. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 217; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 20. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 129; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 215. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 246. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 129.

402

Β.1311

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

later Christian formulation.1 It uses the later Christian motivation for renunciation, "for my sake and the gospel's," the same double phrase used by Mark back in 8:35. It assumes the spread of Christianity: Christian kin multiply a hundredfold. It reflects the situation of Christians after Jesus' death rather than that of the disciples during his lifetime. Verse 30 is a rhetorical flight that neutralizes the whole passage and makes it one of the most unspiritual utterances attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic tradition. A hundredfold return in kind in this world would be no renunciation at all. The original pronouncement must have promised rewards only in the next world for renunciation in this, and it must have ended with "hundredfold" in verse 30.2 The rhetorical expansions in 30b must be later additions, for they do not reappear in either Matthew or Luke. The paradox in 31 makes its only appearance in the Gospel of Mark. It is not organic to what precedes. It is a stray saying, and it is so general in nature that it might be introduced into various contexts, as it actually is in the Synoptic tradition. It established itself as a word of Jesus in both basic sources, Mark (10:31; Mt 19:30) and Q (Lk 13:30; Mt 20:16). In Mark this paradox is not as sweeping as it is in Q; in Mark it applies to "many," but in Q apparently to all. Thus far Mark's journey to Jerusalem has been devoted primarily to teaching, and this teaching has been dominated by social themes: divorce, marriage, children, wealth, family, and possessions. Mark is compiling a didactic section rather than giving a journalistic account of the shift from Galilee to Jerusalem. Lk 18:28-30 adds "wife" to the rival interests that must be renounced as he did back in 14:26. He preserves the original religious motivation of Jesus for renunciation, "for the kingdom of God's sake." Luke condenses the key-utterance in Mk 29-30, but he preserves the promise of manifold reward "in this time" which neutralizes the idea of true renunciation as it does in Mark. Luke omits Mark's form of the paradox at the end ( Mk 31 ). The non-Markan ( Q ) form of the paradox he reported back in 13:30. Mt 19:27-30. Matthew expands Peter's remark with a question, "What then shall we have?" This was suggested by the new saying in 28 which seems to be from Q.3 Luke has a close parallel in 22:30b (1J404) where it appears as a separate unit and is one of the farewell words of Jesus to the disciples at the table on the last night. It is one of the most Jewish utterances ascribed to Jesus in the Synoptic tradition; it paints the picture of the future in purely Jewish colors with twelve disciples on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. It is the only passage in the Synoptic 1 2 3

Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 131. Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 82; Bultmann, Geschichte Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 493.

403

( 1 9 3 1 ) , p. 115.

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.f312

tradition which might suggest that the number twelve for the chosen disciples was intentional or traditional on the part of Jesus, a disciple for each of the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew inserts this Q saying into a Markan context, and it amounts to a restriction on what follows. The promise in 29 is for the twelve, not for disciples or Christians generally. Verse 28 has been questioned as an authentic word of Jesus.4 It assumes that the twelve is already a fixed and closed group as it probably was only after Jesus' death. Matthew condenses the two verses of Mark's key-saying (29-30) into one (29). He preserves the Christian motivation for renunciation, "for my name's sake," but in Matthew the utterance does not neutralize itself: no rewards in kind are promised "in this time" as in Mark and Luke. Matthew reproduces Mark's paradox at the end; he reverses the order of the terms first and last, but this does not alter the meaning. It seems certain that this paradox is responsible for Matthew's insertion of the parable which follows at just this point. 312. The Parable of the Laborers Mt 20:1-16 This parable, peculiar to Matthew, is one of the longest parables ascribed to Jesus. It is a kingdom-of-heaven parable as so many of Matthew's parables are. Matthew inserts it between Mk 10:31 and 32; it is his second and last expansion of Mark's account of the journey to Jerusalem. The parable is a piece of pure narration. Five groups of laborers are hired but only the first and the last, the extremes, appear at the end of the story, for it is with them that the parable makes its point. There is nothing unusual in the story until the reader comes to the end of verse 8 where he is confronted with two surprises: the last hired are the first paid, and they receive the same wage as the first hired. Such payment is arbitrary; it is neither fair to the laborers nor sound practice on the part of the householder, but it is just this arbitrary procedure that highlights the parable's point and thought. The kingdom is not a reward that can be earned or merited. It is a gift prompted by the divine mercy and beyond even the greatest human merit. The parable could end with verse 10, for the exchange in 11-15 is designed to justify the arbitrary action.1 Matthew has framed the parable on either side with his two forms of the same paradox, the Markan form at the beginning (19:30) and the more emphatic Q form at the end (20:16). Matthew seems to regard the parable as a dramatization of the paradox; however, the paradox touches on only one detail in the parable: the laborers are paid off in the reverse order of their hiring. The paradox has nothing to do with the central lesson of the 'Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 96; Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 158f. Cf. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 463.

1

404

Β.|313

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

parable; 2 in fact, it confuses, even distorts, its meaning. The parable recognizes neither first nor last, but all alike.3 313. The Third Prophecy of the Passion Mt 20:17-19 Mk 10:32-34 Lk 18:31-34 This third formal prophecy of Mark makes no reference to the first two. Jesus speaks of his death as though for the first time. The reader is left to recall the first two prophecies (8:31; 9:31). In this third prophecy Jesus appears far less passive, more active, in the determination of his destiny than in the first two. He speaks as though he is choosing both the time and place of his death.1 This third prophecy, too, is far more explicit and detailed than the first two, perhaps for the reason that the end is nearer. The first two prophecies were spoken in Galilee, but Jesus is well on the way to the scene of his death when this third prediction is placed on his lips. This third prophecy also exhibits greater literary art. It reads like a printed programme of the Passion Play. The six stations on the way to the cross are clearly defined.2 The materials in this third prophecy are borrowed item for item from the death drama itself. Mark reports no reaction of the disciples to this third prediction. Verse 32 reads like a double introduction to what follows; 32b is better suited to the prophecy itself. In 32a Mark features the emotions of the disciples as he did in 10:24 and 26. The emotional tension in 32a is Mark's own editorial effort at giving life and color to a proposition of the later Christian faith: Jesus went to Jerusalem to die.3 These psychological effects are designed to introduce stress and strain into the situation, but they would be more natural after the prediction than just ahead of it. For the first time in Mark the reader now learns the destination of the journey and the scene of Jesus' death. The composition of this third prophecy is strange: it begins in the first person plural, and then it swings immediately into the impersonal theological proposition about the Son of man.4 Mark retains his phrase "after three days," his own Easter tradition to the contrary. This highly circumstantial prediction of death is an unnatural provocation for the selfish request of James and John which follows.5 Mt 20:17-19. Matthew's interval between the second (17:22-23) and third prophecies (20:18-19) is somewhat greater than in Mark due primarily to Matthew's non-Markan extension of the Galilean story in 18:10-35 Cf. Cf. 1 Cf. 2 Cf. 3 Cf. 1 Cf. 5 Cf. 2

8

Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 471. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 229. Hauck, Markus, p. 125f; Burkitt, Gospel History, p. 69. Dehn, Le Fils de Dieu, p. 189. Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen, p. 56; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 172. Raschke, Die Werkstatt des Marcusevangelisten, p. 246. Loisy, Marc, p. 304t.

405

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. Tf314

( P 9 5 - 2 0 0 ) . Matthew's introduction is simpler and briefer than that of Mark, and the psychological effects in Mk 32 drop out entirely. Matthew is also briefer in the second half of the prophecy itself. In one detail Matthew is the most specific of all: he predicts not just death but crucifixion. For the third time Matthew corrects Mark's "after three days" to "the third day." Lk 18:31-34. The periodic spacing of the three prophecies in Mark is thrown out of balance in Luke, and this third prophecy ( 18:31-32) is widely separated from the second (9:44) by Luke's Great Non-Markan Section in 9 : 5 1 - 1 8 : 1 4 . If the prediction in 17:25 be included, this is really Luke's fourth prophecy. Luke omits Mk 32a. He has already noted Jesus' destination three times (9:51; 13:22; 17:11), and the destination here is clearly stated in the first line of the prophecy itself. Luke omits the emotional reactions of the disciples here as he did those noted back in Mk 10:24 and 26. Luke features the fulfillment of prophecy as he does later in his passion and resurrection story (22:37; 24:25-27; 24:44-45). Luke makes the first part of the prophecy conform to his own peculiar version of the death drama; he passes over the death sentence by the Sanhédrin as he does in the Jewish trial itself.6 In the second part of the prophecy Luke simply copies Mark, and he includes details that are not found in his own version of the death drama: the spitting and scourging.7 Luke for the second time corrects Mark's "after three days" to "the third day." Luke adds a reaction of the disciples (34) to this third prophecy where Mark has none; it is almost a verbatim repetition of the reaction following the second prophecy (9:45). This may be a compensation for what Luke passed over at the beginning, the disciples' amazement and fear (Mk 32). This notice in 34 (like 9:45) casts no reflection on the intelligence of the disciples: the truth is providentially hidden from them. 314. The Request of James and John Mt 20:20-24 Mk 10:35-41 Mark's second prophecy of the passion (9:31-32) was followed by a dispute of the disciples about rank (9:33-37 ), and now the third prophecy is followed by a similar dispute. This joining of materials is strange. It seems that a solemn prediction of death would leave the disciples in an awed and subdued frame of mind, not in the selfish, ambitious mood which these disputes reflect. These two disputes are very similar except for detail, and it may be that they are only different versions or forms of the same basic tradition.1 This second dispute ignores the first, and it is related as though the issue had not come up before. The devious indirection (35) followed in presenting the actual request " Cf. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation in the Gospels, p. 170. 7 Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 450f. 1 Cf. Drews, Das Markusevangelium, p. 256; Cadoux, The Second Gospel, p. 127.

406

Β.1314

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

(37) is naïve and childish. There are two possible replies to the request in 37: one in 38-40, and one in 41^15. Of the two, 41^45 is the better reply, which would leave 38-40 an insert of later origin.2 Two different replies, however, can be found within 38-40; one wholly adequate reply in 40, with 38-39 an insert; 3 or, one in 38a + 40 with 38b-39 a later addition.4 In either case, 38b-39 is a later secondary growth or expansion. This verse and a half seem to predict martyrdom for James and John, and such a prediction would fall into the same category as the three formal prophecies of Jesus' death. It must have been formulated after the event and based on a knowledge of the accomplished fact. 5 The figures of the cup and the baptism are another example of Mark's fondness for double expressions and parallel statements. Both figures have an Old Testament background: the cup in Isa 51:17, 22; Jer 49:12: the baptism in Ps 69:2-3; 124:4-5. The fact that these two figures are applied to the fate of James and John as well as that of Jesus does not preclude the possibility that they may be Jesus' authentic forecasts of his own death. Such figurative speech is thoroughly characteristic of Jesus. Both figures are general; they predict no detail and borrow no items from the death drama itself. They are not formal and feelingless but are charged with the tense emotion which the prospect of death naturally calls forth. They appear sporadically; they are not a part of any literary or dramatic design. On the last night in Gethsemane Jesus uses one of these figures, the cup, in a prayer where the allusion to his death is unmistakable. If Jesus did have a premonition of death, if he did speak of it to his disciples, it must have been in some such figurative speech as the cup and the baptism. Verse 40, the natural reply to the request in 37, is another of those rare and startling words of Jesus which have survived in spite of tradition's tendency to suppress them. This utterance falls into the same category with Mk 10:18 where Jesus confessed limitations of his own personal worth. Here he confesses limitations of power; there are things that he cannot do, that reside in Higher Hands. Mk 10:40 expresses the elemental religious attitude and consciousness which was the very core of the being of the historical Jesus. The original episode must have ended with the keyutterance in 40. Verse 41 seems to be an editorial transition designed to link the episode with the discourse which follows.® Mt 20:20-24. Matthew obviously had his misgivings about Mark's version of this episode, but he did not go to the extreme of suppressing it. He 2 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 135; Hauck, Markus, p. 127; et al. ' Cf. Bulünann, Geschichte ( 1931 ), p. 23: F. Κ. Feigel, Der Einfluss des Weissagungsbeweises und anderer Motive auf die Leidensgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr, 1910), p. 61f. 4 Cf. Völter, Die Menschensohn-Frage, p. 54f; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 221. 5 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 238; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 173; et al. ' Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 83; Klostermann, Markus, p. 119.

407

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 3 1 5

chose to revise the story and to remove the offensive element. Matthew does not use the names James and John, and he avoids the indirection leading up to the request. The selfish request of James and John in Mark is put on the lips of their mother in Matthew, as though such an ambition were pardonable on the part of a mother but less so on the part of her sons. Matthew, however, does not carry his revision through; from 22 on, the dialogue is not with the mother but with the two sons.7 According to Mt 27:56 the mother of the sons of Zebedee was among the Galilean women who accompanied Jesus on the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. Matthew reproduces Mark's figure of the cup but not that of the baptism which nowhere appears in Matthew's Gospel as a symbol for Jesus' death. This incident in Matthew would have a better provocation if it were joined on to 19:28 —the promise of the twelve thrones.8 Luke's procedure is more radical than that of Matthew. He omits this Markan episode as he usually does any materials derogatory to the apostles. In the early chapters of the Book of Acts John is one of the twin pillars of the primitive church in Jerusalem, and Luke reports the martyrdom of James, perhaps inferring that of John also, in Acts 12:2. Luke reported the figure of the baptism for Jesus' death back in 12:50 from a non-Markan source, but he later uses the figure of the cup ( perhaps non-Markan also ) in Jesus' Gethsemane prayer (22:42). Luke not only omits this James-and-John episode but he also omits the Markan form of the discourse which follows (Mk 10:42-45). This double omission, however, does not disturb the flow of Luke's account of the journey to Jerusalem. 315. Service as the Test of Greatness Mt 20:25-28 Mk 10:42-45 Lk 22:25-27 j|403 Mk 9:35b = Lk 9:48b fll90; Mt 23:11 ï|347 This word on service is only a more elaborate form of the saying back in Mk 9:3s. 1 It is the only instance of a repeated word of Jesus in Mark's Gospel. The detached nature of the utterance here, as well as Luke's parallel, makes it clear that it is not a necessary part of the journey to Jerusalem. Its connection with the preceding episode is purely editorial, that is, its appearance as a sort of appendix to the scene provoked by the request of James and John. Association of ideas seems to have brought them together in the process of compilation. That the two units were originally separate and independent of each other is clear in two things. ( 1 ) Verses 35-41 deal with rank in the kingdom; 42-44, with rank within the early Christian community.2 (2) Luke's parallel in 22:25-27 (fl403) is a separate unit Cf. Cf. 1 Cf. 3 Cf.

7 8

Schölten, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 39. Rawlinson, St. Mark, p. 144. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 214; Wellhausen, Marci, p. 84. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 11.

408

Β.1316

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

wholly independent of the James-and-John episode. As noted, 41—4.5 could be joined to 35-37 with 38-40 an insert.3 Verse 42 is a caustic critical comment on contemporary political powers. It reflects the point of view of the lower classes who feel the pressure and pride of the rulers who lord it over their subjects.4 The phrase "among you" which occurs three times in 43-44 assumes the existence of the early Christian community. Verse 45 cuts itself off from the word on service. It belongs to a different train of thought.5 To give one's life as a ransom is something altogether different from spending one's life in the service of others. Verse 45 is really the highpoint of the section which began with 8:27 and it is the climax of the death-theme which began with 8:31. 6 Verse 45 with its theme of death and the Son of man must come from the same mind and hand as the three formal prophecies of the passion. This verse is of later Christian origin, a proposition and conviction of the early Christian faith. It is retrospective; even the verbs are in the past tense. Jesus' life, work, and death are matters of the past, objects of contemplation and subjects for religious comment and conclusion. Verse 45 is one of the clearest instances of Pauline influence in the Gospel of Mark (Rom 5:8-10; I Cor 6:20; 7:23; Gal 1:4). 7 Mt 20:25-28 reproduces Mark's parallel line for line, almost word for word, without even a minor change of meaning. Luke omits the Markan form of this discourse material. However, he has a non-Markan form (perhaps Q) of this utterance which he uses as the first of a series of farewell words of Jesus at the table on the last night (Lk 22:25-27 1J403 ). Luke's form of this utterance has better unity and greater consistency; it adheres strictly to the idea of service with no supplement like Mk 10:45 on the Son of man, his ministry and death as a ransom. Luke nowhere in his Gospel thinks of Jesus' death as vicarious or as an atonement for sins. 316. The Cure of Blind Bartimeus Mt 20:29-34 Mk 10:46-52 Lk 18:35-43 Jericho is the first geographical notice on the route of the journey since the departure from Galilee in 10:1; it is the only evidence thus far of any actual progress toward Jerusalem. From Mark's phrase "beyond the Jordan" (10:1) the reader might infer that Jesus had come down the east side of the Jordan, avoiding Samaria, recrossing the Jordan into Judea, and proceeding to Jerusalem by the way of Jericho. Historically, there is no certainty as to 3 4 6 6 7

Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.

Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 245. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 173. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 241; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 253. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 246. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 134.

409

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. |316

the route by which Jesus came from Galilee to Jericho: through Perea (Matthew and Mark?) or through Samaria (Luke?). In two brief clauses (46a) Mark mentions both the arrival and the departure from Jericho. This double notice seems superfluous,1 and it might indicate that something had dropped out of Mark's story, some incident between the arrival in and the departure from Jericho, that is, in the city itself.2 The multitudes are mentioned at the beginning because they figure in the story of the cure. The disciples are also mentioned but they play no part in the action or dialogue which follow. The name Bartimeus is probable a later legendary feature. It does not reappear in Matthew and Luke, and it probably was not in their Mark. It is only a contraction of "son of Timeus." 3 Furthermore, growing legend has a tendency to name persons unnamed in the older tradition. The name Bartimeus may be simply an instance of a later writer's "propensity to individualize out of his own imagination." 4 This is the last story of a cure or healing in Mark. In its detail, color, action, and dialogue it belongs to the expansive type of narration which the reader began to encounter in the sea sequence back in Mk 4:35 - 5:43. The title "son of David" makes the first of its two appearances in the Gospel of Mark in 47 (12:35ff 1J341). Three verses later, however, the blind man addresses Jesus simply as "Master." 5 This story of Mark has an unusual ending: the cured man joins the company of Jesus, the only such instance in Mark. This story may be intended by Mark as a sort of prelude to the triumphal entry into the Holy City which follows immediately. The multitudes come into the foreground here as they do on the mount of Olives, and the title "son of David" sets the theme for the ovation there. Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in three items: they make no mention of the disciples in this story; they do not reproduce the name Bartimeus, and they omit the colorful action and dialogue in Mk 49b-50. The Mark known to Matthew and Luke may have given this briefer, simpler form of the story. Mt 20:29-34. Matthew simplifies the beginning of the story: he notes only the departure from Jericho. He agrees with Mark in having no halt or incident in Jericho and in having the cure take place as Jesus is leaving the city. In the cure itself Matthew adds his favorite emotional affect, compassion, and the cure is effected by touch, not by the blind man's faith and Jesus' assurance as in Mark and Luke. The chief new feature in Matthew is that two blind men are healed. This is the third and last instance of a Cf. Dibelius, Gospel Criticism, p. 32. Cf. Edelsheim, Das Evangelien nach Markos, p. 443. a Cf. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 442. 4 Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 443. 6 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 228. 1 2

410

Β.1317

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

double cure in Matthew (8:25 ]j58; 9:27 jj64), two of which, perhaps all three, are simply doublings of Mark. Matthew reported the cure of two blind men back in 9:27-31 (|J64) which was probably only a secondary version or anticipation of this double cure associated with the departure from Jericho. Lk 18:35-43 preserves the approach to Jericho (35a), and Luke could have inserted his Zaccheus story (19:1-10 11317) at this point. However, Luke preferred to transfer the cure to the opposite side of the city, "as he drew nigh unto Jericho." This enables Luke to report the halt in Jericho and the Zaccheus episode in the city itself. At the end (43b) Luke adds a choral conclusion, a sort of doxology, as he did in the case of earlier stories (7:16; 9:43). This public praise sets the tempo for the outburst on the mount of Olives (Lk 19:37-38 1J3l9).e This cure at the gates of Jericho concludes the account of the journey to Jerusalem in Matthew and Mark; their next incident is the ovation on the mount of Olives as Jesus approaches the Holy City (K319). Luke, however, does not conclude his account of the journey with the cure at Jericho. He goes ahead to add a non-Markan section of two units in 19:1-28: an incident in Jericho itself, a story peculiar to Luke in 19:1-10, and a Q (?) parable in 19:11-28 as Jesus approaches Jerusalem. This is the third major non-Markan insert by Luke into the Markan framework. 7 It is also, as already pointed out, the third source-section of Luke's long account of the journey to Jerusalem: a non-Markan section in 9:51-18:14; a Markan section in 18:15-43; and now this briefer non-Markan section in 19:1-28. 317. Zaccheus Lk 19:1-10 The localization of this episode in Jericho, also its association with the journey to Jerusalem, may be entirely the editorial invention of Luke. The name Jericho is not organic to the story, yet Luke goes to some pains to locate it there. In introducing this story as a Jericho incident, Luke had two choices. He could have reported it in connection with Mk 10:46a, "And they come to Jericho," and just ahead of the story of the blind man. Or, Luke could transfer the cure of the blind man to the opposite side of the city as Jesus is arriving, not leaving as in Matthew and Mark. Luke made the latter choice: after the cure of the blind man on entering the city, Jesus halts in Jericho where he is the guest of Zaccheus. The reader, then, is at the same point in 19:1 of Luke that he was at the beginning of the preceding story in Mark (10:46a). 8

Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 452. That is, if one accepts the Markan hypothesis for the composition of the Gospel of Luke. Taylor, First Draft, p. 32, and Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 222, join 19:1-28 to 9 : 5 1 - 1 8 : 1 4 as a part of the body of Proto-Luke. 7

411

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B. 1 3 1 8

The story itself develops a theme specially featured in Luke's Gospel, Jesus' associations with publicans and sinners. It is the most elaborate publican story in the Synoptic tradition. The story is written with the literary art usual in new stories contributed by Luke, and in verse 8 it contains one of the special features of stories peculiar to Luke: the title "the Lord" supplants the name Jesus. It is strange that Luke knows the name of this publican but not that of the blind man in the preceding story. The name Zaccheus makes the story a personal legend.1 The interest in the man's small stature is unusual, but it adds color to the story and accounts for some of the dramatic action. The unity of this story can be questioned. Verse 7 could be deleted as an echo from Luke's earlier publican story (5:30 fl61).2 Verse 8 could be deleted, or verses 7, 9, and 10.3 Verse 9b is awkward, for Jesus addresses Zaccheus in the third person. Verse 9 should be addressed to the critics in verse 7. The Jewish reasoning in verse 9, out of a sense of racial solidarity, duplicates that of an earlier story peculiar to Luke, "this woman being a daughter of Abraham," back in 13:16 (|f262). The story should end with verse 9 where it is complete. Verse 10 is to be cut off as a Christian conclusion to a Jewish story. It is a sort of dogmatic Christian watchword which has found lodgment at various points in the Synoptic tradition (Mt 18:11; Lk 9:55). For more than a century Luke's story of Zaccheus has been regarded by some critics as a duplication or secondary version of his earlier story of Levi the publican (5:27-32 ^60-61). 4

318. The Parable of the Pounds Lk 19:11-28 Mt 25:14-30 fl388 Matthew reports his parallel to this parable toward the close of his great eschatological address in Jerusalem at the conclusion of Jesus' public work. In Luke, however, it concludes the long account of the journey to Jerusalem (9:51-19:28). It is not clear whether Luke thinks of it as spoken in the house of Zaccheus or as Jesus is approaching Jerusalem. The parable proper in 12-27 is introduced in 11 and concluded in 28 with notices of Jesus' nearness to Jerusalem. The notices seem to be the editorial contribution of Luke, his fifth and sixth reminders of Jesus' destination (9:51; 13:22; 17:11; 18:31). Luke, however, may have found the parable with this editorial framework in his source ( Proto-Luke ). Luke has a very vague audience for the parable (11), not a real but a theoretical audience — those who expect the kingdom of God to come immediately. Thus Luke gives the parable an Cf. - Cf. 3 Cf. 4 Cf. 1

Dibelius, Tradition to Β. Weiss, Die Quellen Bultmann, Geschichte Strauss, Life of Jesus,

Gospel, p. 118. des Lukasevangeliums, p. 207. ( 1 9 3 1 ) , p. 33f. p. 323; Bruno Bauer, Kritik, II, 110; et al.

412

Β.1318

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

anti-eschatological point: it is intended to dampen eschatological fervor — a point and purpose not evident in the parable itself. The parable may have come to Matthew and Luke from Q, each giving a different version as they do now and then in the case of other matter apparently from Q. However, the two forms of the parable in Matthew and Luke are so different that some critics 1 hesitate to assign them to a common source like Q, and regard them as similar but independent parables.2 There is still another form of this parable in the Gospel of Hebrews.3 It is evident that Matthew gives the parable in a clearer and simpler form; it depicts a commercial enterprise throughout, a man entrusting talents to three servants. In Luke, however, the commercial enterprise entrusting pounds to servants is broken into by a story of a nobleman receiving a political appointment. In fact, two different parables seem to be conflated and confused in Luke, a parable of the pounds and a political parable.4 A mutilated form of the political parable can be reconstructed from verses 12, 14 and 15a which form the beginning and verse 27 which forms the end, with only fragments about the political rewards to loyal supporters in 17b and 19b: 12 A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent an ambassage after him, saying, We will not that this man reign over us. 15a And it came to pass, when he was come back again, having received the kingdom, that he commanded. . . . 17b Have thou authority over ten cities. . . . 19b Be thou also over five cities. . . . 27 But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. It has been suggested 5 that this story of the nobleman is not a parable at all but a piece of recent political history, an echo of Josephus' account of the appointment of Archelaus as governor of Judea and Samaria in 4 B.C.6 The reports of the first two servants and their rewards (16-19) borrow from both the commercial and the political parables. The report and punishment of the third servant (20-24) is from the parable of the pounds. There is utter confusion toward the end of the parable in Luke. In 24 the master with the invested pounds is speaking. Verse 25 is an interruption; it may be a later insert, for it is missing in some MSS ( D Syrs!n, Syr0™, it, etc.). In 26 there is no change of speaker from 24, yet it must be Jesus who is commenting, certainly not the master in the parable. There is still no change of speaker noted in 27 where only the nobleman can be speaking. The different endings Cf. Zahn, Lucas, p. 627; Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu, p. 87. For a comparison of the two forms, see Mt 25:14-30 11388. 3 Cf. James Donehoo, The Apocryphal and Legendary Life of Christ (New York: Macmillan, 1903), p. 258. * Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 353; A. T. Cadoux, The Parables of Jesus: their Art and Use (New York: Macmillan, 1931), p. 68; et al. 5 Cf. O. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, p. 306; Loisy, Luc, p. 462. 6 Cf. Antiquities xvii. 9-11; Wars I. 1-6. 1 2

413

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. ^[319-448

of the two parables probably account for this confusion. The parable of the pounds could end with 24 or 26; the political parable, with 27. Luke may have found the two parables already interwoven in his source. This is probable for it is not Luke's habit to conflate materials. The paradox in 26 has only a partial bearing on the point of the parable. The issue in the parable of the pounds is not that of having and not having, but that of investing and not investing what one has. In both Matthew and Luke, and apparently in their source, this paradox is firmly attached to this parable, but in Mark (4:25 Ρ 3 5 ) it is a separate and independent unit reproduced as such by Matthew (13:12 fll30) and Luke (8:18b j|135).7 ÏÏ819-448:

Mt 21:1-27:66

Mk 11:1-15:47

Lk 19:29-23:56

Mk 11:1 — 15:47. These five chapters conclude Mark's story of Jesus. They present the Jerusalem story proper, to which the account of the journey just concluded (Mk 10) was both a literary transition and a dogmatic prelude. Mark's materials in the Jerusalem story do not differ essentially from the materials reported thus far in his Gospel except for one item: Mark reports no healings or cures in Jerusalem, and this phase of Jesus' work, so prominent in Galilee, simply drops out. Otherwise, Mark's Jerusalem story is made up of single units of tradition, both narrative and discourse interspersed with editorial contributions. Now and then these narrative and discourse units are grouped into larger complexes and compilations, or they are built into a major dramatic composition (14-15). Some of the single pieces of tradition are not necessarily a part of the Jerusalem story, and their actual scene may have been elsewhere. Only those materials organic to the death drama are certain parts of the Jerusalem tradition, and even these cannot always be accepted as authentic and historical. The reader of the first ten chapters of Mark has not encountered one reliable chronological datum on which to hinge events. In Mark's Jerusalem story the reader finds the first and only such chronological datum: Jesus' visit to Jerusalem and his death there came at the Passover season (Mk 14:1-2,12, 17). Furthermore, in Mark's Jerusalem story the reader encounters something he has never met before — a journalistic or day-by-day account of events. In 15:42 the reader learns that Jesus died late on a Jewish Friday. Counting backwards from 15:42 by Mark's chronological notices (14:17, 12, 1; 11:20,12, 11), the reader finds that Mark's Jerusalem story covers only six days: Jesus arrived in Jerusalem on Sunday and died on the cross on the following Friday. The time-limits in Jerusalem are clearly defined, the six 7 According to the Proto-Luke hypothesis, Lk 19:1-28 was followed by 19:37-44 which gives the non-Markan, Proto-Luke version of Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem. Proto-Luke thus far, allowing for minor inserts from Mark, would include: Lk 3 : 1 - 4 : 3 0 + 5:1-11 + 6:12-19 + 6:20-8:3 + 9:51-18:14 + 19:1-28 + 19:37-44. Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 170; Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 222.

414

Β. 1f319-448

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

days of the so-called "Last Week," but the amount of time consumed in Galileé and on the way to Jerusalem is as obscure and uncertain as ever. There is a great disproportion in the amount of space devoted to the various days in Jerusalem. Some are almost empty, while others are overloaded, almost beyond belief. The day-by-day calendar in Mark's Jerusalem story arouses skepticism.1 This journalistic treatment of events did not appear in the first ten chapters where the narrative was fragmentary and chaotic and the narrator was indifferent toward such matters as chronological connection, continuity, and sequence. In chapters 11-15 this day-by-day division has the appearance of an artificial editorial scheme superimposed upon the materials and the events. In fact, this day-by-day calendar may have had a purely liturgical and later Christian origin, for it constructs a "Last Week" and divides it into days according to the observance of the Easter festival in the early church. 2 Mark may have compressed the Jerusalem events within a literary or religious scheme of six days, but in any case these events must have transpired rapidly and reached their culmination quickly. The precipitate nature of Jesus' action, as well as his own reference to teaching daily in the temple (Mk 14:49), would point to a brief period in Jerusalem to be measured in terms of days. The time left is very short but Mark treats these last days with great fullness and detail. Five of Mark's fifteen chapters covering the public career of Jesus are devoted to this brief period. The reason for this fullness and detail is religious rather than historical in nature: the interest and emphasis of the early Christian faith centered on Jesus' death and the immediate events which led up to it. Mark's Jerusalem story clearly falls into two parts: chapters 11-13, The Jerusalem Days, depict Jesus as active in public and in private during Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday; chapters 14-15, The Death Drama and a close literary unity within itself, present the passion story proper on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Chapters 8-10 prepared the reader for Jesus' death in Jerusalem, but in chapters 11-13 the shadow of death is lifted to fall with full force in chapters 14r-15. Mt 21:1-27:66. Mark is the primary source for Matthew's Jerusalem story. Matthew retains Mark's twofold division: the public and private activity in chapters 21-25 and the death drama in chapters 26-27. Matthew makes very few omissions from Mark, and his major additions to Mark and his non-Markan expansions come in the first half of the Jerusalem story, especially in the great discourse section in chapters 23-25. Matthew also retains Mark's day-by-day calendar for events with two exceptions: he does not always assign the same incident to the same day that Mark does, and in 1 2

Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 146; Goguel, Marc, p. 250; et al. Cf. Crum, St. Mark's Gospel, p. 43; Bacon, The Gospel of Mark, p. 172.

415

JESUS AND THE FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

B» |319-391

Matthew the dividing line between Monday and Tuesday disappears and the events of these two days are merged. Except for one editorial notice (21:14 t[325), healings and cures are absent from Matthew's Jerusalem story as they are from that of Mark. Lk 1 9 : 2 9 - 2 3 : 5 6 is characterized by independence of rather than dependence on Mark. Luke draws a sharp line between the two parts of the Jerusalem story in 21:37-38 (||390); but Luke seems to have found this sharp dividing line in his non-Markan source. In the first half of his Jerusalem story Luke makes important omissions from Mark, adds some new nonMarkan matter, and in general shows only a secondary dependence on Mark. In his death drama (22-23) it is doubtful if Luke has consulted Mark except in occasional, sporadic instances. The main body of Luke's Jerusalem story seems to indicate the use of a non-Markan source in preference to Mark. Taylor 3 assigns only ten verses of the first half of Luke's Jerusalem story to Proto-Luke, but he assigns most of Luke's death drama to ProtoLuke, especially from the supper scene (22:14) on. Another theory 4 assigns the main body of Luke's Jerusalem story (from 19:28 on) to a special written source ( J ) of some 165 verses. One of Luke's principal differences from Mark in the Jerusalem story is that Mark's day-by-day account of events does not reappear. The disappearance of this day-by-day division in Luke may be due in part to the fact that Luke does not reproduce the materials with which some of Mark's dividing lines between the days are associated; but it is due primarily, it seems, to the fact that Luke is using a non-Markan source which did not have this day-by-day division and calendar of events. Luke thinks of the Jerusalem visit as brief, for he speaks of it in terms of days (19:47; 20:1; 21:37; 22:1), but he does not compress events within a scheme of six days, no more and no less. Except for the legendary notice in 22:51b ( |f413), Luke agrees with Mark in having no healings or cures in Jerusalem. 2. THE JERUSALEM DAYS Mt 2 1 : 1 - 2 5 : 4 6

Mk 11:1 - 1 3 : 3 7

Lk 19:29 - 21:38

H319-391

319. The Ovation on the Mount of Olives Mt 21:1-9 Mk 11:1-10 Lk 19:29-38 After the localization in la, this story of Mark falls into two parts: l b - 7 and 8-10. Mark's localization involves confusion, for Bethphage and Bethany are in the wrong order. Coming from Jericho, Jesus would pass first through Bethany and then through Bethphage. There is no known Bethany on the Cf. The First Draft of St. Luke's Gospel, pp. 33-39. Cf. A. M. Perry, The Sources of Luke's Passion Narrative versity Press, 1920), pp. 116-126. 3

4

416

(Chicago: Chicago Uni-

Β.1319

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

mount of Olives as Mark seems to assume here and elsewhere in his Jerusalem story. The two principal parts of the story are not homogeneous: l b - 7 and 8-10 are of very different nature and make very different assumptions. Verses l b - 7 are tinged with the miraculous, while 8-10 depict a typical Jewish scene involving nothing miraculous. In l b - 7 Jesus is active, even provocative, in setting the stage for what follows; in 8-10 Jesus is passive, and it is the multitudes who take spontaneous action. Verses l b - 7 depict a miracle of prevision: Jesus foretells everything that the two disciples will see, hear, and find; and Mark has each item go into concrete fulfillment. This miraculous feature seems to be a later legendary addition.1 It is not a part of the parallel story in the Gospel of John (12: 12-18). It is written in typical legendary style with verses 4—6 repeating lb-3. The statement, "The Lord hath need of him" ( 3 ) , betrays its later Christian origin. This is the only instance in the Gospel of Mark in which the title "the Lord" is applied to Jesus by himself or by the disciples. The whole episode of the colt may have been inspired by Zech 9:9; but it leaves the unsavory impression of Jesus setting the stage for a demonstration in his own honor. Verses l b - 7 can be deleted, leaving 8-10 to join on to la, and there would still be a complete story: l a And when they draw nigh unto Jerusalem . . . at the mount of Olives, . . . 8 many spread their garments upon the way; and others branches, which they had cut from the fields. 9 And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: 10 Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of our father David: Hosanna in the highest.

In this briefer, simpler form the story loses not only its miraculous but also its messianic character. The ovation becomes spontaneous, unplanned and unprepared, in honor of Jesus as teacher and prophet. This conforms better to the general public attitude toward Jesus thus far in Mark's story and also in what follows. The colt ceases to be a part of the story, and Jesus enters Jerusalem on foot as he seems to have come from Galilee. The garments in the way are more appropriate if Jesus is on foot, not mounted. The story as it now stands in Mark is not just told; it is also interpreted in the telling. Mark seems to regard what he reports as a public messianic ovation in honor of Jesus. As such it would stand isolated in Mark, for in Mark's dogmatic scheme the knowledge of Jesus' messiahship is confined to the demons and the disciples. It is never a matter of public knowledge either in what precedes or in what follows.2 This initial incident has no bear1 Cf. Schölten, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 225; Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 2, 370. 2 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 105; W. Wrede, Verträge und Studien (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1907), p. 159f.

417

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 3 1 9

ing on the course of the Jerusalem events which it introduces. If it has been a messianic demonstration, it would have been challenged by both the Roman and the Jewish authorities. Yet it is never even referred to in the conflicts, charges, and plots which follow.3 Originally, this spontaneous ovation may have been followed immediately by the cleansing of the temple: 11:1a + 8-10 + 11a + 1 5 b - 1 7 leaving the night in Bethany and the cursing of the fig tree to drop out.4 Mt 21:1-9. Matthew omits the name Bethany and thus avoids the geographical confusion in Mark. Matthew retains the story of the colt, but it loses its miraculous character. It is unusual to find a simpler, less miraculous version of a story in a later Gospel.5 In Matthew the idea of prevision and fulfilled prediction disappears. Jesus simply gives the disciples certain instructions which they carry out. Matthew is not interested in the miracle but in the fulfillment of prophecy —a combination of Isa 62:11 and Zech 9:9. Matthew has two animals, the colt and its mother. The two animals in Matthew may be due to his misunderstanding of the poetic parallelism in the Old Testament passages quoted, or it may be another instance of Matthew's fondness for doubling Mark as in the preceding cure at the gates of Jericho. 6 Lk 19:29-38. Luke's account here clearly falls into two parts: 29-36 and 37-38. Verses 29-36 reproduce Mk 11:1-8 with the exception of the branches in the way. Luke retains Mark's geographical confusion at the beginning, and this is the only incident associated with Bethany in Luke's Jerusalem story. Luke also reproduces Mark's miracle of prevision with its detailed fulfillment. Verses 37-38 deviate so greatly from Mark that they are probably from a non-Markan source.7 Luke gives no hint as to the formation of the procession, some of the multiude going before and some following Jesus (Matthew and Mark). In 37 Luke localizes the ovation "at the descent of the mount of Olives," and it comes from a "whole multitude of disciples," not from the Galilean Passover pilgrims as in Matthew and Mark. The general public present in Luke is not mentioned until 39. In Luke the ovation is provoked by "all the mighty works which they had seen." In the greeting itself Lk 38 differs from Mark. There are no Hosannas, perhaps because such was too Jewish. The greeting ends with a doxology which would be more appropriate in the birth stories (2:14) than here, but it does relate 37-38 to the non-Markan sources of Luke. Verses 37-38 give in themselves a complete account of the ovation apart from 29-36: Cf. Cf. 8 Cf. * Cf. 'Cf. 8

4

Schweitzer, Die Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, p. 372. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 146. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 505. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 263. Feine, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung, p. 61; Rengstorf, Lukas, p. 199.

418

Β.1320-321

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

37 And as he was now drawing nigh, even at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen; 38 saying, Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. Streeter 8 and Taylor 9 join Lk 19:37-44 to 19:28 as the full account of the triumphal entry in Proto-Luke. Matthew and Mark have only one incident on the mount of Olives in connection with Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem, the ovation, and they go directly from the ovation to the entry into the city. Luke, however, has three incidents on the mount of Olives before Jesus reaches the city: the ovation in 19:29-38 (ÏÏ319), a protest in 39-40 (fl320), and a prophecy over the city in 41-44 ( 1|321 ) — the last two, new non-Markan materials. Thus Luke's considerable independence of Mark even in the first half of the Jerusalem story begins tò assert itself. 320. The Protest of the Pharisees Lk 19:39-40 Mark has no protest of any kind from any quarter to the ovation on the mount of Olives. In Matthew there is no protest on the mount of Olives, but there is a protest a little later in the temple (21:15-16 |f326). In Luke, however, there is a prompt protest from the Pharisees, their immediate reaction to the ovation itself. One MS (Syr sin ) omits the phrase "of the Pharisees," and the protest is from the multitude against the cries of the disciples. Verses 39-40 come from Luke's non-Markan source, and they connect well with 37-38 and are consistent with them: the ovation is from the disciples, not from the multitude. The reply ascribed to Jesus here not only has an Old Testament background (Hab 2:11a) but it is proverbial in nature: stones cry out. It assumes providential necessity in the course of events, and it amounts to a veiled acceptance of the homage. 321. The Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem Lk 19:41-44 This is Luke's third incident on the mount of Olives as Jesus approaches the city. This lament over Jerusalem stands in sharp contrast with the ovation; it is a complete change of mood. It may be joined to 39-40 by verbal association, the word "stones." The setting, overlooking the city, is the same which Mark (13:3) uses later for his eschatological address. The weeping of Jesus is probably the editorial work of Luke, what Loisy called ' Cf. The Four Gospels, pp. 215, 222. β Cf. The Third Gospel, pp. 94f, 236.

419

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B. 1 3 2 2 - 3 2 3

"pious romancing." 1 Such sentimental touches are characteristic of Luke. Back of this particular one is the Jew's love for the Holy City. The prophecy itself is a lyrical composition, a typical prophetic oracle or elegy. It is so Jewish in style and sentiment that it could have a purely Jewish origin. It could, however, be a later Christian composition based on a knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.,2 yet only one detail, the palisade about the city, fits the account of the siege of Jerusalem. Otherwise, it is a conventional description of the destruction of any city by its enemies. This is the first of a series of similar prophecies running through Luke's Jerusalem story (21:20, 21b, 24; 23:27-31). All are peculiar to Luke; all are extremely Jewish, and in all, interest centers on the fate of Jerusalem. Furthermore, all of them read like pieces of literary composition rather than spontaneous oral utterances. This prophecy is a sort of prelude to the eschatological address, especially in Luke's form. What Jesus says later of the temple in all three Gospels, "there shall not be left here one stone upon another," is here applied to the whole city. In Luke Jesus enters Jerusalem with this lament over a doomed city, and he leaves it for crucifixion with a similar lament (23:27-31 |j427).3 322. The Entry into Jerusalem Mt 21:10-11 Mk 11:11a Mark gives just a prosaic notice about Jesus' entry into the city. It is without incident and unnoticed by the Jerusalem public. Mt 21:10-11 is one of the best examples of Matthew's imaginative dramatizations of Mark. Matthew stages a colorful scene in the form of an antiphonal chorus with a mass question and a mass reply. Such is possible actually only with rehearsal, spontaneously only in the literary imagination. Verses 10-11 are a piece of creative writing contributed by Matthew. As an incident it stands in sharp contrast to the preceding ovation, for Matthew here depicts an outburst of provincial pride which honors Jesus as a prophet, not as the Messiah. Luke, perhaps following his non-Markan source, does not note the entry into the city itself. 323. In the Temple — Observations Mt 21:12a Mk 11:11b Lk 19:45a This first visit to the temple in Mark is without incident or action. Jesus appears here in an ultra-Jewish light: as a Passover pilgrim he presents Cf. Luc, p. 472. Cf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, I, 327; Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, II, 176f; et al. ' Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 171, joins Lk 19:37-44 to 1 9 : 4 7 - 4 8 in his reconstruction of Proto-Luke. 1 2

420

Β.1324

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

himself at the temple, the first duty of each devout Jew on arriving in the Holy City. In the light of what has just preceded, the Messiah hailed by public acclaim, the effect is almost that of anticlimax. Mark's notice about Jesus' observations may cover his embarrassment at having nothing to report on this first visit.1 It seems to be an editorial filler for a gap. The vague term all is typical of Mark's editorial writing (4:11, 34; 6:30; 7:37). If this note about the observations is taken seriously, it might indicate that Jesus is making a preliminary survey preparatory for action on the next day, and the cleansing would appear in the light of a planned and premeditated action. Or, these observations might indicate that Jesus is a stranger in Jerusalem and that he is satisfying the natural curiosity of a pilgrim from the provinces.2 Mark's notice about Jesus' observations does not reappear in Matthew and Luke. It could be a later addition to Mark and not a part of the Mark known to Matthew and Luke. Or, they could have omitted it because, in both, Jesus swings into action at once and cleanses the temple on this first visit on arriving in Jerusalem. Mt 21:12a. Màtthew's narrative follows that of Mark from the mount of Olives to the city and the temple. Some MSS ( Aleph, B, L, etc. ) omit the phrase "of God" in 12 of Matthew but the full expression, "the temple of God," fits well into the general Jewishness of Matthew's Gospel. Lk 19:45a. Luke's narrative goes from the three incidents on the mount of Olives directly to the temple without noting the entry into the city. In Mark the first day in Jerusalem is really over. There remains only the notice about it being evening and the return to Bethany. In Matthew and Luke, however, the action on the day of the arrival in Jerusalem continues with the cleansing of the temple. 324. The Cleansing of the Temple Mt 21:12b-13 Lk 19:45b-46 Mk 11:15-17 fl329 In Mark the cleansing of the temple is the principal event on the second day, and a night in Bethany (11:11c, 12a) intervenes between the first visit to the temple (11:11b) and the cleansing (11:15-17). Matthew and Luke, however, bring the cleansing forward to the day of the arrival, and in both, Jesus assumes the heroic role ascribed to him in the ovation which immediately precedes. Matthew and Luke may have brought it forward because they did not understand the delay of twenty-four hours in Mark. In Matthew and Luke Jesus acts on the spur of the moment, on the first visit on the day of the arrival, and the act itself becomes more temperamental and impulsive. Originally, the ovation and the cleansing may have belonged together as 1 2

Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, Cf. Brano Bauer, Kritik, III, 42.

p. 146.

421

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E

GOSPELS

B. f 3 2 5 - 3 2 6

they are now in Matthew and Luke. Mark's interval with a night in Bethany may be due to his day-by-day calendar scheme.1 It is possible, however, that Matthew may have transposed the cleansing from the second day to the first, and Mt 21:12b-13 may be an insert; 14-16 joins well on to 12a.2 Luke's cleansing may fall on the day of the arrival in Jerusalem simply because he (or his source) has no parallel to Mark's notice of evening, the return to Bethany ( 11:11 ), and the cursing of the fig tree on the following morning (11:12-14). However, Luke's basic source (nonMarkan) may have contained no account of the cleansing of the temple in the Jerusalem story, and the cleansing in 19:45b-46 may be an insert from Mark.3 The connection with what precedes in Luke, the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, is not good: it seems strange that Jesus would cleanse the temple in a doomed city.4 In their text of the cleansing story Matthew and Luke are very close to that of Mark in what they do reproduce. Neither reproduces verse 16 of Mark, and both omit the phrase "for all the nations" in the comment ascribed to Jesus. Luke reproduces only the very beginning and the very end of Mark's brief account. Luke reduces the action to a minimum, "and began to cast out them that sold," and he features Jesus' comment. The cleansing of the temple does not seem to have appealed to Luke; he comes very near suppressing it. It is no more than an incidental episode mentioned in passing. Luke's abridgement is so severe that the act loses its radical character. Throughout his Gospel Luke avoids any revolutionary traits in his picture of Jesus. In his Jerusalem story Luke has no interest in the temple except as the scene for Jesus' teaching. In Luke the cleansing seems to have no bearing on the conflicts that follow. The challenge of the opposition grows out of Jesus' teaching in the temple (19:47; 20:1), not out of the cleansing. Mt 21:14-16 ^325-326. To the account of the arrival in Jerusalem Luke added two new episodes on the mount of Olives (19:39-44); now Matthew adds two new incidents to this first day, new scenes in the temple (21:14-16) following the cleansing. 325. The Blind and Lame Cured in the Temple Mt 21:14 This is the only notice of any healings or cures in Matthew's Jerusalem story. It is evidently the editorial contribution of Matthew, perhaps a carryover from similar notices in the course of the Galilean story. It tells the reader more about Matthew than it does about the events in Jerusalem. It is one of several instances in which Matthew invents in order to supplement Mark's Cf. Cf. 8 Cf. 1 Cf.

1

2

Loisy, Luc, p. 473. Spitta, Grundschríft, p. 308. Spitta, Grundschrift, pp. 303, 468, 503. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 238.

422

Β. 1326-327

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Jerusalem story. According to II Sam 5:8 (LXX; RV marg. ), the blind and the lame were not allowed in the temple. 326. The Protest of the Chief Priests and Scribes Mt 21:15-16 Matthew is the only Synoptic writer who actually reports a triumphal entry into the Holy City. In Mark and Luke the ovation begins and subsides on the mount of Olives, but in Matthew it continues down through the streets of the city (21:10-11) and the last echoes come from the children in the temple. Luke reported a protest against the ovation, and it came from the Pharisees on the mount of Olives (19: 39-40 ||320). In Matthew it comes from the chief priests and the scribes in the temple. Neither protest calls forth an original response from Jesus, only a paraphrase (Lk 19:40) or a quotation of an Old Testament passage (Mt 12:16 from Ps 8:2). This gives both protests the flavor of literary fabrication. Matthew has the Jerusalem opposition appear at a natural point, after the cleansing of the temple. In this he is following the subsequent lead and suggestion of Mark (11:18). This is as far as Matthew's naturalness goes, for his protest is not provoked by the cleansing but by the cries of the children. The cleansing is without immediate effect in Matthew. This would suggest that the cleansing at this earlier point in Matthew is a transposition and insert. This episode is very plainly Matthew's substitute for Mk 11:18 ( |f330 ). However, Matthew here reports an actual encounter with Jesus and his enemies face to face. It is a rather feeble beginning for the Jerusalem conflicts. It is Matthew's final incident on the first day in Jerusalem. 327. The Return to Bethany Mt 21:17 Mk 11:11c With this notice of eventide and the return to Bethany Mark brings the first day to a formal conclusion. The general tradition to the effect that Jesus spent his nights outside the city may be historically trustworthy, but the "eventide" in 11, the "morrow" in 12, and the "morning" in 20 (the dividing lines between the first three days) may all be the editorial work of Mark. These retreats from and returns to the city give Mark the opportunity to introduce his two-part story of the cursing of the fig tree. In one verse (11:11) Mark has Jesus enter the city, visit the temple, and return to Bethany —an anticipation of what occurs four verses later (15). Verse 15 ignores 11 and reads as though Jesus were entering Jerusalem for the first time. If 15 recognized 11, it would read: "And they come again to Jerusalem." Verse 11 alone accounts for a day, the first in Mark's calendar scheme, yet it is a day without action on Jesus' part in the city itself —just a pilgrim's visit to the temple.1 1

Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 89; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 178.

423

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E

GOSPELS

B. 11328

Mt 21:17. Matthew links this notice with the new matter in 15-16: "he left them" — the chief priests and the scribes. He also preserves Mark's calendar scheme at this particular point. He does not note the end of the day, but in the next verse ( 18 ) it is the following morning. Matthew reports the retreat to Bethany which he now mentions for the first time. He did not mention Bethany in connection with the ovation on the mount of Olives (21:1).

Matthew has split Mk 11:11 into three parts (a, b, c), spread the three parts with expansions and inserts, and the result is that eight verses of Matthew (21:10-17) parallel the order and notices in one verse of Mark (11:11).

Luke does not reproduce this notice of Mark, and the day-by-day division does not reappear in his Jerusalem story. This could be due to Luke's omissions from Mark, but it is equally plausible that Luke is using a nonMarkan source in which the Jerusalem story was not divided into definite days. In the Synoptic tradition there are two different strains relative to the place of Jesus' nightly retreats. In Matthew and Mark Jesus spends his nights in Bethany, but in Luke (21:37) he spends his nights on the mount of Olives which is not only additional but strong evidence for the nonMarkan origin of the major part of Luke's Jerusalem story. Luke's form of this tradition is perhaps the better, for it is consistent throughout while that of Matthew and Mark is not: on the last night in Matthew (26:30) and Mark (14:26) Jesus retreats to the mount of Olives as he does each night in Luke. 328. The Cursing of the Fig Tree Mt 21:18-19 Mk 11:12-14 Mark's cursing of the fig tree is really a two-part story: 12-14 (ff328) and 20-21 ( jf332 ). Both parts seem to be an insert into this early stage of the Jerusalem story which break the natural and logical sequence of events: 1

The Ovation

Primitive Sequence Mk 11: 1-10

Later Inserts 11

The Cleansing

15-17

12-14

The Cursing and

18-19 20-27a Its Sequel The Challenge

27b-33

1 Cf. A. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Markusevangeliums, p. 46; Bousset, Kyrios Christes ( 1921 ), p. 58; et al.

424

Β. 1328

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

If the two parts of the cursing story are deleted along with other matter connected with them, the connection between materials and the progress of events are improved: the ovation, cleansing, and challenge follow in rapid succession on Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem, and they are not scattered over three different days as is now the case in Mark. The proof of this is found in Luke where both parts of the cursing story have disappeared and the three key-events are joined together. The cursing and its sequel may have been inserted to carry Mark's day-by-day calendar scheme, for the cursing comes on the morning of the second day (11:12) and the sequel on the morning of the third day (11:20). The manner and place of the insert may have been intended to make a didactic point with the fate of the fig tree as a symbol of the fate that awaited Jerusalem and the Jewish people.2 Originally, the cursing of the fig tree may have been a one-part story as it is now in Matthew.3 It is difficult to believe that Mark himself took this story as literal history and meant to report a miracle. Apart from its sheer physical impossibility and evident absurdity, the act depicted is irrational and revolting: Jesus curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season. It lacks completely any sort of moral motive or justification, and it is about the most unedifying item in Mark's total picture of Jesus. Strauss wrote: "Jesus must rather have given new life to a withered tree than have made a green one to wither." 4 Mark's strange statement, "for it was not the season of figs," may be his own cue to the reader that the story is symbolic.5 Mark certainly treats the story as a piece of didactic narration, for he attaches to it sayings of Jesus on the most intimate of religious themes (22-25). In Mark Jesus' pronouncement is a prediction of permanent barrenness,6 not a curse resulting in the tree's instantaneous destruction. At the end, "And his disciples heard it," Mark is preparing the way for the sequel, the discovery of the withered tree twentyfour hours later. Originally the story of the cursing of the fig tree may have been a parable which in the process of transmission was transformed into an actual act ascribed to Jesus.7 It could easily be a dramatization of the parable of the barren fig tree threatened with destruction in Lk 13:6-9 (j|261). Such a development in the process of transmission could easily take place in the oral stages of the story. The development into sheer miracle, however, is not entirely completed even in Mark's written form, for Mark does not report the actual withering of the tree under Jesus' curse. Mark leaves the reader 2 3

233.

Cf. Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, p. 156; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 300. Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 146; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p.

1 Life of Jesus, p. 528. "'Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 511. " Cf. Schölten, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 199. 7 Cf. Carpenter, The First Three Gospels, p. 36; Lagrange, Marc, p. 279.

425

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. |329

to infer the miracle from Jesus' curse on Monday and the discovery of the withered tree on Tuesday. Mt 21:18-19. Matthew preserves Mark's day-by-day calendar in 18a — the cursing comes on the morning of the second day — but he deserts it at the end of the next verse ( 19b ). Matthew abridges Mark somewhat, and he does not reproduce the most irrational element in Mark's story, "for it was not the season of figs." Matthew's notable change comes at the end: the fig tree withers away on the spot under the very breath of Jesus' curse. The actual withering of the tree, behind the scenes in Mark, is witnessed by the disciples in Matthew, and a miracle-story has completed itself. The final phase in its development comes in the written stage of the story, from the inferred miracle in Mark to the narrated miracle in Matthew. It is one of the finest examples of fictitious growth in the Synoptic tradition. The result of this instantaneous wonder in Matthew is that twenty-four hours drop out of his Jerusalem story, and the two-part story of Mark is contracted into a single episode on the morning of the second day (Mt 21:18-20). The failure of the story of the cursing of the fig tree to reappear in Luke has found various explanations. Luke may have omitted the cursing story because of its offensive character.8 The parable of the barren fig tree threatened with destruction in 13:6-9 (1|261) may be Luke's substitute or compensation.9 The story of the cursing may be a later addition to Mark and it may not have been in the Mark known to Luke. 10 Or, it may not have been in the non-Markan source which keeps appearing in Luke's Jerusalem story.11 In any case, Luke had the good taste and wisdom to allow the story to fall by the wayside, that is, if he knew it, and with it went Mark's notices of the beginning of the second and third days in Mark's calendar scheme. 329. The Cleansing of the Temple Mk 11:15-17 Mt 21:12b-13 = Lk 19:45b^6 1j324 Mark reports the cleansing of the temple as the principal event on the second day of his six-day schedule. However, it is more natural and logical on the first visit on the first day, as it is in Matthew and Luke, than it is in Mark where the action is delayed for twenty-four hours. In the primitive form of Mark's story the cleansing probably followed upon the ovation on the mount of Olives: 11:1-10 + 15-17. 1 In this case, the return to Bethany ( 11 ) and the cursing of the fig tree ( 12-14 ) would be later inserts. Mark's account of the cleansing falls into three parts: the action itself in Cf. ' Cf. 10 Cf. u Cf. 1 Cf. 8

Streeter, in Oxford Studies, p. 223. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 461. Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, I, 35. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 311. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 180; Goguel, Marc, p. 219f.

426

Β.1329

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

15, the notice peculiar to Mark in 16, and the comment in 17.2 Verse 15 in itself is a complete account of the cleansing. It is pure narration recounting a radical and revolutionary action which speaks for itself without the comment in 17. Verse 16 may be a later addition. It does not reappear in Matthew and Luke, and it may not have been in the Mark known to them. Furthermore, it breaks the natural connection between the action (15) and the comment (17). Its only possible function would be to prepare the way for 27b, "as he was walking in the temple." The background of 16 is Jewish. Josephus 3 and the Mishna 4 state that it was forbidden to use the temple as a thoroughfare or as a short-cut from one quarter of the city to another. Verse 17 may not be a word of Jesus at all but a later Christian interpretation of the cleaning.5 This comment lacks the originality of the action with which it is associated; it is a combination of two Old Testament passages: Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11. This comment is cut off from the action by an introductory formula as though it were a separate unit, "And he taught, and said unto them." It is not even clear to whom this comment is addressed ("them," "ye"). Such a calm, almost academic comment does not fit the radical nature of the action. Mark's phrase "for all the nations" would have no meaning for Jesus' Jewish contemporaries; it expresses later Christian universalism.6 Verse 17 reads like a comment from an early Christian sermon.7 It converts the cleansing into an ideal scene rather than a real scene and makes it a piece of didactic narrative.8 There seems to have been a dearth of original utterances of Jesus in the Jerusalem tradition, particularly at the beginning and at the end. Where the situation seemed to demand some pronouncement from Jesus, early Christian ingenuity filled in with paraphrases and quotations from the Old Testament.9 Mark's account of the cleansing of the temple raises purely historical problems. Was it physically possible for Jesus to execute such an action single-handed, without support from his disciples or some of the sympathetic public? 10 Why is there no resistance? Where are the Jewish temple police and the Roman garrison? Could anything permanent have been accomplished by such an action? The trade and the traffic were probably resumed as soon as Jesus left the scene. 11 Why does not this action figure in the charges at the Jewish and Roman trials? With the possible exception of the Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 36. Cf. Against Apion ii. 8. 4 Cf. Berachoth ix. 5. 5 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 36. 6 Cf. Schölten, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 162. 7 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 18. 8 Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 512. "Cf. Lk 19:40 U320; Mt 21:16 1f326; Mk 11:17 11329. 10 Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 259. 11 Cf. W. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte und der Ursprung des Christentums (Leipzig: O. R. Reisland, 1893), p. 480f. 2

8

427

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 3 3 0 - 3 3 1

challenge in Mk 11:27-28 ( j|334 ), the cleansing of the temple is ignored in the remainder of the Jerusalem story, yet it is the only reported action of Jesus in Jerusalem that might have initiated the bitter official opposition that led to his death. 330. The Chief Priests and the Scribes Mk 11:18 Lk 19:47-48 This is the first appearance of the Jerusalem opposition in Mark. The chief priests are in the foreground where they remain until the end. Mark does not depict an actual encounter as Matthew did in 21:15-16 (1|326). Mark relates this notice to the cleansing as though the desire and design to destroy Jesus were the direct result ("heard it"). This statement, however, transcends the situation of the moment and generalizes on the Jerusalem situation as a whole. Mk 11:18 is not narration. It is an editorial comment from the writer to the reader in which the writer exercises his literary prerogative of taking the reader behind the scenes to acquaint him with the mind of the opposition. This notice really anticipates the situation in 14:1-2 — thefinalplot. The public reaction to Jesus' teaching ( 18b) recalls Mk 1:22; but as yet Mark has not reported a single original utterance of Jesus in Jerusalem. This notice in 18 begins the insert which extends through 27a, breaking the logical connection between the cleansing (15-17) and the challenge (27b-33). 1 Lk 19:47-48 parallels Mk 11:18 in order and substance of statement, yet there is enough diiference to suggest the possibility of a non-Markan source.2 This is the first appearance of the Jerusalem opposition in Luke as it is in Mark, but the design to destroy Jesus is cut off from the cleansing of the temple by the notice about Jesus teaching daily in the temple ( 47a ). In Luke it is Jesus' public message in Jerusalem, not any particular action, which provokes the desire to destroy him. Yet Luke, like Mark, has not given a single authentic or original extract from this message. This passage of Luke has the same editorial nature as Mk 11:18. Matthew omits Mk 11:18 for obvious reasons. He has already introduced the Jerusalem opposition into the action (21:15-16 |[326), and this editorial notice of Mark would break into his one-part story of the cursing of the fig tree (2L1&-20). 331. Jesus Lodges Outside the City Mk 11:19 Lk 21:37b |[390 This is a detached editorial notice; it generalizes on particular notices already made (11 and 12). Actually it concludes Mark's second day, and it is 1 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 146; Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1921 ), p. 18; et al. 2 Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 175, assigns Lk 19:47-48 to Proto-Luke as the continuation of Lk 19:37-44.

428

Β.1332

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

necessary to the next verse (20) which notes the return to the city on the third day. It is a sweeping statement ("every evening"), for even in Mark's scheme only three evenings are involved. Mark does not mention the place of nightly retreat, Bethany, as he did earlier (11 and 12). Luke has a similar notice about the nightly retreats from the city in 21:37 ( 11390) where it is the formal conclusion for the first half of his Jerusalem story. Matthew also omits Mk 11:19. It, too, would break into his one-part story of the cursing of the fig tree. 332. The Withered Fig Tree Mt 21:20 Mk 11:20-21 With 11:20 the reader is at the beginning of the third day in Mark's Jerusalem calendar. The account of the first day covered only eleven verses (11:1-11); the second, only eight verses (11:12-19). The third day, however, extends through almost two and one-half chapters ( 1 1 : 2 0 - 1 3 : 3 7 ) . This day is devoted primarily to controversies with opponents and private discourse to the disciples. It is the most eventful day in public in Jerusalem; so eventful, in fact, that the reader for a time forgets Mark's day-by-day calendar. Verses 20-21 are Mark's sequel to the cursing of the fig tree ( 11:12-14) : the cursing came on the morning of the second day and now the discovery of the withered tree comes on the morning of the third day. With Mark's evident liking for miracles there is no good reason why Jesus' curse should not have taken effect at once without this interval of twenty-four hours.1 It has been suggested that the cursing of the fig tree in Mark once formed a single one-part story as it now does in Matthew and that a later hand has split it into two parts by inserting the story of the cleansing of the temple and the notices associated with it (11:15-19). 2 However, it would seem strange that Mark or a later redactor should split a story found whole.3 Furthermore, split stories, or a story within a story, are not at all unusual in Mark. The notice about Peter "calling to remembrance" occurs in the story of his denial (14:72), and it may have been brought forward by a later hand.4 Peter's remark is really an afterthought and shows that Mark's interest is shifting from the fig tree to the sayings which follow. It is simply an editorial device for introducing these unrelated sayings. Mt 21:20 brings no new episode, no new story, no new day. It continues and concludes the story begun in 18-19. The two-part story of Mark is Cf. Cf. 3 Cf. ' Cf. 1 2

Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 239. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 135. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 275. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium,, p. 149.

429

JESUS A N D T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1f333

joined and becomes a narrative unit. An interval of twenty-four hours is suppressed, and the events of the second and third days are merged. This unification of Mark's split story could be due to either of two things. Matthew may have wished to make clear and positive what in Mark is inferred but unstated — a miracle. Or, this joining in Matthew may be due to his transposition and omissions at this point in Mark's story. Matthew carried the cleansing forward to the first visit to the temple on the day of the arrival in Jerusalem, and Matthew omitted Mk 11:18-19. The result is that the two parts of the fig tree story simply fall together in Matthew without break or time-interval. The repetition of the word "immediately" from 19 makes it clear that Matthew is conscious of modifying Mark's form of the story and of suppressing the time-interval. 5 Matthew does not feature the Apostle Peter as Mark does but he introduces the disciples as a group. Their question in 20 is definitely designed to lead up to the sayings which follow (21-22) as Jesus' reply. Luke did not report the cursing of the fig tree and naturally he could not report its sequel. Thus, Luke has no parallel to the materials with which Mark's calendar notices are associated. It is not certain whether Luke is omitting from Mark or whether he is using a non-Markan source which did not contain this matter. 333. Mountain-moving Faith and Prayer Mt 21:21-22 Mk 11:22-25 Mt 17:20 fll87; Lk 17:6 |f291 This is the fourth little grouping of shorter sayings of Jesus which Mark has interspersed in his Gospel (4:21-25; 8:34-9:1; 9:41-50). They were originally single and separate sayings which even now are only loosely joined together. The series seems to have grown to its present length only gradually. Matthew reproduces only the first two sayings, perhaps all that he found at this point in his Mark. Verse 25 may have been added later, and verse 26 is an uncertain part of Mark's Gospel. As in the case of the previous groupings, it has been suggested that Mark here shows knowledge and limited use of Q. 1 This suggestion is as unconvincing here as it was in the case of the earlier groupings, for Mark has his own distinctive form of these sayings differing from Matthew and Luke ( and Q ). This little collection is catechetical in nature and purpose. The sayings deal with the familiar religious themes of faith, prayer, and forgiveness — the only bit of such intimate religious instruction to the disciples in the first half of Mark's Jerusalem story. They reflect the calm and composure of the early Galilean days rather than the tense Jerusalem situation. The shadow of impending death has not fallen across them. The appearance of these sayings 5

Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 283. Cf. Cf. Β. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums, et al. 1

430

p. 147; Loisy, Marc, p. 330;

Β.|333

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

as a lesson or moral drawn from the cursing of the fig tree is unfortunate. That act was not one of faith (23) nor was it the result of prayer (24), and the act itself amounts to a denial of forgiveness (25-26). The saying ascribed to Jesus in 22, "Have faith in God," is a problem. It is not clear whether it is an independent and original utterance of Jesus, or whether it is merely a transition by Mark from the story of the fig tree to the word on mountain-moving faith. Here faith is conceived on the broadest non-sectarian basis — faith in God. The specification, "this mountain," might indicate an extremely local setting for the saying in 23. It might refer to the mount of Olives and the Dead Sea some twenty miles away,2 but the utterance would seem more appropriate and colorful with a Galilean background.3 The utterance itself is wholly figurative and rhetorical, pure hyperbole. It depicts something fantastic and impossible, something which Jesus himself never tried to set in literal action. The word on prayer in 24 is a variation of the theme in Mt 7:7 from which it might conceivably be derived.4 Both passages express the same absolute confidence in the prayer process. Verse 25 has legalistic form; it is already a religious rule or regulation. The clause, "Whensoever ye stand praying," is rabbinical,5 and it forms a transition from the theme of prayer to that of forgiveness. Verses 25-26 are almost a verbatim parallel to Mt 6:14-15 ( 1J35 ) which is an appendix to the Lord's Prayer and a comment on the fifth petition. It has been suggested that 25-26 betray Mark's knowledge of the so-called Lord's Prayer which he does not include in his Gospel because it was known to him as a prayer of the Christian community but not as a word of Jesus.® The phrase, "Father who is in heaven," only here in Mark and so frequent in Matthew, is another point of contact with Matthew's Lord's Prayer. In fact, 25-26 may be a late scribal addition to Mark derived from Mt 6:14-15 and not from Matthew's source (Q). 7 At any rate, 25-26 is as near as Mark ever gets to the Lord's Prayer. Verse 26 is not found in some of the oldest and best MSS of Mark (Aleph, B, L, S, etc.). It is simply the negative form of 25 as Mt 6:15 is of 6:14. Mt 21:21-22. Matthew brings these sayings into still closer connection with the cursing of the fig tree than Mark does. In Matthew the fig tree has become a part of the saying itself. Matthew introduces this second version of the saying on mountain-moving faith as he did the first form ( 17:20 P 8 7 ) with the clause, "If ye have faith," which may go back to the Q form itself Cf. Cf. 1 Cf. 5 Cf. ' Cf. 7 Cf. 2 8

Crum, St. Mark's Gospel, p. 41. Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 48; Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 289; et al. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 147; Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 290. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 28. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 91; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 221. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 270; Klostermann, Markus, p. 133.

431

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 3 3 4 - 3 4 1

(Lk 17:6 11291). Matthew contracts the two statements in Mk 11:22-23 into one. If Matthew found Mark 11:25-26 in his Mark, he may have omitted it because he has already made this point twice in his Gospel (6:14-15; 18:35), but it seems more probable that these verses were not in the Mark known to Matthew. In Luke not only the cursing of the fig tree but everything associated with it, including this Markan series of sayings, disappears. Luke reported the non-Markan form of the hyperbole on the power of faith back in 17:6 (11291). He has no parallel to Mk 11:24 or to Mk 11:25-26. As already noted, Luke features the theme of forgiveness in his Gospel even beyond Matthew and Mark, but he nowhere entertains the idea that the unforgiving exclude themselves from the divine forgiveness. 11334-341:

Mt 21:23 - 22:46

Mk 1 1 : 2 7 - 12:37

Lk 20:1-44

Mk 11:27-12:37. At least half of the space devoted to Mark's third day, the last in public, is consumed by a series of controversies of Jesus with the Jerusalem opposition headed by the chief priests. While these conflicts are personal and partisan, Mark seems to think of them as public, beginning and ending in the temple. This series includes five encounters, exactly the same number found in Mark's series of Galilean controversies back in 2 : 1 - 3 : 6 . This identity in number may be due to deliberate literary design. The two series have the same plan and structure. In the first four encounters in each series Jesus is on the defensive, but in the last of each he is on the offensive. The single episodes in each series have the same literary form. Each encounter in each series is provoked by a question brought to Jesus except the last in each series where the debate form disappears because the opposition is silent. Finally, each encounter in each series reaches its climax in a keyword attributed to Jesus. These items taken together might point to the same mind and the same hand at work in both series. Mark presents these five controversies as though they followed one another in rapid succession. However, this Jerusalem grouping, like the one in the Galilean story, is not a chronological series depicting the actual course and development of events. It is primarily a topical grouping of originally single and separate units of tradition. Only the fact that they are controversies brings them together. This compilation, like the one in the Galilean story, may be older than Mark.8 It may have come down to him as a completed collection, and he may be responsible for introducing it into the course of the Jerusalem story.9 The series is not a necessary part of the events that led up to Jesus' Cf. Hauck, Markus, p. 138f; Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, p. 17. " Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 32; Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen, p. 340; et al. 8

432

Β.1334

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

death. The last three are rabbinical and academic in nature with no possible bearing on the death drama. The first two reflect a tense situation that may have preceded the tragedy. Mark, however, does not associate the determination upon Jesus' death with the series. This resolve was taken earlier (11:18), and it is converted into action later (14:1-2 j{392). 10 The opposition, the issues, and the dialectical technique in the Jerusalem series are different from those in the earlier controversies in Galilee. There is greater caution, more subtlety and evasion on both sides owing perhaps to the more critical situation. The encounters are duels of wits in which personal and party designs are uppermost rather than forthright debates on fundamental religious positions. Mt 2 1 : 2 3 - 2 2 : 4 6 . Matthew reproduces the entire series in Mark's order and arrangement, unit for unit, and he expands the series by adding two non-Markan parables (|[335 and j[337 ). Lk 20:1-44 reproduces four of Mark's five controversies in Mark's order. Luke omits the fourth (fî340) to which he earlier reported a non-Markan parallel (11212).11 334. The Question of Jesus' Authority I. Mt 21:23-27 Mk 11:27-33 Lk 20:1-8 This challenge to Jesus' authority should follow immediately on the cleansing of the temple.1 The two incidents are now separated by secondary matter (18-21) and displaced sayings (22-26). Verse 27b joins well on to 17. The clause, "as he was walking in the temple," would resume the situation in 16 where Jesus is policing the temple court. Verse 27a, "And they come again to Jerusalem," belongs to the artificial day-by-day division with morning returns to the city. If 18-27a be deleted, then the cleansing and the challenge come on the day of the arrival in Jerusalem and on the first visit to the temple. As Mark's story now stands, the challenge in 28 is isolated; the reference to "these things," something definite and recent, has no antecedent. But if 27b and 17 are joined, this challenge becomes a natural reaction to the cleansing, and the demonstrative "these" is clear. The appearance of the chief priests, the first actual encounter with them in Mark, would point to the cleansing as the action debated. Furthermore, the cleansing of the temple is the only action of a radical nature ascribed to Jesus in the Jerusalem story. The dialectics in 28-30 are Jewish and rabbinical: question and counterquestion. The dilemma posed by Jesus in 30 is the first utterance of any Cf. Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche, pp. 16, 19, 36, 113. "Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 98, regards Lk 2 0 : 1 - 2 2 : 1 3 as a long Markan insert into Proto-Luke. 1 Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 91; Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 292. 10

433

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1335

originality ascribed to him thus far in the Jerusalem tradition. In its shrewd reasoning and design this dilemma is wholly unique among the words ascribed to Jesus in the Synoptic tradition. The "baptism of John" probably does not refer to the religious rite but to the whole of John's work.2 Verses 31-32 are probably a later insert.3 They may be an addition intended to call the reader's attention to the deadly subtlety and skill of the dilemma. Verse 33, an evasive pretense, is a natural response to Jesus' dilemma in 30. The change from the first person to the third in 32, from monologue to comment, is awkward. Like many ancient writers, Mark (31-32) pretends to know the innermost thoughts of his characters. Such is possible only when the writer has created the characters themselves. Mt 21:23-27 and Lk 20:1-8 both have the challenge follow a notice about Jesus' teaching as though it provoked the challenge. This is not good, for the things challenged are things done, not things taught. Matthew ( 26 ) and Luke (6) also avoid the awkwardness of Mk 32: both maintain the first person plural throughout the group monologue. Luke has no day-by-day division, but he thinks of the Jerusalem visit as short, "on one of those days," a notice which cuts the challenge off from the cleansing only two verses back. Jesus' opening statement in Luke is less a proposal than in Matthew (24) and Mark (29); he does not promise to give reply for reply. Luke (7) converts the final reply of the opposition from direct discourse ( Mk 33a ) to indirect discourse. Mark and Luke associate only one parable with the first Jerusalem controversy, that of the wicked husbandmen (fl336). Matthew, however, expands this first controversy with two non-Markan parables, a total of three: the two sons (|[335); the wicked husbandmen ( |f336 ) ; and the marriage feast (1(337). In this trilogy of parables the reader comes upon one of the most bitter, anti-Jewish sections in Matthew's Gospel. The invective mounts from parable to parable. 335. The Parable of the Two Sons Mt 21:28-32 Lk 7:29-30 fllll Matthew inserts this parable peculiar to his Gospel between Mk 11:33 and 12:1. The initial question, "What think ye?", is a familiar and good introduction to the parable itself, but it is a poor transition from what precedes. The parable, in and of itself, does not have a polemical character. It deals with one of the familiar themes of Jesus' public message, the doing of the divine will, and it could very well be a dramatization of Mt 7:21. It Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 163; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 312. Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 271; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 10; et al. 2 a

434

Β.1335

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

belongs to the public preaching of Jesus, and it has no natural place in a series of controversies with enemies. The parable acquires polemical character through its inclusion in this chain of controversies and by the bitter indictment attached to it in 31b-32. This parable is famous in the field of textual criticism. It appears in three different forms, each supported by various MSS and versions. ( 1 ) In the present form the first son says "no" but does obey; the second son says "yes" but does not obey. The answer at the end is, "The first." (2) In a second form the two sons are reversed, and the reply at the end is changed to conform. The first son says "yes" but does not obey; the second son says "no" but does obey. The answer from the audience is, "The second." (3) The third form is a confusion of the first two. The first son says "no" but obeys; the second son says "yes" but does not obey — as in the first form. The answer at the end is, "The second," as in the second form, and this plainly does not make sense. Neither son is a model of perfection, for neither keeps his word. The two cases do not exhaust the possibilities, for each son might have kept his word — one saying "no" and doing nothing; the other saying "yes" and obeying. The method in 31a is rabbinical: the audience draws the conclusion and answers the question. It has been suggested that this parable is Matthew's substitute for Luke's parable of the lost (prodigal) son.1 However, after the initial statement, "A man had two sons," the two parables go their own independent ways in thought and centers of interest. Verse 31b seeks to fit the parable into its polemical surroundings, but it is not a natural explanation or application of the parable. It is an outburst of invective, "dramatic rather than deserved," 2 by any of Jesus' contemporaries. It is a later Christian denunciation provoked by the general Jewish rejection of Christianity. Verse 31b is one of the rare instances in Matthew where the term kingdom of God occurs ( 19:24; 21:43). Verse 32 has a parallel in substance in Lk 7:29-30 (Hill) where it appears as a part of a complex of materials on John and where it has the form of a comment or an aside from the Gospel writer himself. Here in Matthew, however, this matter is a piece of invective on the lips of Jesus in the second person of direct address. Matthew seems to be thinking of the rejection of John's message, that is, unbelief from the later Christian point of view. Luke seems to be thinking of the authorities' rejection of John's baptism, a more Jewish and thus a more probable historical situation. Verse 32 seems to be a separate and independent unit. Its polemical nature suits it to this particular section of Matthew, but it is probably inserted ad vocem "publicans" (31) and "John" (25). It has nothing to do with the parable of the two sons except to enhance its polemical surroundings. 1 2

Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, II, 109; Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 520. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 283.

435

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1f336

336. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Mt 21:33-46 Mk 12:1-12 Lk 20:9-19 This parable seems out of place at this point in Mark's Jerusalem controversies. In the encounters that precede and follow, the speech and action are characterized by caution and evasion. In this story of the husbandmen caution is abandoned for an open, undisguised declaration of hostility. Furthermore, the story is a piece of polemic which transcends the limits of the Jerusalem drama, for it strikes not just the Jewish parties responsible for Jesus' death but the whole Jewish people. Mark himself seems conscious of this contrast with the story's surroundings for he notes a change in method: Jesus is speaking "in parables." The use of the plural here where only one parable occurs (as in 4:2) is probably generic indicating a form of instruction, not a plurality of examples. This story of the husbandmen ( 1-9 ) is commonly regarded as a piece of transparent allegory, not pure parable. It begins ( 1-2 ) like a parable with materials borrowed from Isa 5:1-7. This very fact arouses skepticism, for Jesus' genuine parables are usually based on his own observations of natural and human phenomena, not on Old Testament passages. The story does not depict the natural processes at work in a vineyard but an incredible symbolic drama which has its scene there. The action and characters in 3-8 are allegorical, and both are presented in an improbable and fantastic light. In real life one cannot imagine a vineyard owner or husbandmen reasoning and acting as both do in this story. The details of the story have been dictated by the dogmatic ideas which they dramatize, and this explains their lack of verisimilitude. The story leaves the impression of being the product of thoughtful reflection and careful literary composition. It does not read as though it were ever a spontaneous oral utterance. Verses 10-11 are a later addition or supplement, a much later reflection on the course of events. These verses drop the imagery of the vineyard ( 1-9 ) for that of the building and its cornerstone. The person of Christ, hinted at in the fate of the son (6-8), now comes into the foreground. The Psalms passage (118:22-23) is torn from its Jewish context and converted into a Christian meditation. For the early Christians this Psalms passage epitomized Jesus' providential destiny: from defeat and death to triumph and exaltation. It sounds a note of Christian exultation here as it does elsewhere in the New Testament,1 but it could have the meaning intended here only after Jesus' death and the establishment of the belief in his resurrection. Mark presents verse 12 as the reaction to the story of the husbandmen and as the conclusion of this first controversy. Verse 12, however, is not of a single piece. In 12a a general situation is described. The design and caution of the opposition in 12a would be more natural after 11:33. It virtually repeats 11:18 and is itself repeated at the beginning of the death drama 1

See Acts 4:11; I Pet 2:6-7; Rom 9:33; Eph 2:20.

436

Β. 1336

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

(14:1-2). In 12b the specific and concrete "they left him, and went away" definitely terminates this first encounter. Mk 12:1-12 is a piece of later Christian creative writing. Its background is the death of Jesus, the Jewish rejection of Christianity, and the Gentile mission. It pronounces a Christian judgment and indictment on the history of the Jewish people. It is a polemical piece which probably had its origin in early Christian preaching. The same polemical theme appears in the sermons ascribed to the first Christian preachers in the Book of Acts.2 Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in some details in the story. Both avoid the excess in Mk 5b. After the three missions of the three servants climaxing in the death of the third, 5b is an unnecessary exaggeration and weakens the story. Its failure to reappear in Matthew and Luke may indicate that it is a later addition to Mark. The allegory in connection with the son's death is deeper and clearer in Matthew and Luke. In Mark the son is killed and then cast out of the vineyard, but in Matthew and Luke he is first cast out of the vineyard and then killed, which conforms more closely to the circumstances of Jesus' death "without the gate" (Heb 13:12). Mt 44 and Lk 18 read verbatim, but there is no parallel in Mark. Verse 44, however, is an uncertain part of Matthew's text; it is missing in some MSS ( D, Syrsin, it, etc. ). It is probably a later scribal addition, first to Luke and then from Luke to Matthew.3 It may be a quotation of unknown origin, or a later rather horrifying comment on the Psalms passage. Mark's form of the story is uninterrupted discourse, but Matthew (41) and Luke (16b) introduce responses from the audience. Lk 20:9-19. The bitter invective of this story contrasts with its surroundings in Luke as it does in Mark. Luke suppresses Mark's plural, "parables," for "this parable" as he did back in 8:9 and he has it addressed to the public, not to the opposition. Luke omits the details in the building of the vineyard, and the Isaiah background is fainter in Luke than it is in Matthew and Mark. The maltreatment of the servants grows worse and worse in Luke as it does in Mark but none of the servants is killed (Mk 5); in Luke the climax of the successive crimes comes with the murder of the son. Luke introduces monologue in 13; the lord of the vineyard is speaking where Mark has simple narration ( 6 ). The protest from the audience in Lk 16b is new and adds subjective color. Luke omits the second half of the Psalms passage (Mk 11), and he does not mention the departure of the opposition at the end (Mk 12b). Mt 21:33-46. In Matthew this story is in better harmony with its surroundings, for it is preceded and followed by bitter indictments. In his See Acts 2:22-23; 3:15; 4:10-11; 5:30-31. Cf. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 1, 298; Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 173; et al. 2 3

437

JESUS AND T H E FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1337

trilogy of parables Matthew uses the same listing device which he used back in his parable chapter (13), "Another parable." Where Mark has three missions of servants with one servant on each, Matthew has two missions with several servants each time. The climactic element in the maltreatment of the servants in Mark disappears from Matthew: some of the first servants sent are killed in Matthew. Mark's question in 9a is rhetorical with Jesus giving his own reply ( 9 b ) ; in Matthew (40) it is a real question with the audience giving the reply (41). Verse 43 is peculiar to Matthew, and it is probably a later insert since it breaks the natural connection between the Psalms passage (42) and the comment (44). Matthew omits Mark's notice (12b) about the departure of the opposition here, for Matthew has still a third parable (22:1-14) associated with this first encounter. Matthew postpones this notice until the end of the second encounter (22:22). 337. The Parable of the Marriage Feast Mt 22:1-14 Lk 14:16-24 |f274 Luke reported his version of this ( Q ) parable in his Great Non-Markan Section as the third in a series of table talks in the house of a Pharisee. 1 Matthew, however, uses it as the third in his trilogy of parables associated with the first Jerusalem controversy. Matthew has inserted it between Mk 12:12 and 13. The parable has a sharp polemical point in Matthew that it does not have in Luke owing to its surroundings and to additions to the parable itself ( 6-7 ). Matthew's connection with what precedes is not smooth. Verse 1 begins as though Jesus were responding to a concrete situation, but the preceding verse in Matthew (21:46) commented on a general state of affairs. Matthew uses his conventional introductory formula for parables, "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto . . . " Matthew's form of the parable seems to have had a history, for it has acquired two additions which have no parallel in Luke's version: 6-7 and 11-13 (14). Verses 6-7 seem to be an allegorical expansion by Matthew himself. They are allegorical because they depict a wholly unnatural action. They are a digression because they divert the attention of the reader from the marriage feast to something very different. Verses 6-7 can be removed without disturbing the story in the parable. The king's statement in 8 refers to the unworthy guests in 5; this is awkward after 6-7, for it ignores the action they report. Verse 6 is an echo from the story of the husbandmen (21:35). Verse 7 is historical allegory. This military expedition is not against the ungrateful guests but against a whole people (the Jews) who have a capital city which is destroyed. This is the most concrete piece of internal evidence for the late date of Matthew's Gospel, for it seems to be a clear allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Matthew's parable of the marriage feast must have ended originally with 1

For a comparison of the two versions, see Lk 14:16-24 11274.

438

Β.1338

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

verse 10, with the feast filled with guests as it does in Luke. The mixture of good and bad recalls Matthew's parables of the tares and the drag-net. Since Strauss,2 11-13 has often been regarded as the remnant of an independent parable. If 11-13 is joined to verse 2 or 3a, a complete parable results: 2 The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, who made a marriage feast for his son, 3 and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast. . . . 11 But when the king came in to behold the guests, he saw there a man who had not on a wedding-garment: 12 and he saith unto him, Friend, how earnest thou in hither not having a wedding-garment? And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

The two parables may have become confused because they begin alike and use almost identical materials — a king, a marriage feast, invited guests. After the introduction in 2-3a each parable goes its own way: 3b-10 11-13

The marriage feast The wedding-garment

Verses 11-13, however, may be an allegorical supplement by Matthew himself,3 for it contains favorite expressions virtually peculiar to his writing — "outer darkness" 4 and "the weeping and the gnashing of teeth." 5 The second half of verse 13 is pure allegory which results in confusion; it is not clear who is speaking — the king, Jesus, or Matthew himself. Verse 14 is a separate and independent unit. It may be a proverb of Jewish origin, for it has close parallels in II Esdras 8:3 and 9:15. In any form the idea expressed is gloomy and pessimistic, even religiously revolting. It is not even a proper comment on either part of the parable to which it is attached, 2-10 or 11-13, for neither involves the notion of a few chosen from the many invited. 338. The Question of the Tribute Money II. Mt 22:15-22 Mk 12:13-17 Lk 20:20-26 Mark associates this episode with the Jerusalem story, but it is not at all a necessary part of the events leading up to Jesus' death.1 The appearance of the Herodians would seem more natural in Galilee where they earlier joined forces with the Pharisees (Mk 3 : 6 ) . However, the Herodians in both instances in Mark are mentioned in editorial passages which do not vouchsafe for their actual presence or give a reliable clue to the locality of the episode. 2 Cf. * Cf. 4 Cf. 5 Cf. 1 Cf.

Life of Jesus, p. 335; Zahn, Matthäus, p. 635. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 123. Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30. Mt 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 25:30; Lk 13:28. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 94; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 321.

439

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 3 3 8

This second Jerusalem controversy in Mark relates itself to the first (IJ334) in that it exhibits the same caution and evasion on both sides as though the two belonged to the same general situation. Furthermore, both of these encounters involve a dilemma, one from Jesus and one from the opposition, as though the second were a counter-attack turning Jesus' own weapon upon him. These first two encounters should be joined; the story of the wicked husbandmen should not separate them.2 The episode proper is confined to 14—17 which is a consistent whole, a well-rounded unit of tradition. Verse 13 is the editorial work of Mark fitting the encounter into the Jerusalem story. The verb "send" has no definite subject, only an indefinite "they." Mk 14a ( and parallels ) is the only attempt at a characterization of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition, and this is a dubious tribute from a designing opposition. The dilemma put to Jesus in Mark is double. The first part (14b) gives the issue a theoretical formulation, but the second half (15a) converts it into a practical patriotic issue: "Shall we give, or shall we not give?" In the matter of tribute to Rome neither Jesus nor his Jewish contemporaries could have more than an opinion or feeling. The issue might be a test of loyalty, but it could have no practical bearing apart from open revolt — the tribute to Rome must be paid. The exhibition of the coin is as much a part of Jesus' response as the key-word at the end. The key-word of Jesus in 17 springs naturally from the situation ( 14-16 ) which it highlights. The saying and the setting leave the impression of belonging, perhaps even of happening together.3 This reply of Jesus, however, goes far beyond the challenge which involved the things belonging only to Caesar. Jesus does not define the things that belong to either realm. He does not say whether the two obligations coincide or conflict; hence, he is neither conservative nor radical. The whole point to Jesus' reply is its ingenuity in evasion. Jesus is not formulating a precept or principle for all time to come; he is simply extricating himself from a threatening situation. In the light of his general religious outlook, the near end of the old and the dawn of the new, the issue of tribute to Rome cannot have been important. The near future would take care of that. Matthew and Luke rewrite the introduction and conclusion of Mark's parallel account of the tribute money but, with one exception, they leave the body of Mark's account practically untouched. Matthew and Luke reproduce only the first half of Mark's double dilemma, the theoretical portion. However, Luke's phrase "for us" gives his single dilemma practically the full force of Mark's double dilemma. Mt 22:15-22. In 15 Matthew presents all of these single encounters as phases of a larger plan. He makes the Pharisees the subjects of the action: Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 98. "Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 25; Hauck, Markus, p. 143. 2

440

Β.1339

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

"they send." Matthew's only mention of the Herodians in his Gospel occurs here in 16; in 12:14 he omitted them in his reproduction of Mk 3:6 (1j91). Matthew notes the departure of Jesus' opponents at the end of this second controversy, a fact which Mark (12:12b) noted at the end of the first. Matthew's conclusion in 22 is a conflation of Mk 12:17b and 12b. Lk 20:20-26. Luke suppresses the Pharisees and the Herodians, the latter as he did back in 6:11 (t|91). The Jerusalem opposition thus far in Luke has had less sectarian and Jewish color than in Matthew and Mark. Luke's "they" seems to go back to the chief priests, scribes, and elders of 20:1. In verse 20 Luke elaborates on the designs of the opposition, and he seems to be looking ahead to the Jewish charges before Pilate (23:2) in which the issue of tribute to Caesar figures. The last four controversies in Mark run off in rapid order, but there is no actual connection between any two of them. With the end of the second controversy the impression of tension disappears, and the last three involve no critical issues, the discussion of which might have contributed to the development of the death drama. 339. The Question of the Resurrection III. Mt 22:23-33 Mk 12:18-27 Lk 20:27-38 This third controversy has no connection with the preceding. It is timeless and placeless. It reflects no tension and involves no drama. In fact, it is rather pointless at this juncture in the Jerusalem story, for Jesus is made to side with the Pharisees and against the Sadducees. In its general character it is a theoretical debate held in a scholastic and academic tone. It has the detachment and objectivity of a classroom discussion. It leaves the impression of being the product of literary effort, presenting the reasoning and counterreasoning of a single mind rather than an exchange between actual persons and parties. Jesus' opposites here are the Sadducees. Mark seems to want to lend as much color and variety as possible to the Jerusalem opposition. The proposition (19-23) put to Jesus is in no sense a challenge. It is an imaginative riddle, a fantastic situation invented for the purposes of controversy. It is inspired by contempt for belief in any sort of resurrection. The reply ascribed to Jesus is rabbinical in language and reasoning; in substance, it is sound Pharisaic doctrine,1 and the first part of Jesus' reply (25) has a close parallel in the Talmud. The original form of the reply probably confined itself to 25, for 26-27 read like a later effusive supplement which ignores the reasoning in 25.2 Verses 26-27 display wit and ingenuity in the use of Scripture. In Mark the episode ends with the discourse breaking off, with no narrative 1 Cf. Moore, Judaism, I, 272. " Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 271f; Loisy, Luc, p. 484.

441

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 3 4 0

note or other comment. The entire passage may be a piece of later Christian dialectics carried back into the life of Jesus,3 or it could be the product of the Evangelist's own inventive imagination.4 The episode is so similar to anecdotes about the rabbis in the Talmud that it could be a Christian imitation.5 Mt 22:23-33. Matthew makes a temporal connection with what precedes, "On that day" ( 23 ). In Matthew the case of the seven brothers is no longer hypothetical but an actual instance: "Now there were with us seven brethren," which makes the whole even more improbable. Matthew adds his own ending in 33 which is an echo from an earlier omission from Mark (11:18).

Lk 20:27-38 is very close to the text of Mark's parallel except in the first half of the reply ascribed to Jesus (34-36) where Luke's text differs from that of Mark so much as to suggest the use of non-Markan matter.6 340. The Question of the Great Commandment IV. Mt 22:34-40 Mk 12:28-34 Lk 20:39-40 Lk 10:25-28 fl212 In Mark this episode is not a controversy at all. There is no hostile intent on the part of the scribe; he seems to approach Jesus as a pupil would his teacher with an honest and sincere question. A frank reply could not involve Jesus with the authorities, for each rabbi had a natural right to his own opinion about the first or greatest commandment. Furthermore, the exchange of question and answer ends with Jesus and the scribe in complete agreement. Mark here is recounting a typical rabbinical episode which reflects nothing of the Jerusalem tension in which it is set. It was originally a single and separate story and not a part of the present series. Mark gave no public or partisan reaction to Jesus' reply to the Sadducees, but in 28a he seeks to fit this episode into its context by having the scribe witness the preceding discussion and impressed with Jesus' reply.1 In its original isolation the story probably began, "And one of the scribes came, and . . . asked him." Mark's form of the body of the story is not only expansive but unnecessarily repetitious. Three different times Mark notes that something is well said (28, 32, 34). The episode reaches its natural conclusion in 31, the point where it ends in Matthew. Verses 32-34a are a rambling paraphrase and expansion of 29-31 which weaken rather than strengthen the point to the episode.2 In his reply Jesus appears not only as a typical Jewish rabbi but also as Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 13. Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 336. Cf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, I, 256. " Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 324; Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 100; et al. 1 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 153; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 21. L' Cf. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 504; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 327. a

4

442

Β. 11340

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

a devout Jew. He selects not one but two commandments from the Old Testament: Dt 6:4—5; Lev 19:18. They are corollaries stating the obverse and reverse phases of elemental ethical religion: the love of God and the love of man. Jesus may not have been the first to bring these two Old Testament passages together, for they are brought together in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.3 They are also joined in Christian writings outside of the New Testament; they come at the very beginning of the Didache (i. 2). However, the New Testament writings generally seem to favor Lev 19:18 over Dt 6:4-5: "The whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Gal 5:14). 4 The word ascribed to Jesus in Mk 34a, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God," is unique in the Synoptic tradition. The kingdom is near in space, not as usual in time; it is an area that one approaches, not a new order soon to come. Now and then, Jesus does use the spacial concepts of entering or being cast out of the kingdom, but this is the only instance in which he speaks of being near or far from it in terms of spacial separation. Verse 34b is not a natural conclusion for this single episode.5 Jesus' attitude and his reply to the scribe would encourage rather than discourage further questions. Verse 34b is framed as a conclusion for a series of encounters. All three Synoptic writers use it, but at different points in the series. In Mk it seems to come after the fourth encounter; in Luke, after the third (20:40): in both, respectively, after the last question put to Jesus. Matthew postpones this notice until after the fifth encounter where it concludes the entire series (22:46). Mt 22:34-40. Matthew's version of this episode not only has greater unity and compactness than that of Mark, but it ceases to be a typical rabbinical anecdote (Mark) and becomes a controversy. This change is the result of two things: Matthew ascribes a hostile intent to the lawyer ("trying him"), and Matthew has no parallel to Mk 32-34a where Jesus and the scribe express mutual commendation. In Matthew (34) this encounter is a deliberate renewal of the Pharisees' attack ( 15 ). The continual mention of the Pharisees in Matthew's series ( 15, 34, 41 ) makes them the chief instigators and prepares the way for Jesus' woes on them in chapter 23. Verse 40 seems to be a formulation of the Jewish-Christian scribe Matthew rather than a word of Jesus. It recalls Mt 5:17 and Matthew's special addition to the Golden Rule in 7:12. "The prophets" are probably a later addition, for they are not involved in the discussion. Lk 20:39-40. Luke omits this fourth encounter in the Jerusalem series. Obviously, he preferred the form of the story he used as a special setting for Cf. Moore, Judaism, II, 86. See Rom 13:9; Jas 2:8. E Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 283. 3 4

443

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1341

the parable of the good Samaritan in 10:25-28 ( |f212). Luke's omission here, however, would seem to indicate that he identifies his story of Jesus and the lawyer with Mark's story of Jesus and the scribe, and also that he is avoiding a duplication. Luke reproduces only two verses from Mark's parallel at this point, the first and the last, and they do not constitute a new incident. Verse 39 becomes Luke's conclusion to the third encounter, not the introduction to the fourth as it is in Mark (28), and verse 40 becomes a loose random comment in the course of the series. This story, then, appears in three versions in the Synoptic tradition. ( 1 ) Lk 10:25-28 (|f212) seems to be a non-Markan version. ( 2 ) Mt 22:34-40 ( t[340 ) is a sort of cross between Luke's version and that of Mark. Matthew agrees with Luke on the lawyer and that he is trying Jesus, but he agrees with Mark in having the Old Testament quotations on the lips of Jesus, not on those of the lawyer (Luke). ( 3 ) Mk 12:28-34 (||340) reads as though it has been edited and expanded. Originally, Mark may have had a simpler, briefer version similar to that of Matthew. 341. The Question of David's Messiah V. Mt 22:41-46 Mk 12:35-37 Lk 20:41-44 This fifth and last conflict in the Jerusalem series recalls the fifth and last in the Galilean series (Mk 3:1-5 ff91). In both Jesus turns from the defensive to the offensive. In neither are the opponents identified. Both are monologues of Jesus with the opposition taking no part in the speech or action. This little diatribe is introduced abruptly as a public utterance in the temple and as Jesus' answer to some unreported provocation. It is one of the most puzzling units in the Synoptic tradition. A passage of Scripture (Ps 110:1) is turned against a scriptural dogma: the Messiah is the Son ol David. It is a classical example of sophistry and subtlety in the exposition of Scripture. Jesus reasons and argues like an expert Pharisee. The treatment of the Scriptures here is in complete contrast with Jesus' usual method. Ordinarily, he does not press terms in a hair-splitting fashion, but he goes straight to the obvious heart and meaning of Old Testament passages. As an utterance of Jesus the passage is wholly unintelligible. It is not clear whether he is repudiating the Jewish dogma of the Messiah's descent from David, whether he is claiming messianic status for himself without descent from David, or whether he is rejecting for himself both the messianic status and the descent from David. This Markan unit is very probably a later Christian product, a piece of early Christian apologetics.1 It has more the nature and color of a debate 1 Cf. Wrede, Vorträge und Studien, p. 175; Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1921), p. 43; et al.

444

Β.1341

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

between the early church and the Jewish synagogue than it does of an encounter of Jesus with any contemporary critics. But even as a bit of early Christian theology the passage is strange. The main body of the Christian tradition assumes and asserts that Jesus descended from David in support of his status as Messiah, but this passage seems to defend his messianic status while conceding that he did not descend from David. Christian tradition at times has Jesus fulfill Old Testament prophecies; again, it has him refute and repudiate Old Testament passages. In this Markan unit both tendencies seem to be at work, and the result is confusion. Verse 37b is a stray editorial fragment not at all appropriate to the Old Testament exegesis to which it is attached. Verses 35-37a are certainly not a piece of popular religious wisdom. Verse 37b might better be joined to what follows.2 Mark may have inserted it at this point because it is an indirect indictment of the Jewish authorities. Lk 20:41^44 is cut off from the encounter with the Sadducees by only one verse (40), and Luke may have been thinking of the Sadducees in his impersonal "say they." Luke seems to think of this discourse as an extension of the partisan debates rather than as a public utterance in the temple ( Mark ). Luke omits Mk 37b. He might well have retained it, for he not only shares Mark's idea of the general public favor accorded Jesus in Jerusalem, but he later enhances and expands upon it. Mt 22:41-46. Matthew's connection with what precedes is closer. He seems to think of Jesus' question (42) as a counterquestion to that of the lawyer in the preceding episode (36). Matthew converts Mark's detached monologue into a controversy with the opposition vocal (42b). He introduces the Pharisees into the scene and the dialogue. He seems to want to keep them fresh in the reader's mind for what follows in 23:1-39. Verse 46 is Matthew's version of Mk 12:34b which he uses as the formal conclusion for the entire series of controversies. This notice was more appropriate where Mark used it at the end of the series of questions brought to Jesus. In this fifth encounter Jesus is not questioned but himself puts a question. All three Synoptic writers conclude their accounts of Jesus' public work with a mass of discourse material, the eschatological address, which also concludes the first half of the Jerusalem story. This is the only major address in Jerusalem in Mark and Luke. Matthew, however, trebles the amount of discourse here at the end by introducing his long address against the scribes and Pharisees and by more than doubling the length of the eschatological address in Mark. Thus, Matthew accomplishes his principal non-Markan expansion of Mark's account of the Jerusalem days. As noted earlier in connection with Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, Matthew began his public 2

Cf. Klostermann, Markus, p. 145; Rawlinson, St. Mark, p. 175.

445

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 3 4 2 - 3 5 7

story with a great mass of discourse, the Sermon on the Mount in chapters 5-7, and now he concludes that story with another great mass of discourse in chapters 23-25 — thus completing his portrayal of Jesus as primarily a teacher. THE ADDRESS AGAINST THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES

Mt 23:1-39

Mk 12:38-40

Lk 20:45-47

tf342-^357

Lk 11:37-54 fl231-242

Mark has no major address against critics or opponents in Jerusalem, just a brief impersonal indictment of the scribes in three verses. There is no obvious reason why this indictment should come at just this point in Mark except that it continues the polemical spirit of the preceding controversies. Luke follows the lead of Mark and reproduces his brief indictment against the scribes almost verbatim in Mark's order in 20:45-47. The Q address against the Pharisees and lawyers Luke reported early in his Great Non-Markan Section and journey to Jerusalem.1 It is only in Matthew that a mass of polemical discourse appears in the Jerusalem story and assumes the proportions of a major address. In substance it is the same Q address which Luke reported back in 11:37-54 upon which Matthew expands. The seven woes in Matthew, modeled perhaps on the sevenfold series in Isaiah (5:8-23), form the main body of the address to which Matthew prefixes and appends other discourse units of similar polemical character and spirit. Matthew's address appears as a final, all-out philippic in the Jerusalem struggle. However, it does not require, in and of itself, Jerusalem as its stage and setting. Mark's single indictment of the scribes seems to have been the peg on which Matthew hung his long address. No point in Mark's story was more suitable for introducing this mass of invective. In no address which he composes does Matthew make a more carefully studied effort for effect, and yet, from the standpoint of audience assumed, Matthew's address lacks unity. Verses 2-7 are an indirect impersonal indictment of the Pharisees; verses 8-12 could be addressed only to intimate disciples; verses 13-33, the seven woes, are direct indictments of the scribes and Pharisees in the second person plural; verses 34—39 are indictments of no special group but of the whole Jewish people. No words ascribed to Jesus have aroused more Jewish resentment and protest than those found in chapter 23 of Matthew.2 The sharpness and bitterness of these indictments have disturbed and dismayed even believing Christians. Jewish and Christian critics alike have felt that the language ascribed to Jesus is abusive, that the statements are exaggerations which generalize too 1 2

321.

For a discussion of the Q form of this address, see Lk 11: 37-54 1J231-242. Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 296; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 215,

446

Β. 11342

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

much and condemn whole classes for the sins of the few, and that the attack is utterly lacking in discrimination, generally unjust and unfair. However, chapter 23 of Matthew has Jewish precedent and background. The Old Testament prophets often exaggerate, use abusive language, generalize, and fail to discriminate. Both Talmuds list seven varieties of Pharisees with little or no appreciation or approval. The Babylonian Talmud speaks of the "plagues of the Pharisees," 3 and other Jewish writings say harsh things about their hypocrisy.4 Josephus 5 speaks of their religious pride and conceit. Just how much of chapter 23 of Matthew goes back to Jesus himself cannot be determined exactly. It is possible that milder utterances were sharpened in the process of transmission. The extreme bitterness of these indictments may reflect the antipathies between the later Christian church and the Jewish synagogue rather than Jesus' own personal feelings toward the scribes and the Pharisees.6 In its present form chapter 23 of Matthew reads like "an early Jewish-Christian polemical pamphlet." 7 342. The Audience Mt 23:1 Mk 12:38a Lk 20:45 "And in his teaching he said." This is the same abrupt manner, the same editorial hand, encountered in 1:7 and 4:2. This introduction indicates that Mark found the indictment which follows as a discourse fragment with no notice as to when, where, to whom, or why it was spoken. Thus Mark himself must be responsible for its appearance at this point in the Jerusalem story. Mark does not even name an audience. The "Beware" which follows would suggest a warning to the public or to the disciples. Lk 20:45 supplies an audience. The warning which follows is a public utterance for the benefit of a private group, the disciples, but it is as timeless and placeless as it is in Mark. Mt 23:1. Matthew begins with one of his favorite but meaningless connectives, "Then." He agrees with Luke on the audience, the multitudes and the disciples, which is little suited to what follows. The body of the address is a piece of partisan polemic rather than public preaching. Only the preliminary utterances (8-12) concern the disciples directly. It may be, however, that Matthew's purpose in the address as a whole is catechetical: the faults of the scribes and the Pharisees are negative examples for Christians. Cf. Cf. s Cf. * Cf. II, 30. ' Cf. 3

1

Moore, Judaism, II, 193f. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 213. Antiquities xvii. 2, 4. T. W. Manson, The Mission and Message of Jesus, p. 345; Abrahams, Studies, Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 253.

447

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

B. 1343-345

Luke's parallel to Matthew's form of the address had its scene in the home and at the table of a Pharisee (11:37-38) and involved neither the general public nor the disciples. 343. Sayers, not Doers Mt 23:2-3 This little passage peculiar to Matthew opens his form of the address. The scribes and the Pharisees are spoken of impersonally as though they are not in Jesus' audience. This assumption continues through the next two units (4r-7). Verse 3a is the most open approval of anything Pharisaic ascribed to Jesus in the Synoptic tradition; otherwise, his attitude is, almost without exception, negative. Verse 3a is so unique and apart, so much out of harmony with the spirit of the address as a whole, that it may be a later Christian addition. 1 Jesus recognizes the authority of the Pharisees, sanctions their teachings, but repudiates their practice. Verse 3b, "they say, and do not," revives the theme on which the Sermon on the Mount ended. 344. Makers of Burdens Mt 23:4 Lk 11:46 1(238 This utterance is of a different spirit than the preceding. There is no approbation of the scribes and Pharisees, and it strikes the critical and hostile tone which dominates the body of the address. It does not have woe-form but it is an indirect impersonal indictment of an absent group in the introductory section leading up to the woes. In Luke this Q unit has woe-form, the fourth in his series, and it was a direct indictment of the lawyers. 345. Paraders of Piety Mt 23:5-7 Mk 12:38b-40 Lk 20:46-47 Lk 11:43 j[235 This is the full extent of Mark's indictment of the scribes, one long sentence of almost three verses. It could be an extract from a longer discourse but it can hardly be regarded as an epitome. 1 It is too detailed and circumstantial for such a classification. It seems to be a piece of distinctly Markan tradition wholly independent of any non-Markan traditions known to Matthew and Luke. There is no trace of the most distinctive feature in the Q tradition, the woe-form. Mark's indictment generalizes without discrimination. There must have been scribes who had no desire for show, no love for precedence, who did not oppress widows, and who prayed sincerely and briefly. Lk 20:46-47 reproduces Mark's text without a single variation. The briefer Q form of this indictment (11:43 fí235) Luke reported as the second woe in his series. 1 1

Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 369.

Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles,

I, 98; Bacon, The Gospel of Mark, p. 170; et al.

448

Β.1346-347

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Mt 23:5-7. Matthew is still in the introductory section of his address, and with this unit he ends his indirect and impersonal indictments. Matthew here shows no actual dependence on Mark beyond order perhaps, and his textual agreements are closer with Lk 11:43 than with Mark except for the absence of the woe-form. Matthew's phrases which parallel those of Mark are in exactly the reverse order, and Matthew has no parallel to Mk 12:40.2 Verse 5 seems to be a transition contributed by Matthew with language reminiscent of his Sermon on the Mount (6:1). "To be called of men, Rabbi," may be designed to lead up to what follows, although the rabbinical writings do speak of this love for deferential titles.3 Mt 23:8-12 fl346-347. The next five verses of Matthew are entirely out of place in this address. These utterances are of a most intimate nature and could be addressed only to loyal disciples — Matthew's readers and fellowChristians. They are wedged in between the indirect indictments of the scribes and Pharisees in 3-7 and the seven woes in 13-32. In 8-12 Matthew's interest strays momentarily from polemics to pastoral admonition. They may be an involuntary digression provoked by 7b, "to be called of men, Rabbi." 346. Concerning Titles Mt 23:8-10 These sayings are plainly catechetical precepts for the Christian community. Verses 8 and 9 form a unit, a double saying with parallel members. The contrast between "be called" and "called" is very effective, for the believer neither confers nor accepts presumptive titles. The religious point of view is so general that it might be a Jewish precept recognizing God as the only Teacher and Father. Again, it might be an authentic utterance of Jesus, especially verse 9. It could be of later Christian origin, however, for the temptation to be presumptuous was stronger within the early church than within Jesus' following during his lifetime.1 Furthermore, "One is your teacher, and all ye are brethren" could reflect the christocentric orientation and feeling of fellowship within the early Christian community. In any case, 8-9 is a deeply religious precept, for the community recognizes and reveres no religious object this side of heaven. Verse 10 is certainly of later Christian origin. It is wholly sectarian: the heavenly Christ is the center of loyalty and devotion. It reflects GentileChristian rather than Jewish-Christian feeling.2 In form, it is only a variation of verse 8, but it disturbs the parallelism of 8-9. Verses 8 and 10, however, can be regarded as later Christian admonitions with 9 a possible authentic utter2 3 1 2

Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.

Mt 23:13 11348. Moore, Judaism, II, 100. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 87; Klostermann, Markus, p. 183. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 358.

449

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 3 4 7 - 3 4 9

ance of Jesus. Verses 8 and 10 are companion statements, and they can be joined and read together with 9 disturbing their parallelism. 347. Concerning Service and Humility Mt 23:11-12 Mt 20:26-27 = 10:43-44 fl315; Lk 22:26 H403 Mk 9:35b = Lk 9:48b 90; Lk 14:11 1(272; 18:14b fl304 Matthew here brings together two independent discourse units which are not joined elsewhere in the Synoptic tradition and which have nothing to hold them together except Matthew's catechetical purpose. Verse 11 repeats Mt 20:26-27 in condensed form. The paradox in 12 makes its only appearance in Matthew in its pure form; a modified form appeared in 18:4. This Q paradox, without parallel in Mark, made two appearances in Luke (14:11; 18:14b). There is a close rabbinical parallel.1 Between verses 12 and 13 there is a sharp break in Matthew's address. The reader of the pastoral admonitions in 8-12 is suddenly confronted with the bitterest of invective; he is brought back from the concerns of the later Christian community to the Jerusalem drama enacted a generation or two earlier. The seven woes which follow constitute the original corpus of the address upon which Matthew has expanded ( 2-12; 33-39 ). The seven woes run off in rapid succession, and six of the seven begin with the stereotyped formula, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!", which is evidently the product of literary design. 348. Woe 1 The Kingdom of Heaven Mt 23:13 Lk 11:52 |f241 This first woe of Matthew, the sixth and last of Luke, is the most serious indictment of all, and it should perhaps come at the end as a climax to the series as it does in Luke where it is directed against the lawyers.1 Hypocrisy was as severely condemned by the rabbis as it was by Jesus.2 Some MSS of Matthew ( E, F, K, it, etc. ) have an eighth woe inserted just before or just after verse 13. This new woe is simply Mk 12:40 (ignored by Matthew in 23:6-7) converted into woe-form. 349. Woe 2 Proselytizers Mt 23:15 This second woe is peculiar to Matthew and, as an indictment, it is not very impressive. It assumes an energetic Pharisaic propaganda abroad which is not verified in any known sources. It may be of later Christian origin, for its horizon extends beyond Palestine — something foreign to the historical perspective of Jesus. Furthermore, it is not clear why or how the convert Cf. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 328. F o r a comparison of the two forms, see Lk 11:52 (1241. 2 Cf. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 329f. 1

1

450

Β. Tf350—352

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

is twice as evil as the one who converts him. The ending would be better if it read "twofold more a son of hell than before" instead of "than yourselves." 1 350. Woe 3 Perverters of Oaths Mt 23:16-22 This third woe, also peculiar to Matthew, stands apart from the rest. It does not begin with the usual formula. It is expansive, two or three times as long as any of the others, and it lacks their directness and forcefulness. It does not have the originality of the other six, for it is only a paraphrase or variation of an earlier passage in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (5:33-37 1f29). It introduces a new indictment, blindness, which continues through the next two woes. The passage itself lacks unity. Verses 20-22 turn from polemic ( 16-19 ) to pedantic instruction, from direct address in the second person to impersonal discourse. It is probably a later addition. 1 351. Woe 4 Things Done and Undone Lk 11:42 11234 Mt 23:23-24 This fourth woe in Matthew was the first in Luke's series, and there is no way of knowing whether the one or the other, or both, have done some rearranging. 1 The rabbis were very strict about the tithe and they went even beyond the Old Testament regulations. The second half of this woe is too conciliatory; it is doubtful whether Jesus would have made the concession: "these ye ought to have done." There is also no way of knowing whether Matthew has added verse 24 to his source or whether Luke omitted it. It puts in pointed proverbial form the perversion of perspective which neglects the important for the insignificant. 352. Woe 5 The Inside of the Cup Mt 23:25-26 Lk 11:39b—41 î[233 This passage from Q, the fifth woe of Matthew, did not have woe-form in Luke where it opened the address proper and introduced the first three woes.1 There is confusion in Mt 25 which does not occur in Luke's parallel. In 25a the address is direct in the second person plural, "ye"; in 25b it is in the impersonal "they." It would make better sense if it read: "Ye cleanse the outside of the cup and the platter, but the inside ye leave unclean." Verse 40 of Luke, without parallel in Matthew, may be the original ending of this woe.2 Verse 26 of Matthew is awkward. It shifts from the plural to the singular, "Thou blind Pharisee," and it neglects the scribes altogether. 1

Cf. Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 113. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 81. 1 For a comparison of the two forms, see Lk 11:42 11234. 1 For fuller notes, see Lk ll:39b-41 t[233. s Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 80.

1

451

JESUS AND T H E

FIRST THREE

GOSPELS

B. | 3 5 3 - 3 5 6

353. Woe 6 Whited Sepulchres Mt 23:27-28 Lk 11:44 fl236 This sixth woe of Matthew, the third of Luke, has its background in the Jewish custom of whitewashing tombs before the Passover to warn persons away and thus avoid defilement. For Matthew, the whiteness without is deceptive; it conceals the evil within. However, Matthew's analogy breaks down, for the whitewashed tombs proclaim themselves openly for what they are and what they contain. Verse 28 has no parallel in Luke, and it may be an addition by Matthew. The woe in 27 is complete without the sweeping generalization in 28.1 354. Woe 7 Builders of Sepulchres Mt 23:29-32 Lk 11:47-48 fl239 This seventh woe of Matthew was the fifth in Luke's series where it was addressed to the lawyers.1 Verbal association, "sepulchres," seems to have brought these last two woes of Matthew together. This final woe is addressed to the scribes and Pharisees, but actually it strikes the whole Jewish people. Matthew's change of audience toward the close of the address really begins here. Luke's form of this woe is not only briefer but more pointed and ironical. Matthew's form is sluggish and labored. Verse 31 seems to allude to the most recent crime of the Jewish people, their responsibility for the death of Jesus, and yet 32 reads as though they had yet to prove what they had already proved. 355. Offspring of Vipers Mt 23:33 Matthew may intend this violent outburst with its strong epithets as the climax of the vituperation in the seven woes. On the lips of Jesus it is new and different. Actually, it is only a variation of the invective ascribed to John the Baptist in 3:7 (1|2), and it is another instance of Matthew's merging of the messages of Jesus and John. It interrupts Matthew's connection and sequence. Matthew's diatribe against the scribes and Pharisees is over, and the address ends with two discourse units (^356-357) from Q which castigate the Jewish people as a whole. 356. Words of the Wisdom of God Mt 23:34-36 Lk 11:49-51 fl240 In Luke this Q passage broke into the series of woes, between the fifth and the sixth; Matthew completes his series of woes before he introduces it.1 1 1 1

For fuller notes, see Lk 11:44 11236. For fuller notes, see Lk 1 1 : 4 7 - 4 8 H239. For fuller notes, see Lk 1 1 : 4 9 - 5 1 11240.

452

Β.1357

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

In Matthew this Q passage ceases to be a quotation as it is in Luke, and it becomes an oracle from Jesus due to two changes by Matthew: the ascription to the wisdom of God is omitted and the entire passage is put in the second person plural of direct address. In Luke it is in the third person, "they." Matthew's Jewish messengers (prophets, wise men, scribes) suffer a Christian fate: they are killed, crucified, and scourged in synagogues and persecuted from city to city — all echoes from Matthew's address to the twelve (10:17, 23). One of Matthew's favorite connectives, "therefore," should join 34 directly to 31 as Luke's parallels are joined in 11:47-48. Matthew's "son of Barachiah," not found in Luke, seems to be a confusion of II Chron 24:20-21 and Zech 1:1. 357. The Lament over Jerusalem Mt 23:37-39 Lk 13:34-35 fl270 In Luke this Q passage has no connection with the address against the Pharisees and lawyers,1 and Matthew may be responsible for using this lament as the conclusion for his address against the scribes and Pharisees. It does seem appropriate in the Jerusalem setting it has in Matthew. Many critics 2 feel that Matthew is correct in joining this Q passage to the preceding and that the two may have stood together in the lost apocryphal writing, the Wisdom of God (Lk 11:49 fl240). The language of the passage is strange. It begins by speaking of Jerusalem in the third person ( "her" ), and then it shifts to the second person of direct address, first in the singular ("thy") and then in the plural ("ye"). Verse 38 may refer to the past destruction and the present desolation of Jerusalem; hence, the passage must date after 70 A.D., and it becomes impossible as a word of Jesus.3 The apostrophe could end with 38 as an utterly pessimistic contemplation and complaint. Verse 39 introduces a ray of hope, and it may be a later Christian addition intended to stamp the whole as a word of Jesus. Verse 39 is plainly an echo from the triumphal entry (Mt 21:9). In Matthew this echo has a highly dramatic effect. The cry that greeted Jesus as he entered the city he now hurls back as a solemn warning at the end of his public work there. Neither Matthew nor Luke seems to realize the implications for their stories of Jesus when they put this lament on his lips, for they report only one brief, and fatal, visit to Jerusalem. Matthew does not note the effect of this mass of invective on either the scribes and Pharisees or on the Jerusalem public, as Luke noted the reactions of the scribes and Pharisees at the end of his series of woes (11:53For fuller notes, see Lk 13:34-35 11270. Cf. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 592; Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu, p. 119; et al. 3 Cf. Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 115. 1

2

453

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 3 5 8

54 1f242). This simply shows how timeless and placeless the whole section is in Matthew. 358. The Widow's Mites Mk 12:41-44 Lk 21:1-4 This is an isolated anecdote which, in its literary form and in its religious lesson and spirit, stands in sharp contrast with the discourses which precede and follow. Mark may have introduced the story here by verbal association, the word "widows" in 40, 1 or because it has its scene in the temple.2 The principal character is a widow who plays a pantomime. Jesus and his disciples are merely observers, and the key-word of Jesus is a comment on the widow's deed. Like so many narrative units in Mark, this story reaches its climax and conclusion in a key-comment ascribed to Jesus. One has the feeling that this key-word is older and earlier than the narrative framework in which it is set and that this narrative setting is the product of creative writing, fabricated rather than factual, and designed to dramatize the lesson in 4344. Mark, like ancient authors generally, knows and narrates what his hero cannot have known or have observed in the situation depicted: how much the woman gave, that it was all of her living, or even that she was a widow.3 The writer is consciously striving for effect: the widow gave her only two mites when she might justly have kept one for herself. This striving for effect is almost overdone: "of her want" she gave "all," "even all of her living." It has been suggested that this story was once a parable of Jesus which has been transformed into a biographical episode,4 or that it is a piece of didactic narration depicting, not a real, but an ideal scene.5 Even as a piece of fiction the story is non-sectarian, and it makes a broad human appeal. It is not surprising that similar stories are found in the rabbinical writings 6 and in the life of Buddha.7 Lk 21:1—4 reproduces Mark's parallel with some simplifications and contractions which do not alter the nature or lesson of the story. Luke omits the mention of the disciples; he noted their presence only three verses back (20:45). Matthew's omission of the story of the widow's mites seems strange, and it has provoked various surmises.8 It is a story which, under ordinary cir1 2 3 4

261. 6 6 7 8

Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 98. Goguel, Introduction, I, 288; Hauck, Markus, p. 151. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 29. Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, I, 588; Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 154f; Loisy, Luc, p. 490. Cf. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, p. 188f. Cf. van den Bergh van Eysinga, Indische Einflüsse, p. 50ff. For five different surmises, see: ( a ) Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 244, (b) B. Weiss,

454

Β.1359

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

cumstances, would have appealed to Matthew, especially the key-utterance which breathes the same religious spirit as some of the special sayings in his Sermon on the Mount. When Matthew comes to this little Markan story, however, he is in the full swing of building the last great discourse section of his Gospel (chapters 23-25), and he probably omits it simply because it is narrative and has no place in this mass of discourse material.9 359. The Prophecy of the Destruction of the Temple Mt 24:1-2 Mk 13:1-2 Lk 21:5-6 The only thing that joins this prophecy to the story of the widow's mites is the scene, the temple. In Mark Jesus is leaving the temple for the last time. The prediction itself in 2b seems older than the setting and the provocation in l - 2 a which have the appearance of being artificially constructed for it. With the word "here" the prediction locates itself in the temple, and the observation of the stones may have been suggested by the scattered stones in the prediction itself.1 This prediction is rather lifeless and colorless and imitative of Old Testament language (Mie 3:12; Jer 26:18). It is not clear whether the destruction will be caused by a natural disaster or by a special act of divine vengeance. This prophecy could be authentic; Jesus, like Micah and Jeremiah, may have made such a prediction. It certainly must go back to an early date, for it reflects no details from the accomplished fact, the destruction of the temple by fire in 70 A.D. One critic 2 felt that this prediction is the key to the whole of the death drama, the one utterance of Jesus that delivered him into the hands of his enemies and resulted in the death sentence for blasphemy. The relation of this prediction to the charge made by false witnesses at the Jewish trial (Mk 14:58) is a puzzle. About the only thing that the two predictions have in common is that the temple will be destroyed. The later alleged utterance is much more vicious and heretical than the present one. Here the destruction is not vengeance on the temple itself but on the people; in 14:58 the action is against the temple and its cult as such. This first prediction is impersonal but in 14:58 the destruction will be accomplished by Jesus himself. Here there is no restoration or substitution for the destroyed temple; in 14:58 another temple made without hands will take its place. However, the prediction in 14:58 may be a later insert into the account of the Jewish trial.3 Mark seems to use this prediction as an introduction to the eschatological Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums, p. 58, ( c ) Bacon, Studies in Matthew, p. 244, (d) Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 191, ( e ) Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, I, 73. • Cf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 277; Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 172. 1 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 18f; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 290. 2 Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 99; Einleitung, p. 98. 3 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 126.

455

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. ^[360-389

address which follows immediately. This address foresees the desecration of the temple (13:14), not its destruction. Lk 21:5-6. In Luke there is no shift of scene from the temple (Matthew and Mark), and this has a bearing on the nature of the address which follows. Luke does not identify the persons commenting on the temple ornaments; he speaks of an indefinite "some" as in earlier instances (11:15, 16). In the comment Luke substitutes indirect for Mark's direct discourse (1). In Luke this passage is even more clearly and directly intended as an introduction to the eschatological address than in Mark. Mt 24:1-2. This is the first mention of the temple in Matthew since 21:23 and Matthew seems to think of everything since as having transpired there — which would be an extremely eventful visit. Matthew's omission of the story of the widow's mites makes itself felt here. His note about Jesus leaving the temple presupposes an episode there more recent than 21:23. Matthew has no exchange in dialogue such as Mark reports. This is unusual, for ordinarily Matthew increases the amount of dialogue over Mark. In Matthew the prediction is provoked by the action, not by an admiring comment on the temple's structure. In Matthew this passage has an altogether different literary function from that in Mark and Luke. It is not an introduction to the eschatological address but a transition from one major discourse (23:1-39) to another (24:3 - 25:46). THE ESCHATOLOGICAL ADDRESS

Mt 24:3-25:46

Mk 13:3-37

Lk 21:7-36 ÎI360-389

Lk 17:20-37 1J294-302 Mark reports this address in the middle of his Jerusalem story where it concludes his account of Jesus' public work. It is the last, and longest, discourse section in Mark's Gospel, and Mark may have regarded it as the climax of Jesus' teaching and message. The space which Mark devotes to it would indicate the importance which he attached to it for himself and his readers. However, this mass of matter is not necessarily a part of the Jerusalem events. It is essentially timeless and placeless, detached, and unconnected with its surroundings. It reflects nothing of the tension of the controversies which precede, and it is not overshadowed by the tragedy which follows. Chapter 13 of Mark brings the Jerusalem story to a full stop for an interlude of highly imaginative speculation. Mark puts the whole of this address on the lips of Jesus, but it cannot go back to him for obvious reasons. (1) This great discourse is a literary composition; it was written to be read (14). As a larger unit it never existed in oral form. It is a tract, the product of a period reflecting the situation of a group. It is not an extemporaneous address delivered by a particular speaker on some specific occasion. (2) The Jewish materials which

456

Β.1360-389

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

furnish the backbone of this discourse section are in the conventional apocalyptic form and style, and they bear few, if any, traces of Jesus' usual thought-forms and style of expression. ( 3 ) The distinctly Christian passages in this address have the historical perspective of a period a generation or more after Jesus' death. On the basis of these passages the Gospel of Mark has been dated as late as the 70's in the first century. 1 ( 4 ) The religious outlook of Jesus was definitely prophetic and eschatological. He looked forward to a great cosmic convulsion that would culminate in the establishment of the new order, the kingdom of God. His parables and other authentic utterances make this clear. Jesus, however, does not otherwise indulge in predictive detail; he never paints a gigantic panorama in full scale and color such as this address represents. Chapter 13 of Mark has closer affinities with the Book of Revelation, with Jewish and early Christian apocalypses generally, than it does with the teaching of Jesus which Mark has thus far recorded. This great discourse section of Mark lacks unity in conception and composition. It is obviously a compendium of heterogeneous materials, of larger pieces and smaller fragments of tradition. ( 1 ) Descriptive materials in the third person are intermingled with direct admonition in the second person. ( 2 ) In some of the more Jewish passages the reader is carried back prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.), perhaps to a period as early as 60 A.D. In some of the more Christian passages the events of 68-70 A.D. lie in the past and the reader is in the 80's or later. ( 3 ) The materials themselves show that they have had diverse origins. Much of the material is generally Jewish with no traces of Christian coloring. It represents a strain of Jewish thought reaching back two centuries B.C. to a thought-world which came to Jesus and the early Christians by social heritage. Other passages are clearly early Christian instructions and admonitions. In the course of the address there may be a smattering of pure and less pure words of Jesus, and the hand of the compiler and editor is evident from time to time. All of this material of diverse origin appears in chapter 13 of Mark under Christian adoption. In its present form this section of Mark is an early Christian apocalyptic tract based primarily on older Jewish materials which are adapted and applicable to the situation and needs of the Christian church forty or more years after Jesus' death. It is now rather generally conceded, even by those who regard Mark's sources as primarily oral, that chapter 13 of Mark is based on some earlier, briefer writing. The preponderance of purely Jewish materials would indicate that this document was a pre-Christian, Jewish apocalypse — a fly-leaf or tract circulated in Palestine before the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.) and perhaps as early as 60 A.D. The substance of this apocalyptic fly-leaf can be reconstructed by singling out and joining the distinctly Jewish passages: 1

Cf. Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, p. 181.

457

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. ^[360-389

7-8 + 12 + 13b-20a + 24-27 + 30. 2 Mark used this Jewish tract as the groundwork for his Christian apocalypse in 13:3-37. To it he added Christian admonitions and instructions, perhaps a few sayings of Jesus, and his own editorial devices. Lk 21:7-36. Luke reported the Q form of this eschatological address in 17:20-37 (^294-302) toward the close of his Great Non-Markan Section, and there are no traces of Q matter in this second form of the address which parallels Mark's address in the Jerusalem story. In chapter 21 Luke's address preserves just enough of Mark's form to show that Mark furnished Luke's framework. At a number of points Luke is obviously using Mark; at other points he is just as obviously not using Mark; at still other points a decision is doubtful. The Jewish materials are still more extensive in Luke than they are in Mark, and Luke could be making a fuller reproduction of the old Jewish apocalypse. It seems more probable, however, that Luke is using another and different Jewish source, for Luke now and then substitutes new Jewish materials for those of Mark. The interest in these new Jewish materials centers on Jerusalem and its fate as it does not in the Jewish materials of Mark. Some critics 3 assign this new material to what they call Luke's J source, a Jewish oracle in circulation from ten to twenty-five years before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A . D . ) . Taylor feels that this special source was basic for Luke and that he used it as the framework for his address in chapter 21 and that the Markan passages are inserted into it. The composite nature of Luke's form of the address is clear in the fact that he introduces Jesus as speaker three different times ( 8,10, 29 ). At these points Luke is shifting from one source to another. The result is definite breaks in the continuity of the address. Mt 2 4 : 3 - 2 5 : 4 6 . When Matthew reports his version of the eschatological address in Mark's order, his method of composition remains unchanged. As usual he combines the Markan and Q forms and expands the combined form with a great deal of other matter. The result in Matthew is an address more than twice as long as that of Mark and Luke. Apart from this great expansion Matthew's chief change is in the plan and purpose of the address, as a comparison with Mark and Luke will show. After his introduction in 13:3-4 Mark's address depicts the final cosmic drama in two acts: the collapse of the old order in 5-25 and the appearance 2 Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 165. Other reconstructions include Rawlinson: 7 - 8 + 14-20 - f 24-27 (Si. Mark, p. 181), Loisy, 5-9a + 14-20 + 24-31 (Les Évangiles, II, 407), Klostermann: 7 - 8 + 12 + 13b + 14-22 + 24-27 ( Markus, p. 147). For Hausrath's reconstruction, see his Jesus, I, 579-593. 3 Luke's special Jewish ( J ) source as reconstructed by Perry includes Lk 21:10 + lib + 1 2 a + 13-15 + 18-20 + 21b-22 + 23b-26a + 28 + 34-36 ( T h e Sources of Luke's Passion Narrative, p. 3 8 ) ; by Taylor, Lk 21:12-15 + 18-20 + 21b-22 + 23b-26 + 28 + 34-36 ( The Third Gospel, pp, 101-125).

458

Β. 1360

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

of the new order in 26-32. Mark's address ends with a paragraph of admonitions (33-37) for those who await the end. This same scheme reappears in Luke with some variation in the details of the two-act drama, and Luke concludes with his own special admonitions in 21:34-36. In Matthew this scheme is disrupted. Less than half the address is devoted to the cosmic drama, and the two acts are less distinct and somewhat confused. There is also less clear progression in its unfolding. In fact, Matthew has less interest than Mark and Luke in the unfolding of this drama. He is more interested in the situation and needs of those who await its unfolding. More than half of Matthew's address (24:42 - 25:46) is devoted to appropriate admonitions and instructions. Matthew has transformed an apocalyptic depiction into a catechetical complex. 360. Audience and Occasion Mt 24:3 Mk 13:3-4 Lk 21:7 There is a complete break between verse 2 and 3 of Mark, and the reader's imagination carries him from the temple to the mount of Olives. The ultra-privacy of the occasion, the secluded scene and the restricted audience, indicate Mark's conception of the discourse which follows: it is an esoteric disclosure for the favored few in private. There is no evident reason why the audience should be restricted to the four disciples named except that their names, in the same order, head Mark's list of the twelve (3:16-18). In any case, such a restriction is unnatural, for the address as a whole is intended for Christians generally. The questions put, like the scene and the audience, are the editorial work of Mark. The discourse was not conceived originally as a reply to these questions. The questions involve some matters not touched upon in the course of the address, and the address, in turn, does not limit itself to matters covered by the questions. The questions would be more natural from Christians thirty to forty years after Jesus' death than from the disciples during Jesus' lifetime. Mt 24:3. Matthew retains Mark's shift of scene from the temple to the mount of Olives, but he widens the audience to include the disciples, Christians everywhere, the only appropriate audience for Matthew's special form of the address. The first question in Matthew remains unchanged, but the second is altered completely. The impersonal Jewish question in Mark takes a distinctly Christian turn: "What shall be the sign of thy coming?" In the address itself this later Christian conception dominates Matthew's thought and depiction. Matthew uses the Greek term parousia ("coming"), terminus technicus of the early church, and it appears three times in the course of his address. Lk 21:7. In Luke there is no shift of scene from the temple and the city to the mount of Olives. Luke avoids Mark's secluded setting and restricted

459

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

B. 1361-362

audience. There is no mention of the disciples, just an indefinite "they." Luke has never shown any liking for Mark's esoteric instructions to the disciples in private. Furthermore, Luke's new materials in the address involve Jerusalem and its inhabitants, and this may explain why he presents the address as public and delivered in the temple. 361. False Messiahs Mt 24:4-5 Mk 13:5-6 Lk 21:8 This opening passage of the address is not a reply to the questions which are supposed to have provoked it. The questions were impersonal, but the reply is personal, "in my name." It is addressed to confessors of a faith, to a community of believers. If the phrase "in my name" be deleted, the passage becomes strictly Jewish. The phrase seeks to adapt Jewish material to the later Christian point of view. This Jewish material, however, was not wholly adaptable: the early Christians had false teachers and false leaders but certainly no false Messiahs. This warning is duplicated later in the address (21-23), and here it could very well drop out. Mt 24:4r-5. Matthew reproduces Mark almost verbatim. In Matthew there is closer harmony between question (3b) and reply (5); both are personal: "thy coming" and "come in my name." But the confusion is still greater in Matthew. The early Christians believed in one Messiah, Jesus; there could be no question of another or of a usurper. The warning is pointless, yet it is repeated at two later points in the address (11, 23-25). Lk 21:8 deviates from Mark at the end (8b). This new statement introduces the time element, and to that extent answers the first question (7). This is the only such warning in Luke's form of the address. 362. War and Rumors of Wars Mt 24:6-8 Mk 13:7-8 Lk 21:9-11 This passage is a more natural beginning for the address, also a more appropriate reply to the question about the signs of the end (4b). This material is purely Jewish and very similar to what is found in Jeremiah, the Sibylline Oracles, and elsewhere. The Jewish tract incorporated in chapter 13 of Mark begins here. It is adopted unchanged. It is addressed to a nation, a whole people, not to a sectarian group. Verses 7-8 could have their continuation in 12 or in 14. Mt 24:6-8 reproduces Mark's parallel verbatim. Lk 21:9-11 seems to be a compromise, a fusion of Markan and nonMarkan matter. The continuous discourse is broken in 10 by a reintroduction

460

Β. 1363

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

of Jesus as speaker, "Then said he unto them." Such breaks usually indicate that Luke is shifting from one source (here Mark) to another. Luke is not only deviating from Mark's text at the end of verse 11 but also from Mark's plan in the unfolding of the apocalyptic drama. In Mark the celestial disorders come at the very end of Act I as its climax following the human distress on earth. In Luke (or his source) the celestial disorders appear at the beginning and are concurrent with the disasters on earth.1 363. The Fate of the Disciples Mt 24:9 Mk 13:9-13a Lk 21:12-18

Lk 12:11-12 ^247 Mt 10:17-21 |Í72; 24:14 |{365 This passage seems to be Mark's first major addition to the little Jewish tract. Its composite character is evident: part of the discourse is in the second person of direct address, part in the third person; Christian admonitions are interspersed with Jewish materials; and the final redactor seems to have made some additions of his own. Verse 9a, "But take ye heed to yourselves," is a discourse transition from the Jewish materials which precede to the Christian admonitions which follow. The rest of verse 9 belongs to Christian history. Its background is a period of persecution. This persecution is localized in Palestine; it is Jewish and religious rather than political in nature. Verse 10 seems to be a later addition. (1) As a parenthetical comment or aside, it breaks the natural connection between 9 and 11. (2) It nullifies the address as a whole. It postpones indefinitely what the address as a whole predicts for the near future, and it amounts to a surrender of the hope and expectation expressed in it. (3) The eventual evangelization of the world was foreign to the religious outlook of Jesus. It expresses the conviction of the church a generation or more after Jesus' death. Verse 10 would be more appropriate among the utterances ascribed to the Risen Jesus (Mt 28:19; Lk 24:47; Mk 16:15). It was probably added by the final redactor of Mark's Gospel, for it contains one of his favorite terms, the gospel used in the absolute sense. Verse 11 should join on to verse 9. In 11 the ego of the Christian witness is submerged or supplanted by the divine Ego, the Holy Spirit. Verse 12 is Jewish and may have been a part of the older apocalyptic tract used by Mark. It could join on to 8 as its continuation. It is an exaggerated paraphrase of Mie 7:6. Verse 13a seems out of place. Here the hatred is worldwide; it is not localized as was the hatred in verse 9. In its universalism 13a relates itself to 10, and it may be an addition by the final redactor. Lk 21:12-18. Luke's opening phrase, "But before all these things," is a transition formula. Verses 12 and 15 are Luke's second non-Markan parallel 1

Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 144; Loisy, Luc, p. 494.

461

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1f364

to Mk 13:9 and 11; the first was in 12:11-12 (fl247). Luke omits verse 10 of Mark — if it was in his Mark. In Luke the apocalyptic perspective is not disturbed by the later Christian idea of world-wide evangelization. In Luke's writings this universal outlook emerges only after Jesus' death with commands of the Risen Jesus (24:47). Verses 14-15 seem to give a nonMarkan parallel to the Christian assurance in Mk 13:11. In Luke the divine Ego ("I") does not suppress the ego of the Christian witness but endows him with irrefutable speech and wisdom. Luke's closest approach to the text of Mark comes in 16-17. Lk 16 is less Jewish and more Christian than Mk 12. In Mk 12 the dissension is confined to the family, but in Lk 16 the Christian is at odds with his whole social circle. Verse 18 reads like a proverb, and it appears as an independent unit in Acts 27:34. It contradicts 16-17 and should join on to 15. This passage of Luke is characterized by independence of Mark. It probably belongs to Luke's new non-Markan source ( J ) which keeps coming to the surface in chapter 21. 1 Verses 16-17 seem to be an insert from Mark, for they approach Mark's text and are out of harmony with what precedes and what follows. Verses 16-17 predict martyrdom, but the rest of the passage ( 12-15, 18 ) promises deliverance. Mt 24:9. Matthew has done three things to the parallel passage of Mark. ( 1 ) He has transposed the body of this material to his address to the twelve back in Galilee (10:17-21 fí72). ( 2 ) He has preserved a mere fragment here in Mark's order (24:9) which assumes world-wide persecution. ( 3 ) He has delayed verse 10 of Mark to his own verse 14 where it becomes a separate and independent unit. 364. Salvation through Endurance Mt 24:10-13 Mk 13:13b Lk 21:19 This sentence is a simple religious assurance which is so general and non-sectarian that it could be used by Jew and Christian alike. It may come from the Jewish apocalyptic fly-leaf incorporated in chapter 13 of Mark. Lk 21:19. Luke's version of this assurance is non-Markan, perhaps from his special ( J ) source. It is equally applicable to Jew and Christian. Mt 24:10-13 makes a three-verse expansion of Mark, but it contributes nothing new. It may be a compensation for what Matthew has just passed over in Mark. Verses 10-12 seem to reflect the bitter experiences of the church in Matthew's own day. Verse 11 repeats the warning at the beginning of the address ( 4 - 5 ) with variations. Verse 13 reproduces Mark's religious assurance (13b) verbatim. 1

Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 105fi.

462

Β.1365-366

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

365. World-wide Evangelization Mt 24:14 Mk 13:10 11363 This delayed fragment from Mark becomes a separate unit in Matthew, as out of harmony with the body of the address in Matthew as it is in Mark. Mt 24:10 stands in flagrant contradiction to Mt 10:23; but it accords with the final commission of the Risen Jesus (28:19) where it would have a more natural place. In such a passage the church is conscious of its universal mission and destiny and is girding itself for a career in this world, not preparing itself for the near end. Mk 13:10 spoke of "the gospel" objectively as something apart from his writing. Matthew specifies "this gospel of the kingdom" as though including his own writing. The delay of the end is still more emphatic in Matthew than in Mark owing to the addition, "and then shall the end come. 366. Distress in Judea Mt 24:15-16 Mk 13:14 Lk 21:21a |[367 This passage belongs to the Jewish tract at the base of Mark's address; in that tract it may have followed on the religious assurance in 13b. The material is utterly Jewish, reflecting the Jewish feeling of horror at what has happened or is about to happen to the temple. Nowhere in Mark's address is there clearer evidence of dependence on a written Jewish source. The very nature of this passage required fixed written form. The mysterious, enigmatic language belongs to apocalyptic writing, not to oral utterance. Its meaning would escape the hearer; it is something for a reader's study and perusal. The parenthesis which appeals to the reader, not to the hearer, assumes a written document. Originally, it was an appeal to the reader of the Jewish fly-leaf. There are similar appeals to the reader in Revelation (1:3; 2:7; 13:9, 18). A speaker would have said: "Let him that heareth understand." The "abomination of desolation" is taken from the Book of Daniel (9:27; 11:31; 12:11) where it is commonly supposed to refer to the desecration of the temple in 168 B.C.1 In the little Jewish tract used by Mark it may have referred to Caligula's proposal to set up a statue of himself in the temple (41 A.D.).2 It may, however, have been simply a prophecy of some horror that would enrage Jewish feeling.3 The "abomination of desolation" is neuter gender; Mark personifies the term with his clue in the masculine, "standing where he ought not." However, it may not refer to any historical person but to the Anti-Christ so prominent in Christian apocalyptic.4 Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 300; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 193; et al. Cf. J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium des Markus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1935), p. 163. Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 103; Goguel, Life of Jesus, p. 428. 1 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 168; Loisy, Marc, p. 374. 1

2

463

JESUS A N D THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. ^[367-368

The passage does not fit well into Mark's general picture of the end. It assumes only a desecration of the temple; in the cosmic collapse destruction would be its more logical fate. The passage must have been committed to writing before the actual destruction in 70 A.D. Mt 24:15-16 reproduces Mark's parallel with two minor differences. Matthew specifies the origin of the expression, "the abomination of desolation," Daniel the prophet. The parenthesis is not as awkward in Matthew as it is in Mark, for it could appeal to the listener who has read Daniel. Matthew removes all doubt about the scene of the desecration: it is "the" (or "a") holy place. Luke omits Mk 14a and the mystery it involves. He combines 14b with matter from his special ( J ) source in 20-22. 367. Jerusalem in Distress Lk 21:20-22 Mt 24:16 = Mk 13:14b fl366 This passage occupies the same position in Luke's address that the preceding does in Matthew and Mark. It is Luke's substitute for that Markan passage. Luke is not thinking of the desecration of the temple (Matthew and Mark) but of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem which did not figure in Mark's picture. Luke may be bringing Mark up to date in the light of the later events in 68-70 A.D.1 The body of the passage seems to be from the older Jewish oracle (J) over Jerusalem which Luke is reproducing. Verse 21a should be deleted as an intrusion from Mark (14b). Except for 21a, interest in the passage centers on Jerusalem, and the reference to Judea is out of place. Verse 21b should be joined to 20, for the pronoun "her" refers to Jerusalem, not to Judea. 2 Back of the incorporation of this Jewish matter in a Christian apocalypse is the later Christian realization that the destruction of Jerusalem did not bring the end. 3 368. The Emergency of the Times Mt 24:17-18 Mk 13:15-16 Lk 17:31 |f299 This passage is commonly ascribed to the Jewish tract which Mark is incorporating. It is joined to what precedes by association of ideas (flight), but this connection is not too good. The emergency here is not in Jerusalem but in the rural districts. The warning is for a whole people, not just the inhabitants of Judea or Jerusalem. The flight, originally, must have been precipitated, not by some horror in Jerusalem, but by the parousia of the Son of man as it is in Luke's Q parallel (17:31 H299).1 Hence, it would have a better place in Act II of the cosmic drama. 1

Cf. Cf. 3 Cf. 1 Cf. 2

Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 118; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 492. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 110. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 118. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 103; Loisy, Marc, p. 377.

464

Β.Τ369-370

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Mt 24:17-18 reproduces Mark's parallel without change of any kind. Luke omits the Markan form of this matter in his Jerusalem version of this address, but he did use this matter in his Q version of this address (17:31 1f299). As noted there, this is the only bit of matter common to the Markan and Q forms of this address. 369. Woe unto the Mothers! Mt 24:19 Mk 13:17 Lk 21:23a This little fragment seems to belong to the Jewish apocalyptic fly-leaf at the base of chapter 13 of Mark. However, it joins better on to 14 than on to 15-16. The horror in Jerusalem (14) can be escaped by those who are able, but expectant mothers and new mothers are pitifully, hopelessly, handicapped. According to 15-16, they would fare no worse than others, for escape is impossible for all alike. Mt 24:19 and Lk 21:23a reproduce Mark's parallel verbatim. In Luke it may be an insert from Mark into his special ( J ) source in which 22 was followed by 23b.1 370. Unprecedented Tribulation Mt 24:20-22 Mk 13:18-20 This matter is thoroughly Jewish, and it probably came from the Jewish tract Mark is incorporating. Verse 19 is predictive, yet 20 seems to be a retrospective comment on what was predicted in 19. In 20 the end is not a catastrophic moment but a period of unprecedented tribulation.1 Verse 20b may be a reflective note contributed by Mark.2 Mt 24:20-22 reproduces Mark's parallel almost verbatim. Matthew adds one phrase, "neither on the sabbath," which enhances the Jewishness of the passage. If it is an addition by Matthew, it is a strange one, for it appends a day (the sabbath) to a season (winter). However, this reference to the sabbath may have been in the Jewish tract, and Mark may have omitted it.3 Luke does not reproduce this passage from Mark. He may have omitted it because it no longer had meaning for him,4 or he may have preferred his own Jewish matter (21:23b-24). Cf. Cf. 2 Cf. s Cf. 4 Cf. 1

1

Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 111. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 101. Loisy, Marc, p. 378. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 213; Goguel, Marc, ρ. 23Θ. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 424; Luc, p. 498.

465

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 3 7 1 - 3 7 4

371. Distress and Wrath Lk 21:23b-24 This passage continues Luke's special ( J ) source, and it joins well on to 22. It is Luke's substitute for the preceding passage of Mark and may explain that omission by Luke. The material is wholly Jewish and interest continues to center on the fate of Jerusalem. It has been thought that this passage can be definitely dated between 66 and 70 A.D.1 372. The Rise of False Messiahs and Prophets Mt 24:23-25 Mk 13:21-23 This warning duplicates the one at the beginning of the address (6), and both are equally strange in a Christian writing. Verses 21-22 are generally Jewish. Verse 23 sets itself off by the abrupt change to the first person ("I"). It may be a later addition in which the author is addressing himself directly to his Christian readers.1 Luke (8) reproduced the opening warning from Mark (5-6) but he omits this duplication which is, to that extent, an improvement. Mt 24:23-25 reproduces Mark's parallel almost verbatim. This is the third such general warning in Matthew's address which might suggest that the Christian circles represented by Matthew had had bitter experiences with usurpers and imposters, but hardly in the messianic role. Mt 24:26-28 ^373-374. This is Matthew's first Q insert into the Markan address, and it is made after Mk 13:23. This insert is premature, for both of these Q units deal with the appearance of the new order and they belong in Act II of the cosmic drama, not just ahead of the climax of Act I (24:29). 373. The Publicity of the Parousia Mt 24:26-27 Lk 17:22-24 fl295 As the result of this insert, 26 (Q) practically duplicates 23 (Mark). In Luke this passage opened the Q form of the address.1 374. The Parable of the Carcase and the Eagles Mt 24:28 Lk 17:37 j|302 In Luke this little parable (or proverb) concluded the Q form of the address. In this first insert Matthew has brought opposite ends of the Q address (Lk 17:22-24, 37) immediately together (Mt 24:26-28). 1 Cf. Goguel, Life of Jesus, p. 426. Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 104; Klostermann, Markus, p. 153. 1 For fuller notes, see Lk 17:22-24 11295. 1 For fuller notes, see Lk 17:37 |302. 1 1

466

Β.1375-376

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

375. Cosmic Catastrophes Mt 24:29 Mk 13:24-25 Lk 21:25-26 This is the climax and conclusion of Act I of Mark's eschatological drama. Catastrophe first strikes the human and earthly sphere; now it spreads to the heavens, and the collapse of the old order is cosmic and complete. This is traditional Jewish material unaltered under Christian adoption. It seems to have come from the Jewish apocalyptic tract used by Mark in which 24-25 probably joined on to 18-20a as a continuous passage in the impersonal third person.1 Mt 24:29 reproduces Mark verbatim except for the word "immediately." It may be that Matthew is more faithful to the Jewish source than Mark who may have avoided the term because he realized that the end had not come immediately.2 Verse 29 should be joined to 23-25 as is the case in Mark's parallel. Lk 21:25-26. Except for the last line (Markan), Luke seems to be using his special ( J ) source.3 The climactic effect in Mark's depiction is weakened in Luke where cosmic disorders were introduced early in the drama ( l i b ) . Luke (or his source) is less interested in depicting celestial disturbances ( Mark ) ; he is more interested in the human reactions to them. 376. The Parousia of the Son of Man Mt 24:30-31 Mk 13:2&-27 Lk 21:27 This is the first real turning-point in Mark's address. It inaugurates Act II and brings the climax of the eschatological drama, not only in Mark, but in the Jewish tract from which he took it. Even the impersonal "they" of Mark's source still survives. The passage is ultra-Jewish and is based on Dan 7:13-14. Verse 26 depicts the appearance or coming of the Son of man, and verse 27 describes his work or action. In the little Jewish apocalypse the term Son of man had the same meaning it has in Daniel: it referred to a superhuman divine agent to come from heaven. Jesus himself believed in this Son of man and his coming, and he spoke of both in the objective manner of this passage. It is, however, inconceivable that Jesus could ever have identified himself with this Son of man and thus have made a myth of his own person.1 This purely Jewish material appears here in a Christian Gospel under Christian adoption because Mark and his readers could read their own Christian meanings into it. The appearance of this Jewish passage in a Christian context makes it clear that a process of transformation has already begun — the transformaCf. Cf. 3 Cf. 1 Cf. 1

2

Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 159. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 195; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 313. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 122. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1921), p. 10.

467

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.|377-378

tion of the Jewish myth of the supernatural Son of man into the Christian myth of an historical Jesus who spoke of himself as the Son of man destined to suffer, die, and rise from the dead and who would eventually return from heaven to gather his own unto himself.2 Mt 24:30-31 reproduces Mark's parallel almost verbatim with two minor additions. Verse 30a is new in Matthew, but it is thoroughly Jewish. Matthew adds a traditional detail to the picture, the trumpet, which goes back to Isa 27:13 and appears frequently in other Jewish and early Christian apocalyptic writings. Lk 21:27 reproduces Mk 26, the appearance of the Son of man, but Luke omits Mk 27 with its description of the work of the Son of man. Lk 27 (and 26b) may be an insert from Mark into Luke's special ( J ) source.3 377. Redemption Nigh Lk 21:28 Verse 28 joins well on to 26a and seems to belong to Luke's special Jewish and Jerusalem source. It turns to direct admonition in the second person, and it is an assurance intended to impart consolation and hope. In Luke's source it was addressed to the Jewish community, but in Luke's Gospel, to Christians. It has its natural continuation in 34-36. Mark has reached the climax of his eschatological depiction with the parousia of the Son of man (26-27). The remainder of the address has the nature of an epilogue to that depiction. It is made up of single and originally separate discourse units, sayings and parables, which are only loosely grouped about the question "When?", that is, the time of the end, and which reflect the uncertainty of the period of waiting. 378. The Parable of the Budding Fig Tree Mt 24:32-33 Mk 13:28-29 Lk 21:29-31 There is a complete break here with what precedes both in the nature of the material and in literary style. This parable brings the reader back from the realm of fantastic religious speculation to the known and familiar. This parable, however, belongs earlier in the address. It deals with the signs which precede, not follow, the depiction of the end (26-27). The parable proper confines itself to verse 28 which could be an authentic utterance of Jesus. The parable-form alone would suggest this. Furthermore, it announces the end in general with no inclination to depict detail. Verse 29 is an application and admonition, perhaps also a later addition, designed to tie the parable up with what precedes.1 Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 105. Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 362; Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 111. 1 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 107; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 280. 8 8

468

Β. 1379

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Mt 24:32-33 reproduces Mark's form of the parable verbatim. Lk 21:29-31 reproduces Mark with only incidental variations. Luke introduces the parable into the address still more abruptly than Mark. "And he spake to them a parable" is Luke's second break (10) into the continuous discourse and it indicates a return to his Markan source. Luke generalizes by adding "and all the trees" which rather dulls the point to the parable. Luke specifies the "kingdom of God" where Mark is indeterminate, "he" or "it." 379. Fulfillment in This Generation Mt 24:34-35 Mk 13:30-31 Lk 21:32-33 Two separate discourse units are joined here in Mark by their solemnity and by verbal association ("pass away"). In nature and origin they are very different. Verse 30 could be an authentic utterance of Jesus, for it is not only a variation of Mk 9:1 but it fits in with the expectations of the earliest Christians, based doubtless on such utterances from Jesus himself. It may, however, have concluded the little Jewish apocalyptic tract incorporated in chapter 13 of Mark. It would join well on to 27. It looks back on the whole eschatological drama.1 The end, however, seems much more remote in 30 than in the preceding parable (28), but it is not indefinitely postponed as it was in 13:10 to which 30 stands in open contradiction. Verse 30 applies only to the eschatological discourse, but 31 applies to the whole body of Jesus' teachings (8:38). Verse 31 could hardly be an authentic word of Jesus, for it assumes that his words now form a compendium or corpus. It is very probably a later Christian formulation,2 giving a Christian variation of Jesus' word on the Jewish law (Mt 5:18; Lk 16:17). Verse 31 seems to locate Jesus' lasting contribution in his teaching, a sort of religious assurance in compensation for the unfulfilled predictions in 13:3-30. It has been suggested, however, that 31 may have concluded Mark's apocalyptic source, the older Jewish tract.3 The Book of Revelation ends with a similar statement (22:18-19). In such an event, the apocalyptic seer would be speaking or having God speak directly. Mt 24:34-35 and Lk 21:32-33 reproduce both sayings from Mark without any change. Their very solemnity would forbid any real revision. Later Christian writers would have no misgivings about the second (31), but verse 30 of Mark was in still more glaring contradiction with reality when Matthew and Luke wrote than it was in Mark's day. 1 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 161; J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 270. 2 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 74. "Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 382f; Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1921), p. 43.

469

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1380

380. The "When" of the Parousia Mt 24:36 Mk 13:32 This bit of discourse bears a strange relation to the address of which it is a part. It seems to nullify all that precedes, to render all eschatological speculation superfluous, for no one but God knows the day or the hour.1 Verse 32 also bears a strange relation to 30-31. Verse 30 specifies "this generation," but 32 makes even this knowledge impossible. Furthermore, the confession of ignorance in 32 is very strange after the dogmatic utterance in 31 about words that pass not away. This joining of small units (30, 31, 32) has resulted in a confusion of thoughts. Verse 32 may rest upon an authentic utterance of Jesus.2 The vagueness and absence of details are characteristic of Jesus' utterances generally on the subject. Furthermore, it seems incredible that a later Christian would invent such an open confession of ignorance and place it on Jesus' lips. The tendency of the later tradition was just the opposite — to exalt Jesus' knowledge to supernatural proportions, as happened in the Fourth Gospel. The original saying, if any, has been christianized by the phrase, "neither the Son." This is the only instance in Mark where Jesus is made to speak of himself as "the Son" in the absolute sense. This use of the term and the religious conviction behind it belong to the later Christian community.3 In the body of the saying Jesus is a limited human subject, but in the phrase "neither the Son" he has become the exalted object of the Christian faith. The deletion of the reference to the Son could result in restoring the saying to its authentic form as an utterance of Jesus: "But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, . . . but the Father." As an utterance of Jesus it would take its place alongside Mk 10:18 and 40 in which this same consciousness of human limitation expressed itself. However, 32 may be of Jewish origin and, joined to 30, it may have concluded the Jewish tract used by Mark: "But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven." This Jewish saying would then have acquired a Christian ending, "neither the Son, but the Father." 4 Mt 24:36 reproduces Mk 13:32 verbatim. This is the second (and last) time that Matthew has had Jesus speaking of himself as "the Son" in the absolute sense. The first instance was in a Q passage in 11:27 (fl88). The phrase "neither the Son" is missing here in some MSS of Matthew (Aleph, E, F, L, etc.). Luke omits Mk 13:32. He may have felt the contradiction with verse 30 'Cf. Völter, Das messianische Bewusstsein Jesu, p. 31; Wellhausen, Marci, p. 107; et al. 2 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 197. 3 Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 544. * Cf. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, p. 159; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 74; et al.

470

Β.1381-383

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

which he does reproduce, or he may have been offended at this frank confession of ignorance on Jesus' part. However, Mk 13:32 makes itself felt in Acts 1:7 in an utterance ascribed to the Risen Jesus. Mt 24:37-41 fl381-382. This is Matthew's second Q insert into the Markan form of the address. Luke included both units in his Q form of the address back in chapter 17, but in Luke the first (fl297) comes next to the beginning and the second comes next to the end (1f30l) of the address. Matthew again joins Q units which are separated in Luke ( 17:26— 27, 34-35 ). As parts of the cosmic drama these two units should have come earlier in the address while the drama was still unfolding. They might well have followed on 31, for they have to do with the gathering of the elect from the corners of the earth. At this late point they are now a sort of transition from the apocalypse to the long epilogue which follows. These Q units are not impossible as words of Jesus, but they are probably taken from Jewish tradition as was most of the material depicting the end. 381. The Days of Noah Lk 17:26-27 fl297 Mt 24:37-39 Matthew seeks to fit this Q passage into its new (and tardy) context by extending the theme of the preceding utterance (36), "they knew not," which is not found in Luke's parallel. In Luke this passage has a perfect literary companion, The Days of Lot (17:28-30 j}298 ), which does not reappear here in Matthew.1 382. The Selection at the Assembly Mt 24:40-41 Lk 17:34-35 flSOl It is evident in this Q unit that the cosmic drama is still in progress, and it should follow closer upon the appearance of the Son of man ( 30-31 ). No reason is given why one is taken and one is left, unless one belongs to the elect and the other does not. Luke's phrase "on one bed" is to be favored over Matthew's "in the field."1 383. The Parable of the Absent Lord Mt 24:42 Mk 13:33-37 This conclusion of Mark's address is composite. It is made up primarily of Christian admonitions rather than of authentic words of Jesus. The whole is probably the result of Mark's editorial work. It continues the theme of verse 32, the uncertainty of the hour, and it draws the one logical conclusion, "WatchI" Verse 33 is direct admonition and a transition to what follows. Verse 34 reads like a parable fragment, and it is very similar to 1 1

For fuller notes, see Lk 17:26-27 1(297. For fuller notes, see Lk 17:34-35 11301.

471

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 3 8 4 - 3 8 9

the beginning of Matthew's parable of the talents (Mt 25:14). Verse 35 is an admonition and allegorical application of 34. The allegory in 35, however, goes beyond the parable fragment in 34. In 34 it is the duty of the porter to watch; in 35 it is the duty of all. Verse 37 is the watchword of the whole address. Here at the end Mark is not thinking of the four disciples (3) but of Christians generally. In fact, in the address as a whole, Mark has had this larger audience in mind. Mark localized the address on the mount of Olives, but it ends with the reader's mind carried away beyond time and place. There is not even an editorial note about the impression on the four disciples ( 3 ) or any sort of literary link to connect it with what follows, the death drama. Mt 24:42. Matthew extracts the heart, a single sentence, from Mk 13:3337 and gives it a purely Christian turn. Matthew abandons all suggestion of parable, "the lord of the house" (Mark), for "your Lord," the Christ of the early Christiain faith. Verse 42 is not a word of Jesus but an admonition from Matthew directly to his Christian readers. Verse 42 is the turningpoint in Matthew's address from apocalyptic depiction to catechetical instruction. The brief admonitions at the end of Mark's address (five verses) are expanded in Matthew into the second and much longer half of the address (24:43 - 25:46). 384. The Day as a Snare Lk 21:34-36 Luke ends the address at the same point that Mark does and in the same general manner, with an admonition, but this new ending in Luke has supplanted that of Mk 13:33-37. It agrees with Mark's ending only in general theme and tone, the duty of watchfulness with a note of warning. It may be the ending from Luke's special ( J ) source and the continuation of 28. This ending, however, could be the free editorial work of Luke.1 The admonition is so broad and general that it could conclude either a Jewish or a Christian document. Mt 24:43 - 25:46 1(385-389. The eschatological address is ended in both Mark and Luke, but Matthew is less than half way through his form of the address. Matthew has greatly expanded the address with five non-Markan discourse units which form a long catechetical epilogue to the address as he found it in his sources. The brief closing admonition in Mark and Luke is built into the second and longer half of Matthew's address which is devoted to instructions for those who await the end. The very space given to these instructions makes it clear that Matthew's primary interest centers here rather than in the apocalyptic depiction itself. The parable-form predominates in this catechetical section. 1

Cf. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 17; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 368.

472

Β.1385-387

THE

PUBLIC

TRADITION

Mt 24:43-51 jf385-386. The two Q parables which open Matthew's catechetical epilogue were reported by Luke rather early in his Great NonMarkan Section, but Luke did not include them in either form of his eschatological address ( chapters 17 and 21 ). Both parables are eschatological in nature, but Matthew seems to be responsible for their inclusion in this particular address. 385. The Parable of the Thief Lk 12:39-40 |f253 Mt 24:43-44 This parable continues the theme and the note of warning in 42: watchfulness and readiness for the sudden advent of the Son of man, the Jewish mythical figure, not that of the Christian Lord in 42 — a distinction which Matthew and his readers did not make. This figure of the thief is not found in earlier Jewish or other ancient writings,1 and it may be that both the figure and the parable built around it are original with Jesus. Whatever its origin, it made a deep impression with some of the New Testament writers.2 The word "therefore" (44) may be the contribution of Matthew, for it is one of his favorite connectives and it is not found in Luke's parallel.3 Verse 44 does not seem to be a secondary application of the parable in 43 but original with and organic to it — an application made by Jesus himself.4 386. The Parable of the Faithful and Unfaithful Servant Mt 24:45-51 Lk 12:41-46 TJ254 The emphasis in this parable falls less on watchfulness and readiness, more on faithfulness during the interval of the master's absence. It has a deep Christian coloring which reflects the situation and mood of the early church which still awaits the long-delayed return of Jesus. The allegory is even stronger at the end in Matthew than in Luke: "there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth — a sixfold refrain in Matthew's Gospel,1 which occurs only once in Luke (13:28) and never in Mark.2 387. The Parable of the Ten Virgins Mt 25:1-13 From the standpoint of materials, this story seems incomplete — a bridegroom, ten bridesmaids, and no bride. Some MSS of Matthew (D, Syrsin, it) have "the bridegroom and the bride" at the end of verse 1. The bride may ' Cf. Abrahams, Studies, II, 196. I Thess 5 : 2 ; II Pet 3 : 1 0 ; Rev 3 : 3 ; 16:15. 3 For fuller notes, see Lk 1 2 : 3 9 - 4 0 U253. 4 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 3 1 ) , ρ .125. 1 Cf. Mt 8 : 1 2 ; 13:42, 50; 2 2 : 1 3 ; 2 4 : 5 1 ; 2 5 : 3 0 . = For fuller notes, see Lk 1 2 : 4 1 - 4 6 H254. JCf.

473

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

B. |388

be missing in most MSS because the church thought of itself as the bride of Christ.1 The story follows the foolish virgins rather than the wise. The reader is not taken into the feast with the wise but is left outside the closed door with the foolish virgins. The story should end with 10a; 10b-12 is a later supplement. Luke (13:25) has a close parallel to the scene at the closed door (10b-12), but he does not have the story of the ten virgins. Matthew's scene at the closed door is pure allegory, for the speaker in 12 is not the bridegroom of the story but the divine Judge of eternal destiny. Verse 13 repeats 24:42 — an admonition direct from the writer to his readers. It is the basic theme of Matthew's long epilogue to the address, not a natural or logical lesson drawn from the story of the ten virgins which dramatizes readiness and preparedness rather than watchfulness: "they all slumbered and slept" (5). Luke has only faint and fragmentary parallels (12:35; 13:25) which might be regarded as remnants of Matthew's story,2 or as the primitive bits out of which Matthew spun his story of the ten virgins.3 The story as it now stands is half parable and half allegory. No Christian could write it or read it without seeing Christ as the bridegroom, the ten virgins as prepared and unprepared Christians. The whole may be the pure invention of the early Christian mind which was painfully aware of the long delay in Jesus' return and of the carelessness and unpreparedness of many contemporary Christians. 388. The Parable of the Talents Mt 25:14—30 Lk 19:11-28 fl318 Luke's version of this parable concluded his account of the journey to Jerusalem, and Luke had it spoken as Jesus was nearing the Holy City.1 In Matthew it has become a part of the Jerusalem story and of the long appendix to his eschatological address. Originally, it was not a part of this or any other eschatological section, for it has no necessary eschatological meaning. Matthew has sought to adapt it to its eschatological surroundings by introducing allegorical elements. The first allegorical touch comes in 19: the lord returns "after a long time." The long delay of the end must have been painful in the Christian circles represented by Matthew. The rewards (21b, 23b) and the punishment (30) are allegorical and give the parable an eschatological color originally foreign to it. The reports of the servants, particularly that of the third, are tedious and repetitious, but such is typical of Semitic folklore. The story could end with Cf. II Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25; Rev 19:7. Cf. Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 199. 8 Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 156. 1 For fuller notes on this parable, see Lk 19:11-28 11318. 1 2

474

Β. Τ389

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

27,2 leaving 28-30 a later expansion, or certainly with 28 and still be complete.3 Verse 30 is pure allegory. The heavenly Christ is the speaker, not the lord in the story. Verse 30 must be the literary contribution of Matthew, for it is composed entirely of his favorite expressions. Matthew's version of this parable has greater unity than that of Luke, for Matthew depicts a commercial enterprise throughout. As noted in connection with Luke's version, Luke confuses two enterprises: one commercial and one political. Luke's parable, however, is purer in thought than that of Matthew, for Luke does not have the allegorical color and features found in Matthew. In Luke there are ten servants, each receiving a pound; in Matthew there are three servants who are given talents according to their ability — five, two, and one. The original number of servants was probably three, for even in Luke only three of the ten report. Matthew tells what each servant did with his money while his master was absent; in Luke the reader learns what the three did only after the master's return and they begin to report. In Matthew the first two servants double their investments; in Luke the first gains ten pounds with one; the second, five with one. In Luke the rewards are political, lordship over cities; in Matthew they are allegorical and religious, sharing the joy of the Lord. Matthew and Luke agree more closely in the report of the third servant than at any other point in the parable, but the allegorical fate of the third servant in Matthew (30) has no parallel in Luke. Matthew's parable is continuous discourse throughout, of which the paradox in 29 is not a natural part. Luke breaks into the discourse with a bit of dialogue (24-25) toward the very end. 389. The Judgment of the Son of Man Mt 25:31-16 This elaborate word-picture is not only the conclusion but the climax of Matthew's long address. Matthew ends with a colorful and dramatic preview of the last judgment. It is a queer mixture of imaginative and mythical depiction with plain and practical instruction. There are suggestions of parable but most of the imagery is allegorical. The result is confusion. It begins with the Son of man gathering all the nations and, like a shepherd, separating the sheep from the goats (31-33). This, however, is only the backdrop for the discourse and dialogue which follow and in which a king takes the place of the Son of man. The scene is not between the king and his subjects but between the king and unidentified persons who have or have not ministered to his brethren. The combination of king and brethren, not king and subjects, makes it clear that the king is not an earthly king, but Christ, the head of the Christian brotherhood. 2 Cf. Cadoux, The Parables of Jesus, p. 68f; Smith, The Parables in the Synoptic Gospels, p. 167. 3 Cf. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 479.

475

J E S U S AND T H E

FIRST THREE

GOSPELS

B. 1f390

Even in the discourse and dialogue there is confusion. In the key-saying the speaker identifies himself with the unfortunate "least" who are ministered unto (40) or neglected (45). But in the solemn pronouncements (34-36, 41-43 ) the saved are those who minister; the lost are those who do not. The humble Christian and his need have become the testing-ground for others. The materials and imagery in this word-picture are Jewish.1 Even the religious thought has Jewish parallels. The identification of religious duty toward God and moral obligation to needy fellow-men is Jewish as well as Christian. Materials of Jewish origin and background are here given a Christian treatment, yet the passage is free from the usual sectarianism. What the religious have done, they have done naturally, in no higher name, for no greater sake. This word-picture, peculiar to Matthew, may go back to Jesus, or some parable of his may lie behind it.2 It may, however, be an early Christian pictorial homily reflecting the experiences, expectations, and convictions of the later church.3 Its strong social sense and sentiment would point to its origin in the Christian proletariat. The passage leaves the impression of being a piece of careful literary composition rather than an extemporaneous oral utterance. It could very well be the product of Matthew's own creative writing on the basis of the key-saying in 40 and related sayings like Mt 10:40 and 42.4 It is the same sort of imaginative allegorical writing found in Matthew's explanation of the story of the tares ( 13:36-43 |fl41).5 Matthew makes no attempt at a transition to the death drama which follows. 390. Jesus Lodges outside the City Lk 21:37-38 Mfe I I J 9 fl331 This seems clearly to be an editorial summary by Luke himself, but it is based on his non-Markan tradition according to which Jesus spent his nights on the mount of Olives, not in Bethany (Mark). This notice makes a break in Luke's Jerusalem story exactly at the half-way point. It is retrospective, looking backward rather than ahead to what is to come. It marks the end of the public work in Jerusalem, and the death drama can begin. Backward it links up with 19:47-48 (|[330); and it compensates for the several separate notices of return from and to the Holy City which Luke has not noted. Luke continues to think of the Jerusalem visit in terms of days but he (or his source) has given no day-by-day calendar of events. This Cf. Cf. p. 143. 3 Cf. 1 Cf. 5 Cf. 1

2

Moore, Judaism, II, 111, 169. O. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, p. 128; Dibelius, Die Botschoft von Jesus Christus, Schölten, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 45; Wernle, Jesus, p. 71. Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 127; Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 134. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 288.

476

(Β. 1f391)

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

notice leaves the impression of a systematic procedure in Jesus' Jerusalem work. (391). (The Woman Taken in Adultery) (Jn 7 : 5 3 - 8 : 1 1 ) This is the most famous piece of wandering or floating tradition in the Gospel story. It is ordinarily associated with the Gospel of John, but it is not found in the majority of the best MSS of that Gospel. Those MSS which do include it, insert it at various points: after 7:36; 7:44; 7:52; or at the very end of the Gospel. It is not a natural part of the Gospel of John. It contains items otherwise foreign to that Gospel: the mount of Olives, the scribes, and the combination of scribes and Pharisees. In its style and nature it belongs to the Synoptic tradition. Furthermore, the issue here is Jesus' adherence to the law of Moses — a Synoptic, not a Johannine, issue. It has frequently been conjectured that this story was once a part of the Gospel of Mark coming after 11:27a; 1 or 12:17; 2 or 12:34. 3 The story, however, has its best place in the Gospel of Luke where it does occur in seven of the Ferrar MSS at the end of what is now chapter 21. It is the type of story which Luke loves to feature: it dramatizes Jesus' sympathy for the outcast and sinful. The vocabulary and style are typical of Luke's writing. Verses 1-2 virtually repeat 37b-38 in the preceding notice of Luke. Finally, the story accords with Luke's special Jerusalem tradition according to which Jesus spends his nights on the mount of Olives. The very first line, "And they went every man unto his own house," makes it clear that the story once had a definite antecedent and that it has been torn away from a literary context. The story may have led a wandering and uncertain existence because it proved itself embarrassing to the church in the administration of discipline. It could easily serve as a precedent for those who sought to escape the penalty for weakness and waywardness. In its protest against inhuman legal justice, in its sympathy for the sinful, the story is magnificent. In practice and reality, however, even the administration of Christian justice would be difficult, for there is no one without sin to pronounce judgment and inflict punishment. In spite of its literary beauty and human appeal, this story may be only a piece of creative writing, an apocryphal tradition with a strong disposition to romance.4 The initial silence of Jesus, the preoccupation with writing on the ground, the eloquent dialogue with the woman — all are novelistic features, suggesting imaginative invention rather than realistic reporting. Cf. Völter, Die Menschensohn-Frage, p. 19f. Cf. F. Hitzig, Über Johannes Markus und seine Schriften Comp., 1 8 4 6 ) , p. 222. 5 Cf. O. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, p. 348f. 4 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 3 1 ) , p. 67. 1 2

477

(Zürich: Orell, Fiissli &

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1392-448

3. THE DEATH DRAMA Mt 26:1-27:66

Mk 14:1-15:47

Lk 22:1-23:56

H392-448

When the reader comes to chapters 14-15 of Mark he encounters something which, from the literary point of view, stands in sharp contrast to all that has preceded. Thus far, Mark's literary work has not gone beyond collecting, compiling, and editing. Single disjointed pieces of tradition, whether discourse or narrative, have been brought together in a loose, paratactical structure. Each separate unit marks a full stop in the narrative, highlighting a break or gap before the next begins. Very seldom has there been even a semblance of connection between units or of a sequence running through them. Mark's larger complexes thus far have been built up of smaller units which, when brought together, do not leave the impression of forming a larger organic whole but rather exhibit a lack of cohesion and affinity. When the reader comes to chapters 14-15 of Mark he feels that he is reading a larger narrative unit and a connected whole. This larger complex is made up of single smaller units of tradition but they leave the impression of belonging together in this final phase of the story. The successive scenes and dialogues are not disjointed and unrelated but they are integrated parts contributing to the unfolding of a whole. For the first time in Mark's Gospel the reader can follow the course of events through a definite period, even though it is short. From beginning to end there is a clear sequence, a narrative progression, which the reader's imagination can follow. This final phase begins with the death plot in 14:1 and ends with that plot accomplished. Chapters 14-15 of Mark are not a mere collection and compilation but a dramatic composition. These two chapters of Mark exhibit the essential elements and instruments of drama. Like all dramatic writing, the beginning has the end in view, and the action moves straight toward it. Two phases of action converge to bring about the tragedy. For the most part, the reader follows the hero and his group. The reader is with the hero in the seclusion of his retreat and he witnesses private scenes between the hero and his followers. At other times, the reader is with the hero's enemies as they plot and plan and betray. At times the reader knows what the hero does not know or will learn only later — too late! Such transportation back and forth between the two phases of the action is possible in imaginative writing and reading rather than in reality. The greater coherence and unity of materials in chapters 14-15 are not to be mistaken for greater historical accuracy. The traditions in this closing section are in no way closer to history than the materials in the first thirteen chapters; in fact, some of them are less so. Only the general gist, the bare outline, is historical: Jesus was arrested, tried, condemned to death, and crucified. This historical framework is filled in with colorful scenes, detailed

478

Β.1392-448

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

incidents, discourses and dialogues, actions and counter-actions on the part of a numerous dramatis personae. Much of the color and detail in the speech and action has the appearance of creative writing. In the particulars of the death drama the Christian imagination has been active and productive. Suggestions and inspirations have come from the Old Testament, especially from the 22nd and 69th Psalms with Isaiah 53 in the background. The early Christian faith centered on the culmination of Jesus' life story. The religious meaning of his death and resurrection was the very heart of that faith. Its proclamation was the gospel. The gist of the death drama goes back to the earliest Christian preaching. The earliest Christian sermon included a narrative sketch outlining the course of events at the end and highlighting Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection. Such quick sketches have survived in sermons in the Book of Acts (2:23-24; 3:13-15; 13:27-31). In chapters 14-15 of Mark this sketch is filled out to full narrative form with scenes, action, and dialogue. The gospel, a religious proclamation, has been transformed into a Gospel, a religious story. Faith has become fact by the process of historization and dramatization. The story of Jesus' suffering and death was the first part of the Gospel story to take form as a larger, connected narrative whole. It may have been the first part committed to writing,1 the primitive nucleus from which the later, fuller story stemmed. Chapters 14—15 of Mark may be based on an earlier fixed narrative form 2 which was committed to writing in pre-Markan times and which Mark may have used as a written source to which he added his own editorial notes.3 Mark's death drama is the most highly subjective section of his Gospel. It has its scene in history and it involves human actors, but the forces at work transcend everything human and historical. Mark's death drama is not that of a tragic human hero who goes to his martyrdom, but that of God's Messiah and Son, whose death and resurrection mean eternal salvation for believers. The drama has a soteriological, not an historical orientation. Jesus' death was not due to the operation of historical forces or to the intervention of human factors, but to the divine purpose and plan. Mark's passion story ignores what has just preceded, the account of the Jerusalem days (11-13), and it joins up with chapters 8-10 where the death-theme was intoned in the threefold manner of drama. Jesus' death was divinely decreed; it was God's will and way. Everything human and historical was incidental and instrumental to a plan of providential proportions. It is this divine design that gives coherence and unity to Mark's death drama. Such an over1 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 167; Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, III, 177; et al. 3 Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 107. 3 Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 23; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 299ff; et al.

479

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 3 9 2 - 4 4 8

all conception must reveal itself in the course of events. It required a longer sequence, a larger narrative whole; hence, Mark's death drama. The subjective treatment of history in Mark's death drama does not stop with the dogmatic conception which dominates the whole. It appears in details and particulars. Special scenes and incidents come in fulfillment of prophecy. Legendary elements are introduced to serve apologetical purposes. Events depicted confirm Christian convictions and faith. Even the interests of the church's cult and worship assert themselves. Mk 14-15 is not just drama; it is a sacred drama. This sacredness comes from the early Christian mind which projects itself into the whole and into all its parts, and invests both with a higher, holy meaning. Mt 26-27. At no point in his Gospel does Matthew adhere to Mark more closely than in the death drama. He makes no important omissions from Mark, only minor changes in text, and no change in order or arrangement of materials. He makes a few secondary additions to Mark, most of which are legendary and apocryphal in nature. In Matthew there is greater emphasis on the fulfillment of prophecy, stronger anti-Jewish feeling, and the supernatural element is enhanced. As a whole, Matthew's death drama is only a slightly revised version, a later slightly amplified edition, of Mark's death drama. Lk 22-23. At no point in his Gospel, when covering the same material, is Luke more independent of Mark than in his death drama. It is obvious, even to the uncritical reader, that Luke is not using Mark as his basic source. If Luke uses Mark at all in this section, it is only incidentally and at only a few particular points. Luke has no parallels to quite a lot of Mark's materials, and he introduces a great deal of new material. Even when he reports materials that parallel those of Mark, Luke usually has a new and different text. In whole sequences Luke has a new and different arrangement of materials, and in the last five scenes ( the supper, the arrest, the trials, and the crucifixion) Luke seems to ignore Mark almost entirely. It has been suggested that Luke's departures and differences from Mark in the death drama are due to his literary skill.4 In this final stage of the story Luke is less collector, compiler, and editor and more an author and creative writer. It seems, however, more probable that Luke is using an earlier version of the death drama which he had before him in written form. Luke may have used the pre-Markan passion story used by Mark with incidental use of the form now in Mark.® Or, he may have used the Proto-Luke version of the death drama with some secondary inserts from Mark.6 Cf. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation, p. 170. Cf. Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the NT, p. 49; Bultmann, Geschichte p. 303. β Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, pp. 74, 181. 4

6

480

(1931),

Β.1392-394

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

There is also the possibility that Luke may be giving the Q version of the death drama, and there is evidence to support this conjecture.7 There is the negative evidence that Luke is certainly not using Mark as his basic source in this section. There is the positive evidence of some traces of Q matter in Luke's death drama. Throughout his Gospel Luke has shown a preference for Q over Mark when he chooses between them. Since Q covered the beginning of the story (materials on John and his message; the temptation of Jesus) it must also have included what was much more important, the passion story. In short, Q may have been more of a Gospel than is generally supposed. The chief argument against this view is that Matthew has no new matter in common with Luke against Mark in this section, and thus shows no influence from the Q death drama — if Q had onel However, Matthew in his Gospel as a whole has showed no preference for Q over Mark, and he may simply have preferred Mark to Q in the death drama. Mark's version of the death drama was certainly more congenial to Matthew's Gospel generally than the version which Luke reports. As Dibelius 8 has pointed out, Luke's passion narrative has a very different character from that of Mark. Luke is not depicting a divine drama, a phase in a scheme of salvation, but he is writing a martyr-legend. Luke tells how a good, noble, and innocent man went to his death with unfaltering faith. In Luke's portrayal of Jesus in this final stage of the story there is less of the theoretical and theological, less of God's Messiah and Son. There is greater interest and emphasis on the human, personal, and psychological traits of his hero. H392-394

Mt 26:1-16

Mk 14:1-11

Lk 22:1-6

Mk 14:1-11. In 14:1 Mark mentions the Passover for the first time; it is two days away. This is the first time-notice since 11:20 and with it Mark continues his day-by-day calendar of the Jerusalem events. With 14:1 Mark begins his account of the fourth day, Wednesday, which extends through verse 11 and includes three incidents: the conspiracy in 1-2; the anointing in Bethany in 3-9; and Judas' betrayal in 10-11. Events on this day move ahead, not by what Jesus says or does, but by what others plan and do. Mt 26:1-16 reports the same three incidents in Mark's order. Lk 22:1-6. Luke (or his source) has no anointing of Jesus in the Jerusalem story. In his parallels Luke reports the plot of the chief priests and Judas' betrayal, both in Mark's order but not dated on any particular day. 7 8

Cf. Β. and J. Weiss, Lukas, p. 614; Burkitt, Gospel History, p. 134; et al. Cf. Tradition to Gospel, pp. 105, 201ff, 300.

481

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 3 9 2

392. The Conspiracy of the Chief Priests Mt 26:1-5 Mk 14:1-2 Lk22:l-2 Mk 14:1a does not connect up with anything that precedes. It is a new, abrupt beginning with no attempt at transition. The plot in lb connects up with 11:18. It is not a new plot emerging from the intervening events but simply a renewal of that earlier resolve with a new aspect: how. The emphasis seems to fall on the phrase "with subtlety." Jesus' protest at the arrest (14:48-49) may throw light on this design, for the action is swift and secret when it does come. Only one point is clear in the plan: the arrest is not to take place during the festival. It is not the feast as such, its defilement, that restrains action. The precaution is due to the great crowds at the festival; the authorities fear an uprising. It is not clear whether they intend to take Jesus before the people arrive for the festival1 or after the festival when the people have gone.2 Nor is it clear in the subsequent story whether this precaution is carried out or frustrated by an unexpected turn of events, for Mark's data on the date of Jesus' death are confusing. What Mark reports here cannot have been based on actual knowledge of what took place at a particular time or on a particular occasion. Verses 1-2 do not depict an actual scene or incident; they are an editorial notice like 11:18. Both of these advance notices about the designs of the opposition are simply later inferences drawn from the known outcome and issue of subsequent events. Verses 1-2 are not a separate unit of tradition that was handed down. They are a literary introduction to a larger literary whole, the death drama. They exhibit the familiar features of dramatic composition. The end is clear at the very beginning; the reader knows from the outset that catastrophe is to follow. In 14:1-2 Mark, like the dramatist, takes his readers behind the scenes and acquaints them with the designs against his hero. They are told what it would not have been possible to know at the time by observation. It is generally agreed that Mk 14:1-2 has its natural continuation in 10-11 and that the two passages should be joined as a narrative unit as they actually are in Luke and that they should not be split and separated as they now are by the anointing in Bethany in 3-9. Mt 26:1-5. Chapter 26 begins with the fifth and last appearance of Matthew's familiar transition formula, "And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these words." It marks the end of Book VI and the beginning of Book VII of his Gospel. This formula is retrospective; it looks back on the long discourse section ( chapters 23-25 ) which Matthew has just completed. In 26:1 Matthew rejoins Mark's framework for the first time since 24:42. Matthew preserves Mark's date, two days before the Passover, but he 1 2

Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 108; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 310. Cf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, II, 602; Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 162.

482

Β.1393

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

puts this date on the hps of Jesus. It is Matthew's first time-notice since 21:18 —the beginning of the second day in Jerusalem. Matthew noted no third day (Mk 11:20); it disappeared with his special treatment of the fig-tree story. In Mk 14:1-2 both Jesus and his enemies are objects of Mark's literary observations, but in Matthew's parallel both Jesus and his enemies appear as speaking subjects and acting agents. In imagination the reader is transported from Jesus and his disciples ( 1-2 ) to the court of the high priest and the action there (3-5). Matthew transforms Mark's editorial observation into a scene in the court of Caiaphas, and this is another good example of Matthew's dramatization of less colorful matter in Mark. Matthew is the only Synoptic writer who names the high priest in the course of the Jerusalem story (26:3, 57). Matthew introduces the death drama in a very solemn fashion. It is Jesus himself who reminds the disciples of the date and inaugurates the tragedy by announcing the nearness of his crucifixion. Still less in Matthew than in Mark is Jesus the victim of human and historical circumstances. Lk 22:1-2. Most critics 3 feel that Luke here is using Mark's parallel passage. This, however, may have been the beginning of the death drama in Luke's non-Markan source. Luke gives an indefinite date: the Passover is near. Throughout his Jerusalem story Luke has ignored Mark's day-by-day calendar as he does here, and this may go back to his special source. In Luke there is no restraint imposed by the festival, no measures requiring subtlety. In Mark the authorities fear an uprising if they take Jesus during the feast; in Luke they would forestall an uprising by taking him. Luke confuses the Passover with the feast of unleavened bread. However, the two seem to have been thrown together in the popular mind. Josephus himself speaks of "the feast of unleavened bread which is called the Passover." 4 In Luke this plot in 1-2 is followed immediately and naturally by Judas' betrayal in 3-6; the two may have been joined thus in Luke's non-Markan source. 393. The Anointing of Jesus in Bethany Mt 26:6-13 Mk 14:3-9 Lk 7:36-50 flll3 This story was once an isolated piece of tradition independent of its present context. This is evident in the uncertainty as to where it belongs. Matthew and Mark include it in the death drama two days before Jesus' death. The Gospel of John (12:1-8) dates it six days before the Passover and it precedes the triumphal entry. In Luke it is a part of the Galilean story and far removed from the death drama. In its earlier independent form it probably ended with Jesus' comment in 6-7, a story complete at that point and having nothing to do with Jesus' fate or destiny. Verses 8-9 were 3 4

Even Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 34. Antiquities xiv. 2, 1: xvii. 9, 3.

483

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. |39S

probably added to fit the story into the death drama, and they have converted the story into a biographical legend.1 In Matthew and Mark this story is obviously an insert, for it breaks the narrative connection between the plot (1-2) and Judas' betrayal (10-11). Such erratic breaks and intrusions are more or less characteristic of the composition of the Second Gospel. In this particular insert Mark feels and writes as a dramatist, not as a historian or biographer. In imagination Mark transports the reader from the plots in Jerusalem to the seclusion of Bethany where Jesus spends the fourth day in Mark's Jerusalem calendar. The anointing at just this particular point in Mark has a dramatic purpose and function: it is the prelude or prologue to the death drama, setting the theme for the tragedy to follow. For Mark, the anointing is a prophetic symbol: it is Jesus' consecration to death and it has almost the force of a sacrament.2 Bethany figures prominently in the Jerusalem story of Mark: it is the scene of the ovation on Jesus' arrival, the place of nightly retreat, and the scene of the anointing. The house and name of Simon the leper have no importance for the story. It is strange, however, that the woman remains anonymous; a lasting memorial for a nameless person is almost an anomaly. The woman's reason for anointing Jesus is not even touched upon, and her action is narrated in a single sentence (3b). The remainder of the original story is dialogue (4-7), and the action in 3b seems to be designed specially to provoke the dialogue in 4-7. The story could end with verse 6,3 or with 7a.4 Verse 7b, "but me ye have not always," expresses a premonition of death, but it seems necessary to round out the comment in 6-7. 5 Verses 8-9 are generally regarded as a later addition. They make a different interpretation of the anointing and give it a new but weaker point. Verse 8a, "she hath done what she could," recalls Mk 12:44 but it is more appropriate spoken of the widow with the two mites than of this woman who brings a costly gift. Verse 8b is utterly christocentric and could have been written only by one who knew the end of the story. It makes the anointing an omen and a portent, an anticipation of the burial-anointing which never took place. Verse 9 seems to be the contribution of the editor of the Second Gospel, for it contains his favorite term the gospel in connection with the word "preach" as in 1:15 and 13:10. The gospel here seems to be an oral proclamation,6 not a written record,7 of which episodes and incidents from the life Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 283; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 296; et al. - Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 285f. " Cf. Dibelius, Die Botschaft von Jesus Christus, p. 130. 4 Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 317; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 299. 0 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 191f; Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, p. 199. " Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 109. 7 Cf. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 384f. 1

484

Β. 1f394

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

of Jesus have become a part. The statement implies that the anointing story has not always been a part of this oral gospel. In 14:9 the reader encounters the same Christian universalism he met in 13:10 —the gospel is preached in the whole world. Mt 26:6-13 reproduces Mark's story of the anointing with only incidental differences. Matthew does not mention the breaking of the cruse, and the act is less extravagant. The disciples, not even mentioned in Mark's version, are indignant and make the critical comment about the waste of the ointment — a reaction much less understandable on the part of disciples than on that of Mark's indefinite "some." Matthew makes some abridgements of the dialogue, and Jesus' words become sharper, his comments colder, than in Mark. Matthew speaks of "this gospel," perhaps including his own writing, as he did back in 24:14. Luke has no anointing of Jesus in his Jerusalem story or in his death drama. He may omit the anointing in Mark's order in view of his own anointing story reported back in 7:36-50 ( j f l l 3 ) . 8 Or, it may be that the anointing story was not in the non-Markan source used by Luke in his death drama.9 The disappearance of the anointing story at this late point in Luke is an improvement: the plot of the chief priests and Judas' betrayal are joined (22:1-6) as they should be. In Luke's Jerusalem story (or in his source) Bethany loses the prominence it has in Matthew and Mark. Luke associates only one incident with Bethany, the ovation on Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem. Luke's parallels to Mark's fourth day do not indicate the whereabouts of Jesus, and Luke reports no incidents involving Jesus and the disciples. The opponents have a clear field in Luke. 394. Judas Betrays Jesus Mt 26:14-16 Mk 14:10-11 Lk 22:3-6 Verses 10-11 should be joined to 1-2, not only because a natural sequence has been broken by the anointing story, but also because the two passages are related by nature. In both, the reader is taken behind the scenes to learn what the other actors in the story cannot have known at the time. Both are notices for the reader's information. Neither presents anything definite or concrete; both sketch rather than depict. Mark introduces Judas here with the same abruptness with which he has brought all the various actors into his story. Except for the appearance of his name at the end of the list of the twelve (3:19), this is the first mention of Judas in Mark's story. Mark did not report Judas' calling or the circumCf. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 6; Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 120. Cf. Β. and J. Weiss, Lukas, p. 614; F. Spitta, Jesus und die Heidenmission Töpelmann, 1909), p. 37; Grundschrift, p. 504. s

9

485

(Glessen:

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 3 9 4

stances of his joining the company of Jesus. He has noted no growing dissatisfaction on Judas' part and no discriminations against Judas on Jesus' part. Now suddenly, for some unknown reason, Judas emerges from the dim background to assume the role of betrayer. It is the same ungenetic treatment of actors and action which Mark has employed throughout his Gospel. In his portrayal of the role of Judas Mark is using the dramatic device of surprise and mounting tension. Mark does not show the least interest in satisfying the reader's natural curiosity. He gives no hint as to why Judas betrayed Jesus, not even a vague clue of what the betrayal actually consisted. Mark is as silent on Judas' motives as he is on what Judas could have known, said, or done to betray his Master. How Judas, by word or deed, contributed to Jesus' death is not clear here or in the story that follows. It is not clear how, or even that, Judas and his deed had any bearing on the course of events. There is nothing to indicate that the tragic issue could have been avoided, or in any way altered, if there had been no Judas and no betrayal. Judas may, as a matter of history, have betrayed Jesus. It is difficult to imagine that Judas and his role are pure invention, for both were a source of painful embarrassment which is repeatedly reflected in the tragic phrase, "Judas, one of the twelve." However, Mark's depiction of the role of Judas is imaginative and dramatic rather than historical. Disloyalty and treason within his own following enhances the tragic situation of the hero. In his fleeting appearances Judas adds mystery and enhances the tragic quality of the death drama. It is almost as difficult to relate this sudden appearance of Judas to what follows as it is to what precedes. Six verses later (17) it is assumed that Judas is among the twelve at the table. In 18-21 Jesus speaks of the betrayer for the first time and as though the betrayal were yet to come and had not already been accomplished. In 43 Judas is introduced as "one of the twelve" as though he were making his first appearance in the story; he confronts Jesus out of nowhere, yet there has been no notice of Judas separating himself from Jesus or the rest of the disciples. Judas adds color, increases interest and tension, but his actual historical role remains a moral mystery, a psychological puzzle. The details of his speech and action are the product of creative writing with the aid of suggestions from the Old Testament (Ps 41:9; 55:12-13). Mark's two-sentence account of the betrayal leaves Judas to bear full responsibility for his deed; there is no apology. The money seems to be an afterthought, not the motive for the betrayal or an adequate explanation of it. Mark seems to suggest that Judas conveyed certain information which furnished a case against Jesus, but there is no hint as to what Judas could have known to betray. Mark's extreme vagueness in this initial appearance of Judas may indicate that Mark's notice is not based on any actual knowl-

486

Β. 1Τ395

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

edge but is simply an inference drawn from Judas' appearance at the scene of the arrest (14:43) and prepares the way for it. 10 Mt 26:14-16 dramatizes, introducing Judas in a speaking role, where Mark generalizes and sketches. Matthew enhances Judas' guilt and the blackness of his deed. Money becomes the motive for the betrayal, and Judas actually bargains with Jesus' enemies — an apocryphal embellishment. Matthew even knows the betrayal price. The thirty pieces of silver, like the colt and its mother in 21:5 (Zech 9 : 9 ) , are from Zechariah (11:12), and another bit of prophecy is transformed into an item of history. In Matthew the mercenary motive is so emphatic that the suggestion of incriminating information conveyed virtually disappears. Lk 22:3-6. Most critics 1 1 feel that Luke here is simply reproducing Mark's parallel with one principal variation ( 3 a ) . Luke agrees with Mark that the money is secondary and in the suggestion of incriminating evidence furnished. However, Luke here may be following his special non-Markan source. 12 In the principal item Luke disagrees with Mark; he has an altogether different conception of the nature of the betrayal: "Satan entered into Judas," the same conception found in the Gospel of John (13:2, 27a). In Luke Judas is no longer a responsible agent; Satan is the real betrayer; Judas is his unfortunate victim — a purely theological and unhistorical explanation. This intervention of supernatural forces into the death drama is not confined to this one instance in Luke. It appears in the prediction of the betrayal (22:22) and of the failure of Simon's faith (22:31) and in the story of the arrest (22:53b). The "captains," apparently the temple police, are also a non-Markan item in Luke's death story (22:52). 395. The Preparation for the Passover Mt 26:17-19 Mk 14:12-16 Lk 22:7-13 Mk 14:12 brings the reader to the fifth day of Mark's Jerusalem story, Thursday, the least eventful of the six and involving only one incident. Jesus is still outside the city as he has been since 13:3 — the beginning of the end of Mark's third day, Tuesday. Only in flights of the imagination can the reader follow Mark's kaleidoscopic story. He is transported from the conspiracy of the chief priests and Judas' betrayal back to the hero and his group who plan and prepare quietly and normally for a religious festival as though no threat existed from without or from within. Only a feeling for drama on the part of writer and reader can join such disjointed action into a harmonious whole. This story is plainly a companion-piece to Mk 11:1-9 (||319). The conCf. Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 308; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 297. Even Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 35. " Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 374f; Β. and J. Weiss, Lukas, p. 215. 10

11

487

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 3 9 5

ception and the depiction, as well as the technique employed, are the same in both stories. The supernatural prevision, the precise prediction of details, and their literal fulfillment are identical. This miracle of foreknowledge simply duplicates the earlier one. If there is any difference, the writer's imagination here is even more active and fertile than on the former occasion. Such precision in circumstantial prediction and detailed fulfillment is frequent in fairy-tale and legend (I Sam 10:2-9), for the simple reason that such belongs to the realm of fancy rather than to that of fact. Again (14:1) there is no distinction between the sacrifice of the Passover on the fourteenth of Nisan and the first day of unleavened bread on the fifteenth.1 The story in 12-16, however, is built up around the ritual of the fourteenth, and this has a bearing on all that remains of the death drama. Along with the notice of evening in 17, it dates the events of the last twentyfour hours on the fifteenth of Nisan. The result is endless chronological confusion and hopeless historical difficulty, for the arrest and trial and death of Jesus come on the first day of one of the most sacred of Jewish festivals as though in violation and defilement of it. In this story of the preparation for the Passover the narrator is looking ahead. He is writing an introduction; what he narrates is preliminary. But 12-16 introduces a story that is never told and it prepares for an event that does not take place: the celebration of the Passover by Jesus and his disciples.2 The word "Passover" is used four times in 12-16, but the meal which follows is not the Jewish Passover but something wholly un-Jewish, the Christian sacrament of the Lord's Supper. In the table scene which follows there is only one faint echo of the Passover ritual, the hymn in 14:26. Lk 22:7-13 is one of the rare approaches to Mark and his text in Luke's death drama, and it may be a Markan insert into Luke's non-Markan version of that drama.3 After his introduction ( 7 - 8 ) , Luke reproduces Mark's text almost verbatim as he did in the earlier miracle of prevision (19:29-36). In his introduction Luke goes his own way. The two anonymous disciples of Mark become Peter and John in Luke — a new development natural in the growth of legend. One might think that Luke already had in mind the early chapters of Acts where these two apostles are in the foreground of the story. In Luke, too, it is Jesus, not the disciples ( Matthew and Mark ), who takes the initiative in the preparation for the Passover. In Luke this preparation is in closer harmony with what follows and to some extent preliminary to it, for in his first utterance at the table in Luke ( 15-16 ) Jesus speaks of the meal as "this passover." 1 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 813fl. -Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 169. Cf. Β. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums, p. 216; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 376.

488

Β.H396-448

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Mt 26:17-19. Matthew is closer to Mark in his introduction than at any other point in the story, yet even here he deviates from Mark in that all the disciples seem to be sent to prepare for the Passover, not a delegation of two as in Mark (and Luke). In the remainder of the story Matthew makes the same abridgement and revision which he made in the case of the earlier miracle of prevision (21:1-6). Matthew removes all suggestion of miracle but he retains the element of mystery. Jesus' instructions in Matthew almost suggest prearrangement, "Go into the city to such a man" — an instruction so specific that one almost expects the man's name. The message, "My time is at hand," reads almost like a code or signal previously agreed upon, and it has a Johannine ring to it (Jn 7:30; 8:20; 13:1). Matthew's briefer, non-miraculous version of this story is just as puzzling as his earlier one in 21:1-6 (|f319). If Matthew's version is a revision of Mark, it is a strange one: the later secondary version (Matthew) is less spectacular than the earlier one ( Mark ). However, it may be that Matthew has the earlier and more authentic version while Mark has a later legendary form.4 Matthew's story of the preparation, like that of Mark, has no proper sequel; it is followed by a Christian sacrament, not by the Jewish Passover. K396-448

Mt 26:20 - 27:66

Mk 1 4 : 1 7 - 1 5 : 4 7

Lk 22:14 - 23:56

With Mk 14:17 the reader comes into the last twenty-four hours of Jesus' life, so-called Good Friday. This sixth day includes the events on Thursday evening, the beginning of the Jewish Friday. Mark's account of these closing events takes the form of pure dramatic composition in five scenes: the supper, Gethsemane, the Jewish trial, the Roman trial, and the crucifixion. In these scenes Mark's dramatic depiction reaches its height. The action, the dialogue, and the discourse in these scenes are so detailed, the role of the actors so clearly defined, that the whole can be reënacted on the stage. These same five scenes reappear in Matthew and Luke with Matthew very close to Mark and with Luke going his own independent way and following his own non-Markan version and treatment of them.6 THE SUPPER SCENE

Mt 26:20-35

Mk 14:17-31

Lk 22:14-39

f396-409

The supper scene proper in Mark is very brief; it includes only two incidents: the designation of the betrayer and the extension of the bread and the wine. Matthew reproduces Mark's account line for line, almost word for word, but he does contribute one new legendary feature in 26:25. * Cf Bleek, Synoptische Erklärung, II, 404. Cf Β. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums, p. 216.

5

489

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. f 3 9 6

Luke's independence of Mark in the supper scene is clear in three things: he reports the same two incidents that Mark does but in reverse order; in these two parallels Luke has his own independent text; Luke adds a new feature to the supper scene, a series of farewell words to the disciples which seem to be primarily of non-Markan origin (Lk 22:24-38). 396. At the Table with the Twelve Mt 26:20 Mk 14:17 Lk 22:14 Mark makes the closest possible chronological connection between the preparation and the meal itself, and the reader of 17 still expects to learn how Jesus and the disciples celebrated the Jewish Passover. The meal comes on the evening of the preparation; it is in the city, and it is consumed in private by those for whom it had been prepared — all in accordance with Passover ritual and custom. The meal reported by Mark, however, is not the Jewish Passover.1 As Mark moves from the preparation to the meal, the only change is from the disciples (12-16) to the twelve (17). The mention of the twelve takes no account of the absence of the two ( 13 ) in the city, unless the reader is to assume that they have rejoined Jesus in the meantime. The mention of the twelve also assumes that this group is still intact and that Judas is present at the table. If Judas actually betrayed Jesus two days earlier (14:10-11 T|394), it seems unlikely that he would have rejoined Jesus' company. This would accord better with the story of the arrest (43) which assumes that Judas has not been in Jesus' company in the immediate past. Judas' presence at the table after the betrayal may be simply a dramatic device of Mark for enhancing that disciple's duplicity and treachery. Mark, however, may have reported the betrayal too early. In the next verse ( 18 ) Jesus predicts the betrayal; it is yet to come. This would accord with Paul who has the betrayal and the supper come on one and the same night (I Cor 11:23). Verse 17 (along with 14:12 and 15:42) definitely dates both the supper and the crucifixion on Friday, the fifteenth of Nisan. Apart from other data, this date has its difficulties in Mark alone.2 An arrest, trial, and execution would desecrate the holy festival, although there are known exceptions. The attitude and actions of the Jewish authorities from this point on show no consciousness of restraint imposed by a high and holy day. Details in Mark's subsequent narrative would indicate that these last twenty-four hours did not fall on the fifteenth of Nisan but on an ordinary week-day: the absence of the lamb at the meal, the ordinary bread ( 22 ), the leaving of the house and the city (26), the bearing of arms (47), Simon of Cyrene coming from the country (15:21), the preparations for the sabbath (15:42), and the purchase of the linen (15:46). 3 Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 294; Wellhausen, Marci, p. 108. Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 303. 3 Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 827ff; Dalman, Jesus-Jeschua, pp. 86-98. 1 2

490

Β.1396

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

The Gospel of John dates Jesus' death on Friday the fourteenth of Nisan, twenty-four hours earlier than Mark and the other two Synoptists. In the Gospel of John there can be no celebration of the Passover, for Jesus dies while it is being prepared. However, it is possible that this difference in date between John and the Synoptics involves no actual contradiction. It may be due to the difference of a day in the reckoning of the feast calendar between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.4 It is possible, even plausible, that the days and dates at the end of the Gospel story rest on no reliable historical tradition, but have been determined entirely by religious considerations. Christian tradition may have set the institution of the Lord's Supper on the fifteenth of Nisan because it was the Christiah counterpart to the Jewish Passover and, in Christian practice, supplanted it. The fourteenth of Nisan as the date for Jesus' death in the Gospel of John has the appearance of being deliberately chosen on purely dogmatic grounds: Jesus becomes the eternal Paschal Lamb slain once for all ( I Cor 5:7). The Christian tradition that Jesus rose from the dead "on the third day" takes Friday (Mk 15:42), the day of Jesus' death, as the starting-point. However, another primitive Christian tradition set the resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week, and Friday as the day of Jesus' death may have been calculated backward from it.5 Jesus probably died around the Passover season. The day of the week and the date of the month, both for the supper and the crucifixion, remain matters of historical uncertainty.® Mt 26:20 retains Mark's close temporal connection with the preparation. Matthew's narrative, like that of Mark, does not follow the disciples on their errand (26:19) nor does it remain with Jesus during their absence. There is no notice of the return of the disciples or of Jesus going into the city. There is simply an empty interval between verses 19 and 20. Lk 22:14. Luke mentions "the hour," not evening. He, too, leaves the reader's imagination to carry him over the gap between the preparation and the meal. He also uses his favorite term the apostles (6:14; 9:10; 17:5; 24:10), perhaps because the two most prominent, Peter and John, were singled out for the errand into the city (22:8). According to Streeter 7 and Taylor 8 the death drama of Proto-Luke begins with Lk 22:14 and Proto-Luke remains Luke's source to the end of his Gospel except for a few secondary inserts from Mark. Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 827ff. Cf. Feigel, Der Einfluss des Weissagungsbeweises, p. 61f; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 170. ® Cf. Guignebeit, Jesus, p. 426; Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu, p. 31f. 7 Cf. The Four Gospels, p. 216. 8 Cf. The Third Cospel, p. 175. According to Taylor, Proto-Luke, allowing for minor Markan inserts, would include complete: Lk 3 : 1 - 4 : 3 0 + 5:1-11 + 6:12-19 + 6 : 2 0 - 8 : 3 + 9:51 - 1 8 : 1 4 + 19:1-28 + 19:37-44 + 19:47-48 + 22:14 to the end of the Gospel. 4

5

491

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 3 9 7

397. The Designation of the Betrayer Mt 26:21-25 Mk 14:18-21 Lk 22:21-28 POI What Jesus and the twelve are eating Mark does not state. From 12-17 the reader would naturally suppose it is the Passover meal. The common dish ( 20 ) might point to the Passover,1 or to just the opposite.2 This passage of Mark was once a separate and independent unit which has been superimposed on the supper scene on the last night. It predicts as future what is already past (14:10-11). Everything in 12-17, even in 18a, pointed to the meal, not to the betrayal, with the result that this startling announcement breaks into the supper scene. In 22-25 the bread and the wine are extended quietly as though no such disturbing prediction had been made. The prediction twice (18 and 20) associates itself with a table scene, and this supper on the last night is the only meal after the first appearance of the betrayer. Heretofore in Mark Jesus has spoken only in general terms of "being delivered up." Now he states specifically that he will be betrayed by one of the twelve, but the identity of the betrayer is not disclosed. The prediction has great solemnity, "Verily I say unto you," which is augmented by the repetition of the prediction in 20. The primary function of the question in 19, "Is it I?", is to provoke the repetition, for 20 does not answer the question. Verse 20 is strange, for it speaks of the twelve and is not addressed to them as was 18. Verse 21 sets itself off from what precedes. It is a piece of impersonal discourse, not a part of the dialogue in 18-20. In 18-20 Jesus spoke of himself as being betrayed; in 21 he speaks impersonally of the betrayal of the Son of man. In 18-20 the betrayer was one of the twelve and present; in 21 Jesus speaks of "that man," not necessarily one of the twelve or as even present. In form and structure 21 relates itself to 9:42 and it seems to be patterned after it. In its circle of ideas and the impersonal use of the term Son of man, it relates itself to the three formal prophecies of the passion. Here, however, the providential factor in the Son of man's destiny takes the form of the fulfillment of Scripture in general with no particular passage cited. Verse 21 expresses later Christian thought and theory and uses their terminology. It has the form of a prediction but actually it is retrospective. Back of this woe there seems to be some later Christian knowledge of a terrible fate which befell the betrayer. This dialogue is one of the best examples of dramatized dogma in the Gospel of Mark. There is more interest in Jesus' foreknowledge of the betrayal than in the betrayal itself. Jesus is spared an error of judgment; he was not deceived in Judas. Judas himself is a dogmatic figure; there is no real human or historical interest in him. He is the predestined instrument of Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. I l l ; Hauck, Markus, p. 168. " Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 284; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 301.

1

492

Β.H398-400

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Providence and yet, paradoxically, he bears full moral responsibility for his deed. The episode has no natural narrative ending, only a dogmatic conclusion ( 21 ). This announcement is not meant as an appeal to Judas; it is a proclamation of the inevitable. The effect on the betrayer is not noted, and the other disciples make no effort to forestall him. Human intervention is useless. Judas is playing his part in a divine drama in which human and historical factors are instruments, not active agents and causes. This episode is a "faith-legend" 3 inspired by apologetical motives. The details may have been suggested by Ps 41:9. The devices used are familiar in drama. Jesus now knows and states what the reader has known since 14:10-11. The reader also knows what Jesus does not disclose and what the disciples have yet to learn —the identity of the betrayer. This dialogue deepens the shadow which falls over the betrayer: under pretense of loyalty he remains with his Master until the last moment. Mt 26:21-25. Matthew omits the specification, "It is one of the twelve." It is unnecessary in view of 25, for Judas is one of the twelve. Verse 24 is an interruption in Matthew; 25 should join on to 23, for it continues that dialogue. Matthew dramatizes even beyond Mark, for the new expansion of the dialogue in 25 results in the exposure of Judas. Here the reader sees legend grow under his very eyes. This new addition by Matthew, however, creates an impossible situation. Judas does not leave the table but remains to share in the sacrament of the bread and the wine. The other disciples know who the betrayer is but, as in Mark, they make no effort to forestall him. Mt 25 represents the transition stage from Mark to the final form of the legend in Jn 13:21-30 where Judas leaves the table after his exposure. Luke (and his source) has the designation of the betrayer after the bread and the wine (22:21-23 fl401), not before as do Matthew and Mark. P98-400

Mt 26:26-29

Mk 14:22-25

Lk 22:15-20

In the Synoptic tradition there are three different accounts or texts of the bread and the wine at the table on the last night: (1) the Matthew-Markan text in Mk 14:22-25 and Mt 26:26-29 (fl398); (2) the Lukan-A text in Lk 22:15-18 (|f399); (3) the Pauline Lukan-B text in Lk 22:19-20 (H400). These three texts have essential elements in common, yet each is sufficiently distinctive in itself to assure its separate identity and independence. 398. The Last Supper Mt 26:26-29 Mk 14:22-25 Lk 22:18-20 ^399-400 This unit of Mark begins exactly like the preceding ( 18 ), "And as they were eating." This would indicate that the two passages were originally separate and independent of each other and not joined as they are now in 3

Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 185.

493

JESUS AND T H E

FIRST THREE

GOSPELS

B. 1 3 9 8

Mark. In their original isolation each was associated with a meal, and this may have led to their being joined as a part of the supper scene on the last night. Apart from the fact that it is a table episode, the extension of the bread and the wine has no natural connection with what precedes. In fact, it ignores what has just been narrated. The meal proceeds quietly as though the shocking announcement about the betrayer had not been made. If the prediction of the betrayal be deleted, the passage follows just as badly on 12-17. Verses 12-17 were leading up to the celebration of the Passover, but 22-25 do not depict a Passover meal but something very different. In 22-25 there is no reference to the Passover lamb, the bitter herbs, the four cups, or the unleavened bread (azuma). The bread here is ordinary bread (artos). In 22-24 Mark records symbolic acts and comments which interpret them — acts and comments which are too un-Jewish to be ascribed to Jesus or to have had any meaning for his Jewish disciples. The bread and the wine have become sacramental symbols for something that lies in the past, Jesus' death, which the comments interpret as sacrificial. Such symbolism in word and deed would have meaning only for those who had been already initiated into the mystery of Jesus' death and the religious cult build up around it. Mark here is giving his version of the later Christian sacrament which has reached an advanced but not fully developed stage. Mark's emphasis is on last: it is a farewell, a parting meal. This Markan text is primarily narrative, but the language is beginning to acquire liturgical form and balance: "This is my body"; "This is my blood." It is, however, not yet the perfectly formed and balanced liturgy of I Cor 11:23-25 and Lk 22:19-20. In Mark the final liturgical step to completed cult has not been taken: "This do in remembrance of me." Mark here is not writing with a free creative hand. He seems to be transmitting an older sacramental formula which may represent the religious rite as it was practiced in the Christian circles of Mark and his readers. Mk 14:22-24 is a "cult-legend." 1 It carries a later Christian sacrament back into the life of Jesus and founds it on his words and actions. Verse 25 sets itself off from 22-24. It is genuinely Jewish, while 22-24 is wholly Christian. In 22-24 Jesus is the host; he presides. In 25 he speaks of himself as a guest, as one who will participate in the festivities of the kingdom. Verse 25 depicts what will happen once for all, the cosmic consummation; it precludes the repetition implicit in 22-24 through Christian practice. The words on the bread and the wine are retrospective; they comment on the past. Verse 25 pertains entirely to the future and is wholly eschatological. It relates itself organically to Jesus' religious faith, outlook, and message from the beginning (1:15). Verse 25 could be a final authentic pledge of Jesus, a parting promise, made at an ordinary last meal or at the Passover.2 »Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 185. 2 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 3 1 ) , p. 285f; Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte p. 27.

494

Jesu,

Β. 1399-400

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Verses 22-24 fill in the greatest gap in Mark's story. It is something secondary and Christian which has suppressed something Jewish, authentic, and historical. It may have suppressed the account of the celebration of the Passover by Jesus and his disciples, or it may have suppressed what Jesus said and did spontaneously at an ordinary private meal with the disciples on the last night. Next to Paul, Mark ( Matthew also ) is farthest from what Jesus could have done and said and meant with the bread and wine on the last night. In Mk 14:22-25 only shattered remnants of anything Jewish or historical remain: 22 And as they were eating, . . . 23 he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them; and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, . . . 25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God. Such a deleted text eliminates the Christian elements, preserves a Jewish nucleus, and brings Mark very close to Lk 22:15-18. Mt 26:26-29. Matthew reproduces Mark with great faithfulness. This is natural, for this Markan passage virtually amounts to a last will and testament from Jesus. Matthew improves the liturgical form and balance of the passage by the parallel commands: "Eat," "Drink." The whole in Matthew has a more resonant phrasing. The drinking, a part of the narrative in Mark, becomes a command of Jesus in Matthew. Matthew adds "unto the remission of sins," making explicit what is implicit in Mark. Matthew avoided this idea in connection with the message of John back in 3:2. Matthew also adds the phrase "with you" in 29, emphasizing the reunion with the disciples in the new order, a prospect less evident in Mark's parallel (14:25). In Matthew and Mark the supper scene proper is over except for the hymn (Mt 26:30; Mk 14:26). 1Ϊ399-400

Lk 22:15-20

Luke's full account of the bread and the wine is composite: two very different versions have been joined: the Lukan-A text in 22:15—18 ( jf399) and the Pauline Lukan-B text in 22:19-20 (ÏÏ400). The presence of two accounts is clear at once in the two cups (17 and 20), one for each account. But it is clear primarily in the wholly different nature of the two accounts, so different that they must have different religious backgrounds and origins: 15-18 is Jewish; 19-20 is Christian. At few points in the Synoptic tradition have such disparate and incongruous materials been brought together. Luke seems to have had a choice of three different versions of the symbolic eating and drinking on the last night: the two accounts which he joins and the

495

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. Tf399

Markan account which he ignores entirely. In Luke's day and Christian circle the text of the sacramental supper was not yet fixed but was in a fluid, formative state.3 399. The Passover Cup Lk 22:15-18 Mt 26:27-29 = Mk 14:23-25 fl398 Luke is the only Synoptic writer who, to any extent, meets the reader's expectations in the light of what has preceded (22:7-14 |}395 ). The initiative assumed by Jesus in the preparation for the Passover ( 8 ) is now carried out in his opening words at the table. In 15-18 Jesus and his disciples are eating the Passover meal planned and prepared for in 7-14. Jesus himself designates the meal as the Passover: "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you." These words are strongly Hebraic and are charged with deep emotion. In their style and tensity they recall the strong figures of fire and baptism in 12:49-50 (fl256). The phrase "before I suffer" introduces the tragic note and converts the whole saying into "biographical legend." 1 For some critics,2 this phrase alters the situation completely. They feel that it expresses resignation to a disappointed hope: Jesus expects to die before the Passover. The plan to eat the Passover has been frustrated, perhaps by the betrayer (21-23). This Lukan-A text has only the most general liturgical features: the eating and the comment in the first half (15-16) conform exactly to the drinking and the comment in the second half (17-18). This Lukan-A text gives the most Jewish, the most natural, and the most authentic account of the supper scene. Jesus and his disciples appear here in a natural Jewish scene and setting, celebrating a sacred Jewish festival. Like the head of the Jewish household, Jesus presides at this ancient cult. There is not the faintest suggestion that he is instituting a new religious rite or sacrament. This account is exclusively eschatological, doubly so over that of Mark. Not only the cup but the whole meal is related to the coming of the kingdom. In this account the Passover meal has not been supplanted by the sacramental bread of the Christian cult. The cup is one of the four cups, perhaps the first, passed during the Passover meal. In this text there is no trace of later Christian theology. The sacraments are not related in any way to Jesus' sacrificial death. This last Passover is simply a preliminary to the feast in the kingdom of God.3 If Jewishness and naturalness of background have anything to do with historical reliability in the Synoptic tradition, then it is to be conceded that Lk 22:15-18 gives the most authentic account of what Jesus must have done Cf. 'Cf. 2 Cf. 3 Cf. 3

Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 15. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 286. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 376f; Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 37. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 121; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 207.

496

Β. 1400-401

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

and said and meant at the table on the last night. This text of Luke is so far from the Christian cult of the Lord's Supper that it is surprising that it survived at all. This remoteness accounts perhaps for what follows immediately in 19-20. 400. The Lord's Supper Lk 22:19-20 Mt 26:26-28 = Mk 14:22-24 fl398 This may be called the Pauline Lukari-B text because it agrees almost verbatim with Paul's text in I Cor 11:23-25 and because it is Luke's second account of the symbolic eating and drinking on the last night. There is no evidence to show that Luke knew and borrowed from Paul's letters. Luke and Paul, independently, are simply reproducing the liturgical formula already in use in Christian worship in their circles. Luke's chief difference from Paul is that the commemorative formula is not repeated in the case of the cup. This text is no longer narrative but ritual in the most solemn language. Jesus is inaugurating a new religious rite to be repeated in his personal memory. It agrees with the Matthew-Markan text in that it associates the bread and the wine with Jesus' sacrificial death. In this text the reader encounters pure Christian cult, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Nothing Jewish remains, not even a faint echo of the Passover. There is no eschatological turn of thought in Luke's version; in Paul the religious outlook associated with the sacrament is wholly Christian: till the Lord comes (I Cor 11:26). This text was the first to acquire written form, but it is the farthest from what Jesus could have done and said and meant with the bread and the wine on the last night. And yet this text is the one that has established itself in the official practice and observance of the church. Verses 19-20 are commonly regarded as a later insert into Luke. 1 They give an exclusively Christian version of the meal which contradicts the Jewish version in 15-18. The cup in 20 repeats the cup in 17 and gives it a very different meaning. The fact that the second cup comes "after the supper" shows awareness of the repetition. Verses 19-20 break the excellent connection between 15-18 and 21-23. The designation of the betrayer relates itself to the clause, "before I suffer." Verses 19b-20 are not found in some MSS of Luke (D, it), leaving 19a a stray fragment or a form nearer that assumed in the Didache (ix) in which the bread precedes the cup. 401. The Designation of the Betrayer Lk 22:21-23 Mt 26:21-25 = Mk 14:18-21 fl397 Luke may have the prediction of the betrayal after the supper in order not to break the connection between the preparation for the Passover (7-14) 'Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 378; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 286.

497

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. |402

and its celebration (15-18). The unnatural arrangement in Mark highlights the betrayal, before the supper. The arrangement in Luke highlights the meal itself, leaving the betrayal incidental. The prediction after the supper makes Judas' participation in the meal more intelligible. In any case, Luke is probably following the arrangement of materials in his non-Markan source. Verses 21-23 should join on to 15-18.1 The same mood of resignation expresses itself in both passages. The connection with 19-20 is not good.2 Some critics 3 find traces of Markan influence in Lk 22, even in 23, but a clear case can be made for the non-Markan origin of Lk 21-23. Luke's version is pure discourse; there is no dialogue between Jesus and the disciples (Mark). In Luke the disciples question among themselves; they do not question Jesus (Mark). Mark has a double prediction of the betrayal (18 and 20); Luke has just one (21). Luke is thinking in terms of the agency of supernatural forces (22:3, 31, 53), "as it hath been determined," not in terms of the fulfillment of Scripture (Mark). Luke agrees with Mark against Matthew in only one item: the identity of the betrayer is not disclosed. The differences between Mark and Luke here are the usual differences when Luke is using a non-Markan form of the same material. Lk 22:24—38 402-407. This expansion of the supper scene may go back to Luke's non-Markan source. It is a series of disjointed sayings only loosely strung together. They are not even harmonious in the theme and tone of parting. In this series non-Markan matter predominates, and there are rather clear traces of Q. In so far as Matthew and Mark have parallels, they occur in earlier and different connections. In these farewell words Luke stands at an intermediate stage between Matthew and Mark, who have none, and the Gospel of John which presents a farewell address of major proportions (chapters 14-17). 402. A Contention concerning Rank Lk 22:24 In this little notice Luke is not thinking of what he has just reported, for the connection with what precedes is psychologically inconceivable. The announcement about the betrayer could only have been humiliating, not stimulating, to the disciples. In 24 Luke is thinking of what is to come ( 2527). In every instance of its occurrence Jesus' saying on service is associated with some show of selfishness on the part of the disciples. Luke here is thinking perhaps of no particular instance of contention,1 and he needed no source for this notice beyond his own editorial ingenuity. The notice suggests conventionality rather than originality. It is a verbatim repetition of Lk 9:46 Cf. Cf. 'Cf. 1 Cf. 1 2

Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 378; Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 31. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 516. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 40; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 160. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 397.

498

Β. ΤΤ403—á04

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

(Mk 9:33-34 T[190). Luke here is recording and editing traditions; he is not reporting events. 403. Service as the Test of Greatness Lk 22:25-27 Mt 20:25-28 = Mk 10:42-^5 fl315 Mt 23:11 f347; Mk 9:35b = Lk 9:48b fll90 This passage may be a compensation for Mk 10:42—45 (|J315), a unit in Mark's journey to Jerusalem which Luke did not reproduce. The figures of sitting and serving at table seem to explain why this utterance is a part of Luke's supper scene; it was probably a part of this scene in Luke's nonMarkan source. Luke may be giving the Q form of this saying, for it differs from the Markan form as the Q form of discourse material usually does in wording and thought. In Mark service is the way to greatness; in Luke there are already gradations in rank, the greater and the lesser. Verse 26 of Luke reads more like an admonition to heads of an organized religious group than it does to contemporary disciples with no gradation in rank among them. In Luke Jesus' whole life work is one of service; there is no dogmatic expansion about his death as "a ransom for many" (Mk 10:45). Luke's reference to the political powers is much more ironical than that of Mark. The term Benefactors as an honorific title for pagan rulers is found in numerous inscriptions.1 Such worldly knowledge is so rare in the utterances ascribed to Jesus that it should perhaps be ascribed to Luke.2 Verse 27 is a discourse fragment not necessarily organic to 25-26. Verse 27a is an analogy which approaches parable-form. Verse 27b is a christocentric comment: Jesus sets his own life and work as an example. Such would be more natural in early Christian thought than in Jesus' own mind. It can be reset in the third person as a later Christian assertion: "He is in the midst of you (us) as one that serveth." At one time 27b may have had a narrative antecedent which told of some act of Jesus on which it was a comment.3 The story of the washing of the disciples' feet in Jn 13:1-15 has been suggested.4 The exact reverse, however, may have been true: 27b along with 12:37 may have been the germ-cell from which the story of the washing of the disciples' feet sprang. That story, found only in John, could easily be a dramatization of Lk 22:27b.B 404. Thrones for the Twelve Lk 22:28-30 Mt 19:28 fl311 The very tone of this passage places it among the farewell words, for it has the form and force of a last will and testament. It would seem, however, Cf. ' Cf. 8 Cf. 4 Cf. 5 Cf. 1

Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 253. E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 145. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 4Θ8. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 225. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, II, 317f; Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 243.

499

J E S U S AND T H E

FIRST THREE

GOSPELS

B. 1f405

to belong earlier when the circle of the twelve was still unbroken, for this promise takes no account of the defection of Judas. It is of a wholly different spirit from the preceding saying on service; here there is precedence and preference for the select few. The note of gratitude to the twelve stands in sharp contrast to the recent prediction of the betrayal and the prediction of Simon's failure which follows.1 However, 28 may be the editorial work of Luke. 2 It is not an appropriate retrospect, for Luke has not depicted Jesus' public life as an unbroken series of temptations. Verse 28 has more the nature of a later Christian observation on the order of Heb 2:18 and 4:15. Matthew (19:28 1|311) inserted his parallel into a Markan unit as a part of the journey to Jerusalem. Matthew's form is not that of a last will and testament; it is entirely eschatological with Jesus speaking of the Son of man objectively. In Luke's version the term Son of man does not occur and the passage is wholly egocentric ("my temptations," "my table," "my kingdom"). Verse 30a, without parallel in Matthew, may be a later addition, for it introduces confusion into the figurative speech: sitting at tables and sitting on thrones are hardly compatible.3 It may have been intended to adapt the saying as a whole to the table scene and setting. The passage is certainly from Q, and it supports the conjecture that Q may have contained the death drama and that Luke may be reproducing the Q version of that drama. Doubt has been cast upon this passage as an authentic word of Jesus because it would seem more appropriate as a promise of the Risen Lord. 4 It has the nature of a later Christian formulation which assumes that the college of the twelve is already an official body constituted with the highest authority. If it is of later Christian origin, it must have come from JewishChristian circles, for it is ultra-Jewish in horizon, color, and literalism. This Q passage stands in sharp contrast to an earlier Markan passage. In Mk 10:40 Jesus disclaimed both the power and the authority to assign places and posts of honor, but here he confers them freely and fully upon the favored few. The first two of Luke's farewell words were addressed to the disciples as a group. The two which follow single out one member of the group, Simon Peter. 405. Special Supplication for Simon Lk 22:31-32 This apostrophe to Simon comes from Luke's non-Markan source. The double vocative, "Simon, Simon," adds solemnity to the utterance (Lk 10:41), and such is frequent in Jewish and rabbinical usage. The authentic text 1 2 3 4

Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.

Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 626. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 96; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 211. Völter, Das messianische Bewusstsein Jesu, p. 17. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 245; Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu, p. 39; et al.

500

Β.1406-407

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

probably extends through 31-32a 1 which assumes that, in the sifting, Simon's faith has not failed; neither has Jesus' prayer for him. It shows no knowledge of Simon's denial; in fact, it seems to preclude it. Verse 32b seems to be a later addition adapting 31-32a to the denial tradition which follows (33-34). It concedes the failure both of Simon's faith and of Jesus' prayer for him. Even with this addition, 31-32 is a less harsh tradition on Simon's weakness than Mark's denial story, for it envisages Simon's rehabilitation and apostolic destiny. The Christian origin of 32b is clear in its ecclesiastical language, "Establish thy brethren," and in its retrospective point of view. It looks back on the completed career of the apostle and removes the sting from any momentary weakness by pointing out his later distinction as a Christian leader. Verses 31-32 may be only a non-Markan version of the Markan prediction of Simon's denial which follows.2 They announce in general what 33-34 predict in particular. The names Simon (31-32) and Peter (33-34) also point to independent traditions. Verses 31-32 betray a knowledge of the full Christian career of Simon; 33-34 do not see further than his denial. This non-Markan tradition introduces Satan into the destiny of Simon as the non-Markan conception in 22:3 introduced Satan into the destiny of Jesus and Judas. 406. Peter's Pledge - His Denial Foretold Lk 22:33-34 Mt 26:33-35 = Mk 14:29-31 fî409 Luke presents this exchange as dialogue continuous with 31-32 on which it elaborates. The reader learns the particular form which the failure of Simon's faith will take. This prediction is a much closer approach to Mark's tradition, and it may be only a revision of it.1 A good case can, however, be made for the non-Markan origin of 33-34. 2 In Luke this prediction comes at the table, not on the way to Gethsemane as in Mark. Luke's text seems independent of Mark, especially in 33. In Luke Simon does not repeat his pledge and the other disciples are not involved in a similar vow as they are in Mark. In omitting this vow of loyalty from the disciples Luke again is guarding their prestige. In particular he is preparing for an omission at the end of the story of the arrest — the notice about their desertion (Mk 14:50). 407. Purse and Sword Lk 22:35-38 This last of the farewell words at the table is a dialogue with the disciples as a group. It is obviously composite, made up of incoherent elements Cf. Cf. 'Cf. 2 Cf. 1 2

J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 499; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 288. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 499; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 210. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 161f. Rengstorf, Lukas, p. 231; Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 43.

501

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 4 0 8

(35-36, 37, 38) which do not join well together. Verses 35-36 seem to have a Q background,1 for they quote the Q mission instructions back in 10:4. Those instructions, however, were addressed to the seventy, not to the twelve as this reference clearly assumes. The meaning of 35-36 is not clear except that it is an imaginative way of dramatizing a changed situation which requires new measures. The passage expresses a feeling of foreboding in a grim and ironical mood. Verse 37 seems to be an insert, a detached comment, unrelated to its present context. Luke is the only Synoptic writer who brings Isaiah 53 to bear on Jesus' destiny (Acts 8:32-33). Verse 38 joins on to 35-36 by verbal association, the word "sword," but it has no logical connection with those verses. In 35-36 swords are yet to be procured; in 38 two disciples are already armed. In 35-36 each disciple will need a sword; in 38 two are enough for all. In 38a Luke may be preparing the way for the armed resistance in 50. In 38b, which seems to express exasperation with dullness, the discussion is broken off. 408. On the Way to Gethsemane Mt 26:30-32 Mk 14:26-28 Lk 22:39 The mention of the hymn is the only Jewish element in the supper scene of Mark (and Matthew). Apparently it refers to the second half of the Hallel (Ps 115-118) which, with the passing of the fourth cup, concluded the Passover meal. It assumes that the preceding meal was the Passover which actually it was not. The leaving of the house and the city also suggests that the meal was not a Passover. Ex 12:22 and Dt 16:7 prescribe that the celebrants remain in the house until morning. However, it is not at all certain that all of the ancient regulations were still strictly observed in the time of Jesus.1 In 26 Mark for the only time falls in with Luke's tradition on the place of nightly retreat, the mount of Olives, which is probably the older and more authentic tradition. The narrative of Mark could move directly from 26 to 32.2 The intervening verses (27-31) are secondary inserts in the form of dialogue built up of predictive materials. The primary function of 27 is to prepare for the desertion of the disciples in 50. The tradition of the desertion ( 50 ) is older than the prediction (27). Verse 27 has a twofold apologetical function. It endows Jesus with a foreknowledge of what is to come, and the Zechariah passage (13:7) softens the portrayal of the disciples in a cowardly moment: their desertion fulfilled Scripture. The text of the Zechariah passage is altered to suit the situation. The prediction itself, "All ye shall be offended," is of later Chris1 1 2

Cf. Β. and J. Weiss, Lukas, p. 626; Feine, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung, p. 65. Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 833f. Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 100; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 339; et al.

502

Β.1408

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

tian origin, and the Zechariah passage seems to be a still later addition to the prediction. Along with 28 it can be deleted leaving 27a to join on to 29. Verse 28 is an irrelevant insert and wholly out of place in its present context. 3 Along with 27b it breaks the natural connection between 27a and 29. Verse 28 predicts what is never fulfilled at the end of Mark's Gospel and, along with its counterpart in 16:7, it is responsible for the assumed mutilation or incompleteness of the Second Gospel. Verse 28 also tones down the tradition of the disciples' desertion. Their weakness was only temporary: they soon rallied again to the Risen Lord. The exact meaning of this prediction is not clear. It could mean that Jesus will be in Galilee before the disciples and will join them there, or that he will rally the disciples after his resurrection and lead them back to Galilee. It has been suggested that the Galilee mentioned here is not the northern province of Palestine but a small locality near Jerusalem. 4 This prediction of resurrection differs from all others and it introduces confusion, not only into them, but into Mark's meagre resurrection tradition ( 16:1-8). It promises an appearance of the Risen Jesus to the disciples and a reunion with them, something entirely new in Mark's resurrection predictions. Furthermore, this prediction is in the first person; Jesus speaks of his own resurrection, not indirectly and impersonally of that of the Son of man. This prediction (like 16:7) belongs to a different strain of Easter tradition than the three formal prophecies which dominated chapters 8-10. Mt 26:30-32 reproduces Mark almost verbatim but with greater specification and emphasis on one point: "All ye shall be offended in me this night." Lk 22:39. Luke's supper scene is ended, but he (or his source) makes no mention of the hymn, a notice which would be more appropriate in Luke ( 15-18 ) than it is in Matthew and Mark. Luke is consistent in the place of nightly retreat to the very end, the mount of Olives as indicated in 21:37. "As his custom was" is a favorite editorial phrase of Luke (4:16; Acts 17:2). Luke's non-Markan source apparently had no incident or episode on the way to "the place" ( 4 0 ) . Luke could not use the predictive material in Mk 14:27-28. He reports no desertion of the disciples at the scene of the arrest. If Luke is consulting Mark at all at this point in his story, his omission of this prediction (Mk 14:27) prepares the way for his omission of the sequel, the desertion itself (Mk 14:50). In Luke's tradition the disciples are not dispersed. The group 3 Cf. D. Volter, Die Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu: eine historischkritische Untersuchung (Strassburg: Heitz, 1910), p. 6; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 312; et al. 4 Cf. A. Resch, Das Galiläa bei Jerusalem: eine biblische Studie, ein Beitrag zur Palästinakunde (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910), p. 33; Rudolf Hofmann, Galiläa auf dem ölberg wohin Jesus seine Jünger nach der Auferstehung beschied (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1896), p. 22.

503

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B.|409-4l6

is intact in Jerusalem in his Easter story and in the early chapters of Acts. Luke could not possibly have used Mk 14:28. In his resurrection tradition Luke has no appearances of the Risen Jesus in Galilee; all are in and about Jerusalem. Luke here, in his independence of Mark, is thinking not only of what is to come in the final chapter of his Gospel ( 24 ), but he is setting the stage for the situation and action at the beginning of the Book of Acts. 409. Peter's Pledge - His Denial Foretold Mt 26:33-35 Mk 14:29-31 Lk 22:33-34 ||406 Peter's reply in 29 is to Jesus' prediction in 27a; it ignores the promise in 28 entirely. The detailed prediction of Peter's denial (30) is a solemn oracle, an inexorable decree of inescapable destiny.1 It is not a warning; such would be useless. There is no more human interest in the denier than there is in the betrayer ( 18-21 ). This is the last trace of the predictive materials which have dominated Mark's death drama (14-15) and the preparation for it ( 8-10 ). This dogmatic theme of Jesus' detailed prevision continues down to the point where the things foreseen and foretold begin to take shape in reality. This prediction (30) conforms so closely to the fulfillment (66-72) that it must have been patterned after the denial story itself. Such close conformity is possible in dramatic depiction rather than in reality. Peter's denial (66-72) is the primitive tradition; this prediction (30) is a secondary afterthought which adds color to this phase of the death drama and deepens Peter's disgrace. The vow of the disciples (31b) is an additional dramatic touch, highlighting the prediction of the desertion (27a) and its fulfillment (50). Mt 26:33-35 reproduces Mark almost verbatim, except for one item in which Matthew agrees with Luke (22:34) against Mark. In Mark the cock will crow twice, a detail carefully noted in the denial story itself. In Matthew and Luke the cock will crow (once) as it does in their version of the fulfillment. "Twice" may be a later addition to Mark, for it is not found in some MSS (D, it). In Luke (22:33-34) this prediction was made at the supper table, not on the way to the mount of Olives (Matthew and Mark). GETHSEMANE

Mt 26:36-56

Mk 14:32-52

Lk 22:40-53 f41(M16

This is the second of the five dramatic scenes with which Mark fills in the last twenty-four hours. From the historical point of view, it is the scene of Jesus' arrest (Mk 14:43-46 |f411), but Mark, with his dramatic and reli1

Cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 631.

504

Β. | 4 1 0

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

gious interest, features something else — Jesus' struggle with his fate in threefold prayer, the account of which is, in and of itself, a little dramatic composition (Mk 14:32-42 (fí410). Mt 26:36-56 reproduces Mark's Gethsemane scene unit for unit except the last (Mk 14:51-52 p i 6 ) , and he follows Mark's text faithfully, almost line for line and, more often than not, word for word. Matthew (26:50a and 52-54) contributes two new words of Jesus where Mark has none. Lk 22:40-53 has parallels to all but two units in Mark's Gethsemane scene (Mk 14:50,51-52 ^415-416), but in each case Luke's text is sufficiently independent of Mark to conclude on his use of a non-Markan source. 410. Jesus' Personal Struggle Mt 26:36-46 Mk 14:32-42 Lk 22:4(M6 The thread of Mark's narrative moves from 26 to 32a to 43. 1 This is the sequence actually followed in Jn 18:1-2: from table to garden to arrest with no intervening incidents. Mk 33-41 may have been once a single separate unit which Mark has fitted into the above sequence by adding 32b and 42: 2 Narrative Thread 32a

43

Editorial Links 32b 42

Separate Unit

33-41

This story of Mark represents a departure. Heretofore Mark has noted that Jesus retreated to a desert place (1:35) or to a mountain (6:46), "and there prayed." Down to this point Mark has been satisfied with such general notices and he has not undertaken to depict details and report prayers. In Gethsemane, however, the desire for detail outdoes itself and produces a scene that amounts almost to a presumption: the emotional upheaval, the physical prostration, the repeated retreats, and the sleeping disciples. The prayer which Mark ascribes to Jesus possesses beauty, purity, and solemnity, but it can better be accepted as an expression of a general frame of Jesus' religious mind than as an actual utterance of submission on one particular occasion. The whole scene strikes deep into the reader's emotions, but if Mark had observed his usual reticence and sobriety in connection with Jesus' prayer life, a verse and a half would have sufficed: 32 And they come unto a place which was named Gethsemane. . . . 35 And Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 120. "Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 390; Bultmann, Geschichte 1

505

(1921), p. 162.

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B.1410

he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed (that, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him). This story relates itself to that weaker strain of materials in Mark which has allowed Jesus, now and then, to appear in a very human light. It stands in sharp contrast with that far stronger strain which has portrayed Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God. This Gethsemane struggle also stands in open contradiction to the three formal prophecies of the passion. Jesus' attitude here implies that it is still possible for the hour to pass away; his death is not an inexorable divine decree. The Gethsemane scene, even if it is pure fiction, is nearer history than the three dogmatic prophecies with their cold and stoical indifference toward death. At this late point the reader realizes fully that those three prophecies were for his benefit, to prepare him for the tragic end; they were not for the benefit of the actors in the story, either Jesus or the disciples. The Gethsemane struggle relates itself better to the figure of the cup (10:38) which finds an echo here. This story is characterized by its redundancies and confusion. ( 1 ) Jesus' perturbed emotions are described twice, first in narrative (33), then in discourse (34). ( 2 ) "The small and exclusive triumvirate from the college of the twelve" 3 ( Peter, James, and John ) is introduced in 33 only to disappear from the rest of the story. On his first return ( 37 ) Jesus addresses himself to Simon only, and from 38 on, Jesus' words seem to be addressed to all the disciples. There is no notice of Jesus rejoining the three, or with the three rejoining the rest of the disciples. ( 3 ) Jesus' prayer is reported twice, first in indirect (35), then in direct (36) discourse. If one follows the law of tradition, its known tendency to become increasingly definite and specific, the substance of the prayer in 35 must be older and more anthentic than the formulated prayer in 36. 4 Furthermore, in 35 death is "the hour"; in 36 it is "the cup." ( 4 ) Verse 38 is probably an insert. It shifts suddenly from the second person singular ( 37 ) to the second person plural. It reads more like an admonition to Christians generally than a word of Jesus to his disciples on any particular occasion. The antithesis of flesh and spirit is Pauline ( Gal 5:16ff) rather than Synoptic.5 ( 5 ) 41b introduces the dogma of the Son of man and his fate. It is an observation of the writer rather than an authentic utterance of Jesus. (6) The story from 38 on is in confusion. This is evident in the strange sequence of commands from Jesus: "Watch" (38); "Sleep on now" ( 41 ) ; "Arise, let us be going" ( 42 ). The story has the conventional threefold structure of ancient drama. Its development is unusual in that it includes no dialogue. It is developed entirely by action and speech on the part of Jesus. The disciples are secondary characters who play a silent, impassive role. Their sleeping portrays their " Strauss, New Life of Jesus, II, 32Θ. * Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 162. 6 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 171; Klostermann, Markus, p. 167.

506

Β.1410

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

lack of comprehension and provokes the monologues placed on the lips of Jesus. Mark's Gethsemane story belongs to hagiography rather than to history. The writer is not recording the report of any possible eyewitnesses. The whole is creative writing for the sake of effect. The author projects himself into an imagined situation and depicts what no one heard or saw. The emotional excesses are to be ascribed to lyrical distortion.6 The key-utterance, the prayer (36), belongs to the realm of rhetorical distortion: 7 the author supplies words which he feels are appropriate for the occasion. In this Mark's instinct has been almost perfect. The words, "Abba, Father," are an early Christian prayer formulary (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15). The rest of the prayer is simply the third petition of the Lord's Prayer expanded and adapted to the situation. The original prayer of Jesus may have been wordless. The primitive tradition may have been simply that Jesus "went forward a little, and there prayed." Even such a meagre notice may have been contributed by the redactor because he felt that prayer was appropriate in the general situation. Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in two items. They allow the prayer to come with its full force without anticipating its substance as Mark (35) does. They do not reproduce, if they found it in their Mark, the Aramaic "Abba." Except for minor variations, Matthew is otherwise very close to Mark and his text, while Luke (or his source) goes his own independent way. Mt 26:36-46. The text of the Gethsemane prayer in Matthew conforms closely to the text and phrasing of the Lord's Prayer as Matthew reports it. In Mark there is no progress from the first prayer (36) to the second (39) : Jesus prays "the same words." Matthew reports a prayer on the second retreat (42) which differs from the first (39) and indicates progress as though the answer to the first prayer were negative: the cup will not pass away. Matthew, by counting (42, 44), sets the three retreats in sharper relief than is the case in Mark. The reader knows there has been a third retreat in Mark (41) only when Jesus returns from it; Matthew (44) notes the departure for the third retreat as well as the return. Lk 22:40-46 gives a briefer and simpler version of the struggle in prayer on the last night, a version which must come from Luke's non-Markan source for the death drama. 8 Luke does not use the name Gethsemane; in his Gospel generally proper names of places tend to disappear. Luke has only one retreat for prayer where Matthew and Mark have three, and Luke's one ' For definition, see p. 126. ' For definition, see p. 54. 8 Cf. Β. Weiss, Die Quellen des LukasevangeUums, p. 218; Feine, Etne vorkanonische Überlieferung, p. 65.

507

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1411

retreat parallels the first in Matthew and Mark. Luke uses the same admonition twice, at the beginning (40) and at the end (46); it appears only once in Matthew and Mark, at the end of the first retreat. In Matthew and Mark Jesus withdraws with the three from the rest of the disciples and then from the three to pray alone; in Luke he withdraws alone directly from the disciples and Peter, James, and John are not a part of the story in Luke. Luke has no parallel to the emotional upheaval in Mk 14:33-34. Luke also gives a more sympathetic picture of the disciples: they are asleep, overcome with "sorrow": they are not insensible and uncomprehending as they are in Matthew and Mark. The story in Matthew and Mark ends with the announcement of the approach of the betrayer and prepares for his immediate appearance; in Luke there is no such announcement, and the betrayer appears suddenly and without warning. Except for the new element in 4 3 44, Luke's version is devoid of the excesses and redundancies found in Mark and in general gives a more plausible account. Verses 43-44 are commonly regarded as a later insert. They are not found in some of the best ancient MSS of Luke (Alephc, A, B, N, R, etc.). They break the natural connection between verses 42 and 45. In 42 Jesus' resignation is complete without the appearance of the angel (43), and verse 45 ignores the appearance of the angel. What 43-44 report is apocryphal and legendary; it is typical of the experiences of later Christian martyrs.9 If these two verses are left to stand, 44 should precede 43: the appearance of the angel should relieve, not intensify, Jesus' agony (44). Verses 43-44 preclude any further retreats for prayer, for such would render the appearance of the angel superfluous. As Bruno Bauer put it, Luke had the choice between "the angel and one retreat, or a threefold agony and no angel." 10 411. The Arrest Mt 26:47-50 Mk 14:43-46 Lk 22:47-48 Dogmatically, this episode relates itself to Mk 14:20: it fulfills the prediction of the betrayal and identifies the betrayer. The reader, not the actors in the story, has been prepared for this since 14:10-11. And yet Judas is introduced here as though for the first time in the death drama, "one of the twelve." Mk 17 assumed Judas' presence at the supper, but there has been no notice of Judas leaving the company of Jesus and the other disciples. This appearance of Judas out of nowhere is an isolated piece of tradition which is not well integrated with the earlier materials on the betrayer and the betrayal. The preceding passage ended with Jesus prepared to meet the betrayer (41-42), but this account begins as though Judas appeared suddenly and unexpectedly, breaking into Jesus' words, perhaps even into his praying. " Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 201f. Kritik, III, 251.

10

508

Β.1411

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

The narrative point of view here might be that of the disciples.1 Or, it might be that of a member of Judas' company who knew the prearrangement ( 44 ) and who recounts the incident without a trace of feeling.2 The action against Jesus here is of purely Jewish origin. A disorderly mob acts for the Jewish authorities who are not present. This one-sided conception may be due to later Christian bias; the Romans may have been involved from the very outset. The bearing of arms (43, 47, 48) is another detail in Mark which has been taken to indicate that Jesus' arrest, trial, and death came on an ordinary day, not on the fifteenth of Nisan. However, this prohibition of arms-bearing on the sabbath and on feast days goes back to the end of the first Christian century. It may not yet have been in force in Jesus' day, or it may have been ignored as such regulations sometimes are in special situations. Verse 44 penetrates into the inner workings of Judas and his group. It could drop out, leaving 45 to join on to 43.3 In 44 Mark, like many ancient writers, knows almost too much. A sign of identification would hardly seem necessary in view of Jesus' public appearances in Jerusalem. His protest five verses later (48) assumes that he was known personally to his enemies. The Judas-kiss is probably only a depictive touch intended to blacken the person of the betrayer: with a token of affection he betrays his Master. This last appearance of Judas in Mark is just as fleeting and uninforming as his earlier appearance (14:10-11). It seems that Judas would have been much more useful at the trial as a witness against Jesus than here in his minor role at the arrest. Mark reports no reaction of Jesus to Judas' appearance. It is not necessary, for Jesus' monologue in 41^12 was the cue for Judas' entrance. Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in one item. They report a word of Jesus to the betrayer where Mark has none: Matthew (50), a challenge; Luke (48), a rebuke. The silence of Mark at this point seems to have been intolerable for the later writers, and the tradition in their hands becomes creative, supplying speech where the older tradition (Mark) is silent. Mt 26:47-50 is a verbatim reproduction of Mark with the addition of the challenge to Judas: "Friend, do that for which thou art come" (50) — a good example of rhetorical distortion.4 Lk 22:47-48 is independent of Mark. Taylor 5 feels that this was the first and only appearance of Judas in the death drama of Proto-Luke. In Luke Judas seems to be the leader of the mob, not just a part of it ( Matthew and Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 301f; Hauck, Markus, p. 174. Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 183; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 231. a Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 579. 4 For definition, see p. 54. B Cf. The Third Gospel, p. 45. 1

2

509

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B.H412

Mark). Luke at this early point does not define the constituency of the mob (52) or note its armament. Luke reports no words of Judas or any prearranged sign for identification ( Mk 44 ). In Luke the attempted kiss seems to have been rebuffed. Luke, like Matthew, contributes a word of Jesus to the betrayer (48), a very different one, which he feels is appropriate: "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" This rebuke is a dramatic touch with a rhetorical accent on each word like an actor reciting his lines. In Matthew and Mark the episode ends with the arrest, the actual seizure of Jesus; in Luke this comes later (22:54). 412. The Resistance Mt 26:51-54 Mk 14:47 Lk 22:4&-51a This is a stray bit of tradition which is ill-placed in Mark. Verse 47 breaks the natural connection between 46 and 48. Jesus' protest in 48 is to the arrest in 46; it ignores the resistance in 47. This resistance comes too late, after the arrest. It has no aftermath; there are no counter-blows from the armed mob. This rash action is perhaps only a dramatic foil, a contrast to the quiet submission of Jesus.1 The narrative point of view seems to be that of a companion of Judas. For such an observer a disciple of Jesus or a bystander would be "one of them." He, too, might know that the person wounded was a servant of the high priest.2 Matthew and Luke again agree together against Mark in supplying a word of Jesus where Mark has none. Mark reports no word of Jesus to his defender. Matthew contributes quite a discourse (52-54); Luke, a brief word of resignation ( 51a ). Mt 26:51-54. In Matthew the bystander of Mark becomes a companion of Jesus. Matthew's interest in the resistance (51) is purely incidental: the sword thrust serves simply as a provocation for the speech which follows (52-54). This rhetorical flourish begins with a proverb (Rev 13:10), continues in the language of Ps 91:11-12 and II Kgs 6:15-16, and it ends with almost a Johannine touch — Jesus' deliberate march toward death. Jesus' death fulfills Scripture (54) in general; no particular passage is cited. The discourse in 52-54 has the appearance of being the fabrication of Matthew. Lk 22:49-51a. In Matthew and Mark the resistance follows the arrest and is provoked by it; in Luke (50) it precedes the arrest (54) and is provoked by the appearance of Judas and his group. In the resistance Luke is very close to the text of Mark except for the specification of the right ear — an expansion typical of legend and not new in Luke (6:6). In 49 and 51a Luke is independent of Mark. Jesus' word in 51a joins on to 49 as the answer 1 2

Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 263. Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 321.

510

Β. 1413-414

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

to the question there. The sword blow in 50, along with the healing in 51b, could drop out leaving 49 and 51a to form a brief non-Markan dialogue unit which told how Jesus forestalled armed resistance.3 The present form of Lk 22:49-51a seems to be the result of free editorializing. 413. The Healing of the Severed Ear Lk 22:51b In Matthew and Mark the wounded servant of the high priest is forgotten, but Luke with a stroke of his pen repairs the damage done by the blow of the sword: Jesus heals the severed ear. Throughout his Gospel Luke has recoiled at violence. This is the only concrete case of cure in the Jerusalem story in the Synoptic tradition. It is a rather "meagre miracle," 1 hardly an improvement over Matthew and Mark, but it is an offshoot natural in the legends which grow up to embellish history. 414. Jesus' Remonstrance Mt 26:55-56a Mk 14:48-49 Lk 22:52-53 This protest comes too late in Mark. It should precede the resistance (47) and follow the arrest (46). It does not account for the mob's failure to retaliate for the armed resistance and it does not explain the flight of the disciples which follows (50). This calm and collected protest is hardly natural in the confusion of an arrest at night. It would be more natural addressed to the Jewish authorities in the course of the trial than it is to their emissaries who make the arrest. It might well be an authentic protest of Jesus at some time or other in the course of the Jewish proceedings. However, 49b is certainly later Christian theory: Jesus' death fulfills Scripture in general; again, no particular passage is cited. Here this theory is ascribed to Jesus himself, and it may be that the whole protest is a later Christian retrospect and comment.1 Mt 26:55-56a. Matthew uses his favorite resumptive phrase, "In that hour," in returning to Mark after the discourse insert in 52-54. Matthew detaches the idea of the fulfillment of Scripture (56a) from the protest of Jesus and presents it as his own reflective comment. Lk 22:52-53. Luke now for the first time gives the constituency of the "multitude": the authorities themselves have come to make the arrest, a representation that is hardly probable.2 However, Luke does have a better audience for the protest —the authorities themselves. Luke (47) did not describe their armament, and "the swords and staves" here may be borrowed * Cf. Cf. 1 Cf. 2 Cf.

1

Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 391. Loisy, Luc, p. 391. Loisy, Marc, p. 423; Klostermann, Markus, p. 1Θ9. Strauss, Life of Jesus, p. 652f.

511

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f 4 1 5 - 4 1 6

from Mark. Verses 52a and 53b could be joined as Luke's non-Markan version,3 leaving 52b and 53a a Markan insert. In 53b sinister supernatural forces are again at work (22:3, 22, 31), not the fulfillment of Scripture. In Luke this protest precedes the arrest (54), and it concludes Luke's parallels to Mark's Gethsemane scene. 415. The Desertion of the Disciples Mt 26:56b Mk 14:50 The flight of the disciples would be more natural after the armed resistance (47) than after Jesus' remonstrance (48-49). Mark's sequence would be improved by a rearrangement of verses: 48-49, 47, 50. Whither the disciples flee Mark does not say. They may have fled in confusion from Gethsemane, for Peter appears in the course of the Jewish trial and Mk 16:7 assumes that the disciples are still in Jerusalem and have not yet returned to Galilee.1 Some critics 2 are of the opinion that they may have fled directly to Galilee, the scene of the promised reunion with the Risen Jesus (14:28). However, Mk 14:50 is a notice that is too brief and too general for the drawing of any far-reaching conclusions. The primary impression left by this notice is dramatic: the hero is betrayed by one disciple and deserted by the rest. From this point on Jesus is in enemy hands and separated from the disciples, and the sources of information for what follows are a matter of great uncertainty. Mt 26:56b reproduces Mark's notice of the desertion with no variation in substance, and it concludes Matthew's Gethsemane scene. Luke's non-Markan source did not predict the desertion of the disciples and apparently did not report the desertion itself. If Luke consulted Mark at all at this point, he was prepared for this omission (Mk 14:50) when he omitted the prediction (Mk 14:27). Luke spares the reputation of the disciples to the very end. 416. The Flight of a Certain Young Man Mk 14:51-52 Mark's death drama is in full swing, but now it is brought to a halt by something wholly incidental. The episode here reported is trivial in the light of its surroundings. Fuller information on the flight of the disciples would have been of more value than this fleeting glimpse of a hazy figure. This ' Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 46f. 1 Cf. F. Loofs, Die Auferstehungsberichte und ihr Wert (3. Aufl.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1908), p. 20; F. Spitta, Die Auferstehung Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1918), p. 22; et al. 2 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 308; Bacon, The Gospel of Mark, p. 198; et al.

512

Β.H417-435

T H E P U B L I C TRADITION

distraction, however, may have had an interest and meaning for the author and his original readers that are no longer apparent. This is the most mysterious passage in the Gospel of Mark. "A veritable romance of exegesis has been built up around it." 1 Earlier critics saw in this young man none other than John Mark, the author of the Second Gospel. For Zahn, this little episode was "the artist's monogram in the dark corner of the portrait." 2 This could make the author an eyewitness of at least the final stages of the Jerusalem story. However, this view is not substantiated by the form, nature, or value of Mark's Jerusalem story, which certainly is not an eyewitness report. Other critics 3 feel that the episode is purely fictitious and that it had its inspiration in a Christian interpretation of Amos 2:16. Still other critics 4 are of the opinion that these two verses are a late addition to Mark made in the final redaction. It may not have been in the Mark known to Matthew and Luke, for they do not reproduce it. If it was in their Mark, they must have omitted it because it lacked interest or was without any clear meaning. If the reader looks back over Mark's Gethsemane scene with all its vivid color and detail, its dramatic action and dialogue, he can glean at most only two basic facts: Jesus was arrested on the mount of Olives and his disciples deserted him. 11417-435

Mt 2 6 : 5 7 - 2 7 : 3 1

Mk 1 4 : 5 3 - 1 5 : 2 0

Lk 22:54 - 23:25

This section covers the account of the trial of Jesus as it is preserved in the Synoptic tradition. The general assumptions and background of this account may well be historical. The trial falls into two parts, a Jewish and a Roman hearing, due to the political situation of the Jews in Palestine in the first century. The Jews were a subject people, and Palestine was under Roman military occupation. The Synoptic tradition assumes that the Jewish courts were permitted to function in local Jewish legal matters, even to the trying in the Sanhédrin of capital criminal cases and the passing of the death sentence. The Synoptic tradition also assumes that the death sentence must have the approval of the Roman governor and, in case of confirmation, the execution of the sentence was in the hands of the Roman military. There are no records to confirm these assumptions for the Roman administration of Palestine. There are, however, records to show that such was the Roman policy in Egypt, 1 and it may have been the same in Palestine. In the details that fill in this general framework — the various incidents Cf. Cf. 3 Cf. 1 Cf. 1 Cf. 1 2

Loisy, Marc, p. 424. Einleitung in das NT, II, 245. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, lOlf; II, 591; Klostermann, Markus, p. 171; et al. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 265; Schlatter, Markus, p. 262. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 333f.

513

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. |417-425

and episodes, the questions and answers, the shifts of scene, even the pauses and silences — the Synoptic account of Jesus' trial is the product of dramatic depiction. It is hagiography rather than history in which a mixture of early Christian motives and interests have asserted themselves — some apologetical, some polemical, and some even for the edification of Christians. The crux of the trial is presented as Jesus' claim of messiahship. In the Jewish hearing it is presented as a religious crime, blasphemy, punishable with death; in the Roman hearing it becomes a political crime for which Jesus is put to death. The historical basis for this presentation is weak. In the double hearing and in the Synoptic tradition as a whole there is no convincing body of evidence that Jesus ever entertained such a conviction or that he ever made any such claim for himself in public or in private. This phase of the Synoptic account of the trial must be ascribed to later Christian assumption and regarded as pure subjectivism: Jesus was condemned to death and crucified for what the early Christians believed him to be, namely, the Messiah. The messianic aspects of the trial may be due entirely to later Christian bias and prejudice, to the desire to put the Jewish people in the worst possible light: they were responsible for the death of the true Messiah. T H E JEWISH TRIAL

Mt 26:57-27:10

Mk 1 4 : 5 3 - 1 5 : 1

Lk 22:54 - 23:1

fl417-424

Mark's account of the Jewish hearing is so beset with difficulties, improbabilities, and inconsistencies that any degree of historical certainty is precluded. 1 There is the question of legality. In the rabbinical writings the trying of capital cases at night was forbidden, also on the sabbath and on feast days. 2 Yet Mark has the Jewish hearing at night and, apparently, on the fifteenth of Nisan, desecrating the festival. Various explanations have been proposed. The later rabbinical regulations may not have been in effect in Jesus' day. 3 If they were, they may have been ignored as they sometimes were when a special situation required unusual measures. 4 Furthermore, the Jewish action may not have involved a formal legal procedure but only a preliminary investigation for drawing up a case to present to the Roman governor.5 Such an informal hearing would not necessarily be illegal or violate a holy day. When the Jews do appear before Pilate, they prefer charges; they do not ask for the ratification of a legal verdict and death sentence. Furthermore, Mark's days and dates toward Cf. Cf. 3 Cf. 4 Cf. "Cf. 1 2

J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 320. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 3 3 4 ; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 818ff. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 341. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 3 5 1 ; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 822. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 3 5 2 f ; Guignebert, Jesus, p. 4 6 3 .

514

Β.1417-425

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

the end of his story are so uncertain that the Jewish action may have come on an ordinary day. The Jewish authorities, as depicted in Mark, show no consciousness of restraint imposed by a holy festival. No section of Mark's Gospel is so poorly arranged as his account of the Jewish hearing. The Jewish action is split into three parts: the Sanhédrin assembles at night (14:53); there is a Jewish hearing at night (14:55-64); there is a second assembly and session the following morning (15:1). Mark's account would be simpler, more natural, even legal perhaps, if his materials were rearranged as follows: 14:53a + 15:1a + 14:55-64 + 15:1b. This rearrangement would result in a single session of the Sanhédrin in the morning. In Mark's account of the Jewish hearing the story of Peter's denial is split into two parts (14:54, 66-72) which should be joined into a single unit of narration. Mark's account of the Jewish hearing is not based on any official protocol or on the report of any eyewitness. The story of Peter's denial is a part of Mark's account of the Jewish hearing, but it is presented as an episode during the night and there is no suggestion that Peter or any other disciple witnessed the proceedings. At best, Mark's account is based on second-hand reports, hearsay, and conjecture.® It may have been patterned after later Christian experiences in Jewish synagogues and before Jewish councils (Mk 13:9-13). Its color and details are the product of inventive imagination and creative writing. Mt 26:57 - 27:10 reproduces Mark's version of the Jewish hearing episode for episode, practically line for line, with a faithfulness that amounts almost to piety. This section of Mark seems to have impressed Matthew as holy history, a story too sacred for the exercise of freedom by a later writer. Matthew has only minor variations which make some of Mark's details more emphatic, and at the end Matthew adds his own peculiar tradition about the end of Judas (27:3-10 fl424). Lk 22:54 - 23:1 gives a non-Markan version of the Jewish hearing (Q, or Proto-Luke ) J Luke seems wholly independent of Mark in plan, in arrangement of materials, and in text. The hearing in Luke begins as it does in Mark with the delivery to the high priest (22:54) and it ends like Mark with the delivery to Pilate (23:1). Luke also has the same three episodes in between, but they are in reverse order: Mark has the delivery, the trial, the mocking, the denial; Luke has the delivery, the denial, the mocking, the trial. Mark's account of the hearing is unnecessarily complicated with two sessions of the Sanhédrin, one at night and one in the morning at which no new evidence is presented. Luke has a simpler, more probable version: one session of the Sanhédrin in the morning at which all the business is trans* Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, pp. 75, 81. 7 Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 50f.

515

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

B.

acted, and one phase of the question of legality (a trial at night) is not involved. The narrative confusion in Mark's account does not exist in Luke where the story of Peter's denial is an unbroken unit (22:54b-62), as is also the account of the Jewish hearing proper ( 2 2 : 6 6 - 2 3 : 1 ) . Luke's account of the Jewish hearing is generally superior to that of Mark (and Matthew). It leaves the impression of a preliminary investigation, less that of formal legal procedure. Luke's version does not have the strong, overdone Jewish color so evident in Mark (and Matthew). Luke exhibits less anti-Jewish bias and bitterness. He writes more for edifying his Christian readers,8 less for indicting the Jews. Any implied indictments in Luke are more discriminating; they strike the Jewish authorities, not the whole Jewish people. This more conciliatory attitude toward Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death also appears in the early chapters of Acts. 417. The Delivery to the High Priest Mt 26:57-58 Mk 14:53-54 Lk 22:54-55 The confusion in Mark's account of the Jewish trial is clear in these first two verses which introduce two different things. Verse 53 introduces the hearing before the Sanhédrin in 55-64, while 54 sets the scene for Peter's denial in 66-72. The notice about Peter in 54 breaks into the action of the Sanhédrin (53 + 55-64), and the action of the Sanhédrin in 55-64 breaks into the story of Peter's denial (54 + 66-72). This is another instance of telescoped tradition in Mark. The primitive account may have gone from 53-54 to 66-72 with no night session of the Sanhédrin,1 or from 53a to 54 to 66-72. 2 It is strange that Mark does not name the high priest to whom he assigns the leading role in the hearing. For Mark, the office seems to have been more important than the occupant. In Mark the Sanhédrin assembles immediately. Mark seems to be thinking of a full session of this body, some seventy members (quorum, twenty-three), gathering in the middle of the night which seems improbable and raises the question of legality. Mt 26:57-58 reproduces Mark and his narrative confusions. In Matthew, however, the Sanhédrin is already assembled and waiting when Jesus is brought, suggesting a well organized and executed plan. Matthew names the high priest, Caiaphas (18-36 A.D.), as he did back in the conspiracy (26:3). Matthew omits the notice about Peter warming himself; perhaps it was too ordinary and human.3 Matthew adds that Peter is waiting "to see the end," as though he might be an eyewitness of what follows. 8

Cf. Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu, p. 59. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 169; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 354. Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 426. Cf. Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 134.

lCf. 2 s

516

Β. 1Ϊ418

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Lk 22:54-55. Luke (54a) now notes for the first time the actual seizure or arrest which was the initial action of the mob upon its arrival in Gethsemane in Matthew (26:50) and Mark (14:46). Luke does not name the high priest at any point in the death drama (3:2; Acts 4:6). This omission is natural in Luke's account of the Jewish hearing in which the high priest plays no personal part. In Luke there is no assembly of the Sanhédrin during the night which is passed with the story of Peter's denial and the mocking. Luke gives a complete and unified account of Peter's denial in 56-62; the threefold denial (56-62) follows at once upon the setting of the scene in 55. 418. The Jewish Trial at Night Mt 26:59-66 Mk 14:55-64 Lk 22:67-71 fî422 Apart from breaking into the story of Peter's denial, Mark's account of the Jewish hearing is in itself confused and confusing. The Jewish court does not hear evidence but seeks to produce it; it is both judge and prosecution. In the first part of the account (55-61a) the case is based on the testimony of witnesses; in the second part ( 61b-64 ) there are no witnesses, and the case is based on Jesus' own personal confession. The two unrelated questions of the high priest (60, 61b) come close together. Two incriminating statements are attributed to Jesus (58, 62), neither of which justifies the verdict that he is guilty of blasphemy (64). Thefirstpart of the account features Jesus' silence (61a); the second part, his outspoken confession (62). The false witnesses and their contradictory testimony are introduced twice (56-57,59). To remove this confusion opposed proposals have been made. Some critics 1 would delete 57-59, and the Jewish case against Jesus would be based on his messianic confession ( 62 ). Other critics 2 would delete 61b-62, and the Jewish case against Jesus would be based on his alleged word against the temple (58). The introduction of the false witnesses in 56 is abrupt; there is no hint of the use of such in 55. The law (Dt 19:16-21) was very strict and punishment very severe on this point. The whole idea of false witnesses (56-57) may be the work of later Christian prejudice intended to put the Jewish action in the worst possible light. That perjured testimony would be contradictory (56, 59) seems incredible, but such was gratifying to the Christian bias of writer and reader. Mark's form of the alleged word against the temple (58) seems to have undergone elaboration. The building "with hands" and "without hands" 1 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 173; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 355; et al. ' Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 124f; Cadoux, The Second Gospel, p. 240.

517

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1 4 1 8

does not reappear in Matthew's parallel (26:61), in the taunt at the cross (Mk 15:29-30), in the form ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel of John (2:19), or to Stephen in the Book of Acts (6:14). Some critics 3 feel that this was an actual utterance of Jesus and the cause of his sentence to death by the Jewish authorities. Renan 4 called it "le mot fatal." No such statement, however, actually falls from the lips of Jesus in the first three Gospels. The nearest approach is the wholly impersonal prediction in Mk 13:2 — of which 14:58 could be a garbled version. Even in Mark here it is labelled as false witness. Not only the alleged utterance but its idea may be of later Christian origin.5 It is not ascribed to Jesus by Luke in his death drama but to Stephen in the Book of Acts (6:14). Furthermore, the "three days" which appear in all forms, except in that of Acts, may reflect the background of the resurrection tradition. The question of the high priest in 61b is unprepared. It has no immediate or remote antecedent in Mark's death drama or in his story as a whole. It is not related to Judas' betrayal, for Mark never makes it clear what or how Judas betrayed Jesus. Throughout his Gospel Mark has treated Jesus' messiahship as a mystery of faith, not as an historical role. The abrupt question of the high priest is the work of dramatic writing and the provocation for the rhetorical reply which follows (62). The confession ascribed to Jesus in 62 relates itself better to what follows than does the alleged word against the temple. It is a natural literary antecedent for the question of Pilate (15:2) and the sign on the cross (15:26): "the King of the Jews." Many critics β regard Jesus' open affirmative, "I am," as historical, but it is beset with such serious difficulties that it becomes extremely doubtful as an actual utterance of Jesus. (1) There is evidence of Matthew and Luke against it. In Luke's parallel (22:67, 70) Jesus is wholly evasive. The text of Mark known to Matthew does not seem to have had this open affirmative, for Matthew uses the ambiguous and evasive, "Thou hast said." (2) This "I am" before the high priest in Mk 14:62 is inconsistent with Jesus' reply to the same question in substance put by Pilate, "Thou sayest" (Mk 15:2). (3) The personal confession, "I am," harmonizes badly with the wholly impersonal and strongly adversative statement about the Son of man which follows. (4) This open affirmative contradicts the reticence and reserve that have characterized Jesus' attitude toward the messianic issue throughout Mark's Gospel. (5) There is the general historical improbability that Jesus would openly affirm to the high priest something of which he has never assured even the disciples. (6) 3

252.

Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 123f; Maurenbrecher, Von Nazareth nach Golgatha, p.

Cf. Vie de Jésus, p. 396. Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 585. ° Cf. Schweitzer, Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 194; et al. 4

s

518

Jesu, p. 109; E. Meyer,

Β.1418

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Later Jewish tradition has Jesus condemned to death, not for claiming to be the Messiah, but because he was a sorcerer and a seducer of the people.7 Mark's "I am" probably gives the later Christian version of the Jewish case against Jesus. He was put to death for claiming to be what the early Christians believed he was, a belief which the Jews rejected. Mark's "I am" is simply the later Christian conviction and confession, "Jesus was the Christ," carried back into the mind of Jesus and put on his lips in the first person. With this "I am" Mark completes the third and final phase in the dramatization of the dogma set forth in the first line of his Gospel: in a scene highlighted by action and dialogue Jesus confessed what the demons discovered at the beginning (1:24) and was later learned by the disciples (8:29). Mark concludes the night session of the Sanhédrin as though it resulted in a formal legal verdict and death sentence (64). However, when the chief priests appear before Pilate, they do not request ratification of their own legal action, but they make charges and accusations designed to secure a verdict of guilty and a death sentence from the Romans. Mark's night session of the Sanhédrin may be only a spun-out version of the barer notice about the morning session (15:1). 8 Or, the whole Jewish trial in Mark may be only a later secondary version of the Roman trial which originally involved the only legal action in connection with Jesus' death.8 As a comparison with Matthew's parallel account will show, Mark's present version of the night session of the Sanhédrin seems to be the result of a process of later retouching. Mt 26:59-66 seems to be based on a simpler, earlier version of the night session than the one now found in Mark. In Matthew the false witnesses are mentioned only once (60), not twice as in Mark (56, 57). Matthew says nothing of the contradictory nature of the false testimony noted twice in Mark (56, 59). Matthew's form of the alleged utterance against the temple is simpler and clearer than that of Mark. In Matthew it applies to the real temple, "the temple of God," (21:12), not to a spiritual temple made "without hands" (Mk 14:58). Matthew does not label this alleged utterance as false testimony (Mk 14:57). In Matthew Jesus' reply to the messianic question of the high priest is the mysterious "Thou hast said," not the "I am" of Mark's present reading. Matthew's version of Mark may have read, "Thou hast said," an evasion in better harmony with Mark's plan and presentation as a whole. Matthew has two other variations from Mark. Matthew gives the direct question of the high priest ( Mk 61 ) a more solemn and binding form (Mt 63), as though to put Jesus under oath. ' Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 1023. 8 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 291; Hauck, Markus, p. 177. ' Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 594ff; Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 180.

519

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. H41ÍM20

Mark's narrative notice about the death sentence (64) Matthew presents as a unison pronouncement of the court (66). Luke has no night session of the Sanhédrin, and his account of the morning session (22:67-71 1|422) has only partial parallels to Mark's account of the Jewish proceedings. 419. Jesus Mocked after the Jewish Trial Mt 2 6 : 6 7 - 6 8

Mk 14:65

Lk 22:63-65

^421

There is a mocking of Jesus in each of the last three scenes of the death drama: at the Jewish trial, at the Roman trial, and at the cross. These mockings are designed to enhance the effect of the tragedy being enacted before the reader. The first mocking in Mark (and Matthew) follows the night session of the Sanhédrin. It is a stray fragment of tradition in an unfortunate context at this point in Mark,1 for it suggests that some members of the Sanhédrin joined in this indignity. The insults and ridicule are Jewish, but it is not probable that high Jewish dignitaries would stoop to such vulgarity. Such abuse would be more natural from the mob at the arrest ( 46 ) or following Jesus' protest ( 48-49 ) ? This scene may be only an anticipation of the mocking following the Roman hearing (15:16-20 j[435), a duplication derived from it.3 It could, however, be the product of the later Christian imagination, expressing its bias and bitterness, with the aid of details borrowed from the Old Testament (Isa 50:6; 53:3; I Kgs 22:24). 4 Mt 26:67-68 connects this mocking directly with the night session of the Sanhédrin ("then did they"), and he attributes this indignity to that body alone. Matthew does not mention the blindfolding (Mark), but it is implied in the challenge, "Prophecy . . . who struck thee!" Luke's account of the mocking (22:63-65 ff421) comes before, the Jewish hearing (Matthew and Mark).

not after

420. Peter's Denial Mt 26:69-75 Mk 14:66-72 Lk 22:56-62 This is an isolated piece of Petrine tradition which should have been introduced earlier (after 54). In an earlier stage of the tradition this story may have been a unit (54 + 66-72), as it now is in Luke, and unbroken ^f. 2 Cf. 183. 3 Cf. 4 Cf.

Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 293. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 164; Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 102; Marc, p. 436; Goguel, Life of Jesus, p. 512. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 69f.

520

Β.H420

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

by the night session of the Sanhédrin (55-64) and the mocking (65). 1 However, the appearance of any individual disciple is surprising after Mark's earlier notice: "They all left him, and fled" (50). The original isolation of this story is clearest at the end (72). It breaks off with an impossible situation, the chief of the Apostles in disgrace. Originally, the story must have had a sequel, or an intended sequel, telling of Peter's rehabilitation. The second part of this two-part story is lost unless it is preserved in the Johannine tradition (21:1-19) or remnants of it in Lk 5:4-9. This story is inserted rather than integrated into Mark's death drama. Mark's primary interest in it is dogmatic: it is a detailed fulfillment of the prediction back in 14:29-31 (j[409). Such close conformity between prediction and fulfillment is the result of deliberate literary design. The proof lies in 72: Peter even recalls Jesus' prediction of the "twice" and "thrice." An earlier form of this tradition may have been briefer and less complicated than it is now in Mark, closer perhaps to the simpler form in Matthew. Originally, it may have been very brief, telling of only one denial: 54 + 66b-68. 2 The present form of the story, the cock crowing twice and Peter denying thrice, may have been conceived and composed along with the prediction (14:29-31 1(409), both designed to enhance Jesus' prevision. Many critics 3 have accepted the denial story as authentic history. Early Christian tradition, they feel, would hardly invent a story so humiliating to so prominent a person. The circumstantial detail in the depiction and dialogue, the human quality of the story, especially the personal integrity implied — all would point to a personal reminiscence of Peter himself. The whole story, however, may be only a personal legend. 4 The detail in depiction and dialogue may be only deceptive epic distortion,5 the product of the story-telling art. The story has the conventional threefold structure of ancient dramatic composition. The denying and confessing of Christ, being ashamed and unashamed of him, was a dilemma which confronted early Christians after Jesus' death, not one faced by Jesus' disciples during his lifetime. The story of Peter's denial is primarily a piece of didactic narration with a lesson and point for the reader. Mt 26:69-75 presents a somewhat simpler version of the denial story, perhaps the version in the Mark known to Matthew. The three separate denials are sharp and clear-cut in Matthew; the second is not a mere repetition of the first and provoked by the same person as it is in Mark. Matthew has one cockcrow which corresponds to the second in Mark and conforms 1

Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 290. Cf. Goguel, Marc, p. 279; Loisy, Marc, p. 439. Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, I, 609; Feigel, Der Einfluss des Weissagungsbeweises, p. 76; et al. 4 Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 215. 5 For definition, see p. 87f. 2

3

521

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B. 1421

to the one cockcrow in Matthew's version of the prediction back in 26:33-35 (f409). In Matthew it is Peter's peculiar speech that betrays his Galilean origin (73). Lk 22:56-62 continues 55 directly, forming a unified narrative which contributes to the greater consistency of Luke's account of the Jewish trial as a whole. In this story of Peter's denial Luke is closer to the text of Mark than at any other point in the death drama except perhaps in his account of the preparation for the Passover (22:7-13 |f395). Even the advocates of Proto-Luke β regard the denial story as a Markan insert into Luke's nonMarkan version of the death drama. They are of the opinion that Luke's non-Markan source did not contain the denial story, only the general prediction of the failure of Simon's faith (22:31-32 P 0 5 ) . Luke here exhibits some minor differences from Mark. In Luke all three denials come without a shift of scene such as Matthew and Mark have between the first two. Luke introduces intervals of time between the three denials, and he agrees with Matthew against Mark in having only one cockcrow. Luke's outstanding new feature comes in 61a where Jesus witnesses Peter's denial, deepening his shame and disgrace. This notice, "And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter," could be the editorial invention of Luke, but it might also point to the non-Markan origin of Luke's version of the denial story.7 The use of the term Lord as a substitute for the name Jesus would suggest a non-Markan source, for Luke otherwise never uses this title in this sense except in connection with non-Markan matter. The established threefold structure of the story would, in and of itself, make two independent versions, Markan and non-Markan, very much alike, and the very theme of denial would give little opportunity for variation. 421. Jesus Mocked before the Jewish Trial Lk 22:63-65 Mt 26:67-68 = Mk 14:65 fl419 This brief notice must once have had a different literary context. The pronoun "him" in 63 can only refer to Jesus, not to Peter, the last person named (61). Verse 63 could join on to 54a leaving the denial story an insert even in Luke. This passage seems to come from Luke's non-Markan source.1 It differs from the Markan version of the mocking in two respects. (1) The mocking is from the guard, not from members of the Sanhédrin which has not yet assembled in Luke. (2) The mocking does not seem to take place in the court itself but outside (66). Both items have greater probability over against Mark. Verse 65 is an editorial generalization in the manner of Luke (3:18, 19b). Luke's non-Markan version agrees with Mark Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 48f. Cf. Rengstorf, Lukas, p. 239f. 1 Cf. Feine, Etne vorkanonische Überlieferung, p. 67f; Taylor, The Third. Gospel, p. 50. β 7

522

Β. 1422

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

(and Matthew) that the mocking comes during the night, but it precedes, not follows, the Jewish hearing as it does in Mark (and Matthew). 422. The Jewish Trial at Daum Lk 22:66-71 Mt 26:63b-66 = Mk 14:61b-64 f[418 Some critics 1 regard Luke's account of the Jewish hearing as a revision of Mark's version of the night session of the Sanhédrin. They feel that verse 69 of Luke is borrowed from Mark (14:62) and that the question in 71 refers to the false witnesses in Mk 14:56-59 omitted by Luke. Other critics 2 assign Luke's account to his non-Markan source for the death drama. Luke's version of the Jewish hearing is briefer and simpler than that of Mark and, with its single session of the Sanhédrin, has better unity. Luke's version also has greater probability, for this single session comes at dawn. In Luke this morning session is not a formal legal trial but a preliminary hearing. The high priest does not figure at all in Luke, and there is no verdict or death sentence at the end. Luke's account generally does not have the strong Jewish coloring found in Mark's version: the rending of the garments and the crime of blasphemy. Luke has no parallel to the preliminary phases of the Jewish hearing in Mark 14:55-61a: the false witnesses with their conflicting testimony and the alleged word against the temple. Luke reserves both of these features for the trial of Stephen in the Book of Acts (6:13-14). Luke does not mention the silence of Jesus, featured in Mark (and Matthew). In Luke the case formed against Jesus is based solely on his own statements. The only issue concerns Jesus' person. This issue is presented in a double question: Is he the Christ? (67); Is he the Son of God? (70a). Luke agrees with Matthew against Mark's "I am" and in ascribing to Jesus an evasive reply. Jesus' two replies in Luke (68-69, 70b) are still more evasive than his single reply in Matthew (26:64). Verse 69 of Luke may be a later insert.3 It breaks the natural connection between 68 and 70, and the impersonal statement about the Son of man in 69 is not a logical provocation for the question about the Son of God in 70. Verse 69 parallels Mk 14:62 of which it may be a revision; yet it is quite different. Verse 69 of Luke is less apocalyptic and nearer Ps 110:1 than Mk 14:62 which is pure Jewish eschatology and nearer Dan 7:13-14. Luke does not speak of the coming of the Son of man but of his being seated at the right hand of the power of God. In 69 Luke seems to be anticipating later elements in his Gospel and Acts, the ascension in 24:50-52 and the heavenly status of the Son of man in Acts 7:56. 1 Cf.

Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 292; Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 607; et al. * Cf. Feine, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung, p. 68f; Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 50f ; et al. 3 Cf. Völter, Die Menschensohn-Frage, p. 16.

523

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B. 1 ( 4 2 3 - 4 2 4

423. The Delivery to Pilate Mt 27:1-2 Mk 15:1 L k 2 3 : l Mark here returns to the story of Jesus' fate and resumes the narrative thread which was broken by the story of Peter's denial. The relation of this morning session of the Sanhédrin to the night session (14:55-64) is a problem. In 15:1 Mark seems to be thinking of a new and different session, and the action of the Jewish court seems unnecessarily complicated in Mark. In the morning session there are no new developments except the delivery to Pilate. However, this so-called second session may originally have been only the conclusion and adjournment of the night session, now split into two sessions by the story of Peter's denial, in which case 15:1 could join on to 14:55-64, even on to 14:65. Finally, 15:1 may be the primitive and original report of the action of the Sanhédrin, and the night session only a spun-out version based on it. It summarizes and generalizes; it could record what, and all, an outside observer was in a position to know. The story of the night session could be a piece of imaginative depiction based on inferences and conjectures, not on actual knowledge. With 15:1 Mark brings the reader into the last day of light. It is divided into periods of three hours: in 15:1 it is early morning; in 25, "the third hour"; in 33, "the sixth hour"; in 34, "the ninth hour"; in 42, it is evening. It is the same fourfold division found in Mk 13:3s. 1 Mt 27:1-2 joins this morning session more closely to the night session than is the case in Mark: "Now when morning was come," as though the session might have lasted throughout the night. If 27:1-2 be joined to 26:59-66 (or even to 67-68), a single session beginning during the night comes to an end early the next morning. The intrusion of the denial story (69-75) gives the impression of two separate sessions. Matthew reported no formal death sentence at the night session (26:66); this is arrived at in the morning (27:1b). Lk 23:1 does not report a new incident, a second session; it is not even an independent literary unit. It is simply Luke's concluding notice, ending the only session of the Sanhédrin (22:66-71), at dawn, from which it should not be separated. 424. The Remorse and Suicide of Judas Mt 27:3-10 Matthew inserts this story of Judas' end at about the only available point in this late stage in the death drama, between the two trials. Nevertheless, it breaks the narrative thread. Matthew is aware of this, for in 11 1

Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium,

p. 202f.

524

Β.1424

THE PUBLIC TBADITION

the narrative thread dropped in 2 is resumed: "Now Jesus stood before the governor."1 Furthermore, in Matthew's sequence the chief priests are before Pilate making their accusations (27:12), but in this story Judas finds them in the temple. This piece of Judas tradition carries the reader away momentarily from the main action to a secondary phase of that action. Matthew joins this story to his account of the Jewish trial with his favorite connective, "Then," but still more closely by the notice, "when he saw that he was condemned," as though Judas had been a witness of the Jewish proceedings. In the item of the thirty pieces of silver, the story is more closely joined to the first appearance of Judas (26:14-16) than to the two intervening appearances of Judas, at the supper (26:25) and at the arrest (26:47-50). The "field of blood" was probably an actual locality, and this story would be a local Jerusalem "place-legend." 2 Verse 8 makes it clear that this legend is of long standing; the name, "field of blood," persists down to Matthew's own late day. In this story the reader finds something wholly unexpected in the First Gospel, an error in quoting the Old Testament. In verse 9 a passage from Zechariah (11:12-13) is ascribed to Jeremiah. In some MSS of Matthew ( Syr sin , it, etc. ) the name Jeremiah is not found.3 The error in Matthew's present text may be due to the fact that echoes from Jeremiah passages (32:6-15; 18:2-3) are clear in the quotation of the Zechariah text which is unlike either the Hebrew or the LXX. The Old Testament text has probably been altered to suit the Judas story, the whole of which may have had an Old Testament inspiration (II Sam 17:23; Zech 11:12-13). 4 Matthew is the only Synoptic writer who includes any legend about Judas' fate in his Gospel. With 14:43-45 Judas disappears without a trace from Mark's Gospel. Mark does not even use the term eleven of the disciples to indicate that the circle of the twelve has been broken. Luke is conscious of this broken circle, and he speaks of "the eleven" in his resurrection tradition (chapter 24) and in the early chapters of Acts. Furthermore, in Acts 1:18-19 Luke gives a parenthetical notice about the death of Judas, the only other New Testament tradition on Judas' death apart from the present story in Matthew. Luke's account in Acts is much briefer than that of Matthew. In Matthew's account Judas is repentant; there is no trace of remorse on Judas' part in the Acts account. In Matthew Judas commits suicide; in Acts his death is accidental, better perhaps, providential. The Acts account is much more gruesome than that of Matthew. Both accounts agree on the purchase of a field with the betrayal price. In Acts Judas him1 2 a 4

Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.

Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 276; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 406. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 116f. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 1, 398. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, II, 351.

525

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.f425-435

self buys the field; in Matthew it is bought by the chief priests with the thirty pieces of silver which Judas returned. Outside of the New Testament there are four other random rumors about the end of Judas.5 Along with the legends in Matthew and Acts, they make it clear that the fate of Judas was a subject of lively interest and speculation among the early Christians. They also make it equally clear that there was no authentic information on the fate of Judas. All of these stories were inspired by the desire to see divine retribution visited upon Judas and to make his death as horrifying as possible. Matthew's story of Judas' end is one of the latest pieces of tradition to find its way into the story of Jesus, and it may be a later addition to Matthew's Gospel. It is not, however, a mere mechanical insert; it is integrated into Matthew's death drama by the "thirty pieces of silver" (26:14-16 fl394). THE EOMAN TRIAL

Mt 27:11-31

Mk 15:2-20

Lk 23:2-25 1f425^35

Mark's account of the Roman trial relates itself better to what follows, the crucifixion, than to what precedes, the Jewish trial. The sign on the cross, "The King of the Jews" (26), summarizes the issue of the Roman trial (15:2, 18) rather than that before the Sanhédrin, Jesus' messiahship. In Mark's account of the Roman trial there is no reference to the Jewish trial. Consequently, there is the possibility that Jesus was arrested, tried, and put to death by the Roman military,1 and that Jewish responsibility confined itself to charges and accusations before Pilate. In Mark's version of the Roman trial there is an extended scene before Pilate; once in Pilate's presence there is no shift of scene until Jesus is delivered up for execution. Mark gives a rather realistic and Roman picture of Pilate who appears more or less as an impartial official, showing no special interest in Jesus and not especially impressed with the Jewish charges against him. In Mark there is less tendency to exonerate Pilate of responsibility for Jesus' death, less disposition to load this responsibility upon the Jews, than in the other Gospels. Pilate's reasons for consenting to Jesus' death are not clear in Mark; he seems indifferent to the whole situation rather than weakly submissive to the Jewish will. The possibility of witnesses is greater in the case of the hearing before Pilate than in that before the Jewish authorities. Jesus is led within the Praetorium only at the end (16), suggesting a public scene without in 2-15. The literary imagination, however, can create a public scene as well as one in private. The account itself is terse, meagre, and historically unsatisfactory. 5 1

Cf. Feigel, Der Einfluss des Weissagungsbeweises, p. 43. Cf. Guignebert, Jesus, p. 468.

526

B.Ï425

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

Jesus remains more or less passive. Most of the dialogue is between Pilate and the Jewish accusers, very little between Pilate and Jesus ( 2 - 5 ) . The evidence presented to condemn Jesus as King of the Jews before Pilate is as unimpressive as that presented to condemn him as the Messiah before the high priest. In fact, the whole Roman hearing could be an imaginative depiction inferred from and based upon the sign on the cross, "The King of the Jews" ( 15:26). 2 The whole narrative is designed to impress the reader rather than to record history. Later Christian prejudice and bias are just as obvious in the account of the Roman hearing as in that before the Sanhédrin. Behind, in, and through the account is the later Christian conviction that Jesus died according to divine decree; human and historical factors were incidental, at best, instrumental. Mt 27:11-31 is only a slightly revised version of Mark's account of the Roman trial with two principal legendary additions ( 19, 24-25 ) which have as their purpose the exoneration of Pilate and the indictment of the Jews. Lk 23:2-25. Some critics 3 still regard Luke's account of the Roman trial as only a free revision of that of Mark. However, the evidence for a nonMarkan source is as strong in this section as it is in any part of Luke's death drama.4 Luke's account is much more detailed, circumstantial, and complicated than that of Mark. Luke's version of the Roman trial falls into three scenes: first before Pilate, then before Herod, and finally before Pilate again. Thus, Luke introduces a wholly new phase in the proceedings, the hearing before Herod (4-12) who is not even mentioned in the account of the Roman trial in Matthew and Mark. Luke's picture of Pilate is nearer that of Matthew, but it is developed with new and different materials. In Luke Pilate appears more as an advocate pleading the case of Jesus than as a judge presiding over an official hearing. He is endowed with Christian rather than Roman feeling.5 The themes of Jesus' innocence, the exoneration of Pilate, the guilt of the Jewish authorities (not of the Jewish people) dominate Luke's depiction. At no other point in his Gospel does Luke so openly seek to create a favorable impression with Roman authority. In this respect Luke's version of the Roman trial amounts to full-grown Christian propaganda 425. Jesus before Pilate Mt 27:11-14 Mk 15:2-5 Lk 23:2-3 Mark's account of the Roman trial begins with characteristic abruptness. Pilate's question ( 2 ) precedes any Jewish charges (3), and Jesus' reply ( 2 ) Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 88f. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 165. 4 Cf. Β. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums, p. 223; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 414; et al. 5 Cf. Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu, p. 63. 2 3

527

JESUS AND T H E FIRST T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1425

annuls the notice about his silence ( 5 ) . In verse 2 Mark's thought is running ahead of the details of his story; however, the reader can follow, for the question of the high priest and Jesus' reply are still fresh in the reader's mind. Some critics 1 feel that 2, along with 26, is a later insert, making the whole idea that Jesus was condemned to death as "King of the Jews" a later Christian conception. Others 2 feel that 3, or even 3-5, should precede 2, for this new idea, "King of the Jews," dominates the rest of the death story. Jesus' reply, "Thou sayest," stands in sharp contrast to his "I am" before the high priest (14:62) and compromises that affirmative. The import and meaning of "Thou sayest" is uncertain. It might be a qualified affirmative, an evasion, or simply a dialectic device for shifting responsibility. Its very ambiguity adds mystery to the death drama as a whole, and it may reflect the uncertainty of the later Christian tradition itself about the actual Roman case against Jesus. The unspecified charges in verse 3 are pointless; however, verse 3 makes it clear that the Jewish authorities appear before Pilate with accusations, not with a formal death sentence for ratification. Mark features Jesus' silence before Pilate as he did before the high priest. This silence, in fact, Jesus' passivity in general, may have been inspired by the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.3 Pilate's amazement is a dramatic touch. It reflects later Christian awe rather than a personal reaction of Pilate. Mt 27:11-14 reproduces Mark's parallel with the usual faithfulness. In the first line Matthew reaches back over the Judas legend (3-10) and resumes the narrative thread dropped in verse 2. Matthew continues to speak of Pilate as "the governor." The two trials have better balance, greater consistency in Matthew, for Jesus' replies to the high priest (26:64) and to Pilate (27:11) are identical: "Thou sayest." Lk 23:2-3 is obviously from Luke's non-Markan source with the possible exception of verse 3. 4 However, two independent versions, Markan and non-Markan, could converge and agree almost verbatim on a keyquestion and a key-reply. Luke's version of the Roman hearing has a more natural and logical beginning: a diversity of Jewish charges precedes Pilate's question. The charges, unlike those of Matthew and Mark, reach back through the Jerusalem story (the tribute money) to cover the whole of Jesus' public role as a perverter of the people. These charges are more in harmony with the later Jewish writings which present Jesus as a perverter of the people.5 However, verse 2 of Luke reads like the early Christian propaganda of Acts (14:5-6), an acquittal of Christianity in Roman eyes. Cf. Cf. 3 Cf. * Cf. 5 Cf. 1

2

Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 293; Hauck, Markus, p. 191. Loisy, Luc, p. 542f; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 372. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 289; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 335. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 52f; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 407. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 262.

528

Β.1426-428

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

426. Pilate Declares Jesus Innocent Lk 23:4 This declaration of Pilate is premature; it does not follow naturally on what precedes ( 2 - 3 ) . A challenge from Pilate to deny or disprove would be more natural than this hasty pronouncement. Luke here is looking ahead; he is providing a transition to the hearing before Herod in general and a provocation for the Jewish protest in 5 in particular. Pilate here sees Jesus through the eyes of Christians a generation or more after Jesus' death. In the course of his account of the Roman hearing Luke has this theme of Jesus' innocence intoned three times (23:4,14-16, 22) in the solemn manner of dramatic composition. Luke introduces the multitudes early, and they continue to play a silent but sympathetic part through the Roman hearing and the crucifixion. With this notice Luke begins his wide deviation (4—16) from Mark's version of the trial before Pilate. He also begins his special portrayal of Pilate as the champion of Jesus' innocence. 427. The Delivery to Herod Lk 23:5-7 Several critics 1 regard the transfer to Herod and the hearing before him as an insert (6-16), fitted in by verse 5 and provoked by the reference there to Jesus' work in Galilee. Luke, however, may have had this appearance before Herod in mind since 9:9. It may have been an organic part of Luke's non-Markan version of the death drama. Herod may have figured in the Roman trial in this source because the Jewish charges ( 2 ) cover the whole of Jesus' public work, "beginning from Galilee" ( 5 ) . Furthermore, this tradition of a double hearing before Pilate and Herod persists in Acts (4:27). This doubling of Roman officials also appears in the hearing of the case of Paul (Acts 25:13ff). As a matter of history, Herod may have been in Jerusalem out of deference to the Jewish festival, but this possibility does not render the role ascribed to Herod by Luke in the Roman trial historical. This new section of Luke (4-16) is not a smooth piece of writing, but from the dramatic point of view it introduces new characters, shifts of scene, and more action. 428. Jesus before Herod Lk 23:8-12 This hearing before Herod brings nothing new or different over against the hearing before Pilate. It marks no actual progress in the Roman case against Jesus. It is just an interlude which, more than anything else, pro1

Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 131; Schmidt, Rahmen, p. 307.

529

JESUS

AND THE

FIRST

THREE

GOSPELS

B.1429

vides some variety and diversion, also a recruit for Luke's theme of the innocence of Jesus. Verse 8 carries the reader back to 9:9 and integrates this Herod interlude into Luke's Gospel as a whole. The Jewish charges in 10 should precede Herod's questioning in verse 9. Jesus' silence in Luke comes before Herod, not before the high priest and Pilate as in Matthew and Mark, and it is not featured by Luke in the total trial as it is in Matthew and Mark. The Roman mocking also comes before Herod in Luke, not after the conclusion of the hearing before Pilate as in Matthew and Mark. The "gorgeous apparel" (11) is Luke's only detail in common with the mocking in Mark (15:16-20 1J435). Verses 10-12 are not found in one important MS of Luke ( Syr sin ) , 1 and they may be a later addition.2 In 10 the chief priests and the scribes appear before Herod, but 15 assumes that they did not. Verse 12 belongs to profane history; it is probably the invention of the pious imagination, for it is not confirmed by any known source. Luke's hearing before Herod not only complicates the Roman proceedings but it overloads the time-interval with events: the Jewish trial at dawn, the hearings before Pilate and Herod, and yet Jesus has been on the cross for some time by the sixth hour. This hearing before Herod is probably a piece of pure fiction. Otherwise, it is found only in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter where Herod is made even more responsible for Jesus' death than Pilate. This double hearing may be simply a dramatization of Ps 2:l-2. 3 It is interesting to note that the only Acts reference to the joint responsibility of Pilate and Herod for Jesus' death (4:27) is preceded by a quotation of this Psalms passage (Acts 4:25-26). 429. Before Pilate Again — Second Declaration Lk 23:13-16 This passage has been regarded as so much literary padding, 1 a transition device by which Luke rejoins the hearing before Pilate. It has also been suggested that 13-14 could be joined to 3, leaving the hearing before Herod (4—12) and 15-16 to drop out.2 However, Luke's primary interest in this passage is in the second of Pilate's three formal declarations of Jesus' innocence ( 14 ) and in the recruiting of a new witness, Herod. Verse 15 assumes that the Jewish authorities were not present at the hearing before Herod, although it was stated that they were present in verse 10. The mocking before Herod (11) would not justify Pilate's statement in 15, that Herod had found Jesus innocent. Pilate's proposal in 16 is repeated verbatim in 22 and is premature here. Cf. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 2, 484. Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 131. 3 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte ( 1 9 3 1 ) , p. 294; E . Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 202. 1 Cf. Loisy, Luc, p. 548. " Spitta's reconstruction: L k 2 3 : 3 + 13-14 -f 17ff ( G r u n d s c h r i f t , p. 4 0 9 f ) . 1

2

530

Β.Τ430-431

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

430. The Passover Amnesty — Barabbas Mt 27:15-18 Mk 15:6-10 Lk 23:18b-19 fl432 The Barabbas episode may be an insert into Mark's account of the Roman trial; 10 could join on to 2-5, leaving 6-9 to drop out.1 The introduction of Barabbas has a twofold bearing on the story. It shifts still more responsibility for Jesus' death from Pilate to the Jews, and the BarabbasJesus choice is a surprise which increases the suspense for the reader. Two items in this episode are historically dubious. ( 1 ) The Passover amnesty, assumed to be a regular custom of Pilate, is not attested in any Jewish or Roman source. ( 2 ) Pilate is pictured here as yielding to public pressure. Such was not true of Roman officials generally in their administration over subject peoples nor was it true of what is known of Pilate in particular. The Barabbas episode may be purely fictitious.2 However, some critics 3 have felt that Barabbas was an historical person well known to and popular with the Jerusalem public because of his part in the insurrection. Other critics 4 are inclined to believe that Barabbas was not a proper name at all but identified the insurrectionist as the "son of the rabbi." The multitude in 8 was assumed to be present in 6, for the Jewish public is a more natural antecedent for "them" ( 6 ) than the Jewish authorities. Verse 8 introduces the multitude for the role it begins to play in 11. This multitude assembles, not for the spectacle of Jesus, but to request the usual amnesty. Mt 27:15-18. Matthew introduces the multitude at the very beginning, and he can omit verse 8 of Mark's parallel. Matthew does not specify Barabbas' crime; he is "a notable prisoner," perhaps a better explanation for the people's eventual choice. In Matthew Pilate takes the initiative in proposing the Passover amnesty, not the multitude as in Mark. Matthew highlights the choice proposed by Pilate, Barabbas or Jesus; it is more rhetorical and dramatic. The "envy" in 18 is that of the people, and it is less natural than that of the chief priests in Mark. Luke and his non-Markan source give less space to the Barabbas episode, and there is no reference to the Passover amnesty except in the ingenuine verse 17. 431. The Intervention of Pilate's Wife Mt 27:19 This little fragment, wholly peculiar to Matthew, breaks into the sequence of his story: the choice proposed by Pilate (17) evokes no response Cf. Cf. 8 Cf. Jesu, p. 4 Cf. 1 2

Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 103; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 337f. Loisy, Marc, p. 446; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 164. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 102; Bertram, Die 67; et al. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 128; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 216.

531

Leidensgeschichte

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. | 4 3 2

until it is repeated in verse 21. This little episode was probably inserted by the final redactor of the First Gospel,1 perhaps by the hand responsible for the birth stories in which dreams play a prominent part.2 It is a fanciful fabrication, a definite step in the direction of the later apocryphal writings, the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Acts of Pilate, in which this episode is amplified. In these later writings Pilate's wife bears the name of Claudia Procula and is a Jewish proselyte. Still later she was canonized in the Greek and Egyptian churches. Such an intervention by a Roman matron has little historical plausibility. Her warning has no bearing on the course of events and, in reality, contributes to the compromising of her husband's character. From the apologetical point of view, it is designed to relieve Pilate and the Romans of responsibility for Jesus' death. From the literary point of view, it heightens the tragic aspects of the drama: an innocent man goes to his death. 432. The Request for Barabbas — Third Declaration Mt 27:20-23 Mk 15:11-14 Lk 23:18-23a Mark's scene before Pilate now reaches its climax, and the Roman trial becomes a public spectacle. It is a mob scene, theatrical, even melodramatic, in nature. The details and dialogue belong to dramatic depiction, not to the data of history. As a matter of fact the Roman hearing was probably closed to the public, and the people played no part in the Roman decision. But in Mark's depiction the public now becomes active and vocal and enters as a new factor into the death drama. Mark here introduces in a most abrupt manner a complete reversal of public sentiment: the people demand Jesus' death. This change of public attitude has no explanation or motivation in the story thus far; in fact, it is contradicted by the favor and popularity which have surrounded, even protected, Jesus. This reversal of public feeling is a dramatic device, Mark's final stroke in portraying the utter loneliness of his hero: betrayed by one disciple, denied by another, deserted by all, the people now turn against him and demand his death. The role of Pilate in this mob scene is theatrical rather than historical. The decision is taken from him by the Jewish public. Pilate's question (14a), "Why, what evil hath he done?" is as near as Mark ever comes to compromising the attitude and conduct of Pilate. The whole scene is conceived and composed for the effect on the reader: the public demand (11), Pilate's questions (12, 14a), and the unison responses (13, 14b). Mt 27:20-23 is an almost verbatim reproduction of Mark's parallel with a characteristic elaboration, the new dialogue in 21b. Matthew has three questions of Pilate and three unison responses over against the two in Mark. 1 2

Cf. Schölten, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 17. Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 97.

532

Β. f433-434

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Lk 23:18-23a seems to be a non-Markan version of the Barabbas tradition which probably made no mention of the Passover amnesty. The best MSS of Luke (A, B, L, Τ, K, etc.) have no verse 17 which is very probably a later addition bringing Luke's version closer to that of Mark, yet farther from history: the spurious 17 seems to regard this amnesty as a law which Pilate must respect.1 Luke's version of the episode introduces Barabbas even more abruptly than that of Mark,2 so much so that Luke hastens to give a parenthetical explanation (19) telling who Barabbas is. This is all the background that Luke gives on Barabbas, yet it agrees with Mark against Matthew that Barabbas is an insurrectionist. Luke adds that this insurrection took place in the city itself. In Luke the demand for Barabbas' release is from the Jewish authorities, not from the people as in Matthew and Mark. In 22b Luke has Pilate declare Jesus innocent for "the third time," and the threefold cycle is completed. This numerical emphasis betrays deliberate dramatic design in Luke's portrayal of Pilate. 433. Pilate Washes his Hands Mt 27:24-25 This bit of tradition, peculiar to Matthew, is a companion-piece to 27:19 although Pilate's act is not connected with his wife's warning except in the reader's mind. With these two fragments (27:19, 24-25) Matthew accomplishes the same thing which Luke does with Pilate's three formal declarations of Jesus' innocence: the responsibility for Jesus' death rests with the Jews, not with the Romans. This alleged episode is simply a piece of apologetical and polemical fiction inspired by the bitter prejudice of later Christians. The symbolic action depicted is Jewish (Dt 21:6ff), and Pilate's declaration in 24b is almost verbatim from II Sam 3:28. Ascribed to a Roman governor, the action is an undisguised travesty. In 25 Matthew's polemical design transcends the situation depicted: the curse involved falls upon the whole Jewish people, not just the multitude present. Verse 25 is phrased in Jewish terms (II Sam 1:16; 3:29; Jer 51:35), but from the later Christian point of view.1 It is the climax of the antiJewishness that has appeared repeatedly in Matthew's Gospel.2 434. Barabbas Released — Jesus Condemned Mt 27:26 Mk 15:15 Lk 23:23b-25 With this brief notice Mark's account of the Roman trial ends. Pilate's action has a very vague and meagre explanation: "wishing to content the multitude." This must be a later Christian inference drawn from the fact Cf. Cf. 1 Cf. 2 Cf. 1

2

Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 411. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 34. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 174f. Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu, p. 68.

533

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. ^435

that Pilate did condemn Jesus to death. The scourging is mentioned almost as an afterthought. It is a dry, unfeeling, juristic notice,1 stating something that must have happened rather than something that was known to have happened.2 According to Josephus,3 scourging always preceded crucifixion. Verse 15 has its natural narrative continuation in 20b. Mt 27:26. This final action of Pilate is not as mysterious in Matthew as it is in Mark because of what precedes (24r-25). The way was cleared by Pilate's symbolic action and the Jewish assumption of the consequences for all time to come. Matthew is writing religious drama rather that recording history. The idea of contenting the multitude (Mark) does not figure in Pilate's decision in Matthew. Lk 23:23b-25. In Luke Pilate is yielding to the Jewish authorities, not to public pressure (Mark). Luke highlights the shamefulness of the choice of Barabbas by repeating the notice in 19. In Luke Pilate has twice proposed scourging (16, 22) but none is carried out. Luke again shows his distaste for physical violence by omitting the scourging. In Luke scourging and release seem to be the alternative to crucifixion. Luke comes very near leaving the impression that Jesus was delivered up to the Jewish authorities for execution. However, the Roman military is in charge in 36 and 47. 435. Jesus Mocked by the Soldiers Mt 27:27-31 Mk 15:16-20 This episode is a brief interlude between the Roman trial and the crucifixion. From the literary point of view, it is an insert. Verse 20b is the link between 15 and 21.1 Such derision seems tame and improbable after a Roman scourging. This mocking may be a fabrication spun out of the bare notice about the scourging.2 Or, it may be an enlargement on the mocking at the Jewish hearing (14:65). 3 In 14:65 Jesus was mocked as a prophet; here, as King of the Jews. In 14:65 Jewish contempt and hatred expressed themselves; here there is more of derision and ridicule. The special form of insult and abuse suggests fanatical Jews rather than amused Roman soldiers. The detail and color in this scene are not data which were preserved in Christian memory; they are rather the product of imaginative invention and creative writing. Mt 27:27-31 is another good example of almost verbatim reproduction of Mark's parallel. For Matthew, Pilate is still "the governor." In Matthew Cf. Cf. a Cf. 1 Cf. 3 Cf. ' Cf. 1 2

J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 329f. Warschauer, The Historical Life of Christ, p. 329. Wars ii. 14, 9; v. 11, 1. Drews, Das Markusevangelium, p. 344; Klostermann, Markus, p. 181; et al. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 109; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 216; et al. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 379; Hauck, Markus, p. 184; et al.

534

Β. H436-448

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

the reed is a part of the mocking, not an instrument for abuse as it is in Mark. Luke has no scene within the Praetorium, and he names no locality in connection with the Roman trial. Luke's notice about the mocking was a part of the scene before Herod, not an aftermath to the Roman action as it is in Matthew and Mark. Luke's non-Markan source probably had no other mocking than the one briefly noted in 23:II. 4 Mark's mocking would not appeal to Luke because of his desire to spare the Romans 5 and his general dislike for any physical abuse.0 THE CRUCIFIXION

Mt 27:32-66

Mk 15:21-17

Lk 23:26-56

H436-448

Mark's crucifixion scene is the climax and conclusion of his Gospel drama as a whole. Each major element in the story thus far has been converging toward this one point. The end was in the beginning, although the death theme did not become articulate until the first formal prophecy of death (8:31). It was not possible for the early Christians to recall and recount this final phase of the story with any measure of detachment or objectivity. The infinite religious meaning of Jesus' death on the cross flooded the early Christian mind which, in turn, became positively creative in the formation of the story. It was primarily faith, not fact or knowledge of fact, that produced Mark's version of the crucifixion story. Attempts have been made to extract an historical kernel from Mark's crucifixion account. Bultman 1 finds this historical kernel in Mk 15:20b-24a; all else he regards as elaboration and ornamentation. Wendling 2 tried to reconstruct the primitive account of Urmark: 21 + 22a + 23 + 24a + 26-27 + 31b-32 + 34a + 37. However, the primitive basis for the story may have been simply the known fact that Jesus was crucified. Around this germ-cell incidents and episodes, action and actors, sayings and dialogue, depictive color and detail, gathered to form a narrative and dramatic whole. The crucifixion of Jesus was a public event; hence there was the possibility of witnesses.3 In fact, Mark seems deliberately to provide for this by his introduction of new characters: Simon of Cyrene, the Roman centurion, Joseph of Arimathea as well as the group of Galilean women. These witnesses, however, and the parts they play may be as unreal as other elements * Cf. 5 Cf. 9 Cf. ^f. 2 Cf. s Cf. 186.

Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen, p. 63; Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 54. Klostermann, Lukas, p. 225; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 504f. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium, p. 608. Geschichte (1931), p. 294. Ur-Marcus, p. 19f. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 333; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I,

535

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B.H436

in the story, for Mark reports some things that were never seen or heard except by the eyes and ears of faith. The whole story of the crucifixion is overshadowed by the supernatural, invaded by the miraculous, adorned with fiction and legend, with details and color inspired by the Old Testament, especially the 22nd and 69th Psalms.4 Mark's crucifixion story could very well be a Christian dramatization of the 22nd Psalm on the basis of the known fact and general circumstances of Jesus' death. Thus, Mark's crucifixion story not only develops the theme of the fulfillment of prophecy, but this idea itself has been creative, contributing incidents, dialogue, even an utterance of Jesus. Mark's crucifixion story is told with reserve and taste.5 Mark spares his readers the horrible physical details, doubtless for the reason that he is portraying the climax of a divine drama, the death of the Son of God, not the tragic martyrdom of a human hero. Mt 27:32-66 follows Mark's version of the crucifixion story almost line for line, and often word for word. Matthew has no new information, but he adds some new materials and later legendary touches to the old. He enhances the miraculous and supernatural element, and his form of the story is in still closer conformity with the 22nd and 69th Psalms.6 Lk 23:26-56 seems to come from Luke's non-Markan source with only fleèting contacts with Mark's version.7 In general, Luke's version has greater affinity with the traditional type of martyr-legend, featuring the human, noble, and devout qualities of the hero.8 This appears especially in the wholly new tradition on the words of Jesus from the cross. In fact, over against the tradition of Matthew and Mark, these utterances breathe a different spirit and give a very different picture of Jesus in the hour of death. Some critics 9 feel that this new group of utterances has no historical value; they show only what Christian tradition ventured to attribute to Jesus. They may be simply fresh examples of rhetorical distortion,10 for their primary purpose is to edify the reader. 436. Simon of Cyrene Mt 27:32 Mk 15:21 Lk 23:26 Simon of Cyrene and his role are rather generally accepted as historical. It is not clear, however, whether he is a Passover pilgrim from North Africa Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 592; Schniewind, Markus, p. 190; et al. Cf. Fiebig, Der Erzählungsstil der Evangelien, p. 130. 6 Cf. Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen, p. 76. 7 Cf. Feine, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung, p. 70ff; Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 58f; et al. " Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 61. " Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, II, 179; Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 76. 10 For definition, see p. 54. 1

5

536

Β.|43β

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

or a Jerusalem resident of Cyrenian origin. Legend, however, can create characters, their names and the roles they play.1 It has been suggested that Simon and his role may be a dramatization of Jesus' figurative speech about bearing one's cross (Mk 8:34). 2 Simon's identification as "the father of Alexander and Rufus" would seem to assume that the two sons were known to the writer and readers of Mark's Gospel, one of the rare traces of any personal interest in the whole of this document.3 This identification makes it clear that a generation has passed between the events and their recording. Mark may intend that this identification should vouch for his story as originating with an eyewitness. However, this identification may be a later addition to Mark, for it does not reappear in Matthew and Luke.4 The clause, "coming from the country," has been taken to mean "coming from work in the field." This would point to a workday, not a feast day, as the day and date of Jesus' death.5 However, this clause is too vague for assuming field work, and it may have no bearing whatever on the day or date of Jesus' death.® It may be equivalent to saying simply, "coming from outside the city." 7 Plutarch says that it was the custom for the victim to carry his own cross (Jn 19:17). However, the scourging may have left Jesus in no condition to bear such a burden.8 Matthew and Luke begin their crucifixion story with Simon of Cyrene bearing Jesus' cross. However, Mark's identification, "the father of Alexander and Rufus," does not reappear in either. It may have had no personal interest for them or their readers. Or, as already noted, it may not have been in their Mark. Mt 27:32 reproduces Mark's parallel, omitting the identification as just noted and also Mark's clause, "coming from the country." Lk 23:26. Even advocates of Proto-Luke regard this verse as a borrowing from Mark.9 This notice about Simon of Cyrene in Luke, however, has such a close connection with the non-Markan matter which follows in 27-32 that it not only introduces it but forms a narrative unit with it, and this might indicate the non-Markan origin of verse 26 itself.10 In Luke Simon bears the Cf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 296. Cf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, II, 367. 3 Cf. Klostermann, Markus, p. 182; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 342. 4 Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 414. 5 Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 130; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 414. " Cf. Klostermann, Markus, p. 182; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 342. 7 Cf. Dalman, Jesus-Jeschua, p. 101; Hauck, Markus, p. 185. 8 Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 171; Goguel, Life of Jesus, p. 531. • Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 50. 10 Cf. Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu, p. 73. 1 2

537

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. 1f437-438

cross "after Jesus" as though in conformity with Jesus' word in Lk 9:23 (P80).» 437. Via Dolorosa Lk 23:27-32 This passage has the appearance of a new unit peculiar to Luke only because it has no parallel in Matthew and Mark. Actually, in conception and depiction, it continues and develops the situation begun in the statement about Simon of Cyrene ( 26 ). Consequently, 26-32 is a natural narrative unit, and it may have been the beginning of the crucifixion story in the nonMarkan source of Luke.1 Luke alone, or his non-Markan source, depicts the procession to the place of execution: the Roman soldiers (36), Jesus, Simon of Cyrene bearing the cross, the multitudes, the weeping women, and the two malefactors. Luke's non-Markan source introduces the two malefactors earlier in the crucifixion story than does Mark (or Matthew), and generally they play a more prominent part in it. Luke does not specify their crime; they are just criminals. This new passage of Luke is primarily discourse. Its heart is an eschatological fragment in 28-30 which is Jewish in thought and style and whose interest centers on the fate of Jerusalem as in earlier passages peculiar to Luke in his Jerusalem story (19:41-44 fl321; 21:20-22 |f367; 21:24b fl371). Jesus entered the Holy City predicting its fall, and now he leaves it with a parallel prediction.2 The passage is poetical in nature, a piece of rhetorical decoration lending color to the via dolorosa. In spite of its Jewish thought and style, the passage reflects later Christian sentiment in its context: Jesus' death will be avenged upon the people of Jerusalem. It is a piece of literary composition rather than a spontaneous oral utterance. It may have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem which was regarded by the later Christians as divine vengeance for Jesus' death. Verse 31 reads like a proverb or near-parable. The antithesis, the green wood and the dry, comes from Ezek 20:47. Verse 31 is not a natural or logical part of the prophecy in 28-30. The "women who bewailed and lamented him" (27) could easily be inferred from the beginning of the prophecy itself, "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me" ( 28 ). 438. The Execution Mt 27:33-35 Mk 15:22-25 Lk 23:33-34 The name Golgotha may be a geographical fiction, for it is not found in Josephus or in any other non-Christian source. However, Mark speaks of it as though it were a familiar locality just outside of the city. Like so many geographical proper names in Mark, it is not organic to the narrative. " Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 174; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 414; et al. 1 Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 415. 2 Cf. Schlatter, Lukas, p. 444.

538

Β.1438

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

According to rabbinical sources,1 the drink mentioned in 23 was offered out of humanitarian motives to deaden the senses somewhat and reduce the physical torture of death by crucifixion. If the refusal of this drink is historical, it would indicate that Jesus preferred to die in clear consciousness, in full possession of his faculties.2 This drink in Mark, however, may be pure fiction inspired by Ps 69:21 — even the refusal of it by the same Psalm.3 It may be a later insert, for 23 with its verbs in the past tense seems out of place between 22 and 24 whose verbs are in the historical present.4 The crucifixion itself ( 24a ) Mark does not describe, for which his readers can be grateful. The parting of Jesus' garments is probably a later legendary item suggested by Ps 22:18. 5 Jewish prophecy has produced Christian "history." 6 The time-notice in 25, "the third hour," belongs to the general circumstances of the crucifixion, not to its details. With 25 Mark begins his artificial division of the death day into three-hour periods. This scheme may have nothing whatever to do with the sequence of events in connection with Jesus' death. It may be due entirely to the ritualistic stations and stages in the church's observance of the death day.7 Verse 25 is generally regarded as a later editorial addition to Mark.8 It does not reappear in Matthew and Luke, as though the Mark they knew did not contain it. The natural place for this time-notice was in connection with 24a. Verse 25b repeats 24a, "And they crucify him," with only a change of tense. Like 23, verse 25 uses the past tense between the historical present tenses in 24 and 27. Neither Matthew nor Luke has a parallel to Mk 25 with the result that the hour of crucifixion is not stated in the two later Gospels. Thereby also there is no awkward repetition in Matthew and Luke as there is in Mk 24a and 25b, "And they crucify him." Mt 27:33-35 reproduces Mark's parallel with only minor differences. Mark's drink of "wine mingled with myrrh" becomes "wine mingled with gall" in Matthew and thus conforms more closely to Ps 69:21. The humane custom in Mark becomes a mockery in Matthew 9 and duplicates the offer of the vinegar. In Mark Jesus refuses the drink without tasting it; in Matthew he tastes it and then refuses it. Cf. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 133. Cf. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 392. 8 Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 459. * Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 334. 5 Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 193; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 50. ' Cf. Feigel, Der Einfluss des Weissagungsbeweises, p. 70. * Cf. Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, p. 217. 8 Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 335; Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 200; et al. ' Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 348. 1 2

539

J E S U S AND T H E

FIRST THREE

GOSPELS

B. | 4 3 9

Lk 23:33-34 is non-Markan tradition wholly independent of Mark's text with the possible exception of the notice about casting lots for Jesus' garments.10 However, two wholly independent sources could agree closely in such an item. Luke has not yet mentioned the Roman soldiers ( 36 ) in connection with Jesus' death, but "they" in 33 ( and 34b ) could hardly refer to the Jewish rulers as the executioners.11 Luke, or his source, does not use the name Golgotha as earlier (22:40) he did not use the name Gethsemane. Luke mentions the malefactors twice (32, 33b) before they are mentioned for the first time in Matthew and Mark. The notice about the position of the crosses, to the right and to the left, also comes earlier in Luke's account. The outstanding new element in Luke is the utterance, a prayer, ascribed to Jesus in 34a. This first of the three words from the cross in Luke is commonly regarded as unauthentic and as a later addition. It is not found in some of the oldest and best MSS of Luke (Aleph, B, D, W, etc.). It breaks the natural connection between 33 and 34b. 12 The Book of Acts (7:60) places this prayer on the lips of Stephen.13 It may be of later Christian origin and carried back to Jesus himself. Its primary purpose is Christian, namely, to edify.14 This prayer may be simply the precept in Lk 6:27-28 converted into deed and action.15 Or, it may have been suggested by Isa 53:12: "He made intercession for the transgressors." 16 439. Jesus Mocked at the Cross Mt 27:36-44 Mk 15:26^32 Lk 23:35-39 The sign on the cross conforms to Roman custom. Its purpose was to state the offense or crime of the condemned. The legend, "The King of the Jews," may be the only historical datum about which the various traditions have gathered to form the story of the Roman trial and the crucifixion.1 This legend, however, has aroused skepticism. It expresses contemptuous ridicule for the Jews which would be more natural from later Christians than from contemporary Roman authorities.2 Verse 27 brings the first mention of the fellow-victims in Mark. Their crime is specified: they are robbers, not just malefactors as in Luke. Later Jewish regulations forbade the execution of more than one criminal on the same day.3 This, however, is a Roman execution. The two robbers may or Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 56. Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 672; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 624. 12 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 673. 13 Cf. Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu, p. 87. " Cf. Renan, Vie de Jésus, p. 421. " Cf. Goguel, Life of Jesus, p. 536; against this view, see Deissmann, Evangelium und Urchristentum, p. 99. 18 Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, II, 179. 1 Cf. Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, p. 217. 2 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 220f. ' Cf. Α. Jeremias, Babylonisches im Neuen Testament (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905), p. 21. 10

11

540

Β.|439

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

may not be historical. In Mark they play an unnatural and improbable role (32b), and they may be simply dramatic counterparts to Jesus. Their invention may have been suggested by Isa 53:12: he "was numbered with the transgressors,"4 Some MSS of Mark (E, F, G, L, etc.) have a verse 28 with a direct quotation of this Old Testament passage, but it is probably a later scribal insert from Lk 22:37. 5 Verses 29-32a present the most striking instance of duplication in the crucifixion story: one mocking in 29-30; a second in 31-32a.® The first mocking comes from those who pass by, and it centers on the alleged word against the temple in the the Jewish trial (14:58). Here there is no reference to building "with" or "without hands." This first mocking is addressed directly to Jesus himself. It seems to be modelled after Ps 22:8. It is favored by some as the older and more authentic account of the mocking at the cross.7 The second mocking (31-32a) is not addressed to Jesus directly, but the mockers converse among themselves about Jesus in the third person. The taunt in 31 which has the background of Jesus' healing activity is strange, for cures have not figured at all in Mark's Jerusalem story. The taunt in 32a centers on the question of Pilate (15:2) and on the legend on the cross (15:26). It is more closely related to its immediate context. There are those who favor this second mocking as the older and more authentic of the two.8 Both mockings are probably legendary. Such detail in speech and dialogue does not belong to the data of memory for oral transmission but to dramatic imagination and depiction in the literary stages of tradition. According to Mark, both robbers join in the mocking of Jesus, but Mark does not put their reproaches in actual words. Legend has not yet reached this stage in Mark. Mt 27:36-44 reproduces Mark's parallel line for line, almost word for word. In 43 Matthew adds a new taunt which has Ps 22:8 as its background. Lk 23:35-39. Luke, or his non-Markan source, has the materials in this unit in reverse order of Mark ( and Matthew ). In Luke the mocking precedes the sign on the cross; in Matthew and Mark it follows. Luke makes a sharp distinction between the people and their rulers. The latter scoff, but the people continue to play their silent but sympathetic role ( 27 ). The ridicule of the rulers in 35b parallels the second mocking in Mark ( 31 ). Luke's nonCf. Bruno Bauer, Kritik, III, 296; Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1921), p. 72. ' Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 462; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 382; et al. β Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 295; Cadoux, The Second Gospel, p. 245; et al 7 Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 131; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 295; et al. 8 Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 336; Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 200. 4

541

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

B.1440

Markan source seems to have known nothing of the alleged word against the temple either at the Jewish trial or at the cross, and it may be a later Christian fabrication. In 36 the soldiers are mentioned for the first time in Luke's crucifixion scene, and they join in the mocking — a new feature from Luke's own source. Their offer of vinegar, the only drink in Luke's crucifixion scene, is rather pointless as an act of derision, for vinegar was a common drink with Roman soldiers.9 The taunt in 37 is not natural from Roman soldiers.10 Verse 36 should be deleted, leaving the taunt in 37 on the lips of the Jewish rulers (35). 1 1 Even the sign on the cross becomes derisive in Luke (38), and it fits so poorly into Luke's context that it may have been borrowed from Mark.12 Verse 39 joins better on to 37 as a continuation of the mocking than on to 38. However, 39 really cuts itself off from what precedes, for it is the beginning of a new non-Markan unit in 39-43. In Luke only one of the malefactors mocks Jesus; the other comes to his defense. In 39 Luke, or his source, follows the tendency of legend: to expand, differentiate, and specify. The result is a dialogue between the crucified trio ( 39-43 ). 440. The Malefactor on the Cross Lk 23:40-43 This passage of Luke (including 39) is one of the finest examples of legendary growth in the Synoptic tradition. Dim figures in a general statement like Mk 15:32b become characters in an action and speakers in a dialogue. In the apocryphal Gospels the two malefactors acquire names, and the dialogue is expanded into lengthy speeches by each of the trio on the crosses.1 This story may have come from Luke's non-Markan source, or it may be his own free composition.2 It is a typically Lukan story. It exhibits the same fondness for penitents and contrasted pairs found in other stories peculiar to Luke. The story has a very human quality. It is a martyr-legend designed to portray the nobility of the hero's character, and this is accomplished again (34a) by a key-utterance, Luke's second ascribed to Jesus on the cross. Verse 43 is one of the strangest words put on the lips of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition. Paradise here is a place of eternal abode which the departed enter immediately after death as in Lk 16:22. Such a conception excludes all eschatology about a kingdom to come, all idea of resurrection, even that of Cf. Cf. 11 Cf. 12 Cf. 1 Cf. 2 Cf. 0

Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 264. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 675. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 419. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 57. Donehoo, The Apocryphal Life of Christ, p. 350f. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 35.

542

Β. |441

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Jesus.3 Paradise here is more like the Christian heaven, and this utterance is probably a later Christian creation.4 441. The Death of Jesus Mt 27:45-50 Mk 15:33-37 Lk 23:44-46 The time-notations, the sixth and ninth hours, probably come from the same editorial hand that made the day-by-day division of the Jerusalem story. The darkness at noonday is mythological and belongs to ancient folk-psychology. With this darkness Jesus' death becomes a cosmic catastrophe. In particular, it may have been suggested by Amos 8:9. For Mark, this darkness is a miracle. He makes no attempt to describe or explain it as does the Gospel of Peter. It is generally thought that 34r-37 give duplicate accounts of Jesus' death: one in 34-36, the other in 37.1 The older account had Jesus die with a loud inarticulate cry ( 37 ). The later legendary account made his last cry articulate (34) with a word from Ps 22:1; 35-36 are an elaboration based on 34. Some critics 2 have regarded the cry in 34 as authentic. No Christian, they feel, would invent such an utterance with such implications. It is too human, too realistic, so at variance with Mark's general portrayal of Jesus as the strong Son of God. Others,3 however, are of the opinion that the cry in 34 is only an elaboration on 37 and that this passage was placed on Jesus' lips by later tradition. It is simply another detail conforming the story of Jesus' death to the crucifixion Psalm (22). In Mark Ps 22:1 is quoted in the Aramaic. This Aramaic form probably comes from the final redactor of Mark's Gospel who is fond of Aramaic words — which do not reappear in Matthew and Luke. Matthew quotes the original Hebrew, perhaps from the text of Mark as he knew it.4 The cry in 34 is misunderstood in 35-36; this misunderstanding would be possible only in the case of the Hebrew Eli. This cry, the only word from the cross in Mark, has no psychological value as a clue to Jesus' frame of mind when death came. Mark does not seem to think of it as an expression of despair or dereliction. This seems clear in the reaction of the centurion ( 39 ) who sees in Jesus the Son of God, not a frustrated human being. The death story was written for the edification of Christians, "not for their bewilderment."5 The resort to Scripture in ' Cf. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 1, 409. * Cf. Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu, p. 89. 1 Cf. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 337; Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 197; et al. * Cf. P. W. Schmiedel, Die Person Jesu im Streite der Meinungen der Gegenwart (Leipzig: Verlag von M. Heinsius Nachfolger, 1906), p. 7; A. Deissmann, Evangelium und Urchristentum (München: J. F. Lehmanns Verlag, undated), p. 100. 3 Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 467; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 383. 4 Cf. Ewald, Die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 359; Torrey, The Four Gospels, p. 277; et al. " Cf. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation, p. 159.

543

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

B.H441

the hour of death is in itself an act of faith. The Gospel of Peter has a very different text for this cry: "My Power, my Power, why hast thou forsaken me?" Verses 35-36 are a secondary phase developed by a word-play on 34, and it introduces confusion.6 If the one who offers the vinegar is a Roman soldier, he would know nothing about Elijah. If he is a Jew as the misunderstanding would seem to require, he probably would not have such ready access to the cross. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the offer of vinegar is an act of mercy or ridicule. Some critics 7 would delete 36a and join 35 with 36b. Others 8 would delete 35 and 36b in favor of 36a. In any case the offer of vinegar probably comes from Ps 69:21. Verse 37 seems to be the original death notice and, except for 39, Mark's death drama might end with it.9 In Mark's scheme death comes quickly, after six hours. According to Origen, crucified victims sometimes lived as long as two days. Matthew and Luke now note the three-hour periods of the death day, the sixth and the ninth hours. They did not note the hour of crucifixion, the third hour (Mk 15:25). Mt 27:45-50 reproduces Mark's parallel with only minor variations. In Matthew the darkness which comes with Jesus' death is a heavenly counterpart to the star heralding his birth.10 As noted already, Matthew quotes Ps 22:1 in the Hebrew and the misunderstanding which follows is more natural.11 What the one offering the vinegar says in Mark (36) is addressed to him by others in Matthew (49). Some MSS of Matthew (Aleph, B, C, L, U, etc.) add the spear thrust in 49, but this would seem to be a later scribal borrowing from Jn 19:34. 12 Lk 23:44-46 is very brief compared with its parallel in Mark, and it may be in part from Luke's non-Markan source with 44-45 borrowed from Mark.13 Luke groups his supernatural signs at one point (44^45); the interval of three hours between the falling of the strange darkness and the rending of the veil of the temple (Matthew and Mark) disappears from Luke. In Luke the rending of the veil of the temple precedes Jesus' death; in Mark (and Matthew) it follows immediately upon Jesus' death. "The sun's light failing" seems to be an editorial attempt at a naturalistic explanation of the darkness at noonday. Luke, or his source, has no parallel to the " Cf. Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu, p. 82. ' Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 132. 8 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 166. 9 Cf. Bacon, The Gospel of Mark, p. 199. 10 Cf. Jeremias, Babylonisches im NT, p. 103. 11 Cf. Zahn, Matthäus, p. 714. 13 Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 384; Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 136. 13 Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 58.

544

Β. Τ442

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

only word from the cross in Mark (15:34); it was unsuited to Luke's portrayal of the calm and composure with which Jesus dies. In Luke there is no place for the misunderstanding, "He calleth Elijah" (Mk 15:35). The offer of the vinegar Luke reported earlier ( 36 ) as a part of the mocking. In Luke the last loud cry (Mk 15:37) becomes articulate, and Jesus' final word from the cross (46) is a prayer of commitment from Ps 31:5a. It is in the same mood and temper as the first two utterances (34a and 43). All three are designed to edify the Christian reader, even to show Christian martyrs how to die, as Stephen died in imitation of his Master (Acts 7:59). 442. Supernatural Signs Mt. 27:51-53 Mk 15:38 Lk 23:45b ]J441 This notice carries the reader away momentarily from the scene of action (Golgotha) into the city and the temple. Verse 38 breaks the natural connection between 37 and 39. The centurion's confession (39) was provoked by the events in 33-37, not by the rending of the veil of the temple which he cannot have witnessed.1 Mark intends the rending of the veil of the temple as the direct result of Jesus' death; hence the break in the narrative. The miracle in the temple has no witnesses in the story itself, only in the imagination of writer and readers. It is a bit of symbolic narration dramatizing a favorite religious idea of Paul (Rom 5) and of the author of Hebrews (6:19-20; 10:19-21 ) : with Jesus' death on the cross the last barrier between God and man is broken down.2 In the Gospel of Hebrews it is the lintel of one of the temple doors which collapses. Mt 27:51-53 increases the supernatural signs in connection with Jesus' death; to the rending of the temple veil he adds an earthquake and the resurrection of saints. Earthquakes were often regarded by the ancient mind as an act of divine vengeance for national neglect and crime. Matthew's earthquake may have been suggested by Isa 24:18-20. 3 The opening of the tombs Matthew seems to regard as the result of the earthquake. Who the saints are that are raised from the dead Matthew does not say. They must be devout Jews, for there are as yet no Christians. Verse 52 may be a fragment of resurrection tradition, a very late addition to Matthew and placed too early. Matthew here has saints rising from the dead even before Jesus' own resurrection. This is in open conflict with the early Christian conviction that Jesus was the "first fruits" of the resurrection (I Cor 15:20, 23). The awkward phrase, "after his resurrection," may be a later addition and correction in the light of this Christian conviction.4 HowCf. Schölten, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 224f; Hauck, Markus, p. 189; et al. Cf. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 394; J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 70; et al. 3 Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 262. 4 Cf. Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 140. 1

2

545

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. «1443

ever, this delay in appearance weakens the miracle. The legend loses its full force unless the saints rise from the dead and appear at once.5 Luke (23:44-45 1(441) had all the supernatural signs precede Jesus' death. 443. The Centurion at the Cross Mt 27:54 Mk 15:39 Lk 23:47 It is not easy to construe the centurion and his confession in any genetic way with what immediately precedes.1 The confession seems to be provoked by the manner of Jesus' death, and yet it ( 39 ) is separated awkwardly from the notice of Jesus' death (37) by the notice about the rending of the veil of the temple ( 38 ). It is not clear just what it was in the manner of Jesus' death that could so impress the centurion: the totality of the tragic circumstances, the prayer of protest ( 34 ), or the wordless cry at expiration ( 37 ). The confession itself constitutes a problem. In substance it repeats the voices at the baptism (1:11) and at the transfiguration (9:7). These were heavenly voices speaking from the background of eternity, and there could be no question of historical verisimilitude. The voice at the cross is different. It comes from the earthly scene; it is that of a Roman soldier, a Gentile and a pagan. And yet this voice makes an affirmation which has the background of Jewish monotheism and which uses a technical theological term, the Son of God, of a religion not yet in existence. The union of so much that is Jewish and Christian on the lips of a Roman pagan, as though converted to a faith not yet born, is too much for the historical imagination.2 Mark's centurion plays "un role quasi chretien."3 The critical reader feels that again he has been lifted from the realm of reality to that of dramatized dogma. Still another consideration suggests that the incident of the centurion at the cross is entirely a dramatic piece. The centurion appears here as typical.4 He speaks not just for himself but for his group, witnessing to the dynamic force released in the world with Christ's death on the cross. The utterance is prophetic and symbolic, the collective voice of paganism destined, in Christian conviction, to make the same confession. The centurion is a prototype rather than an individual. The confession of the centurion is dramatic, not only in its design, but in its effect. It brings Mark's story of Jesus to an end, to a full stop. It may even have been the case that, at one time, the Gospel of Mark ended with the centurion's confession.5 What follows (15:40-47) is only an aftermath, Cf. Cf. a Cf. 3 Cf. 1 Cf. 5 Cf. c

1

Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 349. Spitta, Jesus und die Heidenmission, p. 38. Drews, Das Markusevangelium, p. 365. Renan, Vie de Jésus, p. 254. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 394; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 218f; et al. Loisy, Marc, p. 471; Wellhausen, Marci, p. 136; et al.

546

Β. 11443

THE PUBLIC

TRADITION

providing a transition to the resurrection tradition. Thus, the last line of Mark's Gospel (15:39) would return to the very first (1:1), ending the gospel of the Son of God with the same dramatic abruptness with which it began.6 The dogma intoned at the cross is identical with that at the baptism and at the transfiguration. The only difference is in the means of dramatization. At the cross there is no ecstatic vision, and heaven does not impose itself on the human scene. It is what happens on earth, not in heaven, that provokes the centurion's confession: he actually beholds the dying Son of God. The scene at the cross presents the third act in the divine drama, the climax and conclusion of the total progression. The divine revelation has achieved its destiny. The dogma of the Son of God has now assumed its final phase, that of human belief and confession. The development and dramatization of Mark's dogma of the Son of God is now completed. With precise periodicity, at measured intervals, this dogma was set forth in colorful scenes. These scenes did not depict historical incidents in the life of Jesus; they were the imaginative creations of a postresurrection faith. This faith read itself back, ever farther and deeper, into the history of Jesus until it dominated the whole. In these scenes Jesus, the three disciples, and the centurion are only dramatic subjects. In each case the reader is the actual subject; it is he who sees and hears, in imagination, the unfolding drama, as a spectator might witness a play enacted on the stage.7 The Greek text of Mk 39 can be rendered "a son of God" as well as "the Son of God." Such a term and conception could be ascribed to a pagan, for "sons of God" were a part of ancient mythology. However, no Christian writer like Mark, no Christian readers of his Gospel, could write or read this confession in any pagan, polytheistic sense. Mt 27:54. In Matthew the connection between the centurion's confession (54) and Jesus' death (50) is completely severed. In Matthew the confession is provoked by "the earthquake and the things that were done." In Matthew, too, the confession is a unison confession of a group, "the centurion and they that were with him." Lk 23:47. The provocation for the centurion's statement in Luke is not clear: "when (he) saw what was done" — perhaps the totality of the circumstances leading up to Jesus' death. Luke's form of the centurion's statement is less dogmatic than that of Mark (and Matthew); it is not a confession to the Christian faith. Luke's form, however, is not free from partisan bias, for in Luke the statement is apologetical, and the centurion witnesses 6 Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 600; Feigel, Der Einfluss des Weissagungsbeweises, p. 74; et al. 7 Cf. Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu, p. 93.

547

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. |444-445

to Jesus' innocence.8 In Luke the centurion makes a juristic statement; it is an ethical appraisal.9 In Mark the centurion is a christologist; in Luke he is an apologist. In both Mark and Luke, then, the same basic tradition is made to serve different but equally unhistorical ends. 444. The Grief of the Multitudes Lk 23:48 In Luke the sympathetic public now makes its final appearance in its silent role. The people are loyal to the end; they have not turned against Jesus and demanded his death as in the Roman trial of Matthew and Mark. From the dramatic point of view, this notice is a counterpart to 27 and 35. From the apologetica! angle, it loads responsibility for Jesus' death on to the Jewish rulers, not on the whole Jewish people as in Mt 27:25. Inventive imagination and creative writing, not history, are responsible for such colorful touches in Luke (or in his non-Markan source). 445. The Galilean Women as Witnesses Mt 27:55-56 Mk 15:40-41 Lk 23:49 Mk 15:40-16:8 is a postlude to the Gospel story which ended with the centurion's confession in 15:39.1 This final section of Mark is a legendary whole with new dramatis personae. The Galilean women are introduced here very abruptly. They and their story were not a part of the most primitive tradition. With this abrupt notice about the women, Mark is not thinking of what precedes, but rather is he preparing the way for what follows: Jesus' burial and the discovery of the empty tomb. Mark's notice about these women has been taken by some critics with great historical seriousness. The women are accepted as eyewitnesses of the end and as sponsors for the story of Jesus' death. Some of these women are named as though they were known personally in the early Christian community. The notice about them is detailed. They are referred to as involved in earlier events, as a part of Jesus' following in Galilee — yet there was no reference to them in the course of Mark's Galilean story. Mark's notice about these women has also been regarded with skepticism.2 Verses 40-41 read more like an editorial than an historical notice. Why were not these women mentioned earlier, in the course of the Galilean story itself if they were actually a part of it? The fact that they behold "from afar" may be a subtle admission that originally no eyewitnesses from Cf. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 35; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 474; et al. ' Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 268f; H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 420; et al. 1 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 201; Bacon, The Gospel of Mark, p. 312; et al. 2 Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 218; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 166; et al. 8

548

Β.Ϊ446

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

Jesus' company were present. 3 Six verses later (47) these women are introduced as though they had not been mentioned before. In their three appearances ( 15:40-41, 47; 16:1-8) even Mark is not wholly consistent as to their number and names. Finally, a live and growing tradition that can produce "history" has no difficulty in providing "witnesses" for that "history." Mt 27:55-56 either condenses Mark's notice about these women or Mark's notice has been expanded later. Matthew makes no reference to the women as a part of the Galilean story, and Mark's distinction between the women who followed Jesus in Galilee and those who accompanied him to Jerusalem disappears in Matthew. According to Matthew, they followed and ministered to Jesus on the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. Matthew has no Salome (Mark), unless she is the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Lk 23:49. In Luke, and in his non-Markan source, this group of Galilean women is not new in the story. Luke named these women in the course of the Galilean story as a part of the Galilean following and as ministering to Jesus (Lk 8:1-3 ffll4). Here, however, there is no reference to them as a part of the Galilean following; they have followed Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem. Luke does not rename the women here or in their next appearance (55-56); only on their final appearance (24:10). Luke mentions "all his acquaintance" which might include disciples, for in Luke they did not flee from the scene of the arrest as they did in Mark (and Matthew). "His acquaintance" might include members of Jesus' family. This may be a step in the direction of the Johannine tradition which has Jesus' mother and the beloved disciple at the cross ( Jn 19:25-27). 4 "Acquaintance" standing "afar off" may be an echo from Ps 38:11 and 88:8.5 446. The Burial of Jesus Mt 27:57-60 Mk 15:42-46 Lk 23:50-54 Mark's resurrection tradition really begins at this point. The story of the burial not only prepares the way for the discovery of the empty tomb but it is coordinated with it detail for detail. 1 In 42 Mark gives his first notice of the day of the week in his Jerusalem story. Mark's day-by-day division of the Jerusalem visit has been oriented on the Passover festival, the date of the month, not the day of the week (14:1). As already noted, Mark's six-day week is arrived at by calculating backward from this Friday in 15:42. The earliest and oldest weekday to be fixed, however, seems to have been the first day of the week, the day com" Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 698. 1 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 698. 5 Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 217; Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 432; et al. 1 Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 135; Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 696.

549

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B. f 4 4 6

memorating Jesus' resurrection. This first day of the week was also "the third day" fixing the day of Jesus' death on Friday.2 Like Simon of Cyrene and the Galilean women, Joseph of Arimathea appears out of nowhere. Mark speaks of him as "a councillor," but this term is so vague that it does not necessarily make him a member of the Sanhédrin. Mark can hardly think of him as such, for in 14:64 he reported that all the members of that body condemned Jesus as worthy of death. Mark infers no personal relationship between Jesus and this new character: he is "looking for the kingdom of God." This might suggest sympathy with Jesus' message, even discipleship, but devout Pharisees were also looking for the kingdom of God.3 The motives behind Joseph's actions may have been purely Jewish. He may have been acting for the Sanhédrin in conformity with Dt 21:23 which forbade that a body should hang overnight on a tree.4 Or, Joseph may have been acting spontaneously, not officially, in the interest of the sanctity of the sabbath which could be defiled by an exposed body, which is perhaps a better suggestion. Verses 44—Í5 are commonly regarded as a later addition to Mark.6 These verses were probably not in the Mark known to Matthew and Luke, for they do not reproduce them. The change of subjects in 45 and 46, from Pilate to Joseph, is awkward. The interval of three hours, from Jesus' death to the beginning of the sabbath, would hardly seem sufficient for all the action reported — the confirmation by the centurion, the removal of the body, and the burial.7 However, all of these things transpire in a moment of time in the imagination of writer and reader. The late origin of 44—45 is clear in the author's apologetica! preoccupation. He is already defending something which has not as yet, in the story, taken place, namely, the resurrection. The official confirmation by Pilate is proof of the reality of Jesus' death and advance proof of the reality of his resurrection.8 Back of 44-45 is the veiled hint that the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection has provoked misgivings about his having been actually dead. In 15:46 the author is thinking entirely of what he is about to write in 16:1-3 where the same epic details reappear. The purchase of the linen cloth might point to an ordinary day, not a feast day. The term bought, however, may be questioned, for it does not reappear in Matthew and Luke Cf. Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 43; Goguel, Life of Jesus, p. 435. Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 391. 1 Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, I, 391. "Cf. C. R. Bowen, The Resurrection in the New Testament (New York: Putnam, 1911), p. 241f. 6 Cf. Wendling, Das Marcus-Evangelium, p. 175; Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 29Θ; et al. ' Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 134. 8 Cf. Bacon, The Gospel of Mark, p. 196. 2

3

550

Β. |446

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

who use the term took. Furthermore, the Semitic term was probably a verb which could mean either take or buy.9 It was not the Roman custom to bury crucified victims; the bodies were left to disintegrate. However, the tradition that Jesus' body was laid in a tomb may be authentic.10 The tradition that Jesus was buried goes back to Paul (I Cor 15:4), yet Paul shows no knowledge of the burial story. According to the Acts tradition, the Jewish rulers "took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb" (13:29). The characters, action, and details in Mark's burial story may be the product of the creative genius of tradition. Mark's form of the burial story shows traces of later redaction, particularly expansion. The story in Matthew and Luke appears in briefer and simpler form, perhaps the earlier and more authentic form. Mt 27:57-60 is a shorter and simpler version of the burial story than the one now found in Mark; it is perhaps closer to the more primitive form found in his Mark.11 Matthew has no new information, but he does have a few new details natural in the growth of tradition. Matthew makes no reference to the day of the week. He speaks of Joseph as a rich man, but there is no suggestion that he may have been a member of the Sanhédrin. In Matthew Joseph is Jesus' disciple (57), a statement intended perhaps to clear up Mark's vague "looking for the kingdom of God." Mt 58b could be a condensation of Mk 44rA5, at least, of 45.12 In Matthew the tomb is new; it belongs to Joseph and it was made by him. Lk 23:50-54 has general fleeting agreements with Mark's text, and Taylor 13 regards it as a Markan insert into Proto-Luke. However, there are enough differences in Luke to consider the possibility of a non-Markan source, and especially since Luke's form is congenial to the non-Markan elements in his trial scenes. Luke expands on Joseph's character; he is "a good and righteous man." He is a member of the Sanhédrin, and he becomes Luke's final witness to Jesus' innocence. The parenthesis in 51 is awkward; the phrase "from Arimathea" should be joined to the name Joseph. Luke shows less possible knowledge of Mk 44-45 even than Matthew (58b). Luke does not even bother to say that Pilate granted Joseph's request. In Luke the tomb has never been used as though, in Christian sentiment, only such a tomb would be appropriate. Luke does not mention the stone at the door of the tomb in connection with the burial, yet in 24:2 he speaks of it as though it had been mentioned before. Luke's account ends with the time' Cf. Cf. 11 Cf. 12 Cf. 13 Cf. 10

Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 833. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, II, 395; H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 436; Guignebert, Jesus, p. 492. Klostermann, Matthäus, p. 226. The Third Gospel, p. 59.

551

I, 105.

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

B.

H447-448

notice (54) with which the account of Mark began (42); this provides clearer temporal connection with what follows in 55-56. 447. The Galilean Women as Witnesses Mt 27:61 Mk 15:47 Lk 23:55-56 Only the first two women named in 15:40 appear in this second notice. It is more important that they should witness the burial than the death of Jesus. The sole function of this notice is to provide a link between the burial and the discovery of the empty tomb. The right persons are at the right place at the right time. The tomb is only the temporary resting-place for Jesus' body; burial preparations may have been made on the sabbath, but the actual preparing of the body for burial waits until after the sabbath (16:1).

Mt 27:61. The role of the women in Matthew is wholly passive. They are silent, seeing witnesses. Any plans for preparing Jesus' body for permanent burial (Lk 23:56; Mk 16:1) are precluded because of what follows in 27:62-66. Lk 23:55-56. Luke here is probably using his non-Markan source. Taylor 1 would join 49 and 55-56 as a single unit (from Proto-Luke) into which the burial story from Mark has been inserted. Luke's women are still nameless (49), and Luke repeats the notice about their having made the journey to Jerusalem. The fact that they witness the burial is still more emphatic in Luke than in Mark. In Mark (16:1) they bring the spices after the sabbath; in Luke before, or on, the sabbath. According to the rabbinical writings, the things necessary for burial might be undertaken on the sabbath.2 Verse 56b gives the closest possible connection with what follows. 448. The Watch at the Sepulchre Mt 27:62-66 Mark notes no activity on the sabbath between Jesus' burial and the discovery of the empty tomb. Luke notes simply that the women rested on the sabbath according to the commandment (23:56b). Matthew, however, reports the story of the watch at the tomb. In reality, this story belongs to the first half of Matthew's resurrection reports. It has its sequel in 28:11-15, and the Roman guard is woven into the account in between (28:4). These Jewish activities are hardly in keeping with the sabbath rest, but in view of what the Jews impute to the Christians (fraud) this alleged sabbath violation is a weak rejoinder. The elaborate note on the day (62a) is awkward; "on the morrow" alone, or "on the sabbath," would be simpler. The appearance of the Pharisees is surprising, for they have not figured 1 2

Cf. The Third Gospel, p. 59f. Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, 833.

552

Β.1448

THE PUBLIC TRADITION

in the arrest, trials, and death of Jesus. They probably appear here because, in Matthew's Gospel as a whole, they are the unrelenting enemies of Jesus. Their reference to Jesus' prediction of his resurrection (63) is strange for two reasons. ( 1 ) These predictions were made to the disciples in private, not in public or to opponents.1 It is Matthew and his readers who recall these predictions, not the chief priests and the Pharisees. ( 2 ) Except for 12:40 this is the only instance in Matthew where the resurrection is predicted "after three days." In all three of the formal prophecies Matthew consistently corrected Mark's phrase "after three days" to "the third day." "Ye have a guard" ( 65 ) reads as though the guard at the tomb is to be Jewish, but in the sequel (28:11-15) Roman soldiers are guarding the tomb. This first piece of resurrection tradition in Matthew belongs to the very latest stages in the development of the story of the empty tomb and its defenses. No other New Testament writing shows any knowledge of the guard at the tomb, but this tradition did live on in the apocryphal Gospels of Peter and Hebrews. This story is clearly a piece of apologetical fiction. It seems to be a fragment of a controversy between Jews and Christians on the resurrection of Jesus.2 The Jews concede the empty tomb but deny the resurrection. This was a fraud: Jesus' body was stolen away by his disciples. The Christian legend of the empty tomb has provoked the Jewish legend of theft and fraud which, in turn, provoked the Christian legend of the guard at the tomb which would make theft impossible.3 Cf. Schölten, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 48. Cf. Κ. Lake, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ( New York: Putnam, 1907), p. 180. 3 Cf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, II, 399. 1 2

553

C. THE RESURRECTION TRADITION Matthew 2 8 : 1-20 Mark 16: 1-20 Luke 2 4 : 1-53 The Synoptic resurrection tradition does not belong to the life of Jesus proper. History halts at the death notice as far as any particular human life is concerned. The resurrection of Jesus is a proposition of religious faith for which there is no possible historical verification. Out of the resurrection tradition the historian sifts a single historical fact, not the resurrection of Jesus, but the early Christian belief in his resurrection. The resurrection tradition, then, brings the reader of the Gospel story into the beginnings and early history of Christianity. No section of the Synoptic tradition is so unsatisfactory from the standpoint of information furnished. As Strauss wrote, "Seldom has such an incredible thing been so poorly attested; never has anything so poorly attested been in itself so incredible." 1 The resurrection tradition purports to tell how the Easter faith began, but this faith is older than the resurrection traditions reported; in fact, they are the product of that faith, not its foundation. In no section of the Synoptic tradition are there so many or so great differences, disagreements, and contradictions among the first three Gospels as in the resurrection tradition. There is wide diversity of materials as well as great variance in the treatment of the same materials. There is no unity in this tradition except in the basic religious conviction expressed in it. The materials are fragmentary and chaotic, and no really consistent account can be pieced together from the larger and smaller bits that are jumbled together. The Synoptic resurrection tradition falls into two parts: I. The Toinb Tradition based on the witness of the women and their discovery of the empty tomb reported in all three Gospels. II. The Tradition of the Appearances of the Risen Jesus reported by Matthew and Luke but missing in Mark. The first part of this tradition is later and legendary. The second part is older and nearer the substance of the resurrection faith, but it is still not the resurrection tradition in its most primitive form. This goes back to Paul's letters, especially to I Cor 15:3-8. 1 Der alte und der neue Glaube 1895), p. 47.

(12. bis 14. Aufl.; Bonn: Verlag von Emil Strauss,

555

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

C. 11-6

I. THE TOMB TRADITION Mt 28:1-15

Mk 16:1-8

Lk 24:1-12

fll-6

Mk 16:1-8 is commonly regarded as a fragment cut off from the body of the Gospel, as a sort of appended aftermath or epilogue. This seems to be a mistaken conception for two reasons. ( 1 ) The idea of Jesus' resurrection has been woven into the body of Mark's Gospel since 8:31. In fact, Mark's story of Jesus would not be a Gospel, or the gospel, unless it reached its climax in the resurrection of Jesus. (2) Mk 16:1-8 does not begin a new section; it is the climax and conclusion of the legend of the women which began with 15:40. This entire section ( 1 5 : 4 0 - 1 6 : 8 ) is built up around the women, and now in 16:1-8 they perform the role for which they were brought into the story: they discover the empty tomb. The later origin and secondary character of the tradition of the empty tomb is clear in the documentary evidence within the New Testament itself. The resurrection faith of Paul was based entirely on appearances and reported appearances of the Risen Jesus. Paul shows no knowledge of the tomb tradition or of the report of the women. Mk 16:1-8 does not narrate the resurrection itself, for this was witnessed by no one, but these eight verses make it clear that the belief in Jesus' resurrection is older than the tomb tradition. In every line of the tomb story it is clear that the whole is designed to defend, substantiate, and support a faith that already exists.1 The story of the discovery made by the women is simply an apology in narrative form.2 Even if the story of the empty tomb were historical, it would prove exactly nothing.3 At best, an empty tomb would be negative and inconclusive evidence. There were, and are, other possible explanations for the empty tomb than an actual resurrection.4 The empty tomb as evidence for Jesus' resurrection is congenial and convincing only for those who already believe. The whole story of the empty tomb may be simply a religious inference drawn from the primitive tradition of the appearances and reported appearances — a negative conclusion based on a positive religious proposition.5 The tomb tradition is a by-product, not the foundation, of the resurrection faith of the earliest Christians.® The tradition of the empty tomb is older than Mark's version of it. Mark Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 190. Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 314. 3 Cf. A. Meyer, Die Auferstehung Christi (Tübingen: Mohr, 1905), p. 116; Guignebert, Jesus, p. 499. 4 Cf. Lake, Historical Evidence, p. 250ff; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 357. 5 Cf. Lake, Historical Evidence, p. 241. ° Cf. A. Meyer, Die Auferstehung Christi, pp. 120-125. 1 2

556

c. fi

THE RESURRECTION

TRADITION

did not invent the story in 16:1-8. He is responsible only for the literary form in which this tradition appears. Mt 28:1-15 is clearly based on the tomb tradition of Mark. However, Matthew expands and amplifies. He contributes new elements, especially more spectacular features. He also undertakes to repair what he seems to have regarded as the deficiencies of Mark's version. Lk 24:1-12 has only the most general agreements with Mk 16:1-8: the women visit the tomb and find it empty. Luke has only superficial affinities with the text of Mark. His tomb tradition has its own special point and plan. His independence of Mark in general and in detail would indicate his use of a non-Markan source.7 His resurrection story as a whole is better integrated with the body of his Gospel than is the case in Matthew and Mark. From the beginning ( 6 ) it is clear that Luke has literary plans which extend beyond his Gospel — the Book of Acts. Chapter 24 of Luke is designed from beginning to end as a transition from the story of Jesus to that of the Apostles.8 1. The Early Morning Visit Mt 28:1-4 Mk 16:1-1 Lk 24:1-2 Mark's time-notices are so circumstantial that they are confusing: the sabbath is past; it is the first day of the week, very early, when the sun was risen. The naming of the women in two successive verses (15:47; 16:1) is unnecessary. One important MS ( D ) omits the repetition of the names in 16:1. The preceding verse (15:47) named two women. The three names in 16:1 are from 15:40. The purpose of the women, to anoint Jesus' body, is simply a literary motivation for bringing them to the tomb. It assumes that Jesus' body was not in its final resting place or state, an assumption which the burial story itself did not suggest.1 It also ignores the tradition that Jesus' body was anointed beforehand for the burying (14:8 j|393 ) · From the dramatic point of view this motivation, to anoint Jesus' body, is very effective. Unsuspecting and wholly unprepared, the women find just the opposite of what they expect to find — an open and empty tomb with all of its implications! Mystery and miracle surround the resurrection itself. The women witness only the after-effects. The notice about the greatness of the stone is awkward at the end of verse 4; it would be more natural as the conclusion for verse 3. Mt 28:1-4 has two women at the tomb, the two Mary's from 27: 61. They 7 Cf. Feine, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung, p. 72; Β. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums, p. 230; et al. 8 Cf. A. Schlatter, Das Evangelium des Lukas aus seinen Quellen erklärt (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1911), p. 146. 1 Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1931), p. 308; Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 353.

557

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

C. 12

come to see the sepulchre, not to anoint Jesus' body (Mark). The Roman guard at the tomb require a different motivation. From this point on, Matthew's account is much more spectacular than that of Mark. Matthew introduces another earthquake (27:51). The women witness the rolling away of the stone by the angel. Even the Roman guard are stupified witnesses of all these things. These new elements in Matthew are the product of a live and growing legend. Matthew seems to describe the moment of the resurrection but not the resurrection itself. Lk 24:1-2. In Luke there is no break with the narrative which precedes; it moves from 23:55-56 with the pronoun "they" (24:1). 2 In Luke's nonMarkan source the notices about the women, now separated, may have been continuous: 23:49 + 55-56 + 24: l. 3 Even on this third appearance at the end of the story the women are still unnamed in Luke (24:10). Luke agrees with Mark only in the general gist of the story. None of Mark's circumstantial detail reappears in Luke: the great size of the stone and the worry of the women. Luke sketches rather than depicts. He mentions the stone here as something familiar, yet he did not mention it in the burial story (23:53). 2. The Commission to the Women Mt 28:5-7 Mk 16:5-7 Lk 24:3-7 In Mark the women enter the tomb, but they do not note the absence of Jesus' body. They learn this from the angel who is inside the tomb. The statement of the angel assumes that the women are seeking but do not know where to find Jesus' body rather than that they know where his body is and have come to anoint it.4 One critic 5 feels that the statement of the angel indicates that the women have come to the wrong tomb ("He is not here") and directs them to the right one ( "Behold, the place where they laid him" ). Verse 7 is generally regarded as a later insert for a variety of reasons." ( 1 ) The fear and silence of the women ( 8 ) is not a natural reaction to the confident assurance in 7; but this fear and silence in 8 is a natural reaction to the awesome apparition and announcement in 5-6. 7 ( 2 ) Verse 7 really defeats the whole legend of the women in 1 5 : 4 0 - 1 6 : 8 . In the primitive version (minus verse 7) they were silent witnesses of Jesus' death, burial, and the empty tomb. They were not associated in any way with the appearances or promised appearances of the Risen Jesus. Verse 7 puts the women in an impossible light: they are fearful, silent, and disobedient ( 8 ) . ( 3 ) Cf. Spitta, Grundschrift, p. 440. Cf. Taylor, The First Draft, p. 37f. 4 Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 354. 5 Cf. Lake, Historical Evidence, p. 246ff. 6 Cf. Völter, Die Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu, p. 7f; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 18f; et al. 7 Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, II, 349; Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 192; et al. 2 3

558

THE RESURRECTION

TRADITION

Verse 7 assumes that the disciples are still gathered in Jerusalem which is hard to reconcile with Jesus' prediction of their desertion in 14:27 and Mark's later notice of their flight (14:50), perhaps even back to Galilee.8 (4) Mk 16:7 is a companion-piece to 14:28 and it refers directly to it. Mk 14:28 was a prediction for the future; 16:7 is an assurance of immediate fulfillment. Mk 14:28 was obviously an insert, and 16:7 is from the same hand. (5) Mk 16:7 seems to be an attempt to join the tradition of the tomb to that of the appearances. This is a failure, for the women do not carry out the instructions given in 16:7 and no appearances of the Risen Jesus are reported. The author of 16:7 seems to contemplate two appearances of the Risen Jesus: one to the disciples and one to the Apostle Peter. These two appearances, some 9 feel, were reported in the now lost ending of Mark's Gospel. The special reference to Peter, however, may be only a reflection of the common Christian knowledge that this disciple was the first to see the Risen Jesus (I Cor 15:5). 10 This special reference to Peter does not reappear in either Matthew or Luke, and it may be a later addition to Mark. To the exact meaning of the promise in 16:7 there attaches the same uncertainty encountered in 14:28. "He goeth before you" could mean that the Risen Jesus will lead the disciples back to Galilee, or that he will be in Galilee before they are and will meet them there. As noted in connection with 14:28 two critics 11 are of the opinion that the Galilee here is not the northern province of Palestine but a small locality on the mount of Olives near Jerusalem. Mt 28:5-7 is very close to Mark's parallel. In Matthew the women do not enter the tomb as they do in Mark (and Luke), perhaps for the reason that the angel in Matthew is outside of the tomb, not within as in Mark (and Luke). In Matthew the angel's message is for the disciples alone. Matthew has no special reference to Peter, a disciple whom Matthew has featured above all others in his Gospel thus far, perhaps because he does not figure personally in the appearance of the Risen Jesus to the disciples in Galilee.12 It is also possible that this reference to Peter was not in the Mark known to Matthew. Lk 24:3-7. Luke emphasizes the fact that the women do not find the body of Jesus. The emptiness of the tomb is based on their own investigation, not 8 Cf. et al. ' Cf. 10 Cf. 11 Cf. p. 1. 12 Cf.

Wendland, Die urchristlichen

Literaturformen,

p. 279; Hauck, Markus, p. 193;

Bartlet, St. Mark, p. 437; Rawlinson, St. Mark, p. 244. Klostermann, Markus, p. 191. Resch, Das Galiläa bei Jerusalem, p. 29; R. Hofmann, Galiläa auf dem Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 724f; Klostermann, Markus, p. 229.

559

ölberg,

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

C. 13

on the assurance of the angel as in Mark. Luke has two angels, a number of which he is fond and a favorite number in legend.13 The angels' message in 6b-7 is a complete departure from that in Mark. In Mark the disciples are instructed to return to Galilee, but in Luke the women are reminded of a word of Jesus spoken in Galilee. Some critics 14 feel that Luke has deliberately altered Mark, keeping the disciples in Jerusalem for the appearances there and for Pentecost (Acts 2 ), and eliminating Galilee entirely as a scene for the Easter events. Others 15 are convinced that Luke is simply following his special non-Markan source which kept the disciples in Jerusalem and reported appearances of the Risen Jesus there only. The angels' message in 6b-7 is closely integrated into Luke's Gospel as a whole. It relates itself directly to the three formal predictions in the body of his Gospel (9:22, 44; 18:31-34). In the immediate past Luke (or his source ) was preparing the way for this special piece of tradition. Luke had no prediction of the dispersion of the disciples (Mk 14:27), no notice of their desertion (Mk 14:50), and no promise of a reunion in Galilee (Mk 14:28). Luke's form of the angels' message is also consistent with what follows: the disciples remain in Jerusalem, the solç scene of the Easter events in Luke. In Luke, then, there is no commission to the women; they have no report to make to the disciples as in Mark (and Matthew). The angelic apparition is for their benefit alone, and the assurance in 6b-7 is pedagogical in purpose and tone. Verse 6a is not found in some MSS of Luke (D, it). Actually, it is superfluous; the assurance to the women is complete without it. 3. The Conduct of the Women Mt 28:8 Mk 16:8 Lk 24:8-10 The genuine text of the Gospel of Mark breaks off with 16:8. This abrupt ending goes back to an early date, for the Mark known to Matthew and Luke seems to have ended at this point. The majority of critics feel that this break leaves Mark's Gospel incomplete and his resurrection tradition a mere torso. Some critics 1 feel that the text ends in the middle of a sentence, showing mutilation. They feel that the genuine text ends with an impossible situation: the women are fearful and silent, disobedient to the instructions in verse 7.2 The promise of appearances in 7 is unfulfilled. The majority of critics 3 also feel that the original ending of Mark must have told of three 13 Cf. L. Brun, Die Auferstehung Christi in der urchristlichen Überlieferung (Glessen: Töpelmann, 1925), p. 24. " Cf. Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 36; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 663. 15 Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 243. 1 Cf. Burkitt, Gospel History, p. 261; McNeile, St. Matthew, p. 432; et al. ' Cf. Völter, Die Auferstehung Jesu, p. 9; Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 218; et al. 8 Cf. Lake, Historical Evidence, p. 75; Rohrbach, Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi, p. 52.

560

THE RESURRECTION

TRADITION

things: how the women overcame their fear and reported to the disciples in accordance with 7; how the disciples returned to Galilee; how the Risen Jesus appeared to them as promised in 14:28 and 16:7. It may have told also of an appearance to Peter and of his rehabilitation after his denial and disgrace. This ending must have been in the same vivid and picturesque style as the rest of the Gospel.4 Some critics feel that the original ending of Mark is not entirely lost but survives elsewhere. Some 5 find it preserved in Mt 28:16-20. However, Matthew tells of no special appearance to Peter, and 16-20 is written in the exalted literary style of Matthew, not in the epic style of Mark.6 It has also been suggested that chapter 21 of John contains the substance of the lost ending of Mark where the Risen Jesus appears to the disciples in Galilee and the Apostle Peter is reinstated.7 It has also been argued that Mark's lost ending is preserved in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter.8 The incompleteness of Mark has had various explanations. ( 1 ) Mark may have been hindered from completing his work.9 ( 2 ) The loss of Mark's ending was accidental; the end of the roll was torn away and lost.10 ( 3 ) Mark's tradition of the Galilean appearances of the Risen Jesus gradually gave way to the stronger tradition of appearances in Jerusalem.11 ( 4 ) The later and fuller resurrection traditions of Matthew, Luke, and John "improved" Mark's ending out of existence.12 ( 5 ) Mark's ending may have been suppressed because it contained something shocking or something that could not be reconciled with the later traditions.13 Several critics 14 feel that the Gospel of Mark is not incomplete and that 16:8 is the original and natural ending. ( 1 ) The ending at 16:8 is not more abrupt than the beginning of Mark's Gospel or the beginning and ending of sections within his Gospel.15 (2) The reporting of appearances was not a part of Mark's plan and purpose.18 In 16:8 Mark is ending the story of the women which began with 15:40 and which concludes his Gospel. If Mark Cf. Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 344. ' Cf. Ewald, Die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 363f; Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, II, 202; et al. ' Cf. Bowen, The Resurrection in the NT, p. 167. 7 Völter, Die Auferstehung Jesu, p. 50; Streeter, The Four Gospels, pp. 351-360. β Cf. P. Rohrbach, Der Schluss des Markusevangeliums (Berlín: Verlag von Georg Nauck, 1894), pp. 26-33. 9 Cf. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 219; Rawlinson, St. Mark, p. 270; et al. 10 Cf. F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1910), p. 32; Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 338. 11 Cf. Goguel, Introduction, I, 295f. 12 Cf. Bacon, The Gospel of Mark, p. 190. 13 Cf. Renan, Les Évangiles, p. 121f; Bowen, The Resurrection in the NT, p. 163; et al. 14 Cf. Hoffmann, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 641; E . Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 18; et al. 15 Cf. Creed, St. Luke, p. 315. 16 Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 490. 4

561

J E S U S AND T H E

FIRST THREE

GOSPELS

C. If3

had intended to report any appearances in a possible sequel, he certainly would have devised a transition in 16:8 instead of making a full stop. ( 3 ) If verse 7 be deleted, nothing is missing; it would be regretable if more followed on 16:8. 17 The story of the empty tomb was all that Mark meant to report. ( 4 ) The silence of the women in 16:8 is not at all different from the silence imposed on the disciples and others in the course of Mark's story.18 ( 5 ) With 7 deleted, the fear and silence of the women ( 8 ) is natural after 5-6 as a conclusion to the tomb story and the legend of the women as a whole ( 1 5 : 4 0 - 1 6 : 8 ) . The only thing that makes Mark's Gospel seem incomplete is the prediction in 14:28 and its virtual repetition in 16:7. 19 This repeated promise is not fulfilled at the end of Mark's Gospel. Both 14:28 and 16:7 are later inserts into Mark's Gospel. If they were deleted, Mark's Gospel is complete with 16:8. In Mark's three formal prophecies of death, resurrection was predicted but no appearances of the Risen Jesus were promised. In Mark's legend of the women ( 1 5 : 4 0 - 1 6 : 8 ) these prophecies are fulfilled in the discovery of the empty tomb and in the angel's assurance that Jesus is risen from the dead. The tradition of the appearances was not designed originally as a continuation or sequel to the story of the empty tomb.20 It was a separate and independent tradition, adequate in itself. The tradition of the empty tomb was designed to substantiate and support this older tradition. So far as is known, Mark was the first to commit the tomb story to writing. His final note about the fear and silence of the women explains the late origin of the story, how and why it was for so long unknown.21 Mt 28:8. Matthew's use of Mark ends here; it is the last sentence in Matthew that shows any dependence on Mark. Matthew, however, has given this Markan notice an altogether different literary nature and function; it is a transition to what follows, not a full stop as it is in Mark. Matthew goes on with the story in the light of verse 7, the angel's instruction for the disciples to return to Galilee. Matthew exactly reverses the situation in Mark: the joy of the women overcomes their fear, and they report to the disciples. Lk 24:8-10. In Luke the women recall Jesus' predictions of death and resurrection, none of which was addressed to them. It is the writer and readers, not the women, who recall these predictions. Luke notes no fear or flight of the women (Mark); they report to the "eleven, and to all the rest" without instruction to do so. The enlargement of the circle of followers Cf. Wellhausen, Marci, p. 137. Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 482. u Cf. Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, p. 181. 20 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 790. 21 Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 318; Bousset, Kyrios Christos ( 1 9 2 1 ) , p. 65; et al. 17

18

562

T H E RESURRECTION

TRADITION

("all the rest") may be an echo of "all his acquaintance" whom Luke has present at the cross (23:49), and it prepares the way for the appearance of those outside of the chosen circle. Luke uses the term eleven for the first time. The circle of the twelve is broken, but Luke has thus far reported nothing on the fate of Judas (Acts 1:18-19). In verse 10 Luke names the Galilean women for the first time since 8:1-3 ( p i 4 ) , and verse 10 is obviously based on that earlier passage. Verse 10 is commonly regarded as a later insert.22 It breaks the natural narrative connection between 9 and 11, and at the end, repeats the statement that concluded verse 9. 4. The Appearance to the Women Mt 28:9-10 This appearance to the women, unknown to Mark and Luke, is commonly regarded as an insert. If it is omitted along with 11-15, Matthew's narrative sequence is good: 8 + 16-20.1 This appearance is merely a supplement to the tomb story, and it duplicates the appearance of the angel there.2 This meeting with the Risen Jesus is casual and unimpressive, really superfluous, for the Risen Jesus simply repeats the angel's instruction in verse 7; it delays the women on their errand. This appearance was not contemplated in what precedes: the angel promised no appearance to the women.3 It also weakens the full force of the appearance to the disciples in 16-20. This reported appearance raises questions. If the Risen Jesus can appear to the women on the way from the tomb, why did he, instead of the angel, not appear to them at the tomb? 4 If the Risen Jesus can appear to the women in Jerusalem, why not also to the disciples? Why must they go to Galilee to see him? Verses 9-10 of Matthew are just a fragment, with no proper conclusion, telling how the women reported all that they had seen and heard in 1-8.5 It is a later development in the total resurrection tradition, and marks a step in the shift of tradition from Galilee to Jerusalem as the scene of the Easter events.® It also yields to the later disposition to have appearances on the third day (Luke), not after the delay required by a return to Galilee. " Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 137; Loisy, Luc, p. 570; et al. 1 Cf. Strauss, New Life of Jesus, I, 434; Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 628; et al. 2 Cf. A. Meyer, Die Auferstehung Christi, p. 127; Brun, Die Auferstehung Christi, p. 17; et al. 3 Cf. Schölten, Das älteste Evangelium, p. 49. 4 Cf. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 600. 5 Cf. Bowen, The Resurrection in the NT, p. 260. " Cf. Rohrbach, Der Schluss des Markusevangeliums, p. 56; A. Meyer, Die Auferstehung Christi, p. 34.

563

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

C. 15-6

5. The Confirmation of the Women's Report Lk 24:11-12 Verse 11 joins on to 9, not 10. It sets a theme that dominates the remainder of Luke's Easter story: the initial unbelief of the disciples. This motif probably has a catechetical purpose. It assures later Christians who have difficulty in accepting the resurrection that the original witnesses had similar difficulties which were overcome by indisputable proof. Verse 12 is not found in some MSS of Luke (D, it), and ït is probably a later addition. It is not organic to what precedes, and it is contradicted by what follows in 24 where the report of the women is confirmed by several disciples, not by Peter alone. Verse 12 does make the fact emphatic that the resurrection faith was not founded on the report of the women or on the tradition of the empty tomb.1 Verse 12 belongs in the very latest stage in the formation of the resurrection tradition. It amounts to a defense of the report of the women. The empty tomb was not "idle talk" from the women; their report was confirmed by the chief of the apostles. It is the final expansion of the tomb tradition. It is not clear whether Lk 24:12 is a condensed and simplified form of the same basic tradition in Jn 20:3-10, 2 or whether Lk 24:12 is the germ-cell from which the fuller form in Jn 20:3-10 stems.3

6. The Report and Bribe of the Watch Mt 28:11-15 This is the sequel to Mt 27:62-66 which Matthew integrates into his story at this point with "Now while they were going." The story itself is a tissue of incredible improbabilities. If a Roman soldier confessed what is proposed in verse 13, he would be proclaiming his own death sentence. In 13, too, the soldiers testify to something that they could not have witnessed: the theft of the body while they were asleep.1 Verse 14 is not organic to the story; it could be left out.2 Matthew's guard at the tomb is just as fictitious as his earthquake and his angel ( 2-4 ). Verse 15 divulges the time and place of the origin of Matthew's guard story. It comes out of a controversy with Jewish unbelievers, a controversy seemingly still current in Matthew's own day.3 The strong feeling in the story also attests to its recent origin.4 Cf. Cf. p. 19. ' Cf. 1 Cf. * Cf. * Cf. et al. ' Cf. 1

2

Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 731. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 343; Völter, Die Auferstehung

Jesu,

Creed, St. Luke, p. 294. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 297. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 1, 436. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 628; E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 21f; Bowen, The Resurrection in the NT, p. 232.

564

C. 17-13

T H E RESURRECTION

TRADITION

II. THE TRADITION OF THE APPEARANCES Mt 28:16-20

Lk 24:13^53

fl7-13

There is no unity or consistency, even very little agreement, in the New Testament traditions on the appearances of the Risen Jesus. They do not agree on the number of the appearances. Paul has a list of six persons and groups to whom the Risen Jesus appeared. The Gospel of Mark breaks off with 16:8 with an appearance promised (16:7) but no appearance is reported. Matthew has two appearances of the Risen Jesus. Luke also reports two appearances, but he has a reference to a third. In chapters 20-21 the Gospel of John has a total of four appearances. Paul says nothing of the scene of the appearances. Mark thinks entirely in terms of Galilee. Luke's appearances are in and about Jerusalem. Matthew has one appearance in Jerusalem and one in Galilee. Chapter 20 of John locates the appearances in Jerusalem; but chapter 21, in Galilee. In all the New Testament traditions the resurrection falls "on the third day," but this was probably a doctrinal date based on Scripture ( I Cor 15:4), perhaps on Hosea 6:2. The various traditions do not agree on the interval or period during which the appearances occurred.1 In his Gospel Luke has all the appearances come on the evening of the day of the discovery of the empty tomb, but in Acts (1:3) the appearances extend over a period of forty days. Mark assumes an interval between the resurrection and the appearances, at least the time necessary for the disciples to return from Jerusalem to Galilee. In Matthew one appearance comes on the third day and one later in Galilee. In chapter 20 of John the appearances seem to cover a period of eight days (20:26); chapter 21 allows time for the return to Galilee. Paul implies the longest interval of all, for he seems to include his own conversion experience among the appearances of the Risen Jesus (I Cor 15:8), perhaps a year or two after Jesus' death. The New Testament traditions are at great variance as to the persons and groups to whom the Risen Jesus appeared. As already noted, Paul lists six individuals and groups. Mk 16:7 promises an appearance to the disciples, perhaps to Peter also. Matthew has an appearance to the two women at the tomb and to the eleven in Galilee. Luke has an appearance to the two Emmaus disciples, to the eleven, and a reference to an appearance to Simon. Chapter 20 of John has an appearance to Mary Magdalene, one to ten disciples, and one to the eleven; chapter 21 has an appearance to a miscellaneous group of disciples. Paul gives no details on the appearances, not even on that to himself. He says simply that the Risen Jesus "was seen" or that "he appeared." In the Gospels the accounts vary all the way from the mere mention of an appear1 Cf. Eduard Riggenbach, Die Auferstehung Jesu (Verlag von Edwin Runge in Gr. Lichterfelde, 1905), p. 24.

565

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

C. 1f7

ance to Simon to an elaborate story like Lk 24:13-35. Even in reporting the same appearance, that to the disciples, no two of the Gospels agree on the details, circumstances, manner of appearance, or sayings ascribed to the Risen Jesus. Even the portrayal of the Risen Jesus varies all the way from that of a mysterious spiritual presence to a literal physical resurrection of the body. All the appearances depicted are fleeting. The Risen Jesus is not renewing former associations with those to whom he appears. As Strauss wrote: "He shews himself, sometimes in one place, sometimes in another; sometimes in one way, sometimes in another; no one can tell whence he comes, or whither he goes, or where he stays. The whole thing gives the impression, not of a life objectively renewed, connected in itself, but of a subjective conception in the minds of those who think they see him." 2 From the standpoint of the subjects involved, the reported appearances seem to have been visions, what modern psychology would call hallucinations.3 They had their origin in the mind of the subject. They were projections of subjective states, complexes of a primarily emotional nature. The accounts of these visions are imaginative objectifications and dramatizations of hopes and fears, feelings and beliefs, which gripped single individuals and like-minded groups.4 They have really only one thing in common — the conviction, amounting to certainty, that Jesus was alive again and that he appeared to the believing. Matthew and Luke present the appearances as a continuation and sequel to the tomb story which, actually, they were not.5 In their accounts of the appearances Matthew and Luke each goes his own independent way. Their common source down to this point, Mark, stopped with no appearances reported. Mt 28:16-20 ^[7—8. Matthew's tomb story was the most spectacular of all, but his account of the appearance to the disciples is the soberest and, at the same time, the most literary and rhetorical. Verses 16-20 are planned as a fulfillment of the promise in 7. Verses 16-17 are a brief narrative setting for the discourse in 18-20. 7. To the Eleven in Galilee Mt 28:16-17 Verse 16 connects up with 8, not with what intervenes (9-15). The numerical "eleven" is necessary in Matthew after his story of the end of New Life of Jesus, II, 401. "Cf. Guignebert, Jesus, p. 519; S. V. McCasland, The Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1932), p. 55; et al. 4 Cf. Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 149; Maurenbrecher, Von Nazareth nach Golgatha, p. 49f. " Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 105. 8

566

THE RESURRECTION

TRADITION

Judas (27:3-10 H424). Matthew does not specify the time-interval between the events of the third day and this appearance. He follows the oldest tradition: the Risen Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee. The instruction in 7 and 10 did not mention a mountain, but it is a familiar device in Matthew's Gospel. It is the editorial "mountain," the favorite scene for special events throughout Matthew's story.1 In Matthew Jesus' first (5:1-2) and final (28:16) instructions to his disciples are on a mountain. Matthew's notice about the appearance itself is very brief: "they saw him." Matthew has no interest in the manner of the appearance, in the resurrected figure of Jesus, or in the subjective state of the witnesses: the eleven are passive, speechless subjects — they see and hear. The final clause of 17, "but some doubted," is not only disturbing but out of place in the general context.2 The preceding notice, "they worshipped him," and the commission which follows (18-20) exclude doubters. These doubters may be a later addition, reflecting the skepticism of a later generation, not that of the eleven. In Matthew no effort is made to dispel this doubt such as is found in Luke. 8. The Missionary Command Mt 28:18-20 This passage is a natural and appropriate conclusion to Matthew's Gospel, a sort of grand finale. It is in the same liturgical style that has appeared in so many passages of this Gospel. It reflects the same ecclesiastical interest that has manifested itself so often. It exhibits the same catechetical purpose that has brought Matthew's great discourse sections together. Matthew ends his Gospel, not with narration, but with discourse — the type of matter he has favored and featured in the body of his Gospel. Verse 18 virtually repeats 11:27a. No human historical person is speaking. It is the collective voice of the later church proclaiming its conviction. It should read in the third person: "All authority hath been given unto him in heaven and on earth." The command to make disciples of all nations is later Christian universalism. It stands in sharp contrast with 10:5-6 which forbids the Gentile mission and restricts the twelve to the cities of Israel.1 The Book of Acts and Paul's letters make it clear that the earliest church came nearer following Mt 10:5-6 than 28:18-20. The entire passage leaps ahead to a later date when Christianity has become conscious of its world-wide destiny, ignoring entirely Paul's struggle in behalf of the Gentile cause.2 1 Cf. Völter, Die Auferstehung Jesu, p. 34; Bowen, The Resurrection in the NT, p. 283f; et al. 2 Cf. Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, p. 356; Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, p. 27; et al. 1 Cf. Wellhausen, Matthaei, p. 144; Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 749; et al. 2 Cf. A. Meyer, Die Auferstehung Christi, p. 144.

567

JESUS AND THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS

C. 18

In verse 19 all eschatology is gone. The coming of the kingdom and even the return of Christ, have long since been surrendered.3 The church is preparing to make history; it is not preparing itself to participate in the new order that will supplant everything human and historical. The eleven are to go forth immediately; Pentecost is not a part of Matthew's religious perspective. The command to baptize shows that this rite is already an established sacrament of the church. This stands in open contradiction to Jesus' own practice: he was baptized by John, but he did not in turn baptize his disciples. The early Christians practiced baptism in the name of Jesus, but this is the only place in the New Testament where baptism is associated with the full trinitarian formula. However, this association is found in the Didache (vii.l) and in Justin ( Apol. 1:61). It belongs to the second century.4 The trinitarian formula has the fullest form here that it has anywhere in the New Testament. Elsewhere it is in the nascent and formative stage (II Cor 13:14; Eph 4:4-θ; I Pet 1:2). Jesus himself was a unitarian, not a trinitarian: he believed only in God the Father.5 The charge is to teach his commands, not to preach his death and resurrection which was the primitive gospel. This charge assumes that Jesus' teaching already forms a body, a corpus, a new law to be obeyed. Matthew is churchman and catechist to the very end. Matthew ends with the greatest of all Christian assurances, "Lo, I am with you always" —the same sort of assurance encountered in 18:20. Matthew has no need to report the ascension or to promise the return of Christ. Matthew's Christ is forever spiritually present with believers. Mt 28:18-20 is a compact yet comprehensive summary of Christian conviction in Matthew's own day. It belongs to Christian liturgy, to the Christian confessional.® It is a dismissal, a benediction, a charge forever binding. It belongs to no historical situation. In this respect it has a mythical quality.7 Here at the end Matthew's mind is carried away in a flight of rhetoric into the realm of the abstract. He forgets the eleven and any possible reactions or responses from them: Matthew is addressing Christians everywhere. Lk 24:13-53 (TJ9—13) gives a sort of history of the Risen Jesus: the story follows him from the tomb to heaven.8 The various episodes are brought together in time and place. Everything transpires on the third day in or near Jerusalem. The Galilean tradition is utterly suppressed, and Luke's resurrection story is definitely designed to lead up to the founding of ChrisCf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 392. Cf. Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 629; Brandt, Die evangelische Geschichte, 353; et al. 5 Cf. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 358. ' Cf. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, I, 602; J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 392; et al. ' Cf. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, p. 92. 8 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 755. 3 4

568

p.

THE RESURRECTION

TRADITION

tianity in Jerusalem. There seems never to have been anything that might properly be called Galilean Christianity. This might explain the gradual suppression of appearances in Galilee in favor of those in Jerusalem. Luke (11) continues to feature the initial doubt and skepticism of the disciples, primarily in order to show how it was overcome. Evidently, in the circles represented by Luke, the reported appearances of the Risen Jesus had been questioned as illusory and unreal. Luke's appearances, however, do not form a natural unity or sequence. He sets stories side by side which, in reality, exclude each other. Purely spiritual conceptions of the resurrection are joined to the most realistic physical conceptions. Lk 24:13-53 — in fact, all of chapter 24 of Luke with the possible exception of verse 12 — belongs to Luke's non-Markan sources.9 9. To the Emmaus Disciples — Simon Lk 24:13-35 Luke seeks to integrate this story into its present context. It includes references to the story of the women ( 1-11 ), and it has the disciples gathered in Jerusalem for the appearance in 36-43. The story itself, however, resists this attempt at integration and proves its original independence and isolation.1 ( 1 ) The story begins with "two of them" which shows that it once had a different connection, an antecedent which made the pronoun "them" clear.2 ( 2 ) Verse 24 tells of the investigation of the empty tomb by "certain of them," not by Peter alone as in verse 12. ( 3 ) In 34 the disciples believe and affirm Jesus' resurrection, yet in 36-43 they are skeptical and unbelieving. ( 4 ) If the whole Emmaus story be deleted, 36-43 joins smoothly on to I I . 3 This story is a strange mixture of the early and the late. It dates itself on the third day. The two disciples are ultra-Jewish: they had hoped that Jesus was the One who would redeem Israel (21). The story reflects the shock and disappointment caused by Jesus' death. The tragedy is still fresh in Christian memory. The resurrection faith is as yet unquestioned, consequently, undefended. The only apology is for Jesus' death. All these features suggest the very beginnings of the resurrection faith. And yet the allusion to the empty tomb and its confirmation in 21b-24 would make it one of the latest of the resurrection traditions. Consequently, several critics 4 would delete all references to the tomb tradition (21b-24) as added by Luke in his effort to integrate the story into his resurrection tradition as a whole. Verses 13-21a + 25-35 present a complete, unified, and independent story. • Cf. Taylor, The Third Gospel, p. 66; Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 207. 1 Cf. Β. and J. Weiss, Das Evangelium, des Lukas, p. 652f. 2 Cf. Bowen, The Resurrection in the NT, p. 304. 8 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, I, 423. * Cf. Weisse, Die evangelische Geschichte, II, 401; Spitta, Die Auferstehung p. 15; et al. Against this view, see E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 26.

569

Jesu,

JESUS AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E GOSPELS

C. 1f9

Some critics 5 feel that 34 must also be deleted for two reasons. ( 1 ) In 34 it is not clear who is speaking, the eleven or the Emmaus disciples. If the eleven are announcing Jesus' resurrection in 34, how can they be so unbelieving in 3&-43? If the Emmaus disciples are speaking in 34, as they are in some MSS ( D ) , how they have learned of the appearance to Simon? Why do they base their faith on the appearance to Simon rather than on the appearance to themselves? ( 2 ) Verse 34 can be deleted without disturbing the story. In fact, such a deletion really improves its progress. The Emmaus story is the longest, most elaborate, and detailed of the resurrection traditions. It alone amounts to one half of Luke's resurrection material. From the literary point of view, it is one of the most beautiful and charming stories in the Gospels. It is an artistic gem from the standpoint of its poetic imagination and intuition, its use of dialogue, suspense, and surprise. It is a piece of creative writing, a legend, not a record of an actual experience. The names of places ( Emmaus ) and persons ( Cleopas ) are typical of legend; they give the story an air of reality. It was not the two disciples but the author who, in imagination, made the journey from Jerusalem to Emmaus and encountered the mysterious stranger on the way.6 In its literary style and conception the Emmaus story relates itself to Luke's birth stories.7 Other elements in the story relate it to the narrative in the early chapters of Acts: the Jewishness of the disciples' thoughts and feelings (21a), the conception of Jesus as a man mighty in word and deed (19), and the apology for Jesus' death on the basis of the fulfillment of Scripture (25-27). This story must be Luke's own literary production. Luke reports this appearance to others than the eleven, although only one of the two is named. This fits in with Luke's earlier statement that the women reported to the eleven "and to all the rest" (24:9). It also fits in with "all his acquaintance" present at the cross (23:49) and with Luke's general conception of Jesus' following during his lifetime, the twelve being a group chosen from a larger circle of disciples (6:13). In 20 the responsibility for Jesus' death is put on the chief priests and rulers as in Luke's account of the trials and crucifixion and in the early chapters of Acts. This Emmaus story presents the resurrection faith in its finest and most impressive form. It is a faith based entirely on subjective grounds. The Risen Jesus is a mysterious spiritual presence which gradually asserts itself only to vanish almost immediately. Verse 26 reads as though the Risen Jesus had already entered into his glory, the same basic conception found in 23:43. 6 Cf. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 2, 521f; Klostermann, Lukas, p. 228f; et al. " Cf. Α. Meyer, Die Auferstehung Christi, p. 133f. 7 Cf. Feine, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung, p. 73; Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständis des NT, p. 71.

570

C. 110

THE RESURRECTION TRADITION

10. To the Eleven in Jerusalem Lk 24:36-43 That Luke is not narrating the appearances in sequence is clear in three things. ( 1 ) This appearance to the eleven is narrated as though it were the first, as though none had preceded.1 ( 2 ) In the preceding story (34) the eleven not only believed but announced that Jesus had risen from the dead. Here, however, they are skeptical and unbelieving, and they require the most realistic of proofs. ( 3 ) Verses 36-43 are the natural continuation of 11. The attitude of the eleven in 37 conforms to their reactions to the report of the women in II. 2 Taken by itself, this appearance is timeless and placeless. It comes in Jerusalem on the third day only because all that precedes and follows is based on this assumption. The broiled fish in 42 might suggest the Galilean seaside as is the case in Jn 21:10. 3 The late origin of the story is clear in two considerations. First, this story is oriented around a single interest: the proof of the reality of the appearances. This makes it obvious that the reported apparitions have been questioned, doubted, even denied: the Risen Jesus was only a spirit, a phantom, a shade from the dead. This story is calculated to combat such skepticism with the most material of physical proofs. Jesus' resurrection was a bodily resurrection of flesh and bone. The Risen Jesus exhibited his wounded hands and feet, even ate in the disciples' presence, to prove his physical identity. This utterly materialistic conception, however, does not harmonize well with the sudden appearance in 36 or with the ascension later. Second, this appearance to the eleven in Luke has very close affinities with the appearance to the disciples in Jn 20:19-29. Both have the same materialistic conception of a literal physical resurrection. Both tell of physical proofs, the exhibition of wounds, to dispel doubt and unbelief. Either this story in Luke is a preliminary form of the story in Jn 20:19-29, 4 or it has acquired items borrowed from Jn 20:19-29. 5 Verses 36b and 40 are not found in some MSS of Luke (D, it), and they may be borrowed from Jn 20:19-20. In this story of Luke the reader meets the resurrection faith and tradition in a very inferior and unimpressive form. Lk 24:36-53 fllO-13. With verse 36 Luke begins the final section of his Gospel which is repeated in substance and with variations at the beginning of Acts (1:3-14). Such overlapping was a common practice among ancient writers whose work fell into two or more parts.6 This overlapping at the end Cf. Wellhausen, Luc, p. 141. Cf. Bowen, The Resurrection in the NT, p. 334. 3 26 Cf. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, II, 2, 540. 1 Cf. Wellhausen, Lucae, p. 141. s Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 769. 0 Cf. Wendland, Die urchristlichen Literaturformen, p. 225. 1 2

571

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

C. If 1 1 - 1 2

of Luke's Gospel and at the beginning of Acts is denied by one critic 7 and explained as a later interpolation (Acts 1:3-14). The whole of this concluding section, especially from 44 on, is the free composition of Luke who is looking ahead, not only to his second volume (Acts), but to particulars at the very beginning of the new story about to unfold. 11. Apology and Commission Lk 24:44-49 This discourse is joined to what precedes in only a loose and vague way. In itself, it is timeless and placeless. Verse 44 reads more like the conclusion than the beginning of a charge; if it is removed, verse 45 makes a good beginning.1 Verse 44 uses the threefold division of the Scriptures followed by the later rabbis, the only instance in the New Testament.2 Elsewhere the usual twofold division is used: the law and the prophets. The clause, "while I was yet with you," sets Jesus' associations with his disciples in the past and makes it clear that Luke himself, through the heavenly Christ, is making this final charge.3 The first part of the charge is retrospective (44-46); the second part looks to the future, setting forth an ultimate (47) and an immediate perspective (48-49). The charge shifts back and forth between personal and impersonal discourse, another evidence of a lack of unity. Verses 45-46 repeat the lesson given the Emmaus disciples ( 25-27 ). Verse 47 outlines the program for the whole Book of Acts. In 49 the author is looking forward to Pentecost (Acts 2:1-11). The command to tarry in the city is in flat contradiction to Mt 28:7 and Mk 16:7 — but it is necessary if Christianity is to be founded in Jerusalem, not in Galilee. This charge in Luke has the same general substance as Matthew's final commission (28:18-20), and it comes from an equally late date. It reflects the thought and outlook of the church toward the close of the first century.4 It is a last testament of the Risen Jesus to a church already constituted. It is very probably the free composition of Luke with the definite literary design of preparing the way for the Book of Acts.5 12. The Ascension over against Bethany Lk 24:50-52a Luke's time-schedule for events in chapter 24 would almost require that the ascension come during the night of the third day, for it was evening in the Emmaus story (29). However, the Emmaus story was an insert into Cf. Cf. 2 Cf. 3 Cf. 4 Cf. 5 Cf. 7 1

E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 34ff. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lukas, p. 729. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 240. Loisy, Luc, p. 588. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II, 644; Creed, St. Luke, p. 300; et al. Loisy, Les Évangiles, I, 164; Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 174f.

572

c . Tis

THE RESURRECTION TRADITION

Luke's sequence for the third day. Furthermore, the materials in Luke's conclusion ( 36-53 ) are, in reality, timeless. Luke's notice of the ascension at the end of his Gospel is not wholly in accord with his account at the beginning of Acts (1:9-11). In his Gospel the final charge is somewhere in the city, and then Jesus leads the disciples out to Bethany for the ascension; in Acts the final charge and the ascension come together on the mount of Olives. Acts has the more natural scene, for the mount of Olives figured as the place of Jesus' nightly retreats throughout Luke's Jerusalem story; Bethany was mentioned only once (19:29), and then only incidentally. In his Gospel the ascension concludes the events on the third day; in Acts it comes after an interval of forty days. The ascension at the end of Luke's Gospel is a mere notice with no depictive detail; in Acts it assumes a fuller, more legendary story-form.1 Some MSS of Luke (D, it) omit the end of 51 and the beginning of 52: "and was carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him." In these MSS there is, literally speaking, no ascension but simply the note: "he parted from them." Thus, the Risen Jesus would vanish mysteriously as he did from the Emmaus disciples (31). 2 Mark's Gospel ended abruptly in narration. Matthew concluded his Gospel with a rhetorical flourish in discourse. Luke brings his Gospel and his story of the Risen Jesus to a formal narrative conclusion. The ascension terminates Jesus' personal associations with his disciples as well as his career on earth. Jesus is exalted to the right hand of God where the early Christians pictured him (Acts 7:56). The ascension is a necessary prelude to the early Christian expectation of Jesus' return from heaven. The ascension notice is probably pure fiction without even a visionary foundation. It is a vivid dramatization of an early Christian conviction: only one habitat and status befits the Risen Jesus — heaven at the right hand of God. It is surprising that Luke's ascension notice ends without this status being asserted. 13. The Disciples Return to Jerusalem Lk 24:52b-53 This final sentence of Luke's Gospel is inconceivable as an ending for such a writing.1 It is appropriate only on the assumption that more is to follow and that the story has a sequel. It is as plain and prosaic as a notice could be, especially after the spectacular things reported in this resurrection chapter (24). Luke, however, is not thinking in terms of climax and conclusion but in terms of transition. The disciples return to Jerusalem where they are to be found in the early chapters of Acts. They continue to worship Cf. Bultmann, Geschichte (1921), p. 175. Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 778. 1 Cf. E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge, I, 33. 1 2

573

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E

GOSPELS

(C. 114^19)

in the temple as loyal and devout Jews. They are not yet conscious of the nature and implications of their Easter faith. This same religious frame of mind and behavior characterizes the disciples at the beginning of the Acts story. It is to be regretted that in the New Testament collection the Gospel of John separates the Gospel of Luke from its sequel, the Book of Acts. INGENUINE CONCLUSIONS O F MARK

There are two known attempts to complete the (so-called) incomplete Mark: the Longer Ending, ordinarily set off as the end of the Gospel in parentheses as (16:9-20), and the Shorter Ending.1 THE LONGER ENDING

(Mk 16:9-20) This so-called Longer Ending was known to Irenaeus and Tatian in the second half of the second century A.D. A tenth-century Armenian MS discovered in 1890 ascribes it to Aristón, a presbyter of the Asia Minor church around 150 A.D. Its late origin is also clear in its content. The compiler knew practically all of the New Testament resurrection reports: the incomplete Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and the Book of Acts. This Longer Ending is based chiefly on chapter 24 of Luke and chapter 20 of John. It is a synthetic product with no originality. Schniewind calls it "the earliest Gospel harmony." 1 In some MSS this Longer Ending is appended after Mk 16:8. 2 It is clear, however, that it was not compiled originally to complete the incomplete Mark. It does not proceed to narrate what the reader would expect to follow 16:1-8 with which this Longer Ending is not consistent. ( 1 ) Mk 16:1 has three women at the tomb; but 9-11 has only one woman, Mary Magdalene. ( 2 ) Mk 16:1-8 presumed no appearance of the Risen Jesus to the women, but in 9-11 there is an appearance to Mary Magdalene. (3) Verses 9-20 do not tell how the women overcame their fear ( 8 ) and reported to the disciples. ( 4 ) Mk 16:7 promised an appearance of the Risen Jesus to the disciples in Galilee, but the scene throughout 9-20 seems to be Jerusalem. ( 5 ) Mk 16:7 leads the reader to expect a special appearance to Peter, but he is not even mentioned in 9-20. 1 The so-called W ending ( a MS of the fifth century ) does not seem to be an ending for the Gospel but a different ending for the Longer Ending joined on after 16:14. For the text of this W ending, see Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 337f; Rawlinson, St. Mark, p. 284. 1 Cf. Markus, p. 197. 2 Cf. Α. Huck, Synapse der drei ersten Evangelien (6. Aufl., Tübingen: Mohr, 1922), p. 222.

574

(C. If 14-16)

THE RESURRECTION TRADITION

The Greek of this Longer Ending, the style of writing, and the vocabulary are very different from that found in the body of the Gospel.3 There is not one trace of vivid, picturesque narration. Verses 9-20 enumerate; it is a list, a catalogue, "a catechetical summary." 4 The emphasis in 9-20 is on the resurrection as a matter of faith rather than as a matter of history.5 Everything is stated with the compactness of the confessional. It was originally compiled as an independent epitome of the resurrection tradition; it was not designed as an ending for the mutilated Mark.® ( 14. To Mary Magdalene ) (16:9-11) This Longer Ending begins in a way which shows that it has been torn from a context, with the pronoun "he." The name Jesus as antecedent must have occurred just ahead of 16:9 in this larger context. Verses 9-11 are in contradiction with Paul (I Cor 15:5) who has the first appearance to Peter, not to Mary Magdalene. This woman is introduced here as though she had not figured previously in the story, and yet she was named three times toward the end of Mark's Gospel (15:40, 47; 16:1). Furthermore, she is identified with a notice borrowed from Lk 8:2. Mary Magdalene reports to the disciples as the three women did not in 16:1-8. The mourning and weeping of the disciples is new in the New Testament resurrection tradition, but it is found in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. Verse 10 assumes that the disciples are easily accessible, gathered together in Jerusalem. The initial unbelief of the disciples is featured as in Luke and John. Verses 9-11 are borrowed from Jn 20:14-18. ( 15. To Two in the Country ) (Mk 16:12-13) This passage is based on Luke 24:13-35, and it compresses the twentythree verses of Luke into two verses. It contradicts the parent-story in one item. In Lk 24:33 the Emmaus disciples returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven already convinced of Jesus' resurrection, but here in Mk 16:13 they are unbelieving. The phrase, "in another form," refers to the special peculiarities in the appearance of the Risen Jesus in Luke's Emmaus story. (16. To the Eleven) (Mk 16:14) This notice seems to be based on Lk 24:36-43 which did not specify a table scene, but the eating (43) did suggest it. Here there are no physical proofs to dispel doubt; the eleven are simply rebuked for their unbelief. In Cf. Torrey, The Four Gospels, p. 304. Cf. Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 351. 5 Cf. Loisy, Les Évangiles, II, 798. 6 Cf. Lake, Historical Evidence, p. 123. 3 4

575

J E S U S AND T H E F I R S T T H R E E G O S P E L S

(C. P 7 - 1 9 )

fact, the epitomist does not even bother to say that their doubt was ever overcome. He simply assumes it, as is clear in the charge which follows. The three appearances in 9-14 are simply listed. They are not given in sequence as was the reader's initial impression: "first" ( 9 ) , "after these things" (12), "afterward" (14). ( 17. The Missionary Command ) (Mk 16:15-18) The change of mood from what precedes is abrupt, from rebuke (14) to commission (15). The influence of Mt 28:18-20 is clear in 15-16, of which these two verses may be a paraphrase.1 The emphasis on belief is new; in Matthew's charge it fell on obedience to Jesus' commands. The necessity of baptism remains. The emphasis on signs and wonders in 17-18 was as characteristic of early Christianity as it was foreign to Jesus' own thinking. The conception of religion as a magical spell that preserves the believer from harm recalls Lk 10:19 (|}208). The speaking in new tongues would seem to betray a knowledge of the Pentecost story in Acts 2:1-11. The taking up of serpents recalls Acts 28:3-6 which episode may even have been in the writer's mind. ( 18. The Ascension ) (Mk 16:19) This sentence reads more like a formal religious confession than narrative.1 It is based on Lk 24:50-52a and Acts 1:9-11 but it is wholly abstract, which is natural in an article of creed. The full term Lord Jesus occurs only here in the Gospels; in Luke 24:3 it is doubtful. The term Lord in the absolute sense as a substitute for the name Jesus is not used in the body of Mark's Gospel. Seated "at the right hand of God" refers to the glorified status of the heavenly Christ. This is the notice which the reader expected at the end of Lk 24:51. ( 19. Missionary Activity ) (Mk 16:20) This is the sketchiest possible résumé of the apostolic age as depicted in the Book of Acts.1 "The Lord working with them" may be only a variation of the last sentence of Matthew's Gospel: "Lo, I am with you always." THE SHORTER ENDING

The Shorter Ending is found in only two principal Greek MSS (L, Psi) and in two Egyptian versions. It seems to have come into existence in the 1 1 1

Cf. Loisy, Marc, p. 497. Cf. Klostermann, Markus, p. 194. Cf. F. Klostermann, Markus, p. 194.

576

T H E RESURRECTION

TRADITION

Egyptian church in the fourth century. The text of this Shorter Ending reads: And they briefly reported all things commanded them to Peter and his company. And after these things Jesus himself appeared to them, and from the east even unto the west sent forth by them the holy and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation. This Shorter Ending is very clearly designed to complete the incomplete Mark. ( 1 ) The women break their silence and report to the disciples. ( 2 ) Peter is singled out for special mention as in 16:7. ( 3 ) The Risen Jesus appears to "Peter and his company." The appearance, however, is not located in Galilee as 16:7 stipulated. As a whole it is a formal rather than a natural ending for the incomplete Mark. 1 The literary style of this Shorter Ending is wholly unlike that in the body of the Gospel. 2 It is a summary statement, not narration, and it ends in the formal liturgical language of the later church. 3 1 2 3

Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 364. Cf. Major, The Mission and Message of Jesus, p. 208. Cf. J. Weiss, Schriften, I, 226.

577

TRADITION AND HISTORY Once the critical reader has found his way through the Synoptic materials, he realizes fully that they fall within the category of tradition, not that of history or biography. This tradition reflects and records what was known and remembered, what was thought and felt, what was surmised and believed about Jesus by the early Christians a generation or more after his death. In this tradition fact and fabrication, both in narrative and in discourse, exist side by side with the same practical religious purposes and ends in view. The primitive recorders of this tradition are not independent and original authors but are primarily transmitters of an older tradition that came down to them. The basic body of this tradition is common to two or to all three writers, and yet in their treatment and use of this common tradition a certain degree of individuality asserts itself in the case of each writer who, in turn, remains anonymous and unidentifiable. In his version of this tradition the author of the Second Gospel is primarily a dogmatist and dramatist; the author of the First Gospel, a churchman and catechist; the author of the Third Gospel, an apologist and propagandist — each in his own way serving the Christian cause. No clear and consistent portrayal of Jesus runs through the first three Gospels. As the reader moves through longer and shorter stories, simple sayings, formal pronouncements, extended discourses, colorful dialogues, even editorial observations and comments, the picture is constantly changing. The Synoptic Jesus is now one person, now another: the demon-destroying Son of God, Messiah incognito, the worker of sheer miracle, a humble healer and helper, a devout son of his people, a teacher of homely human wisdom, a Jewish rabbi, a Hebrew prophet, an apocalyptic seer, the Redeemer, the Risen Lord, the heavenly Christ, the Savior of the world. The Synoptic picture of Jesus is multiform with shifting lights and shades for the simple reason that his religious meaning was creative and variable in the Christian faith and conviction from which the Synoptic tradition came. In all the welter of conception and depiction in this tradition the historical traits will be those which are genuinely human, typically Jewish, and exclusively religious.

579

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

T A Y L O R ' S Theory of Proto-Luke

Lk 1,1-4 (Late Addition) Lk 1,5-2,52 (Separate Source) Markau Inserts

Proto-Luke Lk 3,1-4,30*

Lk 4,31-44 5,1-11 5,12-6,11 6,12-19 6,20-8,3 8,4-9,50 9,51-18,14 18,15-43 19,1-28 19,29-36 37-44 45-46 47-48 20,1-22,13 22,14-24,53f

° With slight Markan inserts, t With some Markan inserts. References: Streeter, The Four Gospels ( 1 9 2 5 ) , pp. 199-222; Taylor, Behind the Third Gospel ( 1 9 2 6 ) , The First Draft of St. Luke's Gospel ( 1 9 2 7 ) , The Gospels. A Short Introduction ( 1 9 3 0 ) , pp. 40-48.

APPENDIX II

W E N D L I N G ' S Three-Stratum Theory of Urmark ( Ur-Marcus, p. 29f )

Ml

M2 l,4-14a

l,16-34a

Ev. 1,1-3 14b 15 34b

35-39a

39b

40-44

45

2,l-15a

2,15b-16a

16b-17

18a

18b 19a

19b 20

2,21-3,5

3,6-19

3,20 21

22-30

3,31-4,9

4,10-25

4,26-29

30-32

33 4,35-5,42 5,43b

34 5,43a

wendling's t h e o r y of Ml

M2

urmark Ev. 6,1-13

6,14 15-16 17-30 30-31 6,32-34 35-44 6,45-8,26 8,27-30a 8,30b-33a 33b 33C-35 36 37 38 9,1 9,2-8 9-13 14-27 28-50 10,1 10,2-12 13-23 24 25 26-30 31-32a 32b-34 35-37 38^0 41-44 45 10,46-11,10 11,11-14 11,15-17 18-25 27a ll,27b-12,14a 12,14b 12,14c-31 32-34a 34b-37

585

APPENDICES

Ml

M2

12,38-44

13,1-2

13,3-27

28-29

30-32

33-36

37

14,1-7

14,8-9

10-11 14,12-20 22-25

26-35a 36-37 39-41a

43-46 48-50

42

15,1-15 21-22 24a 26-27 31-32

21 35b 38 41b

47 51-56 60-62a

65

Εν.

6a-64 66-72 15,16-20 23 24b 25 29-30 33

586

57-59 62b

W E N D L I N G S T H E O R Y OF

Ml

M2

URMARK

Εν.

15,34a 15,34b-36 37 38 15,39 40-43 44 45 15,46-16,7a 16,7b 16,8

587

Index to the Synoptic Tradition Addresses of Jesus: to the twelve, 153fl. 250ff; on the Baptist, 166ff, 199ff; the Beelzebub, 206ff, 346ff; on unwashen hands, 271ff; to the seventy, 332ff; against the Pharisees and lawyers, 351ff; against the Pharisees and scribes, 446ff; the eschatological, 387ff, 456ff; see Sermon on the Mount; Sermon on the Plain Adultery: word on, 104; woman taken in, 477 Anointing of Jesus: in Galilee, 202ff; in Bethany, 483ff Alms, 110 Anxiety, 117f, 360f Apostles, see twelve apostles Appearances of the Risen Jesus, 565ff; to the women, 563; to the eleven in Galilee, 566ÊE; to the Emmaus disciples, 569ff, 575; to Simon, 569ff; to the eleven in Jerusalem, 571f, 575f; to Mary Magdalene, 575 Appearances of the Risen Jesus promised, 502f, 558ff Arrest of Jesus, 508fï, 517; resistance to, 510f; protest against, 51 If Ascension of the Risen Jesus, 572f, 576 Asking, seeking, knocking, 119f, 345 Assembly, selection at the, 390, 471 Authority of Jesus: in teaching, 75f, 124f; to forgive sins, 138ÍF, 202ff; challenged by the chief priests, 433f; in heaven and on earth, 567f Ave Maria, 11 Baptism: of Jesus, 53ff; of John, 42; 433f; a symbol for death, 363f, 406ff; a Christian sacrament, 567f Barabbas, 53 Iff Beatitudes, 96ff, 190f Beelzebub; address; see addresses of Jesus; charge, 152f, 161, 209, 347 Benedictus, 14f Bethany: place of nightly retreat, 423, 428f; scene of the anointing, 483ÍF; scene of the ascension, 572f, 576 Bethlehem: birthplace of Jesus, 17ff, 32f; home of Joseph and Mary, 32f, 36 Betrayer: designation of the, 492f, 497f; woe on the, 492f, 497f; approach of the. 504ff Binding and loosing, 293ff, 326

Birth of Jesus: promised to Mary, 9ff; justified to Joseph, 29ff; Mary's visit to Elisabeth, Uff; in Bethlehem, 17ff, 32ff; visit of the shepherds, 19f; the eighth and fortieth days, 21f; visit of the Magi, 32f; flight into Egypt and return to Nazareth, 33ff Birth of John, see John the Baptist Boy Jesus in the Temple, 22ff Burial of Jesus, 549ff Caesarea Philippi, see Simon's confession at Calling of: the first disciples, 70ff, 91f; Levi, 142ff; Matthew, 143f Capernaum: Jesus' home in, 66; the day in, 73ff; the centurion of, 130f, 196ff; the woe on, 171f, 335 Centurion: of Capernaum, 130f, 196ff; at the cross, 546ff Children, Jesus and the, 317ff, 398f Choosing of the twelve, see twelve apostles Church: universal, 294f; local community, 325 Commandment and tradition, 274 Compassion of Jesus, 155, 262ff, 283 Confession, fearless, 162f, 302f, 358 Conflicts and controversies: in Galilee, 135ff, 176ff, 271ÉE, 285ff; in Jerusalem, 432ff Conspiracy of the chief priests, 428, 482f Covetousness, 359 Cross, bearing one's, 164, 301, 375 Cross on Golgotha: carried by Simon òf Cyrene, 536ff; Jesus on the, 538ff; malefactors on the, 538fF; centurion at the, 546ff; Galilean women at the, 548f Crucifixion of Jesus, 535ff Cup: of cold water, 165, 320f; inside and outside of the, 353, 451; a symbol for death, 406ff, 493ff, 497, 505ff; the passover, 496f Cures of Jesus: a demoniac, 77f; Simon's wife's mother, 80ff, 132; at Simon's door, 82f, 132; throughout Galilee, 88ff, 154f; a leper, 125ff; the centurion's servant, 130f, 196ff; the Gadarene demoniacs, 134f; a paralytic, 138f; a woman, 150ff, 244ff; two blind men, 152; a dumb demoniac, 152f, 346f; a withered hand, 179f; many afflicted, 183f, 187f; a blind and dumb demoniac, 208f; the Gera-

589

INDICES sene demoniac, 243f; at Nazareth, 247ff; in Gennesaret, 270f; a Gentile woman's daughter, 278ÉF; a deaf-mute, 281f; a blind man of Bethsaida, 289f; an epileptic boy, 31 Iff; an infirm woman, 366f; a case of dropsy, 372; ten lepers, 386f; blind Bartimeus, 409ff; blind and lame in the temple, 422f; a severed ear, 511 Cursing of the fig tree, 424ff, 429f Day in Capernaum, 73ff Death of Jesus, 543ff; supernatural signs at, 543ff; grief of the multitudes, 548 Death of Jesus foretold, see prophecies of the passion Death of John the Baptist, see John the Baptist Demand for a sign, 214EF, 285ff, 347, 349f Disciples: calling of the first, 70ff, 9If, 142ff; initial appearance of, 96, 146ff; the twelve chosen from, 185if; fate of, 159f, 301f; desert Jesus, 512; return to Galilee, 558ff, 566ff; remain in Jerusalem,, 571ff Disciples, would-be, 132ff, 332 Discipleship, conditions of, 163f, 301f, 375, 390 Discipline in the community, 324f Dissension in the family, 163, 364 Door, the narrow, 121f, 369 Eleven, the Risen Jesus appears to the: in Galilee, 566ff; in Jerusalem, 571ff Elisabeth, mother of John the Baptist: conceives in her old age, 8f; visited by Mary, l l f ; birth and naming of her son, 14ff Emergency of that day, 390, 464f, 472 Endurance, salvation through, 462 Eternal life: question about inheriting, 339f, 399f; reward for renunciation, 402ff Eunuchs, 398 Faith: as a grain of mustard seed, 313f, 385; to remove a mountain, 313f, 430ff Farewell words on the last night, 498ff Fasting: word on, 115; the question of, 146ff; prayer and, 313f Father and the Son, the, 174f, 338, 470f Feeding: of the five thousand, 263ff, 287ff; of the four thousand, 283ff, 287ff Fishes, miraculous draught of, 91f Fire and baptism, figures of, 363f Flight of a certain young man, 512f Gabriel, angel: appears to Zacharias, 8f; appears to Mary, 9ff

Galileans slain by Pilate, 365f Galilee: Jesus begins public work in, 64f, preaching and healing in, 88f, 154f, 251; Jesus' departure from, 330f, 395f; eleven return to, 566ff Gate, the narrow, 121f, 369 Genealogy of Jesus, 27ff, 58f Gethsemane: on the way to, 502ff; Jesus in, 504ff Gloria in excelsis, 20 Golden Rule, 121, 193 Golgotha, 538f Gospel to the whole world, 461, 463, 484f, 567ff, 572 Great commandment: and eternal life, 339f; question about the, 442ff Harvest plenteous — laborers few, 155f. 334 Hearing: and doing, 124, 196; and judging, 118f, 194, 222ff; and rejecting, 235 Herod the Great: consults the Magi, 32f; persecutes the holy family, 33ff Herod the tetrarch: superstition about Jesus, 254ff; arrest of John the Baptist, 52f, 257f; execution of John the Baptist, 258f; Jesus warned against, 370f; Jesus delivered to, 529; Jesus before, 529ff High priest: Conspiracy in the court of 482f; Jesus delivered to the, 516f; Jesus before the, 517ff Holy, desecration of the, 119 Humility, 372f, 392f, 450 Israel: mission of the twelve restricted to, 157f, 160f; mission of Jesus restricted to, 280f James and John: would destroy the Samaritans, 330f; request places of honor, 406ff Jerusalem: lament over, 371f, 453f; prophecy of the destruction of, 419f; Jesus' entry into, 420; in distress, 464, 466; daughters of, 538 John the Baptist: birth promised, 8f; mother visited by Mary, l l f f ; birth, 14fF; work on the Jordan, 41ff; sermon on repentance, 47f; response to his message, 49, 201, 433ff; announcement of the Coming One, 49ff; baptizes Jesus, 53ff; disciples, 146ff, 167f, 199f, 258f, 343f; deputation to Jesus, 167f, 199f; Jesus' address on, 166ff, 199ff; arrest, 52f, 64ff, 257f; death, 254ff, 258f John the Baptist: forerunner of God, 8, 15; forerunner of Jesus, 42ff, 64ff, 169, 200f; 309ff; as Elijah returned, 170f, 309ff; and the kingdom, 169f, 382; Jesus as John risen from the dead, 254ff, 291ff

590

THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION Jonah, the sign of, 214f, 349f Joseph of Arimathea, 549ff Joseph, father of Jesus, 21fi, 27ff, 58f, 67fE Joseph, guardian of Mary and child: Mary betrothed to, 9ff, 29ff; Jesus' birth justified to, 29ff; flight into Egypt and return to Nazareth, 33ff Joseph and Mary, parents of Jesus, 21ff Journey to Jerusalem, 330ff, 368, 386f, 395ff, 405f, 412ÉF Journey to the north, 278ff Judas Iscariot: one of the twelve, 156f, 185ÍF; betrays Jesus, 485ff; at the table, 490ff, 497f; at the arrest, 508ff; remorse and suicide, 524ff Judea in distress, 463f, 466 Judging, 118f, 194, 229f Judgment of the Son of man, 235f, 237, 475f Kingdom of God (heaven): at hand, 64ff; and violence, 169f, 382; exorcism and, 21 Of, 348; Gentiles in the, 130ff, 370; in this generation, 303f; comes without observation, 388; is within you or in your midst, 388; shut against men, 450; next cup in the, 493ff; likened unto seed growing of itself, 230f, tares in a field, 23If, a mustard seed, 232f, 368, leaven, 233f, 368, a hidden treasure; a pearl of great price, 236f, a drag-net, 237, an unmerci iul servant, 327, laborers in a vineyard, 404f, a marriage feast, 438f, ten virgins, 473f Last Supper, the, 493ff Law: Jesus' mission and the, lOlf; permanence of the, lOlf, 382f; six words on the, lOlff Leaven: of the Pharisees and Herod, 287f; of the Pharisees and Sadducees, 288f; of the Pharisees, 356f Lord's Prayer, the, 11 Iff, 343f Lord's Supper, the, 497f Lot, the days of, 389 Love: to enemies, 107ff, 192ff; of God 339, 442ff; for neighbor, 339, 400f, 442fl Magi, visit of the, 32f Magnificat, 12f Malefactors (robbers) on the cross, 358ff Mary and Martha, in the house of, 342f Mary, mother of Jesus: Gabriel's appearance to, 9ff; her visit to Elisabeth, Uff; Jesus bom to her, 17ff, 29ff; her offering in the temple, 21f; Jesus the son of. 247ff; pronounced blessed, 349 Messiah, the question of David's, 444ff

Messiahs, false, 460, 466 Mission: of the twelve, 153ff, 250ff; of the seventy, 332ff Mocking of Jesus: at the Jewish trial, 520, 522f; at the Roman trial, 529f, 534f; at the cross, 540ÉF Mother and brethren of Jesus, 207f, 216ff, 238f, 349 Mount of Olives: ovation on the, 416ff: protest of the Pharisees on the, 419; prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem on the, 419f; place of nightly retreat, 476f, 502ff; scene of the eschatological address, 459ff Murder, 103 Nazareth: home of Joseph and Mary, 9ff, 17ff, 21f, 36; Jesus a native of, 53ff, 67ff, 247ff; opening sermon in, 67ff; Jesus' rejection at, 247ff Noah, the days of, 389, 471 Nunc dimittis, 21f Oaths, 106, 451 Occasions of stumbling, 104f, 321f Offense, 321f, 384 Parable, its nature and purpose, 222ff, 234f Parables, formal explanations of, 225ff, 235f, 237, 276ff Parables of Jesus: Physician, heal thyself, 69f; salt, 98f, 322f, 376; a city on a hill, 99f; a lamp on a stand, 100, 228, 350; going before the judge, 103f, 365; the eye, 116, 350; double service, 116f, 381; the mote and the beam, 119, 195; the requesting son, 120, 345f; the tree and its fruit, 122f, 195, 213; the builders, 124, 196; the physician and the sick, 144ff; the wedding guests, 146ff; new patch and the old garment; new wine and the old wine skin, 146ff; the disciple and his teacher, 161, 195; the manifestation of the hidden, 161f, 229, 357f; the children at play, 171, 201f; the blind guides, 194f, 276; a lender and two debtors, 202ff; the kingdom and the house divided, 209f, 347f; the strong man, 211, 348; the unclean spirit, 215f, 349; the seed and the soils, 220f; the seed growing of itself, 230f; the tares, 231f; the mustard seed, 232f, 368; the leaven, 233f, 368; the hidden treasure; the pearl of great price, 236f; the dragnet, 237; the scribe, 237f; concerning real defilement, 275f; the children's bread, 278ff; the unmerciful servant, 327; the good Samaritan, 340ff; the

591

INDICES friend at midnight, 344f; the rich fool, 360; the absent lord, 361f, 471f; the thief, 362, 473; the faithful and unfaithful servant, 362f, 473; the barren fig tree, 366; the late arrivals, 369; the choosing of seats, 372f; the bidding of guests, 373; the great supper, 373f; a man building a tower; a king going to war, 375f; the lost sheep, 323f, 377; the lost coin, 377f; the lost sons, 378f; the unjust steward, 379£F; the rich man and Lazarus, 383f; the servant with many duties, 386; the body and the eagles, 391, 466; the widow and the unjust judge, 391f; the Pharisee and the publican, 392f; the laborers, 404f; the pounds, 412ff; the two unlike sons, 434f; the wicked husbandmen, 436ff; the marriage feast, 437f; the budding fig tree, 468f; the ten virgins, 473f; the talents, 474f Paradoxes of Jesus: to him that hath, 224f, 229f, 412ff, 474f; losing and finding life, 163f, 301f, 390; humbling and exalting one's self, 373, 392f, 450; the first and the last, 370, 402f, 404f Parousia: of the Son of man, 467f; the publicity of, 388f, 466; the "when" of the, 470f Passover: visited by Jesus' parents, 22ff; two davs away, 482f; the preparation for, 487ff; meal and cup, 495ff Peter: confession at Caesarea Philippi, 291ff; rebuke and rebuff, 299ff; attempt to walk on the water, 268if; head of the church, 293fF; and the temple tax, 316; and frequent forgiveness, 326f; his pledge — his denial foretold, 501, 504; his denial of Jesus, 520fF Peter, James, and John, 245f, 304ÍF, 505£F Pharisee, Jesus at the table of a, 202, 352, 372 Pharisees: and lawyers, address against, 351ff; and scribes, address against, 446ff Pilate: Galileans slain by, 365f; Jesus delivered to, 524; Jesus before, 527ff, 530ff; declares Jesus innocent, 529, 530f, 532f: washes his hands, 533; condemns Jesus to death, 533f Pilate's wife, intervention of, 53 If Plants planted not by the Father, 276 Plucking grain on the sabbath, 176ff Practices of piety, HOff, 353, 448f, 451 Prayer, HOff, 120, 313f, 343ÍT, 392f, 430fF Prayers of Jesus: the Lord's Prayer, 11 Iff, 343f; prayer of praise, 174, 357f; for Simon, 500f; in Gethsemane, 505ff; on the cross, 538ff, 543ff

Praying, notices of Jesus, 54, 84f, 128f, 187, 267f, 293, 305, 343, 504ff Preface, Luke's Iff Prophecies of the passion, 296ff, 314ff, 389, 405f, 482f Proselytizers, 450f Publicans and sinners: Jesus at meat with, 144ff, 377; baptized by John, 201, 435 Purse and sword, advice to buy, 501f Question of: fasting, 146ÉF; unwashen hands, 271ff; Jesus authority, 433f; the tribute money, 439ff; the resurrection, 441f; the great commandment, 339ff, 442ff; David's messiah, 444ff Raisings from the dead: Jairus' daughter, 150ff, 244ff; son of the widow of Nain, 198f Receiving and rejecting: the apostles, 164f, 335f; children, 317ff, 398f Renunciation, 163f, 375, 402ff Resurrection: the question of the, 441f; of Jesus, 555ff Retaliation, 106f, 192f Rich and riches, 192, 359f, 383f, 399ff Risen Jesus, see appearances of Ruler, the rich young, 399ff Sabbath controversies: plucking grain, 176ff; the withered hand, 179ff; the infirm woman, 366f; a case of dropsy, 372 Samaria, Jesus in, 330ff, 386f Saying and doing, 122f, 195f, 434f, 448 Self-delusion, 123, 195f, 369 Sepulchres: whited, 354, 452; builders of, 355, 452 Sermon on the Mount, 93ff Sermon on the Plain, 189ff Service, 317ff, 408f, 450, 499 Seventy, mission of the, 332ff Sheep (ass; ox), analogy on, 182, 366f, 372 Shepherds, visit of the, 19f Sign, the demand for a, 214ff, 285ff, 347, 349f Signs of the times, 286f, 364f Simon of Cyrene, 536ff Sin: the forgiveness of, 11 Iff, 138ff, 202ff. 327, 430ff, 477; the unpardonable, 212f, 358 Son, Jesus the, 174f, 338, 470 Son of God, Jesus the, 53f, 304ff, 546ff Son of man on earth: homelessness, 132f, 332; authority to forgive sins, 138ff; eating and drinking, 171, 201f; lord of the sabbath, 176f; suffering, death, and resurrection foretold, 296ff, 314ff, 389, 405f, 482f; his life as a ransom, 408f;

592

THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION seeks and saves the lost, 323f, 41 If; betrayed, 492f, 497f, 505ÉE Son of man from heaven: imminent coming of, 160f; in this generation, 302fF; comes as the lightning, 389, 466; comes as a thief, 362, 473; comes on the clouds, 467f, 517ff; day of the, 388ff; last judgment of the, 235f, 472f, 475f; enthroned in heaven, 403f, 517ff, 523 Storm, the stilling of the, 134, 241ff Strange exorcist, 319f Stripes, many or few, 363 Stumbling, occasions of, 104f, 321f Supper, the Last, 493ff Supper scene, 489ff Temple: Gabriel appears to Zacharias in the, 8f; parents or Jesus in the, 2 If; boy Jesus in the, 22ff; Jesus' observations in the, 420f; cleansing of the, 421f, 426ff; scene of Jesus' teaching, 432ff, 476f; prophecy of the destruction of, 455f; prophecy of the desecration of, 463f; alleged word against the, 517ff, 540ff Temple tax, 316 Temptation of Jesus, 59ff, 499f Theophilus, 4f Titles, 449f Tomb, the empty, 556ff Transfiguration of Jesus, 304flE Treasures, the laying up of, 115f. 361 Trial of Jesus, 513ff; Jewish, 514ff; Roman, 526ff Trial, prompt preparation at, 159f, 356f, 461f Tribute to Caesar, the question of, 439ff Tribulation of the end, 465 Twelve Apostles: their choosing, 185ff;

their names, 156f, 185ff; their mission, 153ÉF, 250ff; Jesus at the table with the, 490f; thrones for the, 403f, 499f Via dolorosa, 538 Vipers, offspring of, 47f, 452 Walking on the water: Jesus, 268ff; Peter's failure, 269f Wars and rumors of wars, 460f Way, the broad and straitened, 121f Watch at the tomb, 552f, 557f, 564 Widow's mites, 454f Wisdom of God, words of the, 355f, 452f Wise-men, see Magi With me and against me (us; you), 211, 319f, 348 Witnesses, blessed eye-and-ear, 225, 338f Woe: on the offender, 321, 384; to the mothers, 465; on the betrayer, 492f, 497f Woes: on the Galilean cities, 171ff, 335; on the fortunate, 192; on the Pharisees and lawyers, 351ff; on the scribes and Pharisees, 446ff Woman taken in adultery, 477 Women, Galilean: in Jesus' following, 204f; at the cross, 548f; at the burial, 552; at the empty tomb, 556ff Words: idle, 213f; permanence of Jesus', 469 World: gaining the whole, 301f; gospel to the whole, see Gospel Would-be disciples, 132f, 332 Zaccheus the publican, 41 If Zacharias, father of John the Baptist: Gabriel appears to, 8f; singer of the Benedictas, 14f

593

Critical Index Additions, probable later, 20, 43, 113ff, 149, 177f, 204, 214f, 225f, 237, 247, 264, 273f, 277, 281, 287, 290, 293f, 305, 309, 370ff, 378, 397, 401, 417, 421, 427, 436ff, 448, 451, 452, 484, 500, 513, 530, 537, 539f, 550, 559, 564 Admonitions, 227, 315f, 318, 323, 361, 369, 449, 461, 4 7 I f , 499, 506 Adversatives, 298, 362, 518 Aftermaths, 15, 126, 129, 255, 263, 286, 308, 402, 535, 546ff, 556 Allegory, 98, 147, 171, 211, 226, 230f, 235f, 322, 316, 363, 369, 374, 383, 391, 436ff, 472ÍF Alternatives, 48, 55, 116, 180, 534 Anachronisms (prolepsis), 138, 154, 159. 164, 186, 251, 294 Analogies, 108, 116, 148, 182, 275f, 367, 372, 499 Analogy, law of biographical, 24, 34, 60 Anthologies, 24, 239 Anticipations, 152, 156, 160, 484 Apologetics, 27, 57, 102, 127, 137, 140. 147, 162, 209, 296ff, 444, 493, 502f, 532f, 548f, 553, 556, 562, 564 Apostrophies, rhetorical, 15, 22, 171ff, 195f, 229, 311, 335, 338, 371, 453, 500 Apothegms, 135 Appendixes, see Supplements Asceticism: in Jesus, 62, 398; in John the Baptist, 44, 47, 201; in the Gospel of Luke, 1 Asides from writer to reader, 57, 114, 144, 201, 230, 254, 273, 277, 297, 461 Association: of ideas, composition by, 117, 142, 149, 205, 209, 213, 286, 301, 303, 309, 321f, 335, 342, 370, 382, 408, 464: composition by verbal, 116, 170f, 174, 179, 201, 309, 317, 342, 350, 369, 371. 381f, 419, 435, 452, 454, 469, 502 Biographical interest and effort, traces of, 89, 181, 205 Birth of Jesus: tradition of the natural, 7. 18f, 28f, 59; tradition of the supernatural, 7f, lOf, 18f, 26, 28ff, 35, 55, 59 Brackets, literary, 212, 215, 222, 278, 359. 376 Catalogues and cataloguing, 136, 185f, 219, 233, 237, 350, 366, 437?, 575

Catechisms, 93ff, lOlff, 317ff Choral conclusions, 141f, 153, 198, 209, 241f, 282, 313, 366, 437f, 575 Christ's cosmic mission, 78, 86, 140, 145, 163, 364 Church: universal, 294; local community, 325 Commentaries, 225ff, 235f, 237, 276ff, 308, 362, 379£E Commentators, Gospel writers as, 183, 221, 225ff, 288, 379ff Comments, incidental, 35, 181, 201, 212, 230, 277, 360, 376, 392, 444, 500, 502, 511 Composition: examples of careful literarv, 27, 96ff, lOOf, 109ff, l l l f f , 117ff, 171ff, 191, 212, 232, 322, 377f, 420, 436, 476; products of pure literary, 9f, 25, 59, 64, 110, 118, 192, 218f, 236, 296ff, 335, 365, 37 If, 441, 456ff, 538 Compositions, distinctly Christian, 114, 118, 175, 191f, 201, 216, 225ff, 273, 277, 294, 300, 336, 389, 398, 4 2 0 Contractions: of events, 142, 156, 265, 293, 426, 429f; of sayings, 319, 322, 375, 402, 404, 432; of stories, 127, 367 Contrasts, literarv and dramatic, 100, 124, 196, 201, 2 9 2 / 3 2 7 , 345f, 357f, 363, 368, 378f, 386, 392f, 542 Counterparts: dramatic, 62, 177, 281, 305, 339, 541; literary, 99, 192, 211, 277 Design: dramatic, 296, 315, 407, 532, 546: literary, 315, 407, 450, 521, 568f Devices: dramatic, 24, 246, 296, 486, 490. 493, 512, 532; editorial, 222, 235, 333, 415, 440, 498, 548; literary, 251, 272, 278, 530 Dialectics and debate, 62ff, lOOff, 135ff, 146, 163, 176ff, 271ff, 310, 432ff Dialogue, dramatic use of, 62, 77, 135, 263. 29Iff, 366, 399, 517ff, 523f, 532 Dilemmas, dialectical, 433f, 439f Discipline, church, 105f, 317ff, 324f, 385, 431 Discourse, dramatic use of, 49, 62, 492 Distortion: dramatic, 84, 181; epic, 87, 241, 521; lyrical, 126, 507; rhetorical, 54, 86, 507, 509, 536 Dogmas, dramatized: birth in Bethlehem, 7, 13, 3 If, 35; descent from David, 7,

594

CRITICAL INDEX 27ff, 35, 58f; John the forerunner, 7, 41, 43, 49ff, 55, 65f, 167f; Jesus the Son of God, 42f, 57, 307, 546ff; Jesus the Messiah, 42f, 78f, 83, 127, 221f, 224, 243f, 282, 289, 291ff, 308f, 311, 417, 518f, the demons, 78ff, 83, 184, 243f, 311, the disciples, 78, 223f, 268, 272, 284f, 288, 290, 292, 309, 311, 315, 397, death, 78, 292, 296ff, 314ff, 511; the betrayer, 492f, 497f, 506, 508ff Doxologies, 114, 175, 411, 418 Drama, the cosmic, 458ff Ecstatic traits in Jesus, possible, 56, 61f, 64, 67, 107, 225, 337 Edification, Christian, 514, 516, 536, 540, 543, 545 Effects and touches, dramatic, 53f, 72, 84, 241, 297, 327, 349, 374, 401, 453, 504, 509f, 520, 528, 546 Elisabeth, mother of John: suppressed visit of Gabriel to, 13f; probable singer of the Magnificat, 13 Epilogues, 111, 121, 313f, 338, 385, 471f, 556 Epiphanies (divine disclosures), 57, 71, 76, 24Of, 246, 268, 308 Epitomes, 40, 44, 50, 61f, 250, 448, 575 Eschatology: traditional Jewish, 303, 387ff 390, 456ff, 467ff, 523, 538; early Christian, 361ff, 456ÉE, 461, 467f, 472; of Jesus, 51, 108, 112, 147, 160f, 294, 302ff, 362, 457, 494, 496; ethics of, 107, 164 Esoteric: groups, 16, 107, 140; language, 330, 371; meaning, 71, 291; teaching, 222, 228, 459ff; tradition, 44, 46, 78, 246 Eulogies, 169, 200f, 349 Fabrications, literary, 34, 137, 258f, 367, 385, 423, 454, 510, 532, 534, 539, 553 Faith, creative genius of the early Christian, 64, 81, 535, 579 Fanaticism, suggestions of, 120, 133, 158, 164, 170, 191 Fiction ( myth and legend ) : birth tradition as, 17, 37f; cultural function of, 25, 37; historical value of, 37f, 57, 240 Filler and padding, literary, 64, 254, 421. 530 Folklore, 17, 25, 474 Folk-psychology, ancient, 32f, 61, 79, 543 Formulations, early Christian, 296ff, 362, 364, 375, 402f, 443, 469, 500 Framework: dialogue, 200, 339, 342, 357; editorial, 260, 279, 329, 333, 336, 351ff, 367, 386, 391; narrative, 12, 62, 72, 131, 167, 197, 200, 216, 221, 333, 342, 351ff, 367, 454; the Markan, 39, 47, 58, 61, 94,

128, 166, 188, 213, 215, 221, 249, 316, 394, 399, 411, 482 Functions, dramatic, 180, 202, 379, 484 Genius: history and psychology of, 23; Jesus as a religious, 341f Gospel: a written story of Jesus, 479, 484, 556; the, a spoken proclamation, 42, 65, 301, 461, 479, 484, 556 Gospels, the Synoptic: a body of tradition, vii; distinctive features of each, 579; see Matthew, Mark, Luke Group, the believing, 71, 112, 141, 148, 173, 199, 282, 302, 348, 361 Groups: esoteric, 16, 107, 140; sectarian, 9, 48, 52, 115, 146, 320, 460 Historian, the professional, 82, 85, 126, 135, 137, 154, 207, 251 History: catastrophic conception of, 71; Christian conception of, 65, 170, 310; didactic, 4, 68; Luke's conception of, 4; providential conception of, 4, 65; redaction of, 296; traditions with a, 29f, 55ff, 127, 133, 139f, 195, 243, 264, 269, 293f, 331, 426, 430, 438, 563 Hyperbole, 107, 314, 385, 401, 431f Inserts, possible, lOf, 22f, 49, 70, 74, 77, 109ff, 179, 194, 210, 213, 218f, 221f. 225, 247, 255, 276, 286ff, 294, 300, 304. 309f, 319, 321, 336, 381, 389, 398, 407, 413, 434, 438, 484, 497, 502f, 506, 508, 511, 521, 523, 528f, 531, 534, 539, 558f, 563 Interludes, literary and dramatic, 254, 529f, 534 Introductions, literary, 58, 65ff, 142, 455f, 482, 488 Intrusions, literary, 50, 99, 117, 119, 464, 524 Invective, 48, 171ÉF, 192, 201, 213, 335, 351ff, 435, 446ff Inventions: editorial, 260, 262, 276, 279, 289, 329ff, 334, 342f, 349, 352, 356, 365, 368f, 371f, 373, 375, 386, 412, 422f, 530; fictitious, 204, 343, 359, 383, 442, 474, 515, 534 Jesus, the historical: genuinely human, 116, 128, 318f, 399, 400, 407, 470, 506, 543; typically Jewish, 63, 94, 102, 110, 125, 141, 157, 160, 175, 181, 280f, 295, 400, 403, 420, 442f; exclusively religious, 54. 63, 65, 84f, 111, 123, 128f, 141, 161f, 173f, 187, 196, 215, 217, 231, 237, 400, 407, 568 Jesus the Messiah, see Dogma of

595

INDICES Jesus the Son of God, see Dogma of John the Baptist, see Dogma of the forerunner Legend, see Fiction Links and sutures, literary, 65, 89, 155, 160, 237, 243, 285 Liturgical language and style, 101, 173f, 213, 264, 294, 320, 338, 567f, 577 Liturgy and ritual, 113f, 123, 344, 493ff Luke, the Gospel of: composite birth tradition, 7f, 11, 14, 17ÉF, 20f, 24f; source structure, 188; predominance of nonMarkan matter, 40f, 67£F, 91f, 188ff, 328ff, 41 Iff, 480ff; small non-Markan section, 188ff; extensive omissions from Mark, 39f, 189, 207, 219; great omission, 265ff; curtailment of the Galilean story, 40, 207, 219, 265, 320; suppression of Jewish materials, 77, 94f, 103, 109, 157, 189f, 193, 195, 266, 272, 310f, 418, 516, 523; problem paragraphs, 52f, 67ff, 91ff, 202ff; great expansion of the journey to Jerusalem, 328ff; great non-Markan section, 328ff; Samaritan traditions, 330f, 340ff, 386f; duplication of discourses, 155ff, 332ff, 351ff, 446ff, Ö87ff, 456ff; breaks in continuous discourse, 149, 190, 192, 194, 354, 362f, 374, 391, 458, 460, 469; four special parables, 341, 360, 383f, 392f; parable chapter, 376ff; special J source, 458ff; farewell words on the last night, 498ff; non-Markan version of the death drama and Easter story, 480ff, 557ff, 568ff; transition to the Book of Acts, 557, 571ff; treatment of sources, 2ff, 47, 153ÍT, 207, 228, 330, 346, 351, 387ff, 446ff, 456ff; excursions into Roman history, 16ff, 26, 45f; universalism, 5, 17f, 46, 58, 333f; Gentile-Christian readers, 5, 77, 198, 266, 272, 281, 311, 339, 347, 354, 397ff; affinities with the Gospel of John, 47, 52, 70, 87, 90ff, 187, 342, 358, 384, 487, 489, 498f, 549, 564, 571; sentimental touches, 19, 198, 246f, 313, 419; the title Lord, 199f, 353, 367, 385, 392, 412, 522; prominence of women, 9ff, Uff, 22, 198f, 202ff, 204f, 342f. 377f, 548f, 552, 556ff; reverence for the apostles, 300, 314, 408, 501, 508, 512; Catholic conceptions, 143, 335, 361 Mark, the Gospel of: basic source of Matthew and Luke, 39; superscription, 42f; as dramatized dogma, 42f, 78ff. 296, 308, 492; dramatic sequences and compositions, 73ff, 136ff, 478ff, 489ff,

504ff, 514ff, 526ff, 534ff; topical groupings, 135ff, 218ff, 432ff; composite discourse sections, 146ff, 206ff, 218ff, 250ff, 27Iff, 456ff; parable section, 218ff; split stories and sequences, 206ff, 216f, 244ff, 253ff, 259, 429f, 482, 484f, 515f, 520; catechetical chains of short sayings, 227f, 300ff, 317ÉF, 430ff; duplicate strains of tradition, 261ff; six-day calendar for erusalem events, 414ff; Jewish apocayptic tract in chapter 13, 457ff; death drama, 478ff; problematical ending, 560ff; abruptness of narration, 44, 70, 79, 139, 143, 185, 283, 291, 319, 447, 482, 485, 517, 527, 532, 547; ungenetic treatment of events, 42, 44, 74, 298, 486; emotional color, 126, 128, 180, 182, 287, 399, 402, 405, picturesque detail, 74, 83, 87f, 132, 134, 151, 180, 241, 263, 284, 410, 505, 515, 521, 534, 550; portrayal of Jesus, human traits, 116, 128, 318f, 399, 400, 407, 470, 506, 543, mythical features, 42, 79, 84, 140f, 180f, 240, 311f; Pauline influence, traces of, 65, 221, 223, 226, 275, 277, 280, 299, 303, 320, 323, 397, 409, 506, 545; final stages of composition, 89, 139, 183, 251, 267, 288; evidence of later retouching, 83, 87f, 128, 141, 182, 242, 244, 264, 287, 399, 519, 551; final redactor, 83, 87, 128, 141, 149, 239f, 302, 461, 507, 543 Martyr-legend, 481, 536, 542 Mary, mother of Jesus, opposed pictures of, 7, 10, 20, 22f, 217f Matthew, the Gospel of: seven books of. 26, 44, 124f, 129, 153, 166, 238, 249, 396, 482; composite birth tradition, 26f, 31f, 35; expansion of sources, 39f, 95, 109, 153ff, 159, 219, 234ff, 317, 323ff, 445ff; Markan sequences broken, 74f, 134f, 137f, 150, 178, 240; digressions from Mark, 90f, 130, 137f, 142, 150f, 171, 175, 178; topical method of composition, 90, 95, 112, 129ff, 137, 150, 256, 401; six antitheses, lOOff; transition formula, 124f, 166, 196f, 249, 395f, 482; cycle of ten wonder-works, 90, 129f, 152; radical abridgements of Mark, 130, 132, 134f, 142, 151, 313; double cures, 135, 152, 41Of; maior transpositions, 181f, 133f, 150ff. 153ff, 155, 159; parable section, 220ff; general closeness to Mark in chapters 14-27, 256f; special Petrine episodes, 269, 293f, 316f, 326f; concluding mass of discourse, 445ff; minor revision of Mark's death drama, 480; independent Easter story, 555ff; treatment of sources, 3, 47, 153ff, 158,

596

J

CRITICAL INDEX 165, 233, 256f, 278, 314, 321, 326f, 346, 387, 445, 458f, 481; systematic use of discourse, 66, 93ff, 298f, 445ff; Jesus as teacher, 93, 190, 446; Jewish-Christian readers, 101, 274, 316; proofs from prophecy, 30f, 32, 34f, 44, 66, 132, 146, 179, 184, 225, 235, 418, 525; catechetical interest, 93ff, 111, 122, 154, 159, 165, 256, 291, 323, 327, 398, 447, 450, 459, 472ff, 567ff; ecclesiastical interest, 227, 231, 236, 294f, 325, 568f; Catholic conceptions, 45, 100, 232, 293f, 326, 398, 401; general Jewishness, 28, 94, 102, 114, 121, 131, 160, 238, 280, 316, 325, 403, 421 Memoirs: of Simon in Mark ( ? ) , 71, 87f; historical value of, 87f Messianic mystery (secret), see Dogma of Jesus the Messiah Miracle: in history writing, 4; in the Synoptic tradition, 81 Monologue, dramatic use of, 51, 135, 173ff, 180, 196, 297, 311f, 338, 360, 391ff, 434, 437, 444, 507, 509 Morals to parables, 327, 359f, 376, 380, 383, 386, 391f Mosaics, literary, 24, 95, 100, 114, 175 Mysticism, Christian, 343 Myth, see Fiction Notices and notations, incidental, 16, 18, 20, 22f, 24f, 44, 48, 52, 54f, 88, 125, 135, 144, 235, 251, 285, 332, 368, 386, 428, 476, 482, 485, 548 Novelettes, 198, 204, 240, 312 Numbers, favorite round, 23, 27f, 59, 97, 186f, 219, 237, 278, 385 Old Testament in the Synoptic tradition: allusions to the, 69f, 177, 179, 331, 350, 389, 396, 471; background and inspiration, 24, 32f, 72, 96, 106, 122f, 163, 165, 170, 175, 211, 215, 223, 230, 233f, 242, 252, 258, 278, 302, 316, 318, 325, 327, 334, 353, 374, 407, 417, 419, 467f, 479, 486, 493, 513, 528, 536, 539ff, 543ff, 565; borrowings from, 13, 15, 27f, 44, 56, 58f, 308, 322, 348, 372, 436, 463, 468, 487, 510, 520, 533; conflations of the, 42, 55, 418, 427; imitations of the, 12, 16, 22f, 46, 198f, 311, 332, 455, 530; paraphrases of the, 97, 168, 223f, 364, 423, 461; quotations from, 30. 32. 34, 42, 44, 46, 54, 62f, 66, 69, 103f, 107f, 121, 146, 169, 225, 235, 274, 322, 339, 401, 423, 436, 441ff, 543, 545; revisions of the, 42, 502, 525

Oracles, 22, 35, 170, 220, 335, 355, 420, 453 Oral tradition (story), see Tradition Parable theory, 223, 234, 272, 276fi Paradigms, 135 Parallelism, poetic, 178, 418 Parentheses, literary, 59, 156, 183, 187, 212, 218f, 221f, 254, 259, 273, 533 Patchwork, literary, 139, 241, 381 Periods and pauses, literary, 15, 24f, 93, 138, 183, 205, 247, 253, 456, 546f Poems, didactic, 109ff, 117f, 173ff Polemics, 137, 180, 194, 201, 206ff, 209, 213, 276, 286, 364, 379, 434ff, 446ff, 533 Preaching (sermon), early Christian, 3, 44, 50, 65, 71, 76, 79, 98, 126, 140, 145, 216, 427, 437, 476, 479 Preambles, literary, 101, 187, 388 Preface, literary, Iff Preludes: dramatic, 51, 68, 202, 291, 410, 484; literary, 420, 573 Problem-plays, 31, 64 Profane (secular) sayings, possible, 99, 104, 116, 118f, 121, 133, 148f, 158f, 162, 211, 213, 228, 302, 321, 348, 358, 365 Prolepsis, see Anachronisms Prologue: dramatic, 50f, 68, 202, 484; literary, 111 Pronouncements, officious, 127, 135, 140, 173, 212f, 294, 302, 310, 335f, 348, 369, 396f, 435 Propaganda, early Christian, 4f, 226, 252, 527f Propositions of the early Christian faith, 178, 296ff, 335f, 405, 409, 555 Proto-Luke, theory of, 26, 39, 46, 53, 58, 68, 74, 91, 187, 189, 205, 266, 330, 339, 393ff, 41 If, 414, 416, 419, 420, 428, 433, 480f, 491, 509, 515, 522, 537, 551f Proverbs, 68f, 99, 249, 363, 462, 466, 510, 538 Q, a basic source of Matthew and Luke, 47f; uncertain beginning, 47; section on ohn the Baptist, 47f, 51f; story of the laptism ( ? ) , 53f; story of the temptation, 62ff; addresses in Matthew, 93ff, 166ff, 446ff; addresses conflated with Mark in Matthew, 153ff, 206ff, 456ff; addresses in Luke, 189ff, 199ff, 332ff, 346ff, 351ff, 387ff; two cures in, 130f, 196ff, 208f, 346f; in Luke's small nonMarkan section, 188f; in Luke's great non-Markan section, 328; probability of death drama in, 481, 499f, 502; Luke's preference for, 205ÉF, 233, 322, 346, 481

597

J

INDICES Questions, rhetorical, 119f, 146, 169, 180, 182, 194, 210, 289, 386, 438 Realism in Jesus' parables, 99, 237, 344f, 380f, 391f Responses, unison, 20, 49, 420, 532, 547 Sampling, anecdotal method of depiction, 137 Sequels, 252, 255, 306, 308, 425, 521, 573f Sermon, early Christian, see Preaching Sketches, 41, 44, 61, 485, 558 Story-teller, 67, 240 Subjectivism, 42, 50, 71, 78 r 82f, 136, 148, 479f, 514, 517 Summaries: discourse, 41, 45, 50, 66; editorial, 52, 65, 73, 75, 135, 253, 476, 575f Supernaturalism, 19, 33, 56, 160 Supplements and Appendixes, HOf, 117, 235ff, 308, 323, 378, 383f, 408, 439, 441, 474 Sutures, literary, see Links Symbolism, prophetic, 68, 70, 333, 425, 484 Tales, 16, 198, 240, 242f, 258, 282, 312 Technique: dramatic, 50, 57; in pagan healing, 281f, 289f Termini technici, 65, 138, 140, 163, 457 Threefold dramatic structure: in single units, 62, 136, 146, 505f, 520f; in sections and sequences, 43, 206, 27Iff. 296ff, 314ff, 405ff, 479, 529f, 532 Tracts: early Christian, 93fF, 154ff, 325, 457ff; Jewish, 457fF Tradition (fact, fiction, myth, legend): creative genius of, 182, 208, 245, 293, 324, 347, 366, 410, 488, 493, 506, 509, 511, 537, 542, 549, 551, 558; nature and

historical value of, 579; oral, 3, 64, 93, 136, 179, 192, 236, 297, 365f, 371, 538; floating (wandering), 92, 202, 242f, 367, 370, 373, 403, 412, 477; structure and composition of the Synoptic, ixff; transmission of, 2, 31, 76, 89, 264, 269, 284, 293, 387, 425, 447; transcription of, 3, 185, 220, 266 Transitions, literary, 16, 21, 65, 67, 89f, 95, 142f, 158, 160f, 174, 207, 224, 245, 334, 347, 354, 359f, 365, 379, 383, 385, 389, 398, 407, 414, 449, 456, 461, 471 Types, religious, 72, 343, 546 Urmark, the theory of: revision form of the, 40; documentary (stratum) form of the, 240, 248, 312, 410, 535 Vaticinio ex eventu (post eventum), 296

148,

Women, legend of the Galilean, 548f, 552, 556ff Word-pictures, 99, 124, 147, 211, 221, 230, 234, 238, 280, 391, 475f Worship, early Christian services of, 112, 126, 176, 344, 497 Writing: creative, 1, 20, 31, 88f, 293, 420, 437, 454, 477, 486, 507, 515, 534, 548. 570; didactic, 17, 49, 68, 71f, 93ff, lOlff, 127, 131, 165, 268, 290, 312, 316, 324, 425, 427, 454, 521; dramatic, 68, 84, 141, 181, 292, 297, 478, 482. 489, 504, 514ff, 541, 546; editorial, 64ff, 82, 138, 142, 172, 183, 185, 209, 220, 251, 267. 271, 333, 395, 402, 421, 428, 471f, 482, 511; expository, 26, 30, 225ff, 235f, 237, 276ÍT; imaginative, 12, 44, 92, 118, 126. 140, 144, 476, 478, 524, 527

598