The Origin and Mutual Relation of the Synoptic Gospels 9781463212049

Citation preview

At.

/

""

«•"

¿ > -

y

'

s

V r" p

.. ií 0 ,i K v

r ¡f.»

111**'

ì

'

>r •o

o

r--

,í; 'lis540 >7 . i « v%. /

-.'i,

j * . ..A C ^ 'i a -i, Ö -3? «T h.

f ¡

X,

--»

'

•e-.. M , W. M \\

-

O/ • %

Í*

'

O' -

-y'S

?ï- ?'

O"

t

ANALECTA GORGIANA

Volume 18

General Editor

George Anton Kiraz Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and short monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Now conveniently published, these essays are not only vital for our understanding of the history of research and ideas, but are also indispensable tools for the continuation and development of on-going research. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utilized by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

T h e Origin and Mutual Relation of the Synoptic Gospels

The Origin and Mutual Relation of the Synoptic Gospels

F. H . WOODS

GORGIAS PRESS

2006

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2006

The special contents of this edition are copyright a>vijs f.eyaXrjs in ver. 3 1 .

The

first of these occurs in a passage ( 9 - 1 4 ) which is a free paraphrase of M a r k xiii. 9 - 1 3 , all the more remarkable because the language of St. M a t t h e w in the early part of the discourse usually follows St. M a r k very closely.

B u t a much

closer parallel to this Marcan passage had already been inserted by St. M a t t h e w in the missionary discourse (x. 1 7 - 2 2 ) .

St.

M a t t h e w has besides two insertions, v v . 27 and 28, which correspond more or less closely and 37.

with

St.

Luke

xvii.

24

A f t e r 36 he makes a still more important insertion,

v v . 3 7 - 4 1 , agreeing with L u k e xvii. 26-30, 34, 35.

I t is clear,

therefore, that St. L u k e ß will account both for the more important insertions of St. Matthew, and, to a certain extent, for the omissions of St. L u k e .

St. Matthew has incorporated

into his narrative matter derived from an eschatological dis1 xxiv. II is a doublet of ver. 24, and 30 a, b of 30 c, influenced by 3 b. The relation of the first and last of these insertions to 2 Thess. ii. 3-12 II 1 Thess. iv. 16, 1 Cor. xv. 52, is too large a question to be discussed here. A l l that need be said is that the resemblance of language is not close enough to prove the prior existence of St. Matthew's discourse.

[31]

go

The Origin and Mutilai

Relation

course, of which we find part at least in St. Luke ¡3; and St. Luke did not wish in a to repeat passages, or forms of passages, less suited to this than to /3. St. Luke /3 has, besides these parallels with St. Matthew and a few peculiar expressions, two verses, xvii. 25, 33, which have doublets occurring together in Luke is. 22, 24, where in language and context they are closely parallel to Matt. xvi. 21, 25 and Mark viii. 31, 35. But St. Luke's language in xvii. 25, 33 differs considerably, and is clearly not derived from the same source. It is thus evident that St. Luke /3 has a composite character, and is quite independent of the Marcan tradition. We have every reason, therefore, for thinking that so far the Marcan tradition has been preserved by St. Mark. After Mark xiii. 32 the parallelism becomes very curious and instructive. St. Mark has in xiii. 33-37 a triple injunction to watchfulness, aypv-i'dre (ver. 33), yp^yopelre (ver. 35), and yprjyopeire (ver. 37), in connexion with a single short parable or trope illustrating the duty. St. Matthew has in the place of this three parables, the faithful servant, the ten virgins, and the talents (xxiv. 42-xxv. 30), which, taken together, bear out every phrase of St. Mark. The first two definitely teach the necessity of watchfulness, the injunctions to this duty being repeated almost in St. Mark's language (Matt, xxiv. 42, 43, xxv. 13); the third, after beginning very much in the language of St. Mark's parable, goes on to introduce a distinctly different lesson, but yet one suggested by the Marcan phrase, F/CAORO) T O ipyov avrov (Mark xiii. 34). In St. Mark that phrase seems to refer to the division of the household duties among the servants, which they were expected to be found faithfully carrying out when their lord returned; whereas the main thought of the parable of the talents is the duty of making the best use of God's gifts. Now all these three parables of St. Mabthew have parallels in St. Luke in quite other connexions, and differing considerably in form, cf. Matt. xxiv. 42-51 with Luke xii. 38-46, Matt. xxv. 1 - 3 with Luke xii. 35-37, Matt. xxv. 14-30 with Luke

[32]

of the Synoptic Gospels.

91

xix. 1 2 - 2 7 . St. Luke ends the eschatological discourse a in xxi. 36 with a parallel to Mark xiii. 3 3 1 . But Luke y not only, as we have seen, contains parallels to the two first parables of St. Matthew, but has in some points a striking resemblance to Mark xiii. 35 (cf. especially Luke xii. 38), yet not more than might reasonably be expected in two fovms of an original discourse preserved orally. The most probable explanation of all this again seems to be, that St. Matthew has incorporated into his discourse elements derived from other sources preserved independently of the Marcan tradition. St. Luke, on the other hand, seems in a to have omitted parts of the Marcan tradition, from an unwillingness to repeat what he had already said in other forms elsewhere. I t may here again be observed that the great difference between the forms of the extra-Marcan parallels in St. Matthew and St. Luke is a strong proof in itself that they did not derive them from the Marcan tradition. We have already given reasons for thinking that St. Mark did not transpose the original order of the Marcan tradition, and also that he did not make any serious omissions, except probably in the account of St. John the Baptist. It now remains, lastly, to consider whether he added anything to this original source. Now the portions of St. Mark's Gospel without parallels in either St. Matthew or St. Luke are singularly few, and most of them no larger than a single verse, and frequently much less. They belong generally to what may be called characteristic details, and are therefore beyond the limits of our present inquiry. The most important of them is the incident of the man with the linen cloth in Mark xiv. 5 1 , 52. Putting such passages on one side, we will examine all others that are peculiar to St. Mark in their order. Mark i. x proves nothing. I f the original Gospel did not begin here, some sort of heading must have been added ; if it did, 1 Or it would perhaps be more correct to regard Luke xxi. 34-36 as a very free and concise paraphrase of Mark xiii. 32-37.

[33]

The Origin and Mutual Relation

92

St. Matthew and St. Luke must equally have omitted it.

It

seems hardly possible to explain the prophecy in Mark i. 2 b as an insertion into the Marcan tradition, unless it be a very early marginal gloss which has crept into the text of St. Mark, but such conjectures are extremely hazardous.

On the

other hand, if it existed in the Marcan tradition, the necessary rearrangement of the opening verses, and the fact that the prophecy is not from Isaiah but Malachi, would quite account for its omission by St. Matthew and St. Luke.

If

what was said above 1 about the Sermon on the Mount is correct, the omission of Mark iii. 9 by St. Matthew and St. Luke was almost necessitated by the rearrangement of the context.

Again, they very naturally omitted iii. 20, 21

when they supplied the motive of the discourse about Beelzebub from another source 2 .

And

besides, the passage

might, as already suggested 3, have been the cause of offence ; or, at any rate, it might seem awkwardly divided by the discourse from Mark

iii. 31.

The omission of iv. 26-29

(the parable of the seed growing secretly) by St. Matthew is probably to be explained, as already suggested, by the substitution of the somewhat similar, but more striking parable of the tares, for which an opportunity was given by Mark iv. 33. Mark vii. 2-4 is partly a motive for Ihe following discourse, partly an explanation of the Jewish custom of ceremonial washings before eating.

The latter might with equal prob-

ability have been added for Gentile readers, or omitted as unnecessary for Jewish readers.

But the further omission by

St. Matthew of the motive, seems to show that he made the whole omission to connect the hostile attack of the Sciibes and Pharisees more closely with their mission from headquarters.

Mark vii. 32-37

(the deaf and dumb man of

Decapolis) is, as the context before and after shows, really parallel to Matt. xv. 30, 31, and this general statement of St. Matthew may very probably be an abridgement of this miracle and that of the blind man of Bethsaida in Mark viii. 22-26, 1

See p. 82.

5

See above, pp. 77, 78.

3

See p. 73.

[34]

of the Synoptic Gospels. which is also omitted by St. Matthew.

93

This last omission

may be partly also accounted for by the fact that he had already related a somewhat similar miracle in ix. 27-31. The originality of Mark ix. 48, 49, 50 b and xi. 25 (26 is certainly spurious) may be open to question.

These verses have

the appearance of being detached sayings of our Lord pieced together from a general resemblance of subject, rather than parts of a connected discussion.

For example, xi. 25 gives

us another duty connected with prayer which has no direct connexion with the incident of the fig-tree.

But this very

fact may be the cause of its omission by St. Matthew, especially as in vi. 14, 15 he had already taken a very similar saying fiom an independent source.

Mark xii. 32-34 a

may have been omitted by St. Matthew, because the words of the lawyer, and what immediately followed, were partly in a certain sense a repetition of our Lord's own language, and therefore thought unnecessary, and partly a merely personal incident.

Neither had any direct bearing on the theological

force of our Lord's teaching, which seemed designed to show the fulfilment of the law in Christianity.

The difference of

the motive of the lawyer's question in St. Matthew (xxii. 35) and of our Lord's relation to the lawyer, are explicable enough if we regard Luke x. 25-28 as a modification of an independent account of this, or of a similar incident 1 .

St. Matthew

may, while he retained the Marcan order, have modified his account in the direction of this other, with the view of makinsr '

O

it harmonise better with the context, which describes certain attacks made by different parties against our Lord.

Indeed,

Mark xii. 13 || Matt. xxii. 15 seemed to require that a special attack by the Pharisaic party should be narrated 2 .

I t has

already been observed that there are singular points of verbal coincidence between St. Matthew and St. Luke.

The diffi-

culties in supposing that St. Mark modified his account from See above, p. 77. ' I t is worth noticing that St. Matthew in vv. 34, 35 specially mentions the 1

fact, not stated by St. L u k e , that the lawyer was a Pharisee.

[35]

The Origin and Mutilai

94

St. Matthew's are far more serious.

Relation

I t should be noticed that

three of the passages which we have been discussing occur in the large section of the Marcan tradition, M a r k vi. 45-viii. 26 omitted consecutively by St. Luke, and where we have consequently only the evidence of St. Matthew to g o upon.

Had

St. Luke contained this section at all, we have no necessary grounds for supposing that he would have omitted them. W e may sum up the results of our examination of St. Mark's Gospel thus.

There are a few unimportant passages

where it is not unlikely, and yet by no means certain, t h a t St. Mark modified the earlier tradition ; one only where it is almost certain that he did so, viz. in the omission of Matt. iii. 7 - 1 0 , 12 ; and there are some grounds for thinking that the Marcan

tradition

(or

perhaps we should

say

St.

Mark)

originally contained what corresponded to M a t t , xxviii. 9, 10, 16 -20.

W e conclude, therefore, that the common tradition

upon which all the three Synoptics were based is substantially our St. Mark as far as matter, general form, and order are concerned.

Whether we can g o further, and say that in point

of language and the more minute details it is

generally

identical, is a further question which we have not attempted to settle.

This may seem to carry us a very small w a y ; but i f

critics could come to an agreement even upon this one point, it would at least be a definite step towards the solution of what is, from any point of view, one of the most intricate and interesting of literary problems. Unfortunately it was not till after this essay was in the press that I had an opportunity of seeing Dr. Holtzmann's new work Die Synoptiker, Freiburg, 1889.

I t is g r a t i f y i n g

to find that he has given up I believe all the opinions which I

have ventured to criticise, especially that

fundamental

theory of an Ur-Marcus larger than our Synoptical Gospel. H e now holds that St. Mark itself was the main source of both St. Matthew and St. Luke.

In fact the argument on

which he lays the greatest stress is just what it has been m y

[36]

of the Synoptic Gospels.

95

chief object to point out, the continuity of the Marcan order traceable in these two Gospels. Although this work thus gives important additional support to my arguments, it would have required too much shifting of type to have made the necessary corrections ; and I have felt obliged to leave the references to his earlier work as they stand. Although I have not attempted to discuss the originality of St. Mark's Gospel as far as language is concerned, I may be permitted, perhaps, to add the following remarks,

(i) It is

certainly a priori probable, though not a necessary consequence, that if the common basis of the Synoptics can be found to have coincided in range and order almost exactly with our St. Mark, it did so also in language.

(2) I t is in

itself far more probable that the graphic details of St. Mark, many of them of no importance from a religious or doctrinal point of view, should have fallen out in the more elaborate works of later evangelistic compilers, than that they should have been added by a later writer by way of embellishment, specially by one like St. Mark, who gives us little or no evidence of literary skill.

(3) The differences of language

between St. Matthew and St. Mark can to a very large extent be explained either by the rearrangement made in certain parts by St. Matthew, or by his desire to correct the crudities of his original.

Yet we find in these respects a

distinct conservative tendency.

(4) In St. Luke, so remarkable

for his literary skill, we naturally find alterations from both these causes more frequent: but still there is abundant evidence of the direct influence of St. Mark's language.

Except in

certain pretty definitely marked passages, such as the discourse about Beelzebub (see p. 78), his language resembles St. Mark more closely than St. Matthew, and but few remarkable expressions agree with St. Matthew against St. Mark.

[37]

9

6

E X P L A N A T I O N OF S Y N O P T I C

TABLE.

THE object of this Table is to show at a glance the relation in which St. Mark stands to the two other synoptical Gospels, and they to each other.

The divisions of St. Mark are not

made as a rule with any regard for the natm-al divisions of subject-matter; but simply so as to indicate how much of the Marcan tradition was continuously made use of by either St. Matthew or St. Luke, or by both, or by neither. Hence it has frequently been necessary to break into a paragraph or even a verse.

For example, Mark ix. 33 a is separated from 33 b,

because the first part of the verse, 'And he came to Capernaum,' has no parallel in St. Luke, and in St. Matthew it is separated from the second by the inserted episode of the didrachma. The relations between St. Matthew and St. Luke are less obviously shown; but that is mainly because there are so few traces of connexion except through St. Mark. Close dotted lines

mean that a Gospel con-

tains no certain parallel to a given passage.

Square brackets

[. . .] show that the passage included in them is peculiar to a particular Gospel.

In order to avoid the unnecessary and

confusing multiplication of lines, it has often been found convenient to use these brackets in the middle of parallel sections, to show that though such sections are clearly parallel as a whole, yet one or more evangelists have smaller peculiar passages within them.

In such cases all but the verses actually

bracketed off must be considered as parallel.

Thus in putting

Markiii. 7 ~ [ 9 ] - n a [ n b] as parallel to Luke vi. [ 1 7 a ] 1 7 b 19 it is meant that Mark iii. 7, 8, 1 0 , 1 1 a is parallel to Luke vi. 17 b-19, and that Mark iii. 9, 11 b, Luke vi. 17 a have nothing to correspond to them in the other Gospels.

Occa-

sionally I have included in square brackets passages which are parallel or quasi-parallel in two Gospels, as Matt. iii. 7 - 1 0 , 12 II Luke iii. 7-9, 1 7 ; Matt. xv. 30, 31 || Mark vii. 32-37 : but the reasons are generally pretty obvious.

Round brackets

[38]

Explanation of Synoptic Table.

97

(. . .) axe used where verses or small passages occur very nearly, but not exactly, in their Marcan order, and have the appearance of having been intentionally transposed. These are almost confined to St. Luke. The passages placed in the right-hand column for comparison with sections in the Gospel columns are very variously characterised. Some are mere independent treatments of the same or similar subjects, as the genealogy in Matt. i. 1 - 1 6 compared with that in Luke iii. 23-38, and the call (apparently) of St. Peter in Luke v. 1 - 1 1 compared with the call of the four in Mark i. 16-20. Others are partial parallels with considerable difference of treatment, as Luke iv. 22, 24 compared with Mark vi. 1 - 6 a. Many are doublets of passages, which from their agreement with the Marcan order are placed in the Gospel columns. Thus Matt. xii. 24-26 is placed as parallel to Mark iii. 22-26, and the doublet Matt, ix. 33-34 is placed in the right-hand column. In dealing with Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14, I have admitted into the Lucan column only such passages as show traces of a continuous parallelism with St. Matthew, viz. Lake xi. 14-23 || Matt. xii. 22-30, xi. 24-32 || Matt. xii. 38-45, xiii. 18-21 || Matt. xiii. 31-33, xvii. 1,2 || Matt, xviii. 6, 7 (see pp. 77, 78, 83, 84). Some attempt has been made to make clearer the double revision, as I have ventured to call it, of St. Mark in Matt, viii.-xiii., by placing the chapter-figures of passages belonging to the second selection a little to the left and leaving the rest in their natural position. The chief differences between this Table and Mr. Rushbrooke's Synopticon are that I have added Matt. iv. 13 a as || Mark i. 21 a, and Matt. iv. 23 b as || Mark i. 21 b (thus showing that Matt. iv. 28 b-29 is a true contextual parallel to Mark i. 22), Matt. ix. 1 a as indubitably || Mark v. 18 a-21, and Luke xii. n - 1 2 , as an additional parallel to Mark xiii. 11, 12 ; Luke xxiii. 3, 2 (not 4, xo) as || Mark xv. 2, 3. It will be seen that they arise mainly out of the stress laid on parallelism of context as distinct from mere resemblance. VOL. 11.

H

[39]

98

¿4 a ni ä

«

.

«3

J S S CD .M

M "t

VO

-M

S "ä K

* I

S

a a

S

•ß

*

t -

O roOO

7 •p

S» 0)

g a

w

j S

h

J

M" ni r

g =ä

fi3 S •s

.S

>

le

"S

©

.j

•¿Í

"S

i-l

a

E

S

S

fé a Ö

vo

i—i M I — (

Os CO 00* . rû rO\© m ¿a . Matt xii. , Luke

s

O

p H?

"P 3 S5 Ü hJ ^ » « •pS . O r—i CO O . . ^ X * U3 â s ?

«

C\ VO •«•J

.gK» s «Kl

13 a

ra

s •+3

^

•Ì3 •M (8 s • 3

et t*» V© WCC CT «

VO

M I

68

soi vo Tf ^ J^. M i" s . «

S ti S. ö

.

S

« «

.•§>

S • ^ • J. 3 . ^

«3 g S * -

-p S «

'S "

T -¡e

s

Í

>

H

4

r.

..

"

«m S

« g J CK

5

3

,

^ CO

^

s » .

•3 S «« «S I

' H O X O ¡í -M ^ «M

á

|

¡

^ g

" m « © -g

usi

j

® n

" — :a

á . 3f

-U *

i

.

"

«

?.

^ >4

RH