For our present purpose however it is not necessary that the question should be solved. We have already obtained an answer on the two points raised by Papias. The second Gospel _is_ written in order; it is _not_ an original doc.u.ment. These two characteristics make it improbable that it is in its present shape the doc.u.ment to which Papias alludes.
Does his statement accord any better with the phenomena of the first Gospel? He a.s.serts that it was originally written in Hebrew, and that the large majority of modern critics deny to have been the case with our present Gospel. Many of the quotations in it from the Old Testament are made directly from the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew. There are turns of language which have the stamp of an original Greek idiom and could not have come in through translation. But, without going into this question as to the original language of the first Gospel, a shorter method will be to ask whether it can have been an original doc.u.ment at all?
The work to which Papias referred clearly was such, but the very same investigation which shows that our present St. Mark was not original, tells with increased force against St. Matthew. When a doc.u.ment exists dealing with the same subject-matter as two other doc.u.ments, and those two other doc.u.ments agree together and differ from it on as many as 944 separate points, there can be little doubt that in the great majority of those points it has deviated from the original, and that it is therefore secondary in character. It is both secondary and secondary on a lower stage than St. Mark: it has preserved the features of the original with a less amount of accuracy. The points of the triple synopsis on which Matthew fails to receive verification are in all 944; those on which Mark fails to receive verification 334; or, in other words, the inaccuracies of Matthew are to those of Mark nearly as three to one. In the case of Luke the proportion is still greater-- as much as five to one.
This is but a t.i.the of the arguments which show that the first Gospel is a secondary composition. An original composition would be h.o.m.ogeneous; it is markedly heterogeneous. The first two chapters clearly belong to a different stock of materials from the rest of the Gospel. A broad division is seen in regard to the Old Testament quotations. Those which are common to the other two Synoptists are almost if not quite uniformly taken from the Septuagint; those, on the other hand, which seem to belong to the reflection of the Evangelist betray more or less distinctly the influence of the Hebrew [Endnote 153:1]. Our Gospel is thus seen to be a recension of another original doc.u.ment or doc.u.ments and not an original doc.u.ment itself.
Again, if our St. Matthew had been an original composition and had appeared from the first in its present full and complete form, it would be highly difficult to account for the omissions and variations in Mark and Luke. We should be driven back, indeed, upon all the impossibilities of the "Benutzungs-hypothese." On the one hand, the close resemblance between the three compels us to a.s.sume that the authors have either used each other"s works or common doc.u.ments; but the differences practically preclude the supposition that the later writer had before him the whole work of his predecessor. If Luke had had before him the first two chapters of Matthew he could not have written his own first two chapters as he has done.
Again, the character of the narrative is such as to be inconsistent with the view that it proceeds from an eye-witness of the events.
Those graphic touches, which are so conspicuous in the fourth Gospel, and come out from time to time in the second, are entirely wanting in the first. If parallel narratives, such as the healing of the paralytic, the cleansing of the Temple, or the feeding of the five thousand, are compared, this will be very clearly seen. More; there are features in the first Gospel that are to all appearance unhistorical and due to the peculiar method of the writer. He has a way of reduplicating, so to speak, the personages of one narrative in order to make up for the omission of another [Endnote 154:1]. For instance, he is silent as to the healing of the demoniac at Capernaum, but, instead of this, he gives us two Gadarene demoniacs, at the same time modifying the language in which he describes this latter incident after the pattern of the former; in like manner he speaks of the healing of two blind men at Jericho, but only because he had pa.s.sed over the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida. Of a somewhat similar nature is the adding of the a.s.s"s colt to the a.s.s in the account of the Triumphal Entry. There are also fragmentary sayings repeated in the Gospel in a way that would be natural in a later editor piecing together different doc.u.ments and finding the same saying in each, but unnatural in an eye- and ear-witness drawing upon his own recollections. Some clear cases of this kind would be Matt. v. 29, 30 (= Matt. xviii. 8, 9) the offending member, Matt.
v. 32 (= Matt. xix. 9) divorce, Matt. x. 38, 39 (= Matt. xvi. 24, 25) bearing the cross, loss and gain; and there are various others.
These characteristics of the first Gospel forbid us to suppose that it came fresh from the hands of the Apostle in the shape in which we now have it; they also forbid us to identify it with the work alluded to by Papias. Neither of the two first Gospels, as we have them, complies with the conditions of Papias" description to such an extent that we can claim Papias as a witness to them.
But now a further enquiry opens out upon us. The language of Papias does not apply to our present Gospels; will it apply to some earlier and more primary state of those Gospels, to doc.u.ments _incorporated in_ the works that have come down to us but not co-extensive with them? German critics, it is well known, distinguish between "Matthaus"--the present Gospel that bears the name of St. Matthew--and "Ur-Matthaus," or the original work of that Apostle, "Marcus"--our present St. Mark--and "Ur-Marcus," an older and more original doc.u.ment, the real production of the companion of St. Peter. Is it to these that Papias alludes?
Here we have a much more tenable and probable hypothesis. Papias says that Matthew composed "the oracles" ([Greek: ta logia]) in the Hebrew tongue. The meaning of the word [Greek: logia] has been much debated. Perhaps the strictest translation of it is that which has been given, "oracles"--short but weighty and solemn or sacred sayings. I should be sorry to say that the word would not bear the sense a.s.signed to it by Dr. Westcott, who paraphrases it felicitously (from his point of view) by our word "Gospel"
[Endnote 155:1]. It is, however, difficult to help feeling that the _natural_ sense of the word has to be somewhat strained in order to make it cover the whole of our present Gospel, and to bring under it the record of facts to as great an extent as discourse. It seems at least the simplest and most obvious interpretation to confine the word strictly or mainly to discourse. "Matthew composed the discourses (those brief yet authoritative discourses) in Hebrew."
At this point we are met by a further coincidence. The common matter in the first three Gospels is divided into a triple synopsis and a double synopsis--the first of course running through all three Gospels, the second found only in St. Matthew and St. Luke. But this double synopsis is nearly, though not quite, confined to discourse; where it contains narration proper, as in the account of John the Baptist and the Centurion of Capernaum, discourse is largely mingled with it. But, if the matter common to Matthew and Luke consists of discourse, may it not be these very [Greek: logia] that Papias speaks of? Is it not possible that the two Evangelists had access to the original work of St. Matthew and incorporated its material into their own Gospels in different ways? It would thus be easy to understand how the name that belonged to a special and important part of the first Gospel gradually came to be extended over the whole. Bulk would not unnaturally be a great consideration with the early Christians. The larger work would quickly displace the smaller; it would contain all that the smaller contained with additions no less valuable, and would therefore be eagerly sought by the converts, whose object would be rather fulness of information than the best historical attestation. The original work would be simply lost, absorbed, in the larger works that grew out of it.
This is the kind of presumption that we have for identifying the Logia of Papias with the second ground doc.u.ment of the first Gospel--the doc.u.ment, that is, which forms the basis of the double synopsis between the first Gospel and the third. As a hypothesis the identification of these two doc.u.ments seems to clear up several points. It gives a "local habitation and a name" to a doc.u.ment, the separate and independent existence of which there is strong reason to suspect, and it explains how the name of St.
Matthew came to be placed at the head of the Gospel without involving too great a breach in the continuity of the tradition.
It should be remembered that Papias is not giving his own statement but that of the Presbyter John, which dates back to a time contemporary with the composition of the Gospel. On the other hand, by the time of Irenaeus, whose early life ran parallel with the closing years of Papias, the t.i.tle was undoubtedly given to the Gospel in its present form. It is therefore as difficult to think that the Gospel had no connection with the Apostle whose name it bears, as it is impossible to regard it as entirely his work. The Logia hypothesis seems to suggest precisely such an intermediate relation as will satisfy both sides of the problem.
There are, however, still difficulties in the way. When we attempt to reconstruct the "collection of discourses" the task is very far from being an easy one. We do indeed find certain groups of discourse in the first Gospel--such as the Sermon on the Mount ch.
v-vii, the commission of the Apostles ch. x, a series of parables ch. xiii, of instructions in ch. xviii, invectives against the Pharisees in ch. xxvi, and long eschatological discourses in ch.
xxiv and xxv, which seem at once to give a handle to the theory that the Evangelist has incorporated a work consisting specially of discourses into the main body of the Synoptic narrative. But the appearance of roundness and completeness which these discourses present is deceptive. If we are to suppose that the form in which the discourses appear in St. Matthew at all nearly represents their original structure, then how is it that the same discourses are found in the third Gospel in such a state of dispersion? How is it, for instance, that the parallel pa.s.sages to the Sermon on the Mount are found in St. Luke scattered over chapters vi, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, with almost every possible inversion and variety of order? Again, if the Matthaean sections represent a substantive work, how are we to account for the strange intrusion of the triple synopsis into the double? What are we to say to the elaborately broken structure of ch. x? On the other hand, if we are to take the Lucan form as nearer to the original, that original must have been a singular agglomeration of fragments which it is difficult to piece together. It is easy to state a theory that shall look plausible so long as it is confined to general terms, but when it comes to be worked out in detail it will seem to be more and more difficult and involved at every step. The Logia hypothesis in fact carries us at once into the very nodus of Synoptic criticism, and, in the present state of the question, must be regarded as still some way from being established.
The problem in regard to St. Mark and the triple synopsis is considerably simpler. Here the difficulty arises from the necessity of a.s.suming a distinction between our present second Gospel and the original doc.u.ment on which that Gospel is based. I have already touched upon this point. The synoptical a.n.a.lysis seems to conduct us to a ground doc.u.ment greatly resembling our present St. Mark, which cannot however be quite identical with it, as the Canonical Gospel is found to contain secondary features.
But apart from the fact that these secondary features are so comparatively few that it is difficult to realise the existence of a work in which they, and they only, should be absent, there is this further obstacle to the identification even of the ground doc.u.ment with the Mark of Papias, that even in that original shape the Gospel still presented the normal type of the Synoptic order, though "order" is precisely the characteristic that Papias says was, in this Gospel, wanting.
Everywhere we meet with difficulties and complexities. The testimony of Papias remains an enigma that can only be solved--if ever it is solved--by close and detailed investigations. I am bound in candour to say that, so far as I can see myself at present, I am inclined to agree with the author of "Supernatural Religion" against his critics [Endnote 159:1], that the works to which Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in their present form.
What amount of significance this may have for the enquiry before us is a further question. Papias is repeating what he had heard from the Presbyter John, which would seem to take us up to the very fountainhead of evangelical composition. But such a statement does not preclude the possibility of subsequent changes in the doc.u.ments to which it refers. The difficulties and restrictions of local communication must have made it hard for an individual to trace all the phases of literary activity in a society so widely spread as the Christian, even if it had come within the purpose of the writer or his informant to state the whole, and not merely the essential part, of what he knew.
CHAPTER VI.
THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES.
It is unfortunate that there are not sufficient materials for determining the date of the Clementine Homilies. Once given the date and a conclusion of considerable certainty could be drawn from them; but the date is uncertain, and with it the extent to which they can be used as evidence either on one side or on the other.
Some time in the second century there sprang up a crop of heretical writings in the Ebionite sect which were falsely attributed to Clement of Rome. The two princ.i.p.al forms in which these have come down to us are the so-called Homilies and Recognitions. The Recognitions however are only extant in a Latin translation by Rufinus, in which the quotations from the Gospels have evidently been a.s.similated to the Canonical text which Rufinus himself used. They are not, therefore, in any case available for our purpose. Whether the Recognitions or the Homilies came first in order of time is a question much debated among critics, and the even way in which the best opinions seem to be divided is a proof of the uncertainty of the data. On the one side are ranged Credner, Ewald, Reuss, Schwegler, Schliemann, Uhlhorn, Dorner, and Lucke, who a.s.sign the priority to the Homilies: on the other, Hilgenfeld, Kostlin, Ritschl (doubtfully), and Volkmar, who give the first place to the Recognitions [Endnote 162:1]. On the ground of authority perhaps the preference should be given to the first of these, as representing more varied parties and as carrying with them the greater weight of sound judgment, but it is impossible to say that the evidence on either side is decisive.
The majority of critics a.s.sign the Clementines, in one form or the other, to the middle of the second century. Credner, Schliemann, Scholten, and Renan give this date to the Homilies; Volkmar and Hilgenfeld to the Recognitions; Ritschl to both recensions alike [Endnote 162:2]. We shall a.s.sume hypothetically that the Homilies are rightly thus dated. I incline myself to think that this is more probable, but, speaking objectively, the probability could not have a higher value put upon it than, say, two in three.
One reason for a.s.signing the Homilies to the middle of the second century is presented by the phenomena of the quotations from the Gospels which correspond generally to those that are found in writings of this date, and especially, as has been frequently noticed, to those which we meet with in Justin. I proceed to give a tabulated list of the quotations. In order to bring out a point of importance I have indicated by a letter in the left margin the presence in the Clementine quotations of some of the _peculiarities_ of our present Gospels. When this letter is unbracketed, it denotes that the pa.s.sage is _only_ found in the Gospel so indicated; when the letter is enclosed in brackets, it is implied that the pa.s.sage is synoptical, but that the Clementines reproduce expressions peculiar to that particular Gospel. The direct quotations are marked by the letter Q. Many of the references are merely allusive, and in more it is sufficiently evident that the writer has allowed himself considerable freedom [Endnote 163:1].
_Exact._ |_Slightly variant._ | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ | | | (M.) | |8.21, Luke 4.6-8 |narrative.
| | (=Matt. 4.8-10), | | | Q. | | |3.55, [Greek: ho | | | ponaeros estin | | | ho peirazon.], | | | Q. | | |15.10, Matt. 5.3; | | | Luke 6.20. | M. |17.7, Matt. 5.8. | | (M.) |3.51 } Matt. 5. | |repeated |Ep. Pet. 2} 17,18. | | identically.
| |11.32, Matt. 5. |highly condensed | | 21-48. | paraphrase, | | | [Greek: oi | | | en planae.]
| { Matt.5.44,| |allusive merely.
|12.32 { 45(=Luke | | |3.19 {6.27, 28, | | | {35). | | M. |3.56, Matt. 5.34, | | | 35, Q. | | M. |3.55} Matt. 5.37. | |repeated identi- |19.2} Q. | | cally; so | | | Justin.
(M.) | |3.57. Matt. 5.45. | | | Q. | | | {|oblique and allu- | |12.26 {| sive, repeated | |18.2. {| in part simi- | |11.12 {| larly; [Greek: | | {| pherei ton | | {| hueton].
M. |3.55, Matt. 6,6, Q. | | 19.2, Matt.6.13 | | | Q. | | | (M.) |3.55, Matt. 6.32; | |combination.
| 6.8 (=Luke 12.30.)| | | |18.16, Matt. 7.2 |oblique and allu- | | (12). | sive.
|3.52, Matt. 7.7 | |[Greek: euris- | (=Luke 11.9). | | kete] for | | | [euraeskete]
| | | in both.
(L.M.) |3.56, Matt. 7.9-11 | |striking divi- | (=Luke 11.11-13) | | sion of pecu- | | | liarities of | | | both Gospels.
| |12.32} Matt. 7.12 |repeated di- | |7.4 } (=Luke | versely, | |11.4 } 6.31. | allusive.
(M.) |18.17, Matt. 7. |(omissions), Q. | | 13,14. | | | |7.7. Matt. 7.13, |allusive para- | | 14. | phrase.
(L.) |8.7, Luke 6.46. | | |11.35, Matt. 7.15. | |Justin, in part | | | similarly, in | | | part diversely.
(M.) |8.4, Matt. 8.11, |(addition), Q. |Justin diversely.
| 12 (Luke 13.29). | | |9.21, Matt. 8.9 | |allusive merely.
| (Luke 7.8). | | (M.) |3.56, Matt. 9.13 |(addition), Q. |from LXX.
| (12.7). | | (L.M.) | | {Matt. 10. |{ | | { 13, 15= |{ | | { Luke 10. |{ | |13.30, { 5,6,10- |{mixed pecu- | | 31. { 12 (9.5) |{ liarities, | | { =Mark |{ oblique and | | { 6.11. |{ allusive.
(L.M.) |17.5, Matt. 10.28 | |mixed peculia- | (=Luke 12,4, 5), Q.| | rities; Justin | | | diversely.
| |12.31, Matt. 10. |allusive merely.
| | 29, 30 (=Luke | | | 12.6, 7). | |3.17 {Matt. 11.11. | |allusive.
| {Luke 7.28. | | |8.6, Matt. 11.25 |(addition)+. |perhaps from | (=Luke x.21). | | Matt. 21.16.
(M.) | |17.4 } |{ | |18.4 }Matt. 11.27 |{repeated simi- | |18.7 } (=Luke |{ larly; cp.
| |18.13} 10.22), Q.|{ Justin, &c.
| |18.20} | M. 3.52, Matt. | | | (M.) |+19.2. Matt. 12. | |[Greek: allae | 26, Q. | | pou.]
(M.L.) |+19.7, Matt. 12. | | | 34 (=Luke 6. | | | 45), Q. | | M.11.33, Matt. |(addition), Q. | | 12.42. | | | |11.33, Matt. 12. | | | 41 (=Luke 11. | | | 32), Q. | | (M.L.) |M.53, Matt. 13. | | | 16 (=Luke 10. | | | 24), +Q. | | M.18.15, Matt. | | | 13.35+. | | | Mk. |19.20, Mark 4.34. | | M. |19.2, Matt. 13. | | |39, Q. | | M.3.52, Matt. 15.| | | 15 (om. [Greek:| | | mou]), Q. | | | | | {Matt. 15. |narrative.
| |11.19 {21-28 | | | {(=Mark |[Greek: Iousta | | {7.24-30). | Surophoini- | | | kissa.]
(M.) |17.18, Matt. 16. | | | 16 (par.) | | M. | |Ep. Clem. 2, |allusive merely.
| | Matt. 16.19. | M. |Ep. Clem. 6, Matt. | |ditto.
| 16.19. | | (M.) |3.53, Matt. 17.5 | | | (par.), Q. | | M. | |12.29, Matt. 18. |addition [Greek: | | 7, Q. | ta agatha | | | elthein.]
M. |17.7, Matt. 18.10 | | | (v.l.) | | (L.) 3.71, Luke | | | 10.7. (order) | | | (=Matt.10.10). | | | L. |+19.2, Luke 10.18. | | L. | |9.22, Luke 10.20. |allusive merely.
L. | |17.5, Luke 18.6- | | | 8, Q. (?) | | |19.2, [Greek: mae |Cp. Eph. 4.27.
| | dote prophasin | | | to ponaero], Q. | | |3.53, Prophet like|Cp. Acts 3.22.
| | Moses, Q. | (M.) |3.54, Matt. 19.8, | |sense more diver- | 4 (=Mark 10.5, | | gent than | 6), Q. | | words.
| | {Matt. 19. |} | |17.4 { 16,17. |} | |18.1 {Mark 10. |}repeated simi- | |18.3 { 17,18. |} larly; cp.
| |18.17 {Luke 18. |} Justin.
| | 3.57 { 18,19. |} L. | |3.63, Luke 19. |not quotation.
| | 5.9. | M.8.4, Matt. 22. | | | 14, Q. | | | (M.) | |8.22, Matt. 22.9. |allusive merely.
| | 11. | | | 3.50 {Matt. 22. |} | | 2.51 {29 (=Mark |}repeated simi- | |18.20 {12.24), Q. |} larly.
| | 3.50, [Greek: | | | dia ti ou | | | eulogon ton | | | graphon;] | (Mk.) 3.55, Mark | | | 12.27 (par.), | | | Mk. 3.57, Mark | | | 12.29 [Greek: | | | haemon], Q. | | | | |17.7, Mark 12.30 |allusive.
| | (=Matt. 22.37). | {|3.18, Matt. 23.2, | | M. {| 3, Q. | | {| |3.18, Matt. 23.13 |repeated simi- {| | (=Luke 11.52). | larly.
| |18.15. | (M.) |11.29, Matt. 23. | | | 25, 26, Q. | | (Mk.) {|3.15, Mark 13.2 | | {|(par.), Q. | | {| |3.15, Matt. 24.3 | {| | (par.), Q. | L. {| |Luke 19.43, Q. | | |16.21, [Greek: | | | esontai pseud- | | | apostoloi]. | (M.) |3.60 (3.64), Matt. | |part repeated | 24.45-51 (= | | larly.
| Luke 12.42-46). | | (M.) 3.65, Matt. | | | 25.21 (= Luke | | | 19.17). | | | (M. L.) | |3.61, Matt. 25.26,|? mixed peculi- | | 26,27 (=Luke 19.| arities.