~1 as N.) followed (in the correct text) by " Why askest thou me about the good?” (2) Mk. X. 17, Ai5aio'Ka.) &'ya.0é, -ri 1ran'1o'w——'liieli is fol- lowed by " Why callest thoti me good ? " (3) Luke (xriii. 18‘, agrees with Mark: Al5G,.O'Ktl} &-ya0s', -n’ 1ron’7aas. Note that a scribe has emleavoiired to eoiii- bine the two traditions by inserting &'ya.6e' in Matt. xix. 16. In the following the confusions are between only two nar- ratives :— (5) (1) Mk. i'. 19, at‘ pépipvai . . Eidflopsudpslfi auu1rm'-youm —“cares: going into the heart, choke (the word).” (2) Lu. viii. 14, fnrb pepipvéiv . . . 1ropeuo'psv_o_i cruwrui-you-rat —“(tlie men) going their way (or gradually, as in LX X. ), are choked by cares, or under the influence of cares." (s) In the following. Matthew and Mark concur in attributing “desire " and “fear ;" but Matthew attributes the “ desire " to Herod, Mark to Ilerodias ; again, Matthew makes the object of the “fear” to be the “erowd," Mark “John the Baptist." (1) Matt. xiv. 5, Kai 0e')wu at‘:-rev Pnroxreiuaz e’¢aB-/101] -rim Zixxov. (2) Rik. Vi. 19, 'H 5% 'Hpw3u‘zs . . Kal aim 1‘75i'u/a.-re‘ 6 -yap 'Hpu';5-as e’¢aBei-ra 1-bit 'Iwa'w-nu. (Q In a record of dialogue, the phrases, “ said he," “answered they,” would naturally vary (as they do, Matthew, Mark, and Luke having peculiarities in this respect), and they might sometimes be omitted, with the im- portant result of transmuting a statement of fact (Mark) into an utterance of Jesus (Matthew), thus :— (1) hizltt. xxvi. 2, OT5a.'re 311 ,ue'r¢‘1 5130 1'],ue'pas‘ Tb wdaxa ‘yin-rau. (2) hlk. xiv. 1,7Hu 53121 1rd¢Txa Kai T¢l dfuya ,ue'r¢‘z 5150 1'1/.u:'pas.] (17) The following is another case of difference in the granunatical subject of the verb ; the resemblance will appear de- monstrative proof of confusion to those who compare the context, and who also remember that &Ko)ou9eiu is used habitually of others following Jesus, but not of Jesus following others. (1) Matt. ix. 19, Kal 6"yep96ls 6 'I11o'oi3s 1)KoAot'10ei av}-r53. (2) Mk. V. 24, Kal &1ri'))sv ye-r' at‘:-roi}, Kal *f)Ko)oi30ei at'1'r<,3 Zixxas‘ 1ro)i':s. (0) In the following there is a curious confusion from the oInis- sion of some words by Luke, so that what is the apodosis in Matthew becomes the protasis in Luke :- . f7'0e7eu at’:-rev &1roK-reiuai, GOSPELS [svxo l"l‘ICA L. combining the former part of the first version with the lat.ter part of the second, so as to omit the phrase “Son of Man," and yet feeling that some mention of “Son of‘ Man " was made in the tradition, substitutes for "men" “sons of men," a phrase that is not found elsewhere in the whole of the Gospels :— (A, (1) Matt. xii. 351, 32, ((1) [5131 -roii-ro As’-yw 1'1;/.i'u, 1rEio'a. &,u.ap'ria Kal BAaa¢17p.i'a &4>e01')o'e-rat -rais‘ ¢'w0pa'nrats, 7') 5% 7017 1ruet':,ua-res BAa.rr¢17,uia aim d¢e01']o'e'ra: Kai] ((1) $5 e’¢‘w ei'1ry )o"you ua-rii -mi} vim": 705 ¢i.u0pa'nrou, &¢e0-/1o'e-rat at‘:-rfi, 13$ 5' 3w ei'1ry Kan‘: -rot? 1rueii,ua'ros‘ T017 ti’)-iou oim &(],>)ff‘l,]U6Tal at'1'r¢,3 oi/'76 (‘V 'roti'rc_u 153 aiéiui 01716 €11 153
- .e au-n.
xii. 10 (using sis for Ka-nit, s'peT for Eu dry, and borrowing from (a) the word BAaa¢n),ueiu), (la) Kai was in e’peT A6-you sis ‘rev view 1017 ciwflpdnrou d¢e61')cre'raL at’:-rfi, 753 5% sis 121 ii-yiou 1ruei3,ua BAao'¢1),u-/paawri aim ¢’1¢c6'/105-rat. (3) Mk. iii. 28, 29 (probably traiisposiiig uibs, and using the dative instead of mz-nit or sis), ((1.) Aéyw fmiu Z2’-n 1r¢i.u'ra d¢e61'1o'e'rai -rois uiois‘ 'rt3V ¢'w0pa';1rwu 1'31 ¢'1,uap'r1')p.a.'ra Kai ai B)ao'¢1],uiai 30¢: 6'¢‘w BAaa¢11,u1'7o'waI. ; (ft) 32$ 5' Eu B,Aaab¢1),u‘1'7o'y sis‘ Tb 1ruei7,ua. ‘re ¢'z"yiou aim (Xe: litjzecrtu as 1' u auaua. (2) Lu. Even those who may reject this explanation of the drag Myopcvov in Mark will probably feel that this passage, and all those previously quoted, point to some original tradition (whether written or oral) upon which our three synoptic Gospels are based. These then are the results to which (so far) we are led :—(I) Mark certainly did not borrow from Matthew and Luke; Matthew and Luke, though clearly influenced by some form of Mark, yet pro- bably borrowed, not from Mark, but from some original tradition upon which Mark also is based. The 1'atu7'e qf the Triple T-ra(h'(ion.—“'liat was the '1‘he'_] original tradition upon which our three synoptic Gospels T“-"“—l‘ are based? Was it Aramaic or Greek? oral or written? single or manifold? Did the earliest of our synoptists receive it fresh from its first source, or after it had passed through many recensions? Few or none of these ques- tions (to some of which reference will be made hereafter) , can be answered with absolute certainty ; but it is evident (1) hiatt. xii. 26, Kal ei éiaraufis [fey Ea-rauiiv_6’kB¢>i)AeL], ' é¢>’ Eau-rev é,Ll.€piO'0'I]' ‘l|’(:!$ [DEV] 0'-ra01']¢rs-rat 1'] Baaiksia airrafi ; (2) Lu. xi. 18, ei 5% Mai 6 Earauiis 6'41)’ éau-rev 5iq4epio'0-:7, 1r¢3s‘ a'ra01']ae'raL 1'7 Baameia at‘:-rot? ; (1) The following suggests that some Aramaic word meaning to “question " and to “try” or “tempt” may h.ve been diversely rendered by (1) Matt. xii. 10, Kal e'1r-ape’;-r17o'a.u airrdu, )e"yau-res ei {£60-rt 9spa.1rei'1sw. _ i ('2) Lu. vi. 7, 1'lape'r-qpoiiv-ro 52 at’:-rev ei Bepanreziei. (K) (1) Matt. xxvii. 49, Oi Be )oi1roL %'Ae'yov, "Attics, i'3w,uev si Zpxe-rat ‘Hkias advawu at’:-rdv. ('2) l)l.l<. XV. 36, Aéywu, ’A¢6'rs, T5w,u6u ei gpxfifal 'H}ias Ka.0e)sTu at’:-niv. Here (1) in Matthew the bystanders address the man who brings the drink to Jesus ; but (2) in Mark the man addresses the bystanders. In (1) the mean- ing is “desist from giving the drink ;” in (2) it appears to be “desist from mocking.” hit in any case, the meaning differs in Matthew and Mark. Many other instances might be given (c.g., Mat. xiv. 2; Mk. vi. 16; Lu. ix. 9: Mk. ix. 5; Lu. ix. 34); but we _will conclude with one in which two traditional versions of a saying of otir Lord, blended into one by Mark, appear to have caused a confusion: (a) “Every sin and blasphemy shall be remitted to men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be remitted;” (b) “ Vhosoever speaketh a word against the Son of 111412., it shall be remitted to him; but whosoeve- speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be re- mitted to him." Matthew gives both these versions, Luke one of them (with slight variations). tut Mark, 1 Here, as elsewhere in this article, it has not been thought neces- sary to mention by name those critics whose statements are traversed. For a brief summary of the history of recent criticism on the Gospels, see the end of this article. I tradition. that, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all based upon an earlier original tradition, then those words and phrases which are common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (to which we have given the name of the Triple Tradition) must have a peculiar weight, as approximating to the original tradition itself. If it be found that these scattered words and phrases make up of themselves an almost continuous narrative, we may fairly suppose that we are approximating very closely indeed to the original We shall not expect to find a perfectly con- tinuous narrative. On the contrary, a perfectly continuous narrative, identical in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, would imply, not a floating early variable tradition, but a docu- ment simply copied by the authors of our Gospels. An early tradition, circulated perhaps in various churches, in Antioch, in Rome, in Ephesus, in Corinth, before being embodied in a document, will naturally have been modi- fied, supplemented, and sometimes (as above) confused. More especially in certain unimportant and constantly re- curring words and phrases we may expect variations. The words “ said,” “answered,” “went,” “journeyed,” “ asked,” “questioned," “tempted,” “refused,” “rebuked,” &e., may naturally be expected to differ in the three versions. int greater differences will soon arise. One version will lay greater stress on the details of miracles; another on the relations between Jesus and John the Baptist; another on the law; another on the forgiveness of sins; and this varying emphasis will produce certain modifications of the original tradition. Again, in the early times of the church, the Greek of slaves and freedmen may pass with- out offence ; but in later times an editor of the Gospel, writ-
ing for readers of higher rank and better education, will
