Kitabı oku: «The Making of the New Testament», sayfa 7

The mere process of subtraction above described to obtain the element Q offers no serious difficulties, and for those who attach value to the tradition of 'the Elders' it is natural to anticipate that the remainder will show traits corresponding to the description of an apostolic syntagma of sayings of the Lord translated from the Aramaic, in short the much-desired Logia of Matthew. The actual result is disappointing to such an expectation. The widely, though perhaps somewhat thoughtlessly accepted equivalence Q = the Logia is simply false. Q is not the Logia. It is not a syntagma, nor even a consistent whole, and as it lay before our first and third evangelists it was not (for a considerable part at least) in Aramaic. True, Q does consist almost exclusively of discourse material, a large part of which has only topical order, and is wholly, or mainly, destitute of narrative connection. Also we find traces here and there of translation at some period from the Aramaic, though not more in the Q element than in Mark. But to those who looked for immediate confirmation of the tradition the result has been on the whole disappointing. Some, more particularly among English critics, have considered it to justify a falling back upon the vaguer generalities of the once prevalent theory of oral tradition. In reality we are simply called upon to renew the process of discrimination. Most of the Q material has the saying-character and is strung together with that lack of all save topical order which we look for in a syntagma. But parts of it, such as the Healing of the Centurion's servant (Matt. viii. 5-10, 13 = Luke vii. 1-10), or the Preaching of the Baptist and Temptation Story (Matt. iii. 7-10, 12; iv. 2-11 = Luke iii. 7-9, 17; iv. 2-13), obstinately refuse to be brought under this category. Moreover, the latter section has the unmistakable motive of presenting Jesus in his character and ministry as "the Son of God," precisely as in Mark. It begins by introducing Jesus on the stage at the baptism of John, after the ancient narrative outline (Acts i. 22; x. 37 f.), and cannot be imagined as forming part of anything else but a narrative having the conclusion characteristic of our own type of gospel. Other considerable sections of Q, such as the Question of John's Disciples and Discourse of Jesus on those that were 'Stumbled' in him (Matt. xi. 2-11, 16-27; Luke vii. 18-35; x. 13-22), share with the Baptism and Temptation section not only the doctrinal motive of commending Jesus in his person and ministry as the longed-for Son of God, but in a number of characteristics which set them quite apart from the general mass of precepts and parables in Q. We can here mention only the following: (1) the coincidence in language between Matthew and Luke is much greater in these sections of Q, often even greater than in the sections borrowed from Mark, showing clearly the existence of a common document written not in Aramaic, but in the Greek language. (2) This material, unlike most of Q, has served as a source and model in many portions of Mark. (3) It is for the most part not included in the five great blocks into which Matthew has divided the Precepts by means of a special concluding formula (vii. 28; xi. 1; xiii. 53; xix. 1, and xxvi. 1) but appears outside, in the form of supplements to the Markan narrative (iii. 7 – iv. 11; viii. 5-13, 18-22, xi. 2-27; xii. 38-45, etc.). Finally (4) the Q material of this type seems to be given more copiously by Luke than by Matthew, and with something more than mere conjecture of his own as to its historical occasion. In fact, since it appears that at least this element of Q was known to Mark, there is nothing to justify exclusion from it of such material as the Transfiguration story, though in this case it would be needful to prove that Mark was not the source. Similarly it would be reasonable to think of Luke's wide divergence from Mark in his story of the Passion as occasioned by his preference for material derived from this source. Only, since Matthew has preferred to follow Mark, we have no means of determining whence Luke did derive his new and here often valuable material.

The existence, then, of an element of Q which quite fails to correspond to what we take the Matthæan syntagma to have been by no means proves either the futility of criticism or the worthlessness of the ancient tradition. It only shows that our synoptic evangelists were not the first to attempt the combination of discourse with narrative, but that Luke at least had a predecessor in the field, to whom all are more or less indebted. Criticism and tradition together show that there are two great streams from which all historically trustworthy material has been derived. The one is Evangelic Story, and is mainly derived from Mark's outline of the ministry based on the anecdotes of Peter, though some elements come from another source, principally preserved by Luke, which we must discuss in a later chapter devoted to the growth of Petrine story at Rome and Antioch. The other stream, "Words of the Lord," comes from Jerusalem, and is always associated in all its forms with the name of Matthew. We have every reason for accepting the statement that as early as the founding of the church in Rome (45-50) the Apostle Matthew had begun the work of compiling the Precepts of Jesus, in a form serviceable to the object of "teaching men to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded." Our present Gospel of Matthew, however, is neither this work nor a translation of it; for the only three things told us about the apostle's work are all irreconcilable with the characteristics of our Matthew. The compilation of "Words of the Lord" was (1) a syntagma and not, like Mark, an outline of the ministry. It was (2) written in Aramaic; whereas our Matthew is an original Greek composition. It was (3) by an apostle who had personal acquaintance with Jesus; whereas our first evangelist is to the last degree dependent upon the confessedly defective story of Mark. Still if we take our Matthew as the last link in the long chain of development, covering perhaps half a century, and including such by-products as the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazarenes, we may obtain a welcome light upon the environment out of which has come down the work which an able scholar justly declared, "the most important book ever written, the Gospel according to Matthew."

The language in which it was written was alone sufficient to place the Greek Matthew beyond all possible competition in the larger world from Aramaic rivals. But its comprehensiveness and catholicity still further helped it to the position which it soon attained as the most widely used of all the gospels. Matthew is not only in its whole structure a composite gospel, but shows in high degree the catholicizing tendency of the times. Just as it frankly adopts the Roman-Petrine narrative of Mark with slightest possible modification, so also it places in Peter's hand with equal frankness the primacy in apostolic succession. Almost the only additions it makes to Mark's account of the public ministry are the story of Peter's walking on the sea (xiv. 28-33), and his payment of the temple tribute for Christ and himself with the coin from the fish's mouth (xvii. 24-27). The latter story introduces the chapter on the exercise of rulership in "the church" (ch. xviii.), beginning with the disciples' question: "Who then is greatest in the kingdom?" Peter is again in it the one salient figure (xviii. 21). An equally important addition, connected with xviii. 17 f. is the famous committal to Peter of the power of the keys, with the declaration making him for his confession the 'Rock' foundation of "the church." This addition to Mark's story of the rebuke of Peter at Cæsarea Philippi, is one which decidedly alters its bearing, and seems even to borrow the very language of Gal. i. 16 f. in order to exalt the apostleship of Peter. In fact, the Roman gospel and the Palestinian almost reverse the rôles we should expect Peter to play in each. Matthew alone makes Peter "the first" (x. 2), while Mark seems to take special pains to record rebukes of the twelve and the brethren of the Lord, and especially the rebukes called down upon themselves by Peter, or Peter and John.

In respect to the primacy of Peter we can observe a certain difference even among the Palestinian gospels which succeeded to the primitive syntagma of Matthew. Little, indeed, is known of the orthodox Gospel of the Nazarenes, beyond its relatively late and composite character; for it borrowed from Matthew, Mark and Luke in turn. Its list of apostles, however, begins with "John and James the sons of Zebedee," then "Simon and Andrew," and winds up: "Thee also, Matthew, did I call, as thou wert sitting at the seat of custom, and thou followedst me." The anti-Pauline Gospel according to the Hebrews shows its conception of the seat of apostolic authority by giving to "James the Just" the place of Peter as recipient of that first manifestation of the risen Lord, which laid the foundation of the faith. Why then does the Greek Palestinian gospel, in contrast with its rivals, lay such special stress on the primacy of Peter?

From the cautious and (as it were) deprecatory tone of the appendix to John (John xxi.) in seeking to commend the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" as worthy to be accepted as a "true witness" without detriment to the acknowledged authority of Peter as chief under-shepherd of the flock, we may infer that not at Rome alone, but wherever there was question of 'apostolic' tradition, the authority of Peter was coming rapidly to the fore. The tendency at Antioch is even more marked than at Rome, as is manifest from Acts. If, then, it seems stronger still in a region where we should expect the authority of James to be put forward, this need not be taken as a specifically Roman trait. We must realize the sharp antagonism which existed in Palestine from the time of the Apostolic council down, between (1) the consistent legalists, who maintained down to the period of Justin (153) and the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions (180-200), their bitter hostility to Paul and his gospel of Gentile freedom from the Law; and (2) the 'catholic,' or liberal, Jewish-Christians, who took the standpoint of the Pillars. It is but one of many indications of its 'catholic' tendency that our Matthew increases the emphasis on the apostolic authority of Peter to the point of an actual primacy. The phenomenon must be judged in the light of the disappearance or suppression of all evangelic story save what came under the name of Peter, and the tendency in Acts to bring under his name even the entire apostleship to the Gentiles. Peter is not yet in these early writings the representative of Rome, but of catholicity. The issue in Matthew is not as between Rome and some other dominant see, but (as the reflection of the language of Gal. i. 17 f. in Matt. xvi. 17 shows) as between 'catholic' apostolic authority and the unsafe tendencies of Pauline independence.

Nevertheless, for all his leanings to catholicity the Greek Matthew has not wholly succeeded in excluding materials which still reflect Jewish-Christian hostility to Paul, or at least to the tendencies of Pauline Christianity. Over and over again special additions are made in Matthew to emphasize a warning against the workers of "lawlessness." The exhortation of Jesus in Luke vi. 42-45 to effect (self-)reformation not on the surface, nor in word, but by change of the inward root of disposition fructifying in deeds, is altered in Matt. vii. 15-22 into a warning against the "false prophets" who work "lawlessness," and who must be judged by their fruits. They make the confession of Lordship (cf. Rom. x. 9) but are not obedient to Jesus' commandment, and lack good works. In particular the test of Mark ix. 38-40 is directly reversed. The principle "Whosoever is not against us is for us" is not to be trusted. A teacher may exercise the 'spiritual gifts' of prophecy, exorcism, and miracles wrought in the name of Jesus, and still be a reprobate. A similar (and most incongruous) addition is made to Mark's parable of the Patient Husbandman (Mark iv. 26-29), in Matt. xiii. 24-30, and reiterated in a specially appended "interpretation" (xiii. 36-43). This addition likens the "workers of lawlessness" to tares sown alongside the good seed of the word by "an enemy." A similar incongruous attachment is made to the parable of the Marriage feast (Matt. xxii. 1-14; cf. Luke xiv. 15-24) to warn against the lack of the 'garment of good works.' Finally, Matthew closes his whole series of the discourses of Jesus with a group of three parables developed with great elaboration and rhetorical effect, out of relatively slight suggestions as found elsewhere. The sole theme of the series is the indispensableness of good works in the judgment (Matt. 25; cf. Luke xii. 35-38; xix. 11-28, and Mark ix. 37, 41). A similar interest appears in Matthew's insistence on the permanent obligation of the Law (v. (16) 17-20; xix. 16-22 – in contrast with Mark x. 17-22), on respect for the temple (xvii. 24-27) and on the Davidic descent of Jesus, with fulfilment of messianic promise in him (chh. i. – ii.; ix. 27). He limits the activity of Jesus to the Holy Land (xv. 22; contrast Mark vii. 24 f.), makes him in sending forth the Twelve (x. 5 f.) specifically forbid mission work among Samaritans or Gentiles, and while the prohibition is finally removed in xxviii. 18-20, the apostolic seat cannot be removed, but remains as in x. 23, among "the cities of Israel" to the end of the world.

There is probably no more of intentional opposition to Paul or to his gospel in all this than in James or Luke. We cannot for example regard it as more than accidental coincidence that in the phrase "an enemy hath done this," in the parable of the tares, we have the same epithet which the Ebionite literature applies to Paul. But enough remains to indicate how strongly Jewish-Christian prejudices and limitations still affected our evangelist. With respect to date, the atmosphere is in all respects such as characterizes the period of the nineties.

It does not belong to our present purpose to analyze this gospel into its constituent elements. The process can be followed in many treatises on gospel criticism, and the results will be found summarized in Introductions to the New Testament such as the recent scholarly work of Moffatt. We have here but to note the general character and structure of the book as revealing the main outlines of its history and the conditions which gave it birth.

Matthew and Luke are alike in that both represent comparatively late attempts to combine the ancient Matthæan syntagma with the 'Memorabilia of Peter' compiled by Mark. But there is a great difference. Luke contemplates his work with some of the motives of the historian. He adopts the method of narrative, and therefore subordinates his discourse material to a conception (often confused enough) of sequence in space and time. Matthew, as the structure of his gospel, no less than his own avowal shows, had an aim more nearly corresponding to the ancient Palestinian type. The demand for the narrative form had become irresistible. It controlled even his later Greek and Aramaic rivals. But Matthew has subordinated the historical to the ethical motive. He aims at, and has rendered, just the service which his age demanded and for which it could look to no other region than Jerusalem, a full compilation of the commandments and precepts of Jesus.

The narrative framework is adopted from Mark without serious alteration, because this work had already proved its effectiveness in convincing men everywhere that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of God." Like Luke, Matthew prefixes an account of Jesus' miraculous birth and childhood, because in his time (c. 90) the ancient "beginning of the gospel" with the baptism by John had given opportunity to the heresy of the Adoptionists, represented by Cerinthus, who maintained that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism, a merely temporary "receptacle" of the Spirit. The prefixed chapters have no incarnation doctrine, and no doctrine of pre-existence. They do not intend in their story of the miraculous birth to relate the incoming of a superhuman or non-human being into the world, else they could not take up the pedigree of Joseph as exhibiting Jesus' title to the throne of David. Miracle attends and signalizes the birth of that "Son of David" who is destined to become the Son of God. Apart from the mere question of attendant prodigy the aim of Matthew's story of the Infancy is such as should command the respect and sympathy of every rational thinker. Against all Doketic dualism it maintains that the Son of God is such from birth to death. The presence of God's Spirit with him is not a mere counterpart to demonic "possession," but is part of his nature as true man from the beginning.

But the doctrinal interest of Matthew scarcely goes beyond the point of proving that Jesus is the Christ foretold by the prophets. Doctrine as well as history is subordinate to the one great aim of teaching men to "observe all things whatsoever Jesus commanded."

CHAPTER VII
THE PETRINE TRADITION. EVANGELIC STORY

Of the extent to which the early church could do without narrative of Jesus' earthly ministry we have extraordinary evidences in the literature of Pauline Christianity on the one side and of Jewish Christianity on the other. For Paul himself, as we know, the real story of Jesus was a transcendental drama of the Incarnation, Redemption, and Exaltation. It is probable that when at last "three years" after his conversion he went up to Jerusalem "to get acquainted with Peter," the story he was interested to hear had even then more to do with that common apostolic witness of the resurrection appearances reproduced in 1st Cor. xv. 3-11, than with the sayings and doings of the ministry. As to this Paul preserves, as we have seen, an almost unbroken silence. And that which did not interest Paul, naturally did not interest his churches.

On the other hand those who could have perpetuated a full and authentic account of the ministry were almost incredibly slow to undertake the task; partly, no doubt, because of their vivid expectation of the immediate end of the world, but largely also because to their mind the data most in need of preservation were the 'life-giving words.' The impression of Jesus' character, his person and authority was not, as they regarded it, a thing to be gained from the historical outline of his career. It was established by the fact of the Resurrection, by the predictions of the prophets, which found fulfilment in the circumstances of Jesus' birth, particular incidents here and there in his career and fate, but most of all in his resurrection and the gifts of the Spirit which argued his present session at the right hand of God. Once this authority of Jesus was established the believer had only to observe his commandments as handed down by the apostles, elders and witnesses.

On all sides there was an indifference to such historical inquiry as the modern man would think natural and inevitable, an indifference that must remain altogether inexplicable to us unless we realize that until at least the time of the fourth evangelist the main proofs of messiahship were not looked for in Jesus' earthly career. His Christhood was thought of as something in the future, not yet realized. Even his resurrection and manifestation in glory "at the right hand of God," which is to both Paul (Rom. i. 4) and his predecessors (Acts ii. 32-36) the assurance that "God hath made him both Lord and Christ," is not yet the beginning of his specific messianic programme. Potentially this has begun, because Jesus has already been seated on the 'throne of glory,' "from henceforth expecting until his enemies be made the footstool of his feet." Practically it is not yet. The Christ is still a Christ that is to be. His messianic rule is delayed until the subjugation of the "enemies"; and this subjugation in turn is delayed by "the long suffering of God, who willeth not that any should perish, but that all men should come to repentance." Meantime a special "outpouring of the Spirit" is given in 'tongues,' 'prophecies,' 'miracle working,' and the like, in fulfilment of scriptural promise, as a kind of coronation largess to all loyal subjects. This outpouring of the Spirit, then, is the great proof and assurance that the Heir has really ascended the 'throne of glory' in spite of the continuance of "all things as they were from the foundation of the world." These 'gifts' are "firstfruits of the Spirit," pledges of the ultimate inheritance, proofs both to believers and unbelievers of the complete Inheritance soon to be received. But the gifts have also a practical aspect. They are all endowments for service. The Great Repentance in Israel and among the Gentiles is not to be brought about without the co-operation of believers. The question which at once arises when the manifestation of the risen Christ is granted, "Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" is therefore answered by the assurance that the time is in God's hand alone, but that the 'gifts of the Spirit,' soon to be imparted, are intended to enable believers to do their part, at home and abroad, toward effecting the Great Repentance (Acts i. 6-8).²⁰

For a church which felt itself endowed with living and present evidences of the messianic power of Jesus it was naturally only a second thought (and not a very early one at that) to look back for proof to occurrences in Jesus' life in Galilee, however notable his career as "a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people." The present gifts of his power would be (at least in demonstrative effect) "greater works than these." With those who had the resurrection testimony of 1st Cor. xv. 3-11, and even the recurrent experience of "visions and revelations of the Lord," anticipatory revelations of his messiahship, utterances, like that to Peter at Cæsarea Philippi, wherein Jesus only predicted the great work to be divinely accomplished through him, whether by life or death, in going up to Jerusalem, intimations which had been disregarded or disbelieved at the time, could not rank with present knowledge, experience and insight. They would be recalled merely as confirmatory foregleams of "the true light that now shineth," as the two who had received the manifestation at Emmaus exclaim, "Did not our heart burn within us while he talked to us in the way?"

We could not indeed psychologically account for the development of the resurrection faith after the crucifixion, if before it Jesus' life and utterances had not been such as to make his manifestation in glory seem to the disciples just what they ought to have expected. But, conversely, nothing is more certain than the fact that they did not expect it; and that when the belief had become established by other means, the attitude toward the "sayings and doings" maintained by those who had them to relate – as we know, the most successful missionary of all felt it no handicap to be entirely without them – was one of looking back into an obscure past for things whose pregnant significance became appreciable only in the light of present knowledge. "These things understood not his disciples at the first, but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things had been written of him, and that they had done these things unto him."

We are fortunate in having even one example of the "consecutive narratives" (diegeses) referred to in Luke i. 1. Our Mark is a gospel written purely and simply from this point of view, aiming only to show how the earthly career of Jesus gave evidence that this was the Son of God, predestined to exaltation to the right hand of power, with little attempt, if any, to bring in the precepts of the New Law. We should realize, however, that this is already a beginning in the process soon to become controlling, a process of carrying back into the earthly life of Jesus in Galilee of first this trait, then that, then all the attributes of the glorified Lord.

Ancient and reliable tradition informs us that this first endeavour to tell the story of "Jesus Christ the Son of God" was composed at Rome by John Mark, a former companion of both Peter and Paul, from data drawn from the anecdotes casually employed by Peter in his preaching. There is much to confirm this in the structure, the style, and the doctrinal object and standpoint of the Gospel.

To begin with, the date of composition cannot be far from 75. Mark is not only presupposed by both Matthew and Luke, but in their time had already acquired an extraordinary predominance. To judge by what remains to us of similar products, Mark in its own field might almost be said to reign supreme and reign alone. Such almost exclusive supremacy could not have been attained, even by a writing commonly understood to represent the preaching of Peter, short of a decade or more of years. On the other hand we have the reluctant testimony of antiquity, anxious to claim as much as possible of apostolic authority for the record, but unwilling to commit Peter to apparent contradictions of Matthew, that it was written after Peter's death (64-5).²¹ Internal evidence would in fact bring down the date of the work in its present form a full decade thereafter. It is true that there are many structural evidences of more than one form of the narrative, and that the apocalyptic chapter (ch. xiii.), which furnishes most of the evidence of date, may well belong among the later supplements. But in the judgment of most critics this 'eschatological discourse' (almost the only connected discourse of the Gospel) is clearly framed in real retrospect upon the overthrow of Jerusalem and the temple, and the attendant tribulation on "those that are in Judæa." The writer applies a general saying of Jesus known to us from other sources about destroying and rebuilding the temple specifically to the demolition effected by Titus (70). He warns his readers in the same connection that "the end" is not to follow immediately upon the great Judæan war, but only when the powers of evil in the heavenly places, powers inhabiting sun, moon and stars, are shaken (xiii. 21-27). The Pauline doctrine of 2nd Thess. ii. 1-12 is adopted, but with careful avoidance of the prediction that the "man of sin" is to appear "in the temple of God." Paul's "man of sin" is now identified with Daniel's "abomination that maketh desolate" (Dan. xii. 11), which therefore is spoken of as "he" (masculine). "His" appearance will prelude the great Judæan tribulation; but his standing place is ill-defined. It is only "where he ought not." Matthew (following his usual practice) returns more nearly to the language of Daniel. With him the "Abomination" is again an object standing "in a holy place." But Matthew is already applying the prophecy to another tribulation still to come. He does not see that Mark refers to the sack of Jerusalem on which he himself looks back in his addition to the parable of the Supper (Matt. xxii. 6 f.; cf. Luke xiv. 15-24), but takes Mark xiii. 14-23 as Jesus' prediction of a great final tribulation still to come.

Mark's crudities of language and style, his frequent latinisms, his explanation to his readers (almost contemptuously exaggerated) of Jewish purifications and distinctions of meats (vii. 3 f.), presupposition of the Roman form of divorce (x. 12), explanation in Roman money of the value of the (Greek and Oriental) "mite" (lepton), are well-known confirmations of the tradition of the writing's place of origin. But these are superficial characteristics. More important for us to note is the fundamental conception of what constitutes "the gospel," and the writer's attitude on questions of the relation of Jew and Gentile and the authority of the apostles and kindred of the Lord.

The most striking characteristic of Mark is that it aims to present the gospel about Jesus, and is relatively indifferent to the gospel of Jesus. Had the writer conceived his task after the manner of a Matthew there is little doubt that he could have compiled catechetic discourses of Jesus like the Sermon on the Mount or the discourse on prayer of Luke xi. 1-13. The fact that he disregards such records of Jesus' ethical and religious instruction does not mean that he (tacitly) refers his readers to the Matthæan Precepts, or similar compilations, to supplement his own deficiencies. It means a different, more Pauline, conception of what "the gospel" is. Mark conceives its primary element to be attachment to the person of Jesus, and has already gone far toward obliterating the primitive distinction between a Jesus whose earthly career had been "in great humility," and the glorified Son of God. The earthly Jesus is still, it is true, only a man endowed with the Spirit of Adoption. But he is so completely "in" the Spirit, and so fully endowed with it, as almost to assume the Greek figure of a demi-god treading the earth incognito. No wonder this Gospel became the favourite of the Adoptionists and Doketists.

Mark does not leave his reader in the dark as to what a man must do to inherit eternal life. The requirement does not appear until after Jesus has taken up with the twelve the road to Calvary, because it is distinctly not a keeping of commandments, new or old. It is an adoption of "the mind that was in Christ, who humbled himself and became obedient unto death." In Matthew's 'improved' version of Jesus' answer to the rich applicant for eternal life, the suppliant is told he may obtain it by obeying the commandments, with supererogatory merit ("if thou wouldest be perfect"), if he follows Jesus' example of self-abnegating service. In the form and context from which Matthew borrows (Mark x. 13-45) there is no trace of this legalism, and the whole idea of supererogatory merit, or higher reward, is strenuously, almost indignantly, repudiated. No man can receive the kingdom at all who does not receive it "as a little child." Every man must be prepared to make every sacrifice, even if he has kept all the commandments from his youth up. Peter and the disciples who have "left all and followed" are in respect to reward on the same level as others. Peter's plea for the twelve is answered, "There is no man that hath left" earthly possessions for Christ's sake that is not amply compensated even here. He must expect persecution now, but will receive eternal life hereafter. Only "many that are first shall be last, and last first." Even the martyr-apostles James and John will have no superior rights in the Kingdom.