passages peculiar to Matthew and Luke, — even in the meager compass of which we shall find evidence enough that this document, whatever its extent, presented Jesus as a Divine Being. That He was the Messiah He Is represented as Himself indicating by pointing to His works (Mt 11^, Lk 7^*^), which, He intimates, evi- dently on the basis of Isaiah 61^, accredit Him as the ' One who was to Come.' It is apparently as Messiah that He is addressed as 'Lord' (Mt 8^ Lk 7^), and He is represented as adverting to this customary mode of addressing Him in order to declare that it is not merely verbal recognition of His authority but actual obedience to His words alone which will constitute a claim upon His mercy (Mt 7"\ Lk 6^^) — where, it is to be noted. He presents Himself as ' Lord ' of the destinies of men, by their relations to whom men stand or fall. He is accordingly appropriately spoken to by Satan as ' Son of God ' (Mt ^""-^ Lk ^^''>) ; and currently calls Himself by the great Danielic title of ' Son of Man.' He explains that this ' Son of Man ' has come in the fashion of men, " eating and drink- ing " (Mt 11^^ Lk 7^^), and living a hard life (Mt 8-°, Lk 9^^) — ending in betrayal and death (Mt 26"*^ Lk 22^'^) ; but after death is to rise again (Mt 12'*^ Lk ii^*'). But even while on earth He asserts for Himself an unbroken communion with God, or rather a continuous intercommunion of Himself as ' Son ' with
tinues, " which occurs twelve times elsewhere in St. Luke, together with the expression ' Son of God,' which elsewhere occurs nine times, does not occur in our compilation of sayings. Messianic tone and col- oring, however, declare themselves in the sayings (lyssseq., 26 1022)^ and in the parable [iz^^^^^-), and, besides, the expression 'Son of Man.' " How inadequate this is as a representation of the teaching of the material common to Matthew and Luke concerning our Lord's self- description, the text will show.
The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 155
the ' Father' (Mt II-^ Lk 10-^) ; knowing the Father as perfectly as He Is known by the Father, and there- fore able to make known the Father as His sole ade- quate revelation to men. In this great passage we have what must be considered the culminating assertion on our Lord's part of His essential deity.
It is clear, then, that the documents which, even in the view of the most unreasonable criticism, are sup- Resort to posed to underlie the structure of our ' Historical present Synoptics are freighted with the Criticism ' same teaching which these Gospels them- selves embody as to the person of our Lord. Literary criticism cannot penetrate to any stratum of belief more primitive than this. We may sink our trial shafts down through the soil of the Gospel tradition at any point we please; it is only conformable strata that we pierce. So far as the tradition goes, it gives con- sentient testimony to an aboriginal faith in the deity of the founder of the religion of Christianity. In these circumstances it is not strange that another mode of analysis is attempted. Literary criticism is aban- doned for historical criticism : and we are invited to distinguish in our Gospels not between later and older documentary strata, but between narrative and repor- torial elements. We do not wish to know, It is said, what Matthew, Mark or Luke thought, or what was thought by those represented by them or by any predecessor of theirs — the Christian community to wit, even the primitive Christian community. What we wish to know is what Jesus Himself thought. We appeal from the representation of Jesus given by His followers to the self-testimony of Jesus. Let us have Jesus' own con- ception of Himself.
156 The Designations of Our Lord