idea (διὰ τὴν ὀλιγοπιστίαν, ™) ; and a favourite word, θεραπεύειν (28. 18),
+ The other case of this rare word, 14, is also in Mk’s wake.
+ The προσ(ελθοῦσαγ.... τοῦ κρασπέδον common to Mtand Lk might seem to need a literary link. But both regularly prefer προσελθεῖν for ‘approach * (see Mt S%<Lk S™, cf. Lk 714); while the addition of τοῦ xp. is a quite natural (cf. Mt 14%) explanatory tonch, which may even come from oral tradition,
MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF 301
have also a traditional basis, particularly in the case of the dumb demoniac, 9“. For though Lk 114# has the same in substance, yet the form differs, especially if we omit y.*4 as a later gloss, as do O.L., Syr-Sin., Tat. (see 124),
Another view is possible, namely, that Lk 11M@f shows the story of the possessed mute in its right place, so introducing the dialogue with Pharisees as to exorcism originally in the Logia. In that case Mt may use the incident twice: first, among the works of power in 9, where the people’s comment comes from Mk 2%; and next in 122, where the two incidents in 927-23 appear fused into one case as occasion of the people's wonder, which elicits the Pharisees’ retort.
The cycle of typical Messianic deeds is now complete: and Mt wishes to present Jesus in the further aspect of authority shown in commission- ing others to aid in gathering in the harvest of the Kingdom. In so doing he omits for the present (but see 135%.) a few verses in Mk, and takes the first words of his introduction to the Mission of the Twelve from Mk 6%, 7.e. καὶ περιῆγεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τὰς πόλεις πάσας K. τὰς κώμας, διδάσκων. repeating also the bulk of 4538, his earlier programme of Mes- sianic ministry. Then he takes part of Mk 6% (where Mt omits half the verse) and generalizes the statement of Christ’s compassionate perception of the people’s shepherdless condition. In 9517. he probably employs the opening words of the Logia at this point (ef. Lk 10%), and then follows Mk once more in 101, repeating words used already in 4530. 9b (θεραπεύειν πᾶσαν νόσον k. πᾶσαν μαλακίαν). The names of the Twelve are next given, without any interest in the circumstances of their original call (Mk 3), Indeed it is assumed that they are already known.*
(f) Modijications in the Passion and Resurrec- tion narratives.—Most will agree with Dr. Salmon that Mt 27 ‘copied the narrative as we find it in St. Mark, interpolating in it different passages founded on knowledge derived from some other source.’ A word or two on such a source, or rather sources. In the Institution of the Supper it is likely that the slight differences in Mt are due mainly to local Eucharistic use, the cause of Lk’s inversion of the Bread and Cup (so the Didaché). In the Crucifixion, on the other hand, the slight divergences are due to the subtle reaction of certain details of OT prophecy—now seen to be Messianic, since suffering was included in Mes- siah’s lot. The influence of Ps 22 (whence came Jesus’ great cry) is especially marked (as also in He 2Uf οὗ, 69), Thus—
Mk ἐδίδουν αὐτῷ ἐσμυρνισμένον οἶνον.
Mt 27% ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ πιεῖν οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγ-
μένον.
Ps 69 (68) 31 ἔδωκαν... χολήν, κ. εἰς τὴν δίψαν
μου ἐπότισάν με ὄξος.
Then, after the casting of the lots, Mt adds—
καὶ καθήμενοι ἐτήρουν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ.
Cf. Ps 22 (21) 18 αὐτοὶ δὲ κατενόησαν καὶ ἐπεῖδόν με. ἵ And once more—
Mt 27% (only) πέποιθεν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, ῥυσάσθω viv εἰ
θέλει αὐτόν.
Ps 329 ἤλπισεν ἐπὶ Κύριον, ῥυσάσθω αὐτὸν ..
θέλει αὐτόν.
Such apologetic use of prophecy is yet more obvious in 817 12%, and it may have helped the evangelist to his own faith in Jesus’ Messiahship ; while the elaborative influence of the OT is seen in Mt’s Beatitudes as compared with Lk’s.
Probably the modifications of the Passion story
* Similar analysis of 12-16% may be seen in the second of W. C. Allen's ‘ Critical Studies in Mt’s Gospel’ (epos. Times, March 1900),
+ Following on reference to the sufferer's deadly thirst, and the fact that many ‘dogs’ or wicked ones encompass him and ploree his hands and feet; while the next words are διεμερί- σαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά pov éavrois. Here ΜΈ language may already have been coloured by this Ps, as also in the use of κινοῦντες τὰς κεφαλάς ; cf. Ps 22? πάντες οἱ θεωροῦντές pe ἐξεμυκτήρισάν με, ἐλάλησαν ἐν χείλεσιν, ἐκίνησαν κεφαλήν,
903
MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF
were already part of Mt’s way of telling it, before he sat down to write, and spontaneously reasserted themselves, sometimes more, sometimes less de- cisively, as he freely reproduced Mk. And this may afford us a fresh analogy for the way in which the general tradition of the Lord’s ministry, already living in memory, modified the impressions left by his perusal of Mk.
A good instance of this is the Resurrection, where Mt’s narrative is modified by the story of the Guard in the tradition known to him, Hence the women come, not to anoint the body, but only ‘to behold the tomb’; and the influence of Mk, if present at all, is very slight. ‘There is no con- sciousness that the women entered the sepulchre, as in Mk; the fulfilment of Jesus’ word in his resur- rection is emphasized (καθὼς εἶπεν, cf. 27°%) ; and so the element of fear is overshadowed by joy. The great fear, which is the note of Mk, has been toned down in tradition by later feelings on the subject. The rather indistinct account of the promised Christophany to ‘the eleyen disciples’ is part of the generalizing style of oral tradition, where the original facts are set in the light of their abiding bearing on the Church’s life. The ‘authority’ which was largely veiled in Messiah’s earthly ministry is now His chief note, shown in the extension of the Kingdom to the Gentiles, and in His abiding presence with His own during the days between the Resurrection and the Parousia (note silence as to Israel and the Law, in contrast to Mt 1066).