Since the discovery of the Sinaitic codex of the Old Syriac version of the Gospels, it has been argued that our text of Mt 116
is not original, but secondary. Not only is this refuted by study of the various forms in which divergence from our oldest Gr. MSS occurs in certain groups of authorities (see, δ... Zahn’s Einleitung, ii. 291-293); but even the view that Mt used a source in which Joseph’s full paternity was assumed, is itself unlikely. For the way in which Mt calls attention to the numerical symmetry of the three divisions in the pedigree, each fourteen ending with a great crisis in Israel’s fortunes, suggests that he has himself so constructed τ, Further, the four women cannot have stood in an earlier source, and yet here they seem integral. The pedigree is through and through didactic: and the fact that it was from the first compiled by the aid of 1 Ch 1-3, shows that it was never other than in Greek, the language of our evangelist (cf. W. C. Allen, Mrpos. Times, Dec. 1899). Hence it seems best to conclude that Mt did not use a pre-existing genealogy (see GENEALOGY OF Jesus Curist for another view: yet cf. also fi, (45d).
A fresh witness for 116 has just come to light in the ancient basis of the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (itself of the Sth cent. at least). This basis is carried back by its editor, F. C. Conybeare, to the Dial, Jusonis et Papisci, c. 185. The Christian cites Mt’s genealogy, and gives 1 first in the form, ᾿Ιακὼβ δὲ τὸν ᾿Ιωσήφ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα Μαρία, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη ᾿Τησοῦς ὁ λεγ. X.; and next as ᾿Ιακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τ᾿ ᾿Ιωσὴφ τὸν μνηστευσά- μένον Μαριάμ, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη ὁ Χ. ὁ υἱὸς τι θεοῦ, These passages
* Similarly the enigmatic, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene,’ seems an implicit reply to criticism. The flinging at Jesus of the epithet *‘ Nazarene ’—a term of contempt on lofty lips—really fulfils the substance of ‘the prophets’ as a whole, touching Messiah's humble and even despised lot (¢.g. as the faithful * Servant of Jehovah,’ Is 581),
+ This will be the more convincing if even some of the other numerical arrangements which Sir J. Hawkins suggests as intended by Mt, hold good (/fora@ Synopt. 181 1f.). We cannot, however, see that the number of the formula’ verses, 7% 11] 1853 191 261, is intentional. They are far apart, and no attention is drawn to their number any more than in the case of the recurring formulw in Jg 2¢-16"4,
MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF 303
seem to cast light on the real origin of the readings unsupported by our oldest Gr. MSS (for the evidence in full see art. Jesus Cnrist, vol. ii. p. 644). They are in fact explanatory glosses, such as the Dialogue presents us with in reply to the hostile gloss of the Jew, ᾿Ιακὼβ ἐγέννησεν τ. ᾿Ιωσήφ, τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη ᾿Ιησοῦς ὃ λεγ. X., και ᾿Ιωσὴφ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Aey. X., περὶ οὗ νῦν ὁ λόγος. φησίν, ἐγέννησεν ἐκ τῆς M. The Jews glossed τὸν ἄνδρα M. one way, in the teeth of the narrative ; the Christians glossed it another, in harmony with the narrative. And this crept into some MSS?
ΒΟΡΡΙΈΜΕΝΤΑΙ, Nores.—This Dialogue quotes the parable of the Husbandmen in extenso ; and in so doing shows the way in which materials derived from similar sources tended to blend in the memory of an early Christian. The case is the more instruc- tive that the writer has just quoted Isaiah’s parable-germ of Jehovah’s vineyard (5), to which the Gospel parable was probably meant to point back : and we see how Isaiah's language affects the form at the beginning of Christ’s parable. It runs ῳκοδόμησεν αὐτῷ τεῖχος καὶ πύργον κ. ἐποίησεν ἐν αὐτῷ ληνὸν kK. ὑπολήνιον, omitting φραγμὸν περιέθηκεν and changing the po- sition of ληνὸν (Mt) or ὑπολήνιον (Mk), as well as uniting the two —which were in fact both integral—to a wine-pre Here the writer quotes freely, but is quite possessed by his sources, of which Mt counts for most. Thus he reproduces almost every syllable and letter of the triple tradition, while the result is a wonderfully eclectic composition, produced not mechanically, but by the subtle tricks of memory. We may be prepared, then, for the recurrence of similar phenomena in Mt.
The Fayyim papyrus fragment parallel to Mt 26#!-8f., Mk 1477-29. is too scanty and mutilated to justify much infer- ence. But it omits a verse common to Mt and Mk; while it combines features of both (ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί with Mt, ra πρόβ. διασκορπ.. καὶ εἰ πάντες οὑκ ἐγὼ], dis κοκ[κύξει}, with Mk). It may, then, represent oral tradition; but more likely a free memoriter use of Mt and Mk in some manual of catechesis or edification like the Oxyrhynchus Logia.
[και ev τω απαλ] λαγεὶν weavtws παΐντες ev ταυτὴ] ™ νυκτι σκανδαλισθησονται κατα τὸ γραφεν παταξω τον ΐποιμενα και Ta] πρόβατα διασκορπισθησίονται ειἰποντος] του met και εἰ παντες ουκ eyw λεγει ts] ο adextpuwr dis κοκκυξει και συ πρωτον τρις αἸπαρνηΐση me}
Here ὡσαύτως is to be noted as pointing to a series of detached sayings rather than a gospel.
iii; CONCLUSIONS.—On the whole, then, the following results emerge as the most probable. (1) The order of narration common to the latter parts of Mt and Mk in particular, the closeness of which is made the more striking by the deviation of their earlier parts, points to the use by Mt of the Petrine memoirs writter by Mk. (2) Con- versely, the notable deviation of Mt and Lk in the order of the Discourses and Sayings (Logia element) common to them, combined with their textual variations, goes strongly against common use of a Logia document, as distinct from an oral Greek tradition which reached them in detached portions and in somewhat different forms.* (3) The Logia familiar to Mt, who had long taught them cate- chetically,—so that their vocabulary and his own were virtually one and the same,—reflected in epitome the whole experience of church life in certain Palestinian apostolic circles. They were rooted in the memories of the germinal Christian society, the apostles who had companied with their Master. But they contained also echoes of the first missionary commission as repeated for the guidance of others in the early days of Pales- tinian evangelization; of the persecution that had been their lot all along; of the forms in which the Master’s principles of fellowship among brethren took actual shape as the life became more organ- ized; and not least of the terms in which the polemic against their religious environment of Pharisaic Judaism was conducted in ever-grow- ing volume and detail. That is, these Logia, far more than the Lukan, are memorials of the life of the Palestinian Church as well as of its Messiah. (ἢ The Matthean Logia have as their nucleus the common apostolic didactic tradition, which took shape in the early Jerusalem days under the lead of Peter—a tradition which passed into Mk in