In view, therefore, of Mk 10'"'- and Lk 16'8, it must appear that Mt 5^^ places the teaching of Christ m a new light. So far as Lk. is concerned, we might, with some difficulty, suppose that the exception ' save for adultery ' was assumed as a matter so obvious that it needed no explicit ex- pression. But Ln view of the disputes in the Jewish Schools, this is very unlikely. And Mk lO'"'*, with its criticism of the alleged Mosaic sanction of divorce, leaves no room for doubt that on that occasion at least Christ pronounced marriajre to be a divinely instituted ordinance which should under no circumstances be broken by divorce. It would not, of course, be difficult to suppose that on other occasions the Lord Himself modified His teaching. We might suppose that He taught His disciples that, whilst from an ideal standpoint, marriage, for all who wished to discern and to obey the guidance of the Divine will in life, ought to be an indissoluble bond, yet, human nature and society being what they are, divorce was a necessary and expedient consequence of the sin of adultery. But a careful comparison of Mt 5*^ with Mk io and Lk 16 irre- sistioly suggests the conclusion that the exception in Mt. is due not to Christ Himself, but to the Evangelist, or to the atmo.sphere of thought which he represents, modifying Christ's words to bring them into accordance with the necessities of life. This conclusion seems to be confirmed when we compare Mt 19'-'- wth Mk 10"-. It is on many grounds clear that the editor of the First Go.spel is here, as elsewhere, re-editing St. Mark (see Expos. Times, Oct. 1903, p. 45, and ' St. Matthew ' in the Internal. Crit. Com.). Contrast with the logical and consistent argument of Mk. stated above, the account of tlie First Gospel. The Pharisees are represented as inquiring, ' Is it la^vful for a man to put away a wife on any pretext ? ' Christ answers, as in Mk. , that marriage from an ideal standpoint
indissoluble. The Pharisees appeal to the Law
and secondary character of the legal sanction of divorce, and to reaffirm the sanctity of marriage. But instead He is represented as affirming that TTopvela constitutes an exception. Tims He tacitly takes sides with the severer school of interpretation of Dt 24, and acknowledges the permanent validity of that Law thus interpreted in a strict sense, which immediately before He had criticised as an accom- modation to a rude state of social life. This incon- sistency shows that Mk. is liere original, and that (card TToo-ac ahlav and fiij iirl Tropvdgi are insertions by the editor of Mt. into Mk.'s narratives, and confirms the otherwise probable conclusion that irapcKTis \6yov Topvfiai in 5^- is an insertion into the
DOCTOR
DOCTRINES
485
traditional saying more accurately preserved in Lk 16. The motive of these insertions can only be conjectured. But, in view of other features of the First Gospel, it is jirobable that the editor was a Jewish Christian who has here Judaized Christ's teaching. .Just as he has so arranged 5'^'-" as to represent Christ's attitude to the Law to be that of the Rabbinical Jews, who regarded every letter of the Law as permanently valid, so here he has so shaped Christ's teaching about divorce as to make it consonant with the permanent authority of the Pentateuch, and harmonious with the stricter school of Jewish theologians. To the same strain in the editor's character, the same Jewish-Christian jealousy for the honour of the Law, and for the privileges of the Jewish people, may perhaps be ascribed the emphasis placed on the prominence of St. Peter (10- Tpuros, 14-'»-3' 15'" 16"-" IV^"" 18^'), and the preservation of .such sayings as 10'- ^- ^. And to the same source may perhaps be attributed the Judaizing of the Lord's language in such ex- pressions as ' the kingdom of the heavens,' and the ' Father who is in the heavens.' See, also, artt. Adultery and Marriage.
DOCTOR.— The English versions have been very inconsistent in the translation of SiSdo-raXos, vo/i-o- dtSda-KaXos, pa/i^el, vo/^ikSs. They have generally followed Wyclif, who used mnister for SiJdir/caXos, and doctour only once (Lk 2*^). In the American R V ' master ' and ' doctor ' disappear as tr. of 5i5d(r- KoXos, and ' teacher ' is uniformly used. The AV has ' teacher ' only once in the Uospels ( Jn 3-) out of a very large number of instances of SiMcr/caXos. The English RV advances to only four uses of ' teacher ' (Mt 23», Lk 2«, Jn 3=- "). i/oMo5iodo-raXos occurs only three times in the NT (Lk 5", Ac 5^', 1 Ti 1'). In the last example AV has ' teacher ' and in the other two 'doctor of the law.' Of course, ' doctor ' is simply Latin for ' teacher,' but the American RV would have done better to adopt ' teacher of the law' for j'o/ioSiSdo-KaXos also (Lk 6", Ac 5»^).
The chief English Versions translate the word hihxa-xxke; in Lk 2« as follows: Wyclif, tloclotirs; Tindale, doclours; Cranmer, doctours', Geneva, doctours ; Rheinis, doctors; AV, doctors; RV, doctors; Noyes, teachers; Bible Union Revision, teachers; American RV, teachers; Twentieth Century NT, Teachers. vo^SiSa(r:K«Xo; in Lk 517 and Ac .5^-* is translated doctour of the lawe by Wyclif, who is followed with variations in spelling by Tindale. Geneva, Rheims, AV and RV, American RV. The American Bible Union Revision has teacher of the law in Lk 6" and Ac 53* also. Twentieth Century NT has Teacher of the Law.