The correspondenc-e of Papias' tradition of the Matthaean syntagma with known Palestinian c-on- ditions is strongly c-onfirmatory both of the tradi- tion itself and oi that interpretation of it which emphasizes the distinction between catechetic works and Gospels of the evangelistic type. It is char- acteristic of the Gospels which c-ontinued to circu- late in Palestine independently of the canonical four so late as the time of Jerome and Epiphanius, that, while they c-onflate material drawn from the Greek Gospels with their own, they continue to represent their tradition in all cases as delivered by the Apostle Matthew (Preuschen, Antilegomena, Figs. 2. 3. 12 of Er. Hihr. and 6 of Ev. Xaz.).
{b) The internal evidence of our Synoptic Gos- pels is the decisive factor in the question of the historicity and meaning of the tradition. Here we have only to subtract the material c-oincident with Mk. from Mt. and Lk. respectively, to see that what is left is in Lk. to a great extent, in Mt. almost exclusively, a mass of di.scotrrse-material, much of it reproduc-ed in common by the two. So c•on^^ncing is this general result of an applica- tion of the representations of early tradition to the actual structtrre of our .Synoptic Gospels, that since the time of Schleiermacher the so - called ' two-document " theory of the Synoptic Gospels, which rests upon it, has won wider and wider assent, and is to-day in its general outline an almost universally accepted canon of criticism (see art. Gospels i. Synoptic tradition consists in the main of the Markan story, filled out and expanded by masses of discourse-material which are other- wise almost devoid of historical setting.
But there is a great and significant diflTerence in resTilt when the subtraction is made from Mt. and
48
LOGIA
LOGIA
when it is made fioni Luke. Subtract Mk. from Mt. and the narrative material which remains is exceedingly meagre in amount, somewhat apocry- phal in character, and unconnected with any otlier source. It includes the Genealogy and Birth- stories (chs. 1. 2), Peter's Avalking on the sea (14-8-31), ti^e stater in the fislrs mouth (17^^-^^), and a few traits in the story of the Passion and Resur- rection— the suicide of Judas (27^"'"), Pilate's wife's di'eam, and his washing of his hands (vv.^''--''), tlie eartiiquake (vv.^^'^'^), watch at the tomb (vv.®-'*''' 28''-'^), and appearance to the women and to the Eleven in Galilee (28»-i«- i"*-*). A few other ap- parent Matthrean additions to the narrative of ]\Ik. are illusive. The stoiy of the centurion's son ^g5-io. 13) jg tlie one great exception in character and attestation, being shared not onlj' by Lk. {V'^^), but even by Jn. (-l'"'-^^). The real surplus of JNIt. over Mk. consists pre-eminently in great aggregations of (^tscoitr.vc-material, grouped in the live princi- pal masses already referred to. These groups of agglutinated \d70t consist of (1) the Sermon on the Mount (clis. 5-7), sliowing the new Way of Right- eousness ; (2) the Mission of the Disciples (ch. 10), sliowing the duty of Witness - bearing ; (3) the Parables (ch. 13), treated as fulHlling the Scripture Is (r'"- against a generation which had rejected both the Baptist and Clirist ; (4) Rules of conduct towards brethren in 'the church' (ch. 18); (5) Warnings of the Judgment (ch. 25) attached to the eschatological ciiapter (24) parallel to Mk 13. Each of the five groups is marked off by the formula Kal iyivero 8t€ iriXeaev 6 Ir/croOs, k.t.X., Avhere the narrative is resumed ; but groups (3) and (5) are enlarged by preHxing the two denunci- atory sections (chs. 11-12 and 23), which are unac- companied by the formula, and expand the total number of discourses to seven (cf. the seven par- ables of ch. 13, seven woes of ch. 23, seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer expanded from five of Lk.). Thus our First Gospel, minus the Markan bio- grapliic outline and the few late n<arrative accre- tions, really consists of a systematic compendium of the teacliings of the Lord, once framed in the favourite pentad structure of Torah, Psalm-book, and the Christian Aidaxv, I»ut later expanded to a sevenfold form.
The same process applied to Lk. yields a very ditterent but equally enliglitening result. The subtraction of Mk. leaves a much more consider- able narrative element, including, besides the Centurion's Son, a whole series of incidents else- where unknown, of kindred animus. Such are the Penitent Harlot and Penitent Thief, Zacchaius, the Ministering Women, the Samaritan Leper, the Crooked Woman, the Widow of Nain. But more important than the new incidents is a series of parables and teachings in the same vein, of which the Prodigal Son, Good Samaritan, Rich Man and Lazarus, Pharisee and Publican, are examples. The so-called Infancy chapters of Luke show the same favour towards the lowly, and partake other- wise to .so high a degree of the linguistic and stylistic peculiarities of this material, that we must either suppose Luke to have had at command a ' special source ' equally abundant in narrative- and discourse-material, and characterized by the humanitarian interest so manifest here, or else ascribe to him an extremely one-sided selection from a much more copious stream of tradition than would seem probable from Matthew and Mark. Thus the great outstanding difference in structure between the non- Markan element in Mt. and in Lk. is that in the former it is almost ex- clusively the \6yoi, arranged in groups as such ; Avhereas in Lk. the logian material does not stand apart from naiTative, but is connected witli and framed into a narrative independent of Mk. and