found in no other Gospel. Moreover, the combina- tion of discourse with narrative in Lk. is not, as sometimes stated, a mere adaptation by the Evan- gelist of logian material to narrative settings of his own composition. There are examjjles (14i-'^) of such fictitious settings, but who would dream of .so describing tlie incident of tiie Repentant Harlot (Lk 73''-5»), wiiich forms the setting of the parable of the Two Debtors ? No explanation will here suflice ])ut an admission that narrative and dis- course have come down together from the earliest and most authentic sources. The same conclusion must be reached when the relation of this ' pre- canonical Luke ' to Mk. and to the added sections of Mt. (11 f. and 23) is studied (see art. WISDOM). Priority will be found to belong in both cases to the Lukan source.
Lukes distribution of his discourse - material under various lieads of narrative description, and his disposition of the non-Markan material at vari- ous points of a shorter and longer journey (Lk 6'--8^ 9^1-18^^), indicate in what sense we should take his ])roposal to write ' in order ' {Kade^rjs, 1^). He aims, like the historian that he is, at chrono- logical sequence ; but certainly not without .some better authority than his own conjecture. For while his discourse-material is sometimes without true connexion, it has a basis of order whicli indi- cates that, in the region whence this Gospel is derived, narrative and teaching had been combined at a much earlier time and with better resources than in our Matthew.
Critics who have attempted to reconstruct the Logia from Mt. and Lk. have unfortunately neglected this fundamental distinction, reconstruct- ing their ultimate source, without regard for the difference in type (with Mt 28-» cf. Lk I'*, Ac 1'), from the mere coincidence of Mt. and Lk. in a certain part of the discourse-material. This ultimate source, however, cannot be reached from the side of Lk. without first taking account of the so-called ' special source ' from which some ele- ments seem to have passed into Mt. (e.g. S^'^'^ 4'"" gi9-34 §5-10 1P--7), and can even be shown with great probability to have affected canonical Mk. (With Mk V- 5'-, cf. Lk 72^--'- '■^'■'^- ; with Mk 1'^, Lk 42-12 . with Mk 21-22, Li^ 733f. . ^vith Mk 322-30, lj^ H14-22. with Mk 71-23, Lk IP'-H Comparison with Mt. will in all these cases prove dependence by Mk. upon the source more fully recoverable from Mt. and Lk. ). But the elements most naturally to be sought in a purely logian common source, such as the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables, dis- play a very different degree of resemblance in Mt. and Lk. respectively. Instead of the exact verbal identity of long sentences in the sections outside the Matthasan pentad, there is within it for the most part an extreme divergence from the Lukan parallels. In general it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove from this material any dii-ect acquaintance with the Logia on the part of our Third Evangelist.
5. Conjectural reconstructions of the source. — Lost works have nevertheless been so frequently reconstructed in modern times by process of ex- traction from later documents into which they had been independently incorporated, as to offer a standing challenge in this supreme instance of the Matthaean Logia. If Krawutzky (to cite a single example) could reconstruct the Teaching of the Tioelve from the Apostolic Constitutions and Apostolic Epitome, in advance of its discovery by Bryennios, why should not our First and Third Gospels yield iip out of their common discourse- material the substance of the lost Logia ? There have been thus far but two notable attempts to meet this challenge. Wendt's Lehre Jesu (1886) l)resents in the hrst (untranslated) volume the
LOGIA
LOGOS
49
author's attempted reconstruction from Mt. and Lk. of t.e (Greek) Login of Matthew. Unfortu- nately ii> account is taken of the third factor, Luke's '>|>ecial source,' which certainly afforded much disourse -material not likely to have Ijeen connected with the Matthjean Logia, and may even have ' ont-ined all that Luke shares M"ith Matthew. Eijually u ifortunate was the failure to distinguish the differ nee in point of view between a 'sf/n- tngmn of the Lord's commandments' in which 'order' Diust be topical, and a oiirm<^i% *-o^ef^s such as Lrke's, where the \jyoi are X>yoi r^j x^-f^'"^ (Lk 4--) illustrative of the message of the I>i^-ine wisd<im. Tlie problem must not l»e treated as if a mere question of arithmetic : Elements common to Mt. ard Lk., minu-i- Mk. = the Logia. As a pioneer in the tield, Wendt deserves credit for his work, but a process so simple could not l>e expected to solve 90 complicated a problem. Wendt him- self could find no place for a non-Markan biirnati such as the Centurions Son, Lk 7-->-'=Mt 8^^= Jn 4^^**, T hich could not naturally be c-onnected with the Slatthfean Logia, but falls into place at once when account is taken of its relation to the Lukan context. Wendt's results were not un- justly pronounced ' a heap of interesting ruins, without Ite^.dnning, without conclusion, without connexion' Resch).
A mucli n.ore elalforate and detailed analy-sis is that of .\lfr^ Resch, Die Logia Je-su nach dem qrir/^hischen i nd hcbrdischen Text wiederhergcstdlt, Leipzig, 1898 Hebrew text separately r^ ^•^;•?l T?r : TV'"" Jt"=': "!^; TO. \byia 'Iriuov). Here the attempt is made to rei'ore the original Ajxjstolic source not only in the Greek form assumed to Ije utUized in common by Mt. and Lk., but to retranslate into the Hebrew lyw) 6-*sumed to have been employed by tlie Apostle as th • classical religious language in preference to the -olloquial Aramaic spoken by Jesus Himself. Re^h brings to his task an im- mense amount of lea-ning and patience, especially in the accumidation d all possible (and many im- l>ossible) traces of extn -canonical logia. Unfortu- nately the process is aj.ain vitiated, not only by an extremely indiscriini. ate use of unsifted* ma- terial, but by highly unc-itical assumptions. Of tliese one of the most fatal is that the order of Lk. must be nearest that of the Lijgia because, va Resch's judgment, nearest the histcrical ; while another, \v lierein may be traced the l fluence of B. Weiss, attributes to the Logia the feat -res of a narrative- (io-pel. As will >je apparent froia our criticism of tlie tradition, and criticism of canonical Mt., all the evidence we possess should commend precisely tiip reverse principle. The Apostolic *y/i^fl^«K< of Matthew was not a narrative, and cannot have had a historian's order, and the structure of Mt. and Lk. respectively shows that in the one case the h'lhif-hic, in the other the haggadic, principle was predominant from the tirst. On the other hand, Reschs gathering of the material was indispens- a. le. His renewed consideration of the careful and scmjiulous work of B. Weiss (Maffftdusevan- gelittm, 1876 ; Marlusecaitgdium, 1872) looking toward an Apostolic (?) source utilized in c-ommon by these Gospels, did better justice to another factor not to Ix; neglected, namely, use of the Logia {-'J in Mk. ; and his tracing of the tradition of Mattlnean authorship to a direc-t claim emlxKlied in at least one of the early Palestinian (Jospels {Ev. Xoz. Frg. 6 [Piru-'uh.^ ve rbv Mardcuov}, are contributions of permanent ser\-ice. The exf>eri- ence of Ixjth Wendt and Resch, however, should warn against indiscriminate combination of Mt. and Lk., without regard for the structural evidence of the Gospels as we liave them, or even for the avowed purpose of the Third Evangelist him- self.