Similar reasoning, based partly on the phrase- ology (cf. 161^ with 181'*) partly on the subject- matter, connects the rest of Lk 16 (exc. v.i^- 1^) with 18^-" ( 1911-27?). The two companion parables 1019-25 (yy_26-3i seem to be a later addendum) and 18^-1* exemplify the principle laid down in 16i^, while 16i« = Mt lli--" links the whole with Lk T"'"-, The whole group of teachings and parables on worldly conditions is thus seen to liave a common occasion and bearing, a common spirit, and a com- mon point of view not elsewhere shown in the Gospels, but closely resembling the social teaching of James (cf. p-n 21-" 42^- e- lo-. i3f. 51-6),^
(c) A kindred subject having a similar develop- ment in Lk., but otherwise only scantily repre- sented in the Gospels, is that of dependence on the Divine bounty in answer to prayer (Lk lli-i^), which can hardly be dissociated from the com- panion parables (IP-** and 18i-^). The bare and wholly disconnected fragment taken up in Mt T^-" is as inadequate to represent this exquisite group as is Mt 6i'*-3^ if bereft of the jjarables on the Foolish Rich Man and the Shrewd Steward. Once more, it is the Ep. of James that supplies an echo of the sam§ spirit (cf. V"^- " 42f- 513-18).
It is clear that the method here applied may be extended to much of the special discourse-material of Lk., including perhaps some elements of Acts (on Solomon in Xc T^^-so gge Yale Bicentennial Con- tributions, 1901, p. 271 f.). It is sufficent for the present to indicate that a large element of our Third Gospel is thus characterized.
vi. WLSDOM UTTERANCES REPRESENT A SPECIAL
TYPE OF Gospel traditions. — The question of the relation of the Wisdom discourses to the recog- nized Gospel sources is one which inevitably sug- gests itself as soon as the fact is recognized that they are characterized by a peculiar and distinctive point of view. It becomes our duty, accordingly, to trace at least the outline of an answer.
1. Tlie discourse-material of Mt 11-12 falls out- side the pentad characterized by the colophon /cai iyevero fire iriXetrev k.t.X. already discussed in art. LOGIA.
2. Besides being separated by narrative-material from these groups, Mt 11-12 differ from them in the fact of their relation to the narrative, from which
828
WISDOM
WISDOM
they are inseparable, and in the degree of simi- larity in their language to the Lukan parallels. As against the groups of logia which have not, and from their character do not require, a narrative setting, the discourse of Mt 11 not only relates the coming of the Baptist's discii^les, but presupposes an account of Jesus' works of healing, and even requires us to supjjose the reader somewhere in- formed of what had given rise to the taunt ' Be- hold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.' The same applies to the discourse in defence of Jesus' exorcism ' by the Spirit of God.' This indispensable narrative- element is always supplied more fully and in better connexion by Lk., in some cases by Lk. alone (Lk 1V«- 12i3-"-').
3. The similarity of language to the Lukan parallels is here very exceptional, reaching the degree of verbal identity for whole sentences, and positively requiring the use of the same written Greek source.
i. This marked difference in the degree of re- semblance serves to connect other non - Markan elements of Mt., such as 3^-4" 8^''^- ^^"^^ which are again found to fall outside the Matthrean pentad, to differ in content and point of view from the Logian source, and to be at once more complete and for the most part more authentic in detail in Luke than in Matthew. Linguistic peculiarities in several instances prove the dependence of Mt. in these portions. Thus 'lepovaaXri/m is used by Lk. 68 times against 3 (5 ?) employments of 'lepoaoXv/xa. The latter form on the contrary is invariably em- ployed in Mt., Mk., and Jn., except thrice in Mt 23^^ = Lk 13^^. ^aaiXeia rod 6eov is systematically changed by Mt. to tQv ovpavQv. There are but four exceptions: Mt IQ^^ ( = Mk W^) and 1228 2pi-43 (of. Lk 729 IPO).
vii. Relation to nakrative - elements of Synoptic tradition. — Although our First and to a less extent our Third Evangelist both derive the main framework of their narrative from our Second, this Second itself is not wanting in evi- dences of dependence on the source to which we have traced the Wisdom chapters of Mt. and Luke.
1. This relation appears in the description of the Baptist as Elias (Mk P- s- e ; * cf. Lk T^"- ^3, Mt 11", 2K P); of the Temptation (Mk P^, the dyyeXoi and Orjpia coming from Ps 9P^"^^ quoted in Lk 41"*-) ; of Jesus as ' eating and drinking ' while the disciples of the Baptist were fasting, and as • a friend of publicans and sinners' (Mk 2^8-22. 13-17 . cf. Lk 7^^'") ; of the blasphemy of the scribes (Mk 322-35; cf Lk ll"-2«), and perhaps of the Trans- figuration (Mk 92-13 ; cf. Lk 928-36). In all these passages of Mk. and in other loosely connected material (Q^s-^o^Lk 9^^^- 12"-« = Lk 21i-^) the con- text of Lk. gives more or less conclusive evidence of priority. It is but reasonable to suppose that other Markan narratives such as 6'-^ may also have been derived hence, though the present Lukan form has been affected by Mk.