observed the order of the collection of Dieooursee if he bad known of euoh a oollection. § 7. So far the examination of the theory that a. oolleotion of Discourses existed before the writing of the First Goepel ha.a proved only negative. There are, however, two reasons in favour of such a theory. (l) It seems much more probable tha.t a. collection would be made by one who wa.e ma.king it hie special aim, than that a. writer should take the Framework and pick out pieces that properly belonged to it and make them into discourses, In other words, it seems easier to suppose the Discourses to be the work of one who was only a collector of the Lord's say- ings tha.n of one who used, at the same time and for the same writing, the narratives of incidents, etc., to present a picture of the Lord's work. (2) But not only so. The presence in the First Gospel of "dou blete," i.e. of repetitions of the same sayings in different forms and connexions, may most easily be explained by the evangelist using different sources.1 For it is more natural to suppose the second member of a. doublet to have already existed before the author of the First Gospel wrote, and that he did not mind incorporating it (if he perceived that it was a doublet) with the rest of the material drawn from tha.t source, than that he should delibera.t.ely give the saying once in its original context and, himself taking it oKt of that wntea:t, record it a second time. Doublets may easily come by unconscious accretion, or one member may be recorded out of its original context merely for the sake of its didactic connexion with that context, but one cannot imagine an author deliberately giving one member in its original and another (the duplicate) in its didactic context, unless he already found the la.tt.er in the second source that he was using.9 In spite, therefore, of the absence of all external evidence, and_ in spite of the purely negative evidence both of style and language, and of the order of the sayings found in the Third Gospel, it seems probable, both a priori and on account of the presence of doublets, that the writer of the First Gospel found ready to his hand some such collection of the Lord's sayings as are represented by the Discourses that he records. § 8. Of the third constituent part there is but little to be said in this connexion. The matter, which is of the same general character as that contained in the Framework, may have originally belonged to this, but the genealogy must, one would suppose, have been derived from Mary's house- hold. From the ea.me quarter-perhaps personally from Mary herself, or 1 Thus the saying a.bout divorce in eh. v. 32 recurs in eh. ili. 9; tha.t a.bout taking up
one's croBB in eh. x. 38, in eh. xvi. 24; that about the sign of Jonah in eh. xii 89, in eh. xvi 4; tha.t about more being given to him that bath in eh. xiii. 12, in eh. uv. 29. • If it be argued tha.t some doubletB occur even in the same source (e.g. the saying about offences in eh. v. 29, 80 recurs in eh. xviii 8, 9; "He that receiveth me," etc., in eh. x. 40, perhaps in eh. xvili. 5; the aeries of sayings about persecution in eh. x. 17-22, in eh. uiv. 9-14), and that the inference drawn above is therefore unsound, the answer id that the fresh facts ouly show tha.t the aource in which these doublets occur is itself of composite origin. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BT. MATTHEW. ill
perhaps from our Lord's brethren, who obtained it from Joseph-must have oome both the aooount of the birth and the materials for the second chapter. But it is to be noticed that the references to the Old Testament in the,,i two sections 1 point rather to growth in a community than representation by me person. They would appear, that is to say, to be rather the result of Ohuroh consideration and teaching than of individual insight. The other details referred to under§ 3 c may be due partly to current teaching, partly to personal knowledge, and, where interpretation and standpoint are considered, partly to subjective impressions and aims. § 9. But the question must. have already suggested itself whether these various sources existed in documentary or only in oral form. If we were considering the case of modern Western nations there would be no doubt whatever as to the answer. 'l'he invention of printing and the spread of elementary education have increased the culture of all arts except that of recitation. Hence with us the training of the memory does not consist so much in committing long passages to heart as in amassing details of knowledge-regardless of the exact words in which the information is con- veyed-and in so cerordinating them in our minds as to be able to grasp their relative significance and to apply them when they are required. But in the East, to a great extent even to the pres13nt day, the system is dif- ferent. " Education . . . still consists largely in learning by heart the maxims of the wise. The teacher site on a chair, the pupils arrange them- selves at hie feet. He dictates a lesson, they copy it on their elates and repeat it till they have mastered it. Then the task is over, the slates are cleaned and put by for future use. Substitute for the elates and pencils a writing-tablet and stylus, and you will have a scene which must have been oommon in the days of the apostles. The teacher is a catechist, the pupils catechumens, the lesson a section of the oral gospel." 1 Further, while too much stress (see Strack's' Einleitung in den Thalmud,' p. 39, sqq.) has often been laid on the rabbinic principle, "Commit nothing to writing," 8 yet the principle may probably be rightly used to show that the tendency of the Jews in apoetolio times was to teach orally rather than by books, and we may accept Mr. Wright'e vivid picture as accurately describing what was usually done. But other considerations of greater importance point the sam.e way. The hope of the speedy return of the Lord would not, indeed, prevent the taking of written notes of oral instructions, had that been the custom, but would certainly tend to prevent the formal composition of written accounts of him; and, most important of all, the relation of the different forms of the narratives preserved to us in the synoptic Gospels seems to require 1 Oompu.re further, § 12.
• A. Wright, • The Oomposition of the Four Gospels,' 1890, p. 1. Observe Mr. Wright'a opinion thu.t the oral instruction we,s given, not by publio preaching and teu.ching, but after Uie mu.nner of school instruction. • Jost, • Gesohiohte des Judonthuma und seiner Soclen,' i. 367. For reft'. aee Stnt.ok, loo. uit.; u.nd comp. Levy, • N euhebr. und Chald. Wi:irterbuch,' ii. 434. X INTRODUCTION TO