« AnteriorContinuar »
Man is constantly used; but we never find the title “Son of God.” The period of this change is very definitely stated in the Acts. Stephen speaks of the Son of Man on the right hand of God. But after the conversion of Saul in 37 A.D., we read for the first time, “he preached Christ in the synagogues that he is Son of God.” After that Peter continued, certainly till 40, to use his earlier expression of Jesus Christ of Nazareth (iii 6, iv 10, x 36 and 38). Hence the use of the title of “Son of God” marks the Diaspora period (A.D. 40 and onward), and had scarcely arisen in the Jerusalem period (A.D. 30 to 40).
In Matthew the “kingdom of heaven" is the usual term; whereas it is never found in Mark or Luke (nor in the later books), the term being there always the “kingdom of God." The only instance of the term “kingdom of God” in the Nucleus is in Matt. xix 24; there it is in a verse which is a repetition of the previous verse 23, where the kingdom of heaven is named. It is probable that this repetition is a parallel version, using the simile of the camel and the eye of a needle, which has been introduced from the margin. The “king
dom of heaven” is therefore the original expression throughout.
The term "gospel,” euangelion, is a late one, not found before 53 A.D. It was freely used by Matthew and Mark, but never by Luke, and only twice in the Acts. On the other hand, the verb evangelise is commonly used by Luke and in the Acts, but never in Mark, and only once in Matthew. Such a usage strongly shews the common origin of Luke's gospel and Acts.
20. The Latest Additions.
The fifth class is of scattered sayings which are never in the same order in different gospels; and the sixth class is of sayings and episodes which only occur in one gospel. These classes are almost entirely in Matthew and Luke, and are the accretions which were added after the gospels had finally parted company. Naturally, much of these editions was of early material which had not yet been incorporated. But some passages seem by their subject to reflect the interests of the Diaspora and Gentile periods.
In Matthew the later passages seem to be
the genealogy (of Jewish interest) and the first chapter. Also iv 23-5, viii 28-34 (“thou Son of God”), xi 25-27, xvii 24-27, xxi 28-32, the disobedient son, xxii 1-14 (the wedding guest) the fate of Judas and the field of blood "unto this day,” in xxvii 3-10, and the Pilate episodes, xxvii 19, 24-5, 62-6, and xxviii 2-4, 11-18. Lastly, the Herod narrative in chapter ii seems late, and might well have been added owing to Nero's persecution.
Turning to Luke, a large mass of his gathering seems to be quite of the early period, but we can perhaps see the interests of the Diaspora and Gentiles in other passages. Such are the praise of the Samaritan (x 2537); Martha cumbered about much serving, reflecting on ceremonialism; and the address to the daughters of Jerusalem. Of the Gentile period may be the insertion of the episode iv 16-30, with the bitter remark that Elijah was sent to Sarepta, a city of Sidon, and none were cleansed but Naaman the Syrian. The whole of chapters i and ii and the genealogy seem to be late in interest, from the importance of Mary and the long canticles. The Pilate and Herod passage, xxiii 4-15, seems also to be later than the general narration in which it is inserted.
On looking at the localisation of the scattered sayings, it is seen that later documents were used than those of the Nucleus. As we have noted, the Nucleus names no localities in the north, but only Galilee in general, while the two-gospel additions bring in Galilean detail. In the scattered episodes in Matthew are Decapolis, Capernaum, Nazareth, Bethlehem, and the name Gergesenes or Gerasenes, otherwise Gadarenes in Mark and Luke. The carelessness of the Jerusalem compiler about Galilee is shewn by substituting “a certain ruler" for Jairus.
In Luke there are many Galilean names. One point shews that Luke collected his new material himself in visiting Galilee, and did not only use local documents which were brought from there. In an episode which he alone inserts (iv 28-9) “they in the synagogue thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built.” The description was written by one who describes a place which he has seen but not lived in; the city is strange
“their city”—and the position was remarkable and not familiar. A similar point is that Matthew and Mark, writing at Jerusalem, say “the Sea of Galilee,” which no one in Galilee would call it. But Luke, collecting narrative in Galilee, uses the local name, “Sea of Gennesaret,” which distinguished it from the other Galilean lake of Merom. We also find named by Luke, Nazareth, Capernaum, Nain, and the persons Mary of Magdala, Joanna wife of Chuza, Susanna, and Zacchaeus. These names bear out his having collected material apart from
the self-centred Church of Jerusalem. And this accords with his statement that he collected material from those who “from the beginning were eye-witnesses -that is, from the early preaching in Galilee.
now summarise the general position which we have reached in this enquiry.
The common use of writing among the lower classes in Roman times, and also the presence of a professional scribe among the