The Teaching of Jesus about the Future According to the Synoptic Gospels

The sources for the proposed study of the teaching of Jesus about the future are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These sources seem to bear literary relations to one another. Many attempts have been made to solve the problem presented in these apparent relations. If these sources stand to one another in literary dependence of any degree, a study of their content cannot be made with entire disregard of the implications of such a dependence. Conclusions may not be drawn on the basis of three independent witnesses to the teaching of Jesus, if, as matter of fact, any one of them is dependent upon any other for certain portions of his material. Therefore, it is imperative, as preliminary to any study, that there be a definition of attitude toward the Synoptic Problem.

It is believed that this problem has been solved, in its main features, by Professor Ernest DeWitt Burton in his monograph, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem. The results reached are stated in these terms:

The conclusions to which our whole study has led may then be summarized as follows:

1. Our Mark, or a document in large part identical with it, was employed as a source of both our First and Third Gospels.

2. Matthew and Luke also possessed in common a document which contained substantially the material standing in Luke 3:7-15, 17, 18; 4:2b-13 (14, 15), 16– 30; 5:1-11; 6:20-49; 7:1-8:3; herein referred to as the Galilean document (G).

3. Matthew and Luke also had a document in whole or in part identical with Luke 9:51-18:14 and 19:1-28, which, however, they used in very different ways; herein referred to as the Perean document (P).

4. Matthew also had a document not employed by Luke, chiefly or wholly made up of discourse material. This is presumably the Logia of Matthew spoken of by Papias (M).

5. Additional minor sources there must also have been, the first and third evangelists having, in the main, different ones, as is illustrated in the case of the

1 Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1904.

I

infancy narratives and the almost wholly independent additions to Mark's account in the passion and resurrection history.

6. Thus the sources of Matthew are the Matthaean Logia, Mark, the Galilean document, and the Perean document, besides certain minor sources. In his employment of these sources the first evangelist gave the chief place to Mark and the Matthaean Logia, employing the Galilean document for illustrative purposes, and the Perean document for the enrichment of the discourses the basis of which was found in the Logia or in Mark.

7. Luke has the same chief sources as Matthew, with the exception of the Matthaean Logia. In his use of them he made Mark the basis, interpolated material from the Galilean document, omitting Mark's similar narratives when they seemed to him less full and vivid; added the Perean document in two solid sections, making the junction with Mark in such way that the arrival at Jericho indicated in this document should synchronize with that recorded by Mark.

Each of the two later evangelists pursued a consistent and easily intelligible method in the use of the sources, but each his own method.

$2. THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE DOCUMENTS The documents restored by Professor Burton are set forth on separate sheets accompanying this work, except that of the Gospel of Mark only so much is shown as is needed for illustrative purposes, namely, Mark 1:1-6:44. Such departures, mostly minor, as are made there from the precise documentary limits set by Professor Burton will be dealt with in the course of subsequent discussions. In particular, it may be said here that certain sayings assigned to document M by Professor Burton, brief sayings of an isolated character, are not shown in document M, because they are regarded by the present writer as better placed in the minor sources peculiar to Matthew.'

The general character of the Gospel of Mark is well known. An examination of the portion shown in the accompanying exhibit will reveal that within that portion the chronological indications are scanty; and that the movements of Jesus, apart from general statements as to tours, are not more precisely defined geographically than by the simple assertion of his presence upon, or on either side of, the Sea of Galilee. The single mention of a place away from the sea is in the vague term, "his own country." Used as a source, this portion of Mark imposed no restrictions upon an editor of a gospel because of its chronological or geographical precision.

1 For a discussion of these omitted sayings as a body, see pp. 361-72.

Βιβλία