798 (2) After a break in which (Mk. intervening) Blatthew mid Luke have no more than a general ngreciiieiit with M-ark and one another, we come to another passage doscrihin«r thc purifyiiirr of the threshing-lloor with fire unquenchable (Matt. iii. 12 ; Lu.°iii. l7) ; the two awree rcrbalim. (3) Mat. v., iii, vii.; Lu. vi. Here are some scattered sayings of the Sermon on the Mount, such as, “Blessed are the poor," " the liun<*ry," &c. In these the aoreenieut is not 1-crbalim. The only passage that agrees almost t‘Crbgli1)l is that about the mote and the beam. (4) Mat. xii. 35 ; Lu. vi. 45. “ The good niau out of the good treasure of his heart " &c. nearly -verbatim but curiously traiis- posed to suit the ditliiring cbutext. , _ (5) Mat. xi. 2-11 ; Lu. vii. 19-28. Joliu the Baptist sends two of his disciples to say, “Art thou He that is to come?” With the exception that Luke ((1) introduces some eurcs yvrouglit by our Lord, for the special _purpose of c0ll'lllClllg'J0ll’Ils disciples, and (b) avoid: ripetitioii of El/1[.Lfl7aK0l$‘ l[.l.a‘TL0lS‘ thy ‘using éu Ina-no7.L4i‘ v (p us passatre s iows an aurecinen a inos v.-crbatim. , O D (6) Mat. xi. 16-19 ; Lu. vii. 31-35. “l'c have piped unto you, and ye have not danced,” Sac. alinost zrrbatim. except that Matthew has e’x6ipaa'6e, L11kc o:3x)¢ii’:a-a-re. , (7) Mat. (ta) ix. 37, 38, and (b) x. 16; Lu. (a) x. 2, and (b) x. 3. (a) “ The hargest tpuly is great," &c. ; (lb) “ I send you as sheep ainong wolves. T ie arrrcemciit, thoucr i not rcrbatim, is considerable. But note (a) thact Matthew takes the prayer for the increase of the labourers, as a preface to the choice of the twelve, while Luke places it after the choice of the twelve, and uses it as a preface to the choice of the seventy, an incident which he alone records; (b) Luke applies to the seventy the 'ariiing against danger which Matthew applies to the twelve. (8) lllat. xi. 21-25 ; Lu. x. 12-15. “ Voe unto thee, Choraziii ;" almost verbatim, except that where Matthew has xa-raB7’;o'ei, “ thou shalt come down," Luke has (if the. reading be correct) xa-ra- BiBaa'91’7o'ei, “ thou shalt be brouoht down. " (9) In Matthew no interval occiiirs between the last and the fol- lowing passage; but in Luke intervenes (x. 17-20) the return of the seventy, and a mention of a vision in which Satan was seen fallino from heaven together with the iniparting of a power to treadim serpents (coinpare the late appendix to lIark’s Gospel, xvi. 18); then couics Mat. xi. 25-28; l;u. x. 21-22, _“I thank _th_ee, F athcr, Lord of heaven and earth, &c. There is but a trilhng exception to the agreement. Iote also that Luke apparently con- siders the two sayinos which are continuous in Matthew to lia.ve been discontinuous, Cior between vers. 21 and 22 he inserts (so Lachmann, Tiscliendorf, and Tregelles) “and turning to Ilis disciples, He said.” (10) Mat. xiii. 16, 17; Lu. x. 23, 24. “ Blessed are the eyes,” &c.; here, avain Luke inserts his usual note of a discontinuous saying by inseliiting “and turning to His disciples, He said privately." Matthew s’7re61’z,i.u1o'au, Luke 1’16e') a'au; Matthew Siicaioi, Luke Ba¢n)ei‘s. Otherwise verbatim. (11) Mat. vi. 10-13 ; Lu. xi. 2-4. The Lord's Prayer. llcrc, where (if anywhere) we should expect identity, there is consider- able difference. Luke, after rldrep, emits (a) 7‘;;.u'.‘w 6 e’u -rofs obpavois, and (b) -yevnflirrw 7b 9s'),1.Lct o’ou, dis‘ iv obpavfi Kai érrl 7735' -yfis. Further, Luke substitutes (c) 6i’8ou for 863 ; (d) 72) me’ 7'1;.Le'paV for ufipspov; (e) -r¢‘zs &,uap-rias for 76:. 5¢ei)')/.La-ra; (f) dxpiopeu for &<p7'ma,u.ev; (g) mitt-ri 743 bzpebxou-ri for -roTs 6¢pei)s'-rats 1'm¢Iw ; and he also (It) omits the clause &A)& fifivai 7‘;/.4229 ciurb 703 7TOV71p03. If any words of the Lord have been handed down by oral tradi- ‘ It is noteworthy that, whereas Matthew explains “ poor’ or “hungry " spiritually, “Blessed are the poor ins1u'ri't; . . . Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after ri'_r/hteous:2css,” Luke, on the other hand, gives these sayings without Matthew’s explanations, “ Blessed are ye poor; blessed are ye that hunger now.” lt is pos-
- ~ll)lC that Luke lays greater stress than any of the other evangelists
on the sin of covetousness (see the parables of Lazarus and Dives, the “ rich fool," the narrative of the “ would-be heir," &e. ; and note also the evident gratification with which the author of this Gospel records in the Acts (iv. 32) the communism of the early ehurch in Jerusalem) ; and this might predispose us to attribute Luke's rejection of the spiritual modification of these words to doctrinal grounds. But it must be borne in mind that the tendency in the history of the Gospels is everywhere to accretion and addition, rather than to rejection, so that shorter forms are generally more likely to be genuine than longer forms. .Ioreover, elsewhere Luke (xiv. 26) retains a stronger form -if the words of Jesus, “ If any man hale not his father and mother,” while Matthew (x. 37) has a weaker one. On the whole, thciefnre, it is more probable that Luke, in omitting the words, “ after righte- ousness,” &c., represents the letter of the original words of Jesus more closely than Matthew (as perhaps also in the Lord's Prayer, see below), however much the latter may better repre.<ent the spirit of them. ‘IOSPELS [SYNO1’TICAI.. tion, the Lord's l’ra_vcr would seem necessarily to have been thus liaiided down, and from the earliest times. Internal evidence also leaves little doubt that here oral tradition, and not a docu- ment, is the origin, ainl that Luke represents the original most closely in his omissions, though not in his changes. If the Lord’s Prayer had been early committed to writing, and had contained Matthcw’s additional clauses, it is inconceivable that Luke should have omitted them. The same tendein-y which led a later generation to insert (and us in modern times to rctaiii) the iiiterprctatioii, “ For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory," &e., would no doubt in the earliest times favour the iiiser- tion, i'atlicr than the rejection, of any appropriate clauses that had once gained afootiiig in the prayer. The abruptiicss of the simple not-rep, which is distasteful to us, as implying too great f;iiiiili:ii'it_'. would naturally commend to the early church Mattliew’s (:1) inscr- tion. .iatthew’s second insertion (b) is no less natural. It, or some- thing mucli like it, is found in 1 Mae. iii. 60, " 'li:itsncvcr be llis will in heaven, so let llini (or will lie) do" (Eu; 6' liw 17 6e’Anna Eu oi)pcw(,3, oii-rws -rrou'7a-ei) ; moreover, Luke hinisclf assigiis ’('l‘_' siiuilar words to our Lord lliniself, xxii. 42 (,u.')] -rb 6é) ,u¢i you &A)& 72) crbu -ywéaow), and to the friends of St Paul (Acts xxi. 1-1). The fact that o1ir Lord l-linisclf used this player may have seemed suflieicnt cause in the earliest times, and especially to Matthew, who is in the habit of massing together doctrine of a eertaiii kind, as in the Sermon on the Mount, for inserting it in the Lord's Prayer. (c) L1ikc's change of the aor. inipcrativc into a present ini- plies a desire to represent a continuous and not an isolated action; and (d) the change of a-7’7,uepou into me’ -r‘;,ue’p¢w is explieablc by the saiiie motive. 'J.‘lie word €7rio1'2o'tos‘, coninion both to Mattlicw and Luke,aiid not found elsewhere in the vliolc of Greek literature, seems to indicate that a Greek tradition, and not an Arainaic. tradition, of this prayer, was the basis of both Matthew’s and Luke’s version. It is probably derived from 7‘; e'7rtoi}o'a (l’i‘ov. xxvii. 1, ob yap oifias Tl -rége-rai 7‘; 3-rrioDo'a (D'l‘), “ Thou kiiowcst not what the day will bring ”), and, probably (though this is disputed), ineans “ for tln- immediate future, the 'i'71.s'l(mt.”1 This meaning is consistent both with Matthcw’s 0'7,}[.l.Ep0V and with Luke's -rb Kat?’ 7‘i,us’pow. Luke's- next three changes, (d), (c), and (f), substitute the lllol‘(' intelligible word “sin” for the less intelligible “ debt," ainl the more intelligible present “ we forgive" for the less intelligible past “ we forgave ;" and increase the emphasis by adding “every one (that is our debtor).” hi all these cases Matthc-w’s seelns to be the earlier form ; for it is more likely that the coniparatively dillieult version of Matthew should have been altered into the comparatively easy version of Luke than rice rcrsa. Besides, the retention of the metaphorical 54>ei’7ou-rt by Luke, in the second clause, iiidieatcs that the metaphor of “ debt,” appeared in the original (3/). Mattliew’s insertion of the clause “ deliver us from the evil ” Jllil_' naturally have arisen from the reluctance to end a prayer with a negative petition, “lead us not into temptation.” The lllS('l’tt'll clause 1'escinbles many passages in the Psalms (xvii. 49, LXX. ; A.'. xviii. 48, &.-irb ciwbpbs &6i'xou fibay its), a.iid early coniinended itself to the church (2 Tim. iv. 18). ln any case, there is no reason wli_v Luke should omit such a clause, if it were known to him; and there are -many reasons why such a clause should be iiitrodueed (even though it were not in the original), and why, when introduced, it should be speedily accepted. 'l‘o sum up the infeicnccs froiii this most important passage: the variations (and the nature of tin- passage) indicate a source oral and not documentary, G reek and not Aramaic; Matthew appears to have massed together a iuiinber of prayers taught by, or perhaps used by, the Lord Jesus, while Luke seems to have adhered to an earlier form, which, however, has received late inodilication for the purposes of daily use. 'l‘hough, however, we may follow Luke here, as more closely approxiinating to the original form of the prayer, it does not result that on this account we must commit ourselves to the statement that the Lord's Prayer was actually given at the exact time, and in the exact manner, which Luke describes. Just as Matthew supplies grouping, so Luke supplies motives and occasions. Often it may be more probable that the grouping and continuity of Matthew may be closer to the historical fact than the attempt at orderly ariaiigeiiieiit. and at assignment of motive and cause and time, which Cll{ll':lCi'.'l'l7.('.~ Luke. lnstaiices of this will be given hereafter. (12) Mat. vii. 7-12 ; Lu. xi. 34-36. “ Ask, and it shall be given unto you," &c. Luke prcfaccs this by a parable peculiar to hini— self, and of a peculiar type,—-tlie argument being that if an indolent man grants requests, influenced by mere iinportiinity, much more will the perfectly good God listen to (‘:1l‘ll(‘Sl3 prayer. There is no reason, in the style or thought of this and similar parables, for supposing that we have the exact words of Jesus. Luke inserts in the part common to him and Matthew a clause about an “egg and scorpion ;” and where Mattliew has “good 1.’l‘hcrc appears to he a reference to the manna which (Exod. xvi. 4) the people of Israel were to gather from day to day. So Philc, Alley/., iii. 57, “ Let the soul therefore collect the food of the day for
tlie day (-rb -rfis 7'7p.s'pas sis -77,u.s'p¢w)."