cheenc03a.pdf

~ -
SON OF MAN
hnr the greatest number of interpolations, while fu inferior
p1ss are relatively frcr fro," rdditianr to the tert (see Schmidt,
Ecclerivricui' in ?i,ii$/e Biillr).
The evidence of later expansions of MI., most clearly
presented by Hilgenfeld, ir constantly increasing, and
new indications of similar accretions to the original Lk.
already sllggested by Marcion's gospel, are forthcoming.
The assumption that Mk.'s conception of Jesus' attitude
to the Messiahship was different from that of MI. and
Lk. and more historical can scarcely maintain itself
after Wrede's criticism. As the prejudice in favour of
Mk., bared on a shorter tert and a supposed correcter
view of Jesus' career, is removed, and the different
versions of each saying are compred and tested in their
presumable Aranraic forn,, an impartial survey of the
facts will show at once how far ail the synoptics are
from reflecting accurately the words of Jeiur without
losing touch altogether with the oldest tradition, and in
what sense the earliest testimonv ar to the succession of
these gospels, representing the order as Mt.. Mk., and
Lk., is to be accepted. It wili then be seen that there
are ~ariaees . - in Mt, and Lk.. not found in Mk.. thvt
may go back to original sayings of Jesus: that the
only parrage found in Mk. and Ii., but not in Mt..
cannot be regarded as authentir; that there is no
genuine saying preserved in Lk. thvt ir not also found
in Mt. ; that there are passages in Mk, as well as in
Mf. and Lk. that are clearly of very late origin ; and
that there are pwsages in Mk, as well as in Mt. and
Lk. in which the phrase may go back to an original
bar-n=E even after the episode at Czsarea Philippi.
r.. n .I .=,.I.
!\pr, .. L,. >I, .,-r,. *>.ey,- .,# t. er
:lr .. . ' ... 8.
:,.I,:; " I , .,,.k.$. !.,.. a *.' .I Id% .I, >tc ,. Zh.1. ,. .;
:I,< itr:: v 14r3...t ,>... ,,-5ch. $31/
In viewof this indispensableliterary criticism, it is ofno
small impurlance that it is uonrible bv turnine the Greek
I*. I
38,
".",I" \r.r,,.,