the Week of Proper 28 / Ordinary 33
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Dictionaries
Winter
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or WINTER (χειμών, Matthew 24:20, Mark 13:18, John 10:22).—This is the time of cold and rain-storms. The modern Arab, name, esh-shitta’, means literally ‘the rain.’ It is the season in which the rain supply of the year falls; it lasts roughly for seven months, from October till April inclusive, thus including the part of the year which we call spring (see Summer). While in the deeper parts of the Jordan Valley it is never very cold, the raw air breeds many discomforts in the rainy season. On the higher lands, however, the cold is often intense, snow lying at times—e.g. in Jerusalem—to a depth of some inches. The rain moistens the soil, hard baked by the summer sun. In a land where the science of road-making is practically unknown, the paths go swiftly to mud, so that travel in winter is always toilsome, and not seldom perilous.
W. Ewing.
WISDOM
i. Use of the conception in Biblical history and literature.
A. As applied to a school of thought.
1. The ‘wise men.’
2. Their writings.
B. As applied to the Spirit of God.
1. Jewish hypostatization.
2. Christological development.
A. ii. NT use of the word σοφια.
1. In the Gospels.
2. In the Pauline Epistles.
3. In the Ep. of James and elsewhere.
iii. Use of word and concept in the discourses of Jesus.
1. In comparisons of His message with the Baptist’s.
2. To rebuke blasphemy against His work.
iv. Matthaean connexions of the two groups of sayings.
1. Wisdom sayings of Matthew 11.
2. Wisdom sayings of Matthew 12.
v. Lukan connexions of the two groups.
1. Luke 11:49-51 a Wisdom utterance.
2. Relation to context of Luke 7 = Matthew 11.
3. Connected discourse-elements of Lk.-Acts.
(a) Luke 12:13-34.
(b) Luke 16; Luke 18:9-14.
(c) Luke 11:1-13; Luke 18:1-8.
vi. The Wisdom utterances represent a special type of Gospel tradition.
1. Independent of Matthaean Logia.
2. Inseparable from narrative.
3. Employed in common Greek form by Mt. and Luke.
4. More fully and authentically present in Luke.
vii. Relation of this to narrative-elements of Synoptic tradition.
1. Dependence of Mark.
2. Relation to peculiar narrative-element of Luke.
viii. Conclusions as to proto-Lukan source.
B. ix. Wisdom speculation in the development of Christology.
1. The Wisdom doctrine of St. Paul as related—
(a) to (Jewish) Stoicism.
(b) to Apocalyptics.
(c) to Mystery-religion.
2. The Johannine and Patristic Christology.
(a) Substitution of Greek terminology (Logos for Wisdom).
(b) Standpoint of the Fourth Evangelist.
(c) The Wisdom utterance Matthew 11:25-30 the link between Synoptic and Johannine Christology.
Literature.
i. The Biblical conception.—In Biblical language the term ‘wisdom’ (OT חִכְמָה hokhmâh, LXX Septuagint and NT σοφία, rarely φρόνησις (Luke 1:17, Ephesians 1:8), or σύνεσις (Luke 2:47, Ephesians 3:4), is applied (A) to a human, (B) to a Divine attribute.
A. Under the former head is included.—1. The type of thought illustrated in the school of religio-philosophical thinkers contemporary with and later than the prophets, rivalled and ultimately displaced by the scribes. Thus the designation of Matthew 23:34, ‘prophets and wise men and scribes,’ is seen to be Historically correct, as against the modified form of Luke 11:49 (‘prophets and apostles’; cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:15, Ephesians 2:20 etc.), the representatives of these schools of Jewish thought being regarded as commissioned by and endowed with the Divine Spirit. 2. In a derived sense the writings of these inspired men (ἡ πανάρετος σοφία, applied by Hegesippus and Palestinian writers generally to the group Pr.-Wisd. of Sol.; see Eus. Historia Ecclesiastica iv. xxii. 8, ‘Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers’ [ed. Schaff-Wace], with note by McGiffert), regarded as utterances of the Spirit of God: ‘the Wisdom of God saith’ (Luke 11:49) = ‘the Holy Ghost saith’ (Hebrews 3:7) = ‘the Spirit (of apocalyptic prophecy) saith’ (1 Timothy 4:1, perhaps referring to Jannes and Jambres, 2 Timothy 3:8).
B. The designation ‘Wisdom of God,’ or simply ‘Wisdom,’ is sometimes applied to the Spirit of God as manifest in creation and redemption, in the illumination of the mind and regeneration of the soul.
1. In the Hokhmâh, or Wisdom literature, this is the habitual designation of the Divine Spirit, especially conceived as manifesting the redeeming love of God, which goes forth to seek and save the erring (Wisdom of Solomon 1:6; Wisdom of Solomon 7:22-28). Personification of Wisdom (Job 28, Proverbs 8), under the later speculative influence of Stoic metaphysics, passes imperceptibly into hypostatization and a Logos-doctrine, cosmological as well as soteriological (Wisdom=the Metathron, Wisdom of Solomon 9:4; Wisdom of Solomon 9:10; cf. Sirach 24, Wisdom of Solomon 7:24 f). In Philo the terms ‘Wisdom’ and ‘Logos’ are practically equivalent, the Stoic term naturally tending among Greek readers to displace the Hebrew. Contemporaneously, under the mythologizing influence exerted through apocalyptic literature, the redemptive mission of Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon 9:17 f.) develops into an unmistakable avatar doctrine, wherein Wisdom becomes incarnate, and dwells among men (Baruch 3:37, cf. Oxyrh. Frgts. Log. iii.), or even descends to the underworld to ‘visit all that sleep, and shine upon all that hope in the Lord’ (Sirach 24:32 Lat.; cf. pseudo-Isaiah, ap. Iren. Hœr. iii. xx. 4, and Ephesians 5:14). Rejected by men, she ascends again to her seat in heaven (Enoch xlii. 1),* [Note: The note of R. H. Charles on this passage of Enoch is too significant to be omitted: ‘The praise of wisdom was a favourite theme. Wisdom was regarded as having her dwelling-place in heaven (lxxxiv. 3, Job 28:12-14; Job 28:20-24, Baruch 3:29, Sirach 24:4), and as coming to earth and desiring to make her abode with men Proverbs 1:20 ff., Proverbs 1:8 ff., Proverbs 9:1-10, Sirach 24:7; but as men refused to receive her (cf. xciv. 5), she returned to heaven. But in the Messianic times she will return, and will be poured out as water in abundance, xlix. 1, and the thirsty will drink to the full of wisdom, xlvii. 1; she will be bestowed on the elect, v. 8, xci. 10; cf. Apoc. Bar. xliv. 14, 4 Ezra 8:62; and the spirit of wisdom will abide in the Messiah, the Elect One, xlix. 3.’ What is here said of the outpouring of the spirit of wisdom is parallel to Acts 2:16 ff. of the spirit of prophecy (cf. Numbers 11:29) and to the agraphon: ‘Et factum est cum ascendisset dominus de aqua, descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti, et requievit super eum,’ etc.] whence she returns to be poured out upon the elect in the Messianic age (xlix. 1). The mythologizing tendency was strongly reacted against by the scribes, especially in the period of Akiba, during the rivalry of Synagogue and Church in Palestine (a.d. 70–135). On the Jewish side, from this time forward, all personifications of the Divine Wisdom were rigidly restricted in their application to the Mosaic Torah (Sirach 24:23-27, Baruch 4:1, Pirke Aboth, iii. 14, vi. 10). We even find later readings in Jewish texts altering hokhmâh to tôrâh (σοφία to νόμος). In general, after the schism of the Nazarenes, speculative thought (doctrine of the Merkabah) is rigorously suppressed.
2. On the Christian side Wisdom speculation continued to develop in both the cosmological and the soteriological directions, with the Pauline Epistles as a basis. In the Johannine literature the Greek term ‘Logos’ is adopted, though the Wisdom doctrine itself continues Hebrew; but in the 2nd cent. Fathers, as in Philo, ‘Wisdom’ and ‘Logos’ are interchangeable and equivalent. Both designate the Spirit of God incarnate in Christ. The influence of mystery myths, already traceable in pre-Christian apocalypse, becomes more pronounced, Gnostic speculations becoming completely mythological. In these Wisdom (ἡ Σοφία, or Achamoth = hokhmâh) is the feminine or passive principle in the scheme of redemption, Σωτήρ the active. The present discussion will confine itself to the NT use of the two conceptions of wisdom: (A) as the inspired message of God through the ‘wise men’ (hăkhâmîm); (B) as the Divine Spirit itself, resident in Jesus, and manifested in His life as well as in His teaching. For the history of Wisdom as the Hebrew philosophy, and as a hypostasis equivalent to the Stoic Logos, the reader is referred to the artt. ‘Wisdom,’ ‘Wisdom Literature,’ ‘Wisdom, Book of,’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible and in the Encyc. Biblica.
ii. NT use.—1. A study of the use of the word σοφία, and its cognates in the Gospels, shows it to be, in some sense, distinctive of the Lukan writings, in which Jesus’ teaching is presented primarily under this aspect of ‘wisdom of God,’ many examples having the characteristic forms of the Hokhmâh (Wisdom) literature (see Briggs, Expos. Times, viii., ix. [1897–98] four articles on ‘The Wisdom of Jesus the Messiah’). The characteristic strophic form is apparent also in some discourse-material found only in Mt. (e.g. Matthew 5:21 f., Matthew 5:27 f., Matthew 5:31 f., Matthew 5:33 f., Matthew 5:38 f., Matthew 6:2-6; Matthew 6:16-18), but is disarranged by additions in the canonical form of this Gospel. The word σοφία occurs but once in Mk. (Mark 6:2 = Matthew 13:54), and is applied, as in Luke 2:40; Luke 2:52 and the series cited below, to Jesus’ endowment with the Spirit. It occurs twice in Mt. (Matthew 11:19; Matthew 12:42), both occurrences being in passages verbally identical with Lk., and in a less original form. In Lk.-Acts it occurs 10 times; but the Lukan use is specially noteworthy, because endowment with the Spirit of God is here habitually spoken of, whether in the case of Jesus, of His forerunners, or of His successors, as the χάρισμα of ‘wisdom.’ So of Jesus (Luke 2:40; Luke 2:52; cf. Luke 2:47 σύνεσις and Luke 4:22 λόγοι χάριτος), of the endowment of the Twelve with the Spirit (Luke 21:15), of the Seven (Acts 6:3), of Stephen (Acts 6:10), of Joseph (Acts 7:10), of Moses (Acts 7:22). In the Fourth Gospel the conception of the endowment of Jesus with the spirit of wisdom is supplanted by that of an incarnation of the Logos. The word σοφία and its cognates are wholly wanting.
2. With this Gospel use should be compared that of the NT elsewhere. In the Pauline Epistles the word occurs 16 times in the passage 1 Corinthians 1:17 to 1 Corinthians 3:19, wherein St. Paul contrasts ‘the wisdom of God,’ which endows those who ‘have the mind of Christ’ with ‘the wisdom of this world’; and 9 times in the twin Epistles (Eph.-Col.), written to oppose a ‘philosophy and vain deceit’ (Ephesians 4:14 ‘wiles of error’) by means of the Divine gift of ‘a spirit of wisdom and understanding in the mystery of the Divine will.’ It is used by St. Paul in but three other instances, two of which (1 Corinthians 12:8, 2 Corinthians 1:12) are directly related to the group first mentioned, while the third occurs in the doxology Romans 11:33. The χάρισμα of wisdom claimed by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 1:17 to 1 Corinthians 2:16, Ephesians 3:3-11, cf. 1 Corinthians 12:8) is conceded to his letters in 2 Peter 3:15.
3. The only other NT employments of the word, or of the connected-group of ideas, are in James and the Apocalypse. In James 1:5; James 3:13; James 3:15; James 3:17 ‘wisdom’ is more exclusively practical and ethical, but is emphatically a Divine endowment. The conception of ‘the wisdom which cometh from above’ (i.e. the Divine Spirit, given to all that ask, James 1:5), manifested in works of love, is contrasted with wisdom of the tongue in James 3. The former is the fundamental characteristic of the just or righteous man (ὁ δίκαιος), a use which agrees closely with that of Sirach and the OT Wisdom literature. Cf. Luke 1:17 φρόνησις δικαίων, and Luke 16:8 φρονίμως … φρονιμώτιροι. In the Apocalypse ‘wisdom’ is an attribute of God in the doxologies Luke 5:12, Luke 7:12 (cf. Romans 11:33); otherwise it is referred to only as an endowment like that of Joseph (Genesis 41:38 f.) and Daniel (Daniel 5:14), requisite to solve riddles (Revelation 13:18; Revelation 17:9). The usage and conception of the Third Evangelist appear thus to stand midway between that of St. James and of St. Paul, with traces of the same use in certain parts of Mt. and Mark.
iii. Use in the discourses of Jesus.—The discourses of Jesus furnish a meagre but trustworthy starting-point for a history of the term in its Christological development. Among these discourses we cannot venture to reckon the saying Luke 21:15 (= Luke 12:11 = Matthew 10:19 f. = Mark 13:11 = John 15:26 f.), since the parallels make it probable that στόμα καὶ σοφία (cf. Luke 2:47 prudentiam el os, cod. e.) is only the characteristic Lukan mode of expressing the promise of the Paraclete. All other occurrences of the word or connected idea in the discourses stand more or less closely related with one of two incidents: (1) Jesus’ denunciation of the faithless generation which rejected for opposite reasons both the Baptist’s mission and His own (Matthew 11), or (2) His denunciation of the scribes who blasphemed the Spirit of God whereby He wrought, demanding a sign from heaven (Matthew 12:22-45). These discourses are variously distributed in our First and Third Gospels (Matthew 11:2-30; Matthew 12:22-45; Matthew 21:28-32; Matthew 23:34-38 and Luke 7:18-35; Luke 10:13-15; Luke 10:21 f., Luke 11:24-26; Luke 11:29-32; Luke 11:49-51), but have in common a close connexion in thought and a resemblance of language in exceptional degree as between the two canonical reporters. In these two groups of discourses, therefore, must be found, if anywhere, the basis in Jesus’ own utterances for the subsequent application in Christology of the conception of the Divine Wisdom.
iv. Matthaean Connexions of the two Groups of Sayings.—1. The Matthaean context of group (1) starts from the question of John’s disciples. This is made the occasion by Jesus of a comparison of unrepentant Israel to children who are pleased with neither the mournful nor the gay melodies of their playmates. His hearers had been displeased at the asceticism of John, and are equally so with the genial life of the ‘Friend of publicans and sinners.’ As against this rejection by the self-righteous of the message of repentance and forgiveness, ‘Wisdom’s children’ (here those who had repented at the preaching of John, cf. Luke 21:31 f., Luke 7:29 f.) afford the justification of her methods (Matthew 11:2-19). In Mt. the discourse continues with the denunciation of ‘the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done,’ a paragraph which is perhaps accountable for the reading ἔργα. in some Manuscripts for τέκνα in Matthew 11; Matthew 19. These verses (Matthew 11:20-24) are otherwise placed by Lk.; but those which follow (Matthew 11:25-27 = Luke 10:21 f.) again relate to the wisdom of Jesus which is delivered to Him (παρεδόθη μοι) by His Father (in contrast with the παράδοσις of the scribes, Mark 7:13), and, though hid from the wise, is revealed to the ‘little ones.’ This in turn introduces in Matthew 11:28-30 an invitation closely resembling those placed in the mouth of the Divine Wisdom in the literature of this class (cf. Sirach 51:26 ff; Sirach 6:28 and Oxyrhynchus Log. iii. [iv.]). This closes the chapter and the discourse.
2. In Matthew 12:38-45 substantially the same subject is resumed, but it is now à propos of the blasphemy of the scribes against the Holy Spirit in ascribing Jesus’ exorcisms to Beelzebub (Matthew 12:22-37), the intervening material (Matthew 12:1-21) comprising the two Sabbath incidents of Mark 2:23 to Mark 3:6. In this further denunciation, not of the scribes but still of ‘this evil and adulterous generation,’ Jesus declares that it will fare worse than the Ninevites; for, while these repented at the warning of Jonah, this generation has rejected a greater warning (i.e. the Baptist’s; cf. Mark 11:11-14 and Bacon, Sermon on the Mount, App. C. iv. v. pp. 216–231). It is condemned also by the Queen of the South, because she came to hear ‘the wisdom of Solomon,’ whereas this generation has rejected a more gracious appeal (πλεῖον = ‘a greater matter,’ i.e. Jesus’ message of forgiveness conceived as the ‘wisdom’ of God). A concluding parable (Matthew 12:43-45 = Luke 11:24-26) likens ‘this evil generation,’ with its Pharisaic mania purifica, to ‘a house swept and garnished’ which becomes the abode of demons, because inhospitable to the Spirit of God. It is highly noteworthy that in both groups the condemnation is uttered by Jesus for rejection of the Spirit of God, which in the case of the discourse anent the Baptist is assumed to be manifest in Jesus’ message of forgiveness, in the case of the blasphemy of the scribes in His healing power. The significance of the use of the term ‘wisdom’ in both cases (Matthew 11:19; Matthew 12:42) for the gracious and winning appeal of God’s redeeming, forgiving love, is made more apparent by the contrast in both instances with the Baptist’s harsher message of warning against ‘the wrath to come.’ This is manifest from the figures of wailing versus piping, mourning versus dancing, fasting versus feasting, preaching of Jonah versus wisdom of Solomon.
v. Lukan connexions of the two groups.—A further discourse, correctly connected in Luke 11:49-51 with group (2) (in Matthew 23:34 ff. incorrectly attached to Mark 12:38-40 = Matthew 23:1-12) carries to its logical conclusion the denunciation of the scribes who had blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Speaking now directly in the name of ‘the wisdom of God’ (Luke 11:49), Jesus predicts their impending fate, and in the Matthaean form (which properly includes the pathetic appeal to Jerusalem, separated from it in Lk. [Matthew 23:37-39 = Luke 13:34 f.]), the forsaking of ‘your house’ by God’s Spirit. Not only have we throughout this context the characteristic forms and modes of expression of the Wisdom literature, but the final warning is expressly introduced as an utterance of the wisdom of God’ (ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ), by which should be understood not the specific title of an individual writing of this literary category, but the entire canon of ‘Wisdom’ writings, inclusive of the lost work from which the extract is made. The following considerations will make this clear:—
1. The continuation of the previous line of thought is apparent from the allusion to the fate of God’s messengers (with Matthew 23:34-37 = Luke 11:49-51; Luke 13:34 f. cf. Matthew 12:39 ff. = Luke 11:29 ff.), to the vain plea of the Spirit [Wisdom] (with Matthew 23:37-39 = Luke 13:34 f., cf. Matthew 12:38-42 = Luke 11:29-32), and to the house left desolate (with Matthew 23:38 f = Luke 13:35, cf. Matthew 12:43-45 = Luke 11:24-36). Many considerations, on the other hand, make it probable that Matthew 23:34-39 (= Luke 11:49-51; Luke 13:34 f.), if not more, is really drawn from some lost ‘Wisdom’ writing, (a) The sending of ‘prophets and wise men and scribes’ (hǎkhâmim and sophěrim) is something which cannot be ascribed to Jesus (Mt.) but only to the Divine Spirit (Wisdom). (b) The adoption of the figure of Psalms 36:7; Psalms 91:4, Isaiah 31:5, Deuteronomy 32:11 is appropriate only to the Divine Spirit, which broods over Jerusalem; it is actually so applied in 2 Esdras 1:30. It will appear to many inappropriate if made an utterance of Jesus personally. The same may be said in less degree of the threat of the forsaking of the house (cf. Jeremiah 12:7; Jeremiah 22:5. Josephus preserves a kindred legend of voices in the Temple saying, ‘Let us remove hence,’ BJ vi. v. 3). (c) The whole context Matthew 23:34-39 reappears in paraphrase in 2 Esdras 1:28-37, which, though late and Christianized, preserves the material in the form of an utterance of ‘the Lord Almighty.’ (d) Matthew 23:35 contains, as some think, an anachronistic reference to the murder of Zechariah the son of Baruch, shortly before the siege of Jerusalem (Josephus BJ iv. v. 4). This consideration, however, may be disregarded, as the reference may also be explained as a confusion of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:20-22) with the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah (Zechariah 1:1).
2. Luke 7:1 to Luke 8:3 presents a context interconnected by the thought fundamental to the saying Matthew 11:16-19—the Friend of publicans and sinners—the narrative-material with the exception of Matthew 7:1-10 = Matthew 8:5 to Matthew 10:13 being peculiar to Luke. The discourse and narrative-material have the same bearing, and the former includes the nucleus of the ‘wisdom’ sayings of Matthew 11.
It thus appears that in the two groups of discourse-material principally represented in Matthew 11, 12 and Luke 7, 11 we have inextricably intermingled (1) sayings of Jesus wherein His own gracious mission was set over against the harsher warning of the Baptist as the message of the Divine Wisdom; and (2) extracts in defence of His beneficent works, from the actual Wisdom literature, these extracts having been embodied along with His words of denunciation of the scribes, either by Himself or in the subsequent development of Evangelic tradition. To draw the line with precision between authentic utterances of Jesus, and material subsequently adapted from the Wisdom literature because pronounced by ‘the wisdom of God’ (Matthew 11:28-30?) surpasses the powers of criticism; but the endeavour is the more needless because the really significant fact is that Jesus’ actual teaching, at least in the form given it by the source here employed in common by Mt. and Lk., was so closely allied to the ideas of this Wisdom literature as to permit of intermingling at an extremely early date. A later example of the process of adaptation is furnished by the Oxyrhynchus papyrus which puts in the mouth of Jesus the characteristic Wisdom utterance: ‘I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh was I seen of them (cf. Baruch 3:8), and I found all men drunken, and none found I athirst among them, and my soul grieveth over the sons of men because they are blind in their heart’ (Oxyrh. Log. III.).
3. Other elements of discourse-material from the Third Gospel and Acts may be clearly traced to a source of the same Wisdom type, if not the same composition, (a) In particular, the wisdom of Solomon, especially as exhibited in the hedonistic Epicureanism of Ecclesiastes, is pointedly contrasted with a higher wisdom in the great discourse on the true riches of Luke 12:13-34, part of which is taken up in Matthew 6:19-34. The polemic against Ecclesiastes 2 in Matthew 12:13-21 becomes tenfold more pointed as the discourse proceeds to compare the beauty of the lilies and the provision of the ravens ‘which have neither store-chamber nor barn’ (cf. Matthew 12:18) with ‘Solomon in all his glory’ (cf. Ecclesiastes 1:12-18; Ecclesiastes 2:1-25). The subject of the discourse (‘wherein life consists,’ Matthew 12:15; Mat_12:22 f.) is as distinctive of Hebrew Wisdom literature as the form and phraseology.
(b) To the same original context must be reckoned the greater part of Luke 16, the material of which is peculiar to Luke. The ‘wisdom’ of the unrighteous steward in the use of ‘the mammon of unrighteousness’ is a subject manifestly in close relation to the use of riches commended in Luke 12:13-34, the affinity extending even to the phraseology (with Luke 16:9 ‘riches that fail’ cf. Luke 12:33 ‘treasure that faileth not’). The combination of the two, therefore, in Matthew 6:19-34, à propos of the heavenly recompense (Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:4; Matthew 6:18), probably reflects a real connexion of Luke 12:13-34 with Luke 16:1-13 in the source.
Similar reasoning, based partly on the phraseology (cf. Luke 16:15 with Luke 18:14) partly on the subject-matter, connects the rest of Luke 16 (exc. v. Luke 16:17-18) with Luke 18:9-14 (Luke 19:11-27?). The two companion parables Luke 16:19-25 (Luke 16:26-31 seem to be a later addendum) and Luke 18:9-14 exemplify the principle laid down in Luke 16:15, while Luke 16:16 = Matthew 11:12-14 links the whole with Luke 7:29 f. The whole group of teachings and parables on worldly conditions is thus seen to have a common occasion and bearing, a common spirit, and a common point of view not elsewhere shown in the Gospels, but closely resembling the social teaching of James (cf. Luke 1:9-11, Luke 2:1-9, Luke 4:2 f., Luke 4:6; Luke 4:10; Luke 4:13 f., Luke 5:1-6).
(c) A kindred subject having a similar development in Lk., but otherwise only scantily represented in the Gospels, is that of dependence on the Divine bounty in answer to prayer (Luke 11:1-13), which can hardly be dissociated from the companion parables (Luke 11:5-8 and Luke 18:1-8). The bare and wholly disconnected fragment taken up in Matthew 7:7-11 is as inadequate to represent this exquisite group as is Matthew 6:19-34 if bereft of the parables on the Foolish Rich Man and the Shrewd Steward. Once more, it is the Ep. of James that supplies an echo of the same spirit (cf. Matthew 1:5-8; Matthew 1:17, Matthew 4:2 f., Matthew 5:13-18).
It is clear that the method here applied may be extended to much of the special discourse-material of Lk., including perhaps some elements of Acts (on Solomon in Acts 7:44-50 see Yale Bicentennial Contributions, 1901, p. 271 f.). It is sufficent for the present to indicate that a large element of our Third Gospel is thus characterized.
vi. Wisdom utterances represent a special type of Gospel traditions.—The question of the relation of the Wisdom discourses to the recognized Gospel sources is one which inevitably suggests itself as soon as the fact is recognized that they are characterized by a peculiar and distinctive point of view. It becomes our duty, accordingly, to trace at least the outline of an answer.
1. The discourse-material of Matthew 11-12 falls outside the pentad characterized by the colophon καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν κ.τ.λ. already discussed in art. Logia.
2. Besides being separated by narrative-material from these groups, Matthew 11-12 differ from them in the fact of their relation to the narrative, from which they are inseparable, and in the degree of similarity in their language to the Lukan parallels. As against the groups of logia which have not, and from their character do not require, a narrative setting, the discourse of Matthew 11 not only relates the coming of the Baptist’s disciples, but presupposes an account of Jesus’ works of healing, and even requires us to suppose the reader somewhere informed of what had given rise to the taunt ‘Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.’ The same applies to the discourse in defence of Jesus’ exorcism ‘by the Spirit of God.’ This indispensable narrative-element is always supplied more fully and in better connexion by Lk., in some cases by Lk. alone (Luke 11:1 ff; Luke 12:13-21).
3. The similarity of language to the Lukan parallels is here very exceptional, reaching the degree of verbal identity for whole sentences, and positively requiring the use of the same written Greek source.
4. This marked difference in the degree of resemblance serves to connect other non-Markan elements of Mt., such as Matthew 3:1 to Matthew 4:11; Matthew 8:5-13; Matthew 8:18-22, which are again found to fall outside the Matthaean pentad, to differ in content and point of view from the Logian source, and to be at once more complete and for the most part more authentic in detail in Luke than in Matthew. Linguistic peculiarities in several instances prove the dependence of Mt. in these portions. Thus Ἱερουσαλήμ is used by Lk. 68 times against 3 (5?) employments of Ἱεροσόλυμα. The latter form on the contrary is invariably employed in Mt., Mk., and Jn., except thrice in Matthew 23:37 = Luke 13:34. βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ is systematically changed by Mt. to τῶν οὐρανῶν. There are but four exceptions: Matthew 19:24 (= Mark 10:25) and Matthew 12:28; Matthew 21:31; Matthew 21:43 (cf. Luke 7:29; Luke 11:20).
vii. Relation to narrative-elements of Synoptic tradition.—Although our First and to a less extent our Third Evangelist both derive the main framework of their narrative from our Second, this Second itself is not wanting in evidences of dependence on the source to which we have traced the Wisdom chapters of Mt. and Luke.
1. This relation appears in the description of the Baptist as Elias (Mark 1:2; Mark 1:5-6;* [Note: Note especially the rare form ἔσθω found only in Luke 7:33-34; Luke 10:7; Luke 22:30. In all the other 55 occurrences of the verb in the NT, including 10 in Mark , 9 of Lk.’s own, the regular form ἐσθίω is used.] cf. Luke 7:24 f., Luke 7:33, Matthew 11:14, 2 Kings 1:8); of the Temptation (Mark 1:13, the ἄγγελοι and θηρία coming from Psalms 91:11-13 quoted in Luke 4:10 f.); of Jesus as ‘eating and drinking’ while the disciples of the Baptist were fasting, and as ‘a friend of publicans and sinners’ (Mark 2:18-22; Mark 2:13-17; cf. Luke 7:33 f.); of the blasphemy of the scribes (Mark 3:22-35; cf. Luke 11:14-28), and perhaps of the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-13; cf. Luke 9:28-36). In all these passages of Mk. and in other loosely connected material (Mark 9:36-48 = Luke 9:49 f., Luke 12:41-44 = Luke 24:1-4) the context of Lk. gives more or less conclusive evidence of priority. It is but reasonable to suppose that other Markan narratives such as Mark 6:1-6 may also have been derived hence, though the present Lukan form has been affected by Mk.
2. Of the connexion of the narrative-elements peculiar to Lk. with the source thus characterized it is hardly needful to speak. The common point of view of this material, presenting Jesus as the friend and champion of the lowly, from His childhood in the manger, welcomed by shepherds, to His acceptance by the thief on the cross, is well known. Nor can such narratives as that of the repentant harlot (Luke 7:36-50) be separated without violence from the discourse context. It is only in Mt. and Mk. that Luke 7:1-10; Luke 21:1-4 find themselves on a foreign soil.
viii. Conclusions as to proto-Lukan source.—Admitting the precarious character of all attempts at extricating the Synoptic sources, and the probable development of the Antiochian (?) tradition between the period of its employment by Mk. and Mt. and its ultimate incorporation by Lk., enough remains to justify the following inference. A type of Gospel tradition grew up (at Antioch?) intermediate between those to which tradition attaches the names respectively of ‘Matthew’ and ‘John,’ and containing the ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. traditionally ascribed to the preaching of Peter. The Matthaean tradition is especially connected both by the unanimous testimony of antiquity and by internal evidence with Jerusalem. It takes as its method the agglutination of the logia of Jesus into a five-fold new Torah, as ‘commandments given by the Lord to the faith.’ This agrees with the legalistic tendencies of the Palestinian Church and the methods of the Synagogue as illustrated, e.g., in the Pirke Aboth (cf. the Oxyrhynchus Logia). Besides the halachic type of Gospel tradition the earliest testimony recognizes a haggadic, of which Peter is the authoritative source. It seems to have had two branches, the earlier (Mk.) connected by tradition and internal evidences with Rome, the later (Jn.) with Ephesus, both almost as wholly preoccupied with the doctrine of the Person of Christ as the Pauline Epistles, and appealing to the drama of the Ministry and Passion for proof of the Divine sonship of Jesus. In the earlier (Mk.), connexion with the Petrine tradition is still close. In the later (Jn.), Pauline Logos-doctrine wholly dominates. Midway between these two types of Gospel tradition, the Hebrew and the Graeco-Roman, is developed that which tradition credibly associates with the name of Luke at Antioch. Combining both sayings and doings (ἤρξατο ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν, Acts 1:1) in juster proportion than Mk., it finds in the history, as exhibited in both elements, a manifestation of the Spirit of God in terms of the Jewish Wisdom-doctrine. As our First canonical Evangelist presents as the opening scene of the ministry the new Lawgiver on the Mount of Beatitudes, so our Third presents the scene in the synagogue of Nazareth where the ‘words of grace’ uttered by the bearer of ‘the Spirit of the Lord God’ are rejected by His own people, the tragedy of the Divine Wisdom. The theme is constant, but is developed alike in message of grace and deed of mercy. The whole career of Jesus is a manifestation of ‘the power of God and the wisdom of God.’ Analysis of the sources of canonical Lk.-Acts reveals no difference in this fundamental point of view. From the beginning, as in the 5th cent., the Antioch school is historical, and its historical sources admittedly include, in Acts, if not in the Gospel, the oldest narrative of the NT. By the standard of internal evidence its tradition is more markedly Petrine than Mk.; its Christology roots itself, like the Pauline, but with less of the Hellenic speculative development, in that broadest, most humanitarian, most tolerant school of Hebrew thought, the followers and exponents of ‘all-virtuous Wisdom.’
ix. Wisdom speculation in the development of Christology.—The conception of Wisdom as affecting Synoptic tradition involves such literary analysis of the source as the foregoing. As affecting the doctrine of the Person of Christ it involves at least a passing glance at the Pauline Christology, the link between Synoptic and Johannine doctrine.
1. The Wisdom-doctrine of St. Paul stands in unmistakably close relation, as regards its antecedents, with the Wisdom literature; and, as respects its subsequent development, with the Johan-nine Logos-doctrine. St. Paul’s indebtedness to Stoic philosophy and ethics is set forth by no less a master than Lightfoot (‘St. Paul and Seneca’ in Com. on Phil. [Note: Philistine.] ). Recent demonstrations of his much more extensive and direct dependence on the Wisdom literature, especially the Book of Wisdom (Internat. Crit. Com. on Romans, by Sanday and Headlam, p. 51; cf. Grafe, ‘Das Verhältniss der paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia Salomonis’ in Th. Abh. C. v. Weizsäcker gewidmet), should by now have made it plain that. Stoicism comes to St. Paul mainly through Jewish channels. Again, since it is certain that St. Paul both by temperament and by experience was more apocalyptist than scribe, it should not have been overlooked that he has advanced, however briefly, his own decision on the moot point, whether the complete manifestation of the Divine Wisdom is simply the Torah of Moses (so the scribes on the basis of Deuteronomy 4:6-8), or whether it is the living Spirit of God sent forth in human form. Romans 10:4-8 and Baruch 3:9 to Baruch 4:1 (especially Baruch 3:29 f.) contain contemporary and rival interpretations of Deuteronomy 30:12; Deuteronomy 30:3. By St. Paul’s interpretation ‘the word’ (of revelation) is nothing more or less than ‘Christ’ as pre-existent spirit, the same Wisdom which, ‘because she was the artificer of all things,’ passing into the soul of Solomon gave him ‘an unerring knowledge of the things that are, to know the constitution of the world,’ etc. (Wisdom of Solomon 7:17-22), the same ‘mind of Christ’ by possession of which Christians have similar knowledge of the purposes of the Creator, just as a man’s own consciousness gives him knowledge of his private designs (1 Corinthians 2:6-16; see Mystery). Definite identifica
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Winter'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/w/winter.html. 1906-1918.
