^J^t THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
parasites upon an evil world ? Is the normal man to be an idler and the child of God a beggar ? Such we must say is the only outcome of these passages if they exhaust the teachings of Jesus.
It can hardly be replied that Jesus did not mean to lay down any principles as regards wealth. His refusal to divide an inheri- tance between two litigious brothers' was no more an act of caution than a rebuke to covetousness, and the request itself shows how he was regarded by those who made it.' The very fact that Luke has preserved for us^ so much of this
■Luke 12: 13-15.
»It may also have been that this request was made of Jesus simply as a rabbi, for it was customary for rabbis to decide knotty questions of all sorts, including those about property. But the Jewish laws of inheritance were so precise that there could have been no question of " division " except one brother wanted to get something in addi- tion to his share. The warning against covetousness that follows this incident is accordingly quite to the point. Such questions would more naturally come before the authorities of the village. See Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II," 243; Statfek, Palestine in the Time of Christ, 104, 5.
' It is evident that within the synoptic gospels there is a decided preponderance of the teachings in regard to wealth to be found in Luke. A comparison of the third gospel with the other two will discover that much of this social teaching is found in those portions which are peculiar to Luke himself. If we adopt the most probable view as to the comman material of the gospels and make it dependent upon two great sources, the narrative and the logia, it must be admitted that in the former there is practic- ally nothing which looks like any special interest in questions concerning wealth on the part of Jesus, and in the latter little that cannot be easily interpreted from another point of view. But when we come to those peculiarities which mark the gospel according to Luke, it becomes at once evident that we are dealing with an entirely new spirit. The writer of the third gospel, who was also undoubtedly the writer of the Acts, shows himself intensely sympathetic with the poor. He alone has preserved for us the fact that the mother of Jesus was a poor woman ; and that his father was a carpenter. Alone of all the synoptists he never speaks of Jesus' having followed a trade, and mentions that during his public ministry he was dependent upon charity for his support. And all through his teachings we find him more than ready to show the interest of Jesus in publicans and poor people, and to preserve for us those words of denunciation of the rich or encouragement of the poor which have made Jesus the friend of the lowly of all ages. (Thus 1: 46-55; 2, 7, 16; 2: 23, 24; 6: 21-25: 12:13-33; 14:21; 16:14 -J?-)- I' is this personal equation of Luke as well as the fact that his gospel generally gives evidence of having been composed later than that of Matthew, that leads to the not very secure conclusion that in 6:21 he has preserved a less original form of the saying of Jesus found also in Matt. 5:3. It has therefore been omitted in this discussion. But even if the contrary view be held it should be
