{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39967/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39967","id":"gutenberg_39967","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39967","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Gospels -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was\nproduced from images generously made available by The\nInternet Archive/Canadian Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_The volumes of the University of Michigan Studies are published by\nauthority of the Executive Board of the Graduate Department of the\nUniversity of Michigan. A list of the volumes thus far published or\narranged for is given at the end of this volume._\n\n\n\n\n University of Michigan Studies\n _HUMANISTIC SERIES_\n VOLUME V\n\n SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC\n GOSPELS\n\n\n\n\n THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n NEW YORK . BOSTON . CHICAGO\n ATLANTA . SAN FRANCISCO\n\n MACMILLAN & CO., LIMITED\n LONDON . BOMBAY . CALCUTTA\n MELBOURNE\n\n THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.\n TORONTO\n\n\n\n\n SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS\n\n\n BY CARL S. PATTON\n\n FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH\n COLUMBUS, OHIO\n\n\n A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF\n LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND THE ARTS OF THE UNIVERSITY\n OF MICHIGAN, FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY\n\n\n New York\n THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n LONDON: MACMILLAN & COMPANY, LIMITED\n 1915\n _All Rights Reserved_\n\n\n\n\n COPYRIGHT 1915 BY\n CARL S. PATTON\n\n Printed August, 1915\n\n\n Composed and Printed By\n The University of Chicago Press\n Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe purpose of this study is twofold: first, to give some account of the\ninvestigations recently made in the Synoptic Problem, and the present\nstatus of scholarly opinion concerning it; secondly, upon the basis of\nsuch established results, to push the inquiry into certain items a step\nfarther.\n\nThe first part of the work, including pages 3-120, tho largely occupied\nwith results reached by many different scholars, and bringing the matter\nup to where the writer adds his own more personal contribution, is yet not\na mere survey of results attained. The writer has expressed his own\njudgment freely thruout it, as to the merits of arguments of others, and\nas to the points involved in the discussion. But his more personal\ncontribution lies in the analysis of the groundwork Q into the two\nrecensions, Q Mt and Q Lk.\n\nThe one book constantly in the writer's hands during the preparation of\nthis study was A. Huck's _Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien_.[1] Without\nsome such parallel edition of the Greek Gospels constantly open before\nhim, one can neither write nor read profitably upon the Synoptic Question.\nThe question of originality, and of giving credit for arguments and\nsuggestions derived from other students, in a study of this sort, is\nextremely difficult. In the minute comparison of passages in one Gospel\nwith passages in another, many of the differences and resemblances noted\nare part of the working material of most writers upon the Synoptic\nProblem; when one has worked thru the analyses of other students, has made\ntheir results his own, and has also made his own observations upon the\nbasis of them, it becomes almost impossible for him to say what part of\nthe total result is due to himself and for what part he is indebted to\nothers. The writer is more deeply indebted to Paul Wernle, Sir John\nHawkins, and the authors of the _Oxford Studies_, than to anyone else. The\nlatter book came out after this study had been completed but the results\nhave been revised somewhat under its influence. I have attempted to give\ncredit in footnotes for suggestions received from many sources, but many\nmust have gone unnoticed.\n\nI am under deep obligation to the kind friends who have encouraged and\nmade possible the publication of this Study, particularly to Mr. William\nH. Murphy, of Detroit.\n\nCARL S. PATTON\n\n FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH\n COLUMBUS, OHIO\n August, 1914\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n PART I: GENERALLY ACCEPTED RESULTS OF SYNOPTIC STUDY\n\n CHAPTER I: THE DEPENDENCE OF MATTHEW AND LUKE UPON MARK\n\n PAGE\n\n THE FRAMEWORK OF MARK IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 3\n Up to Luke's \"Great Omission\" 3\n Luke's \"Great Omission\" and Beyond 7\n Luke's \"Great Interpolation\": Its Content 8\n The Jerusalem Narrative 10\n The Story of the Passion 12\n\n THE PRIORITY OF MARK 13\n Luke's Great Interpolation: Its Non-Use of Mark 16\n\n\n CHAPTER II: THE ORDER OF MARK'S GOSPEL COMPARED WITH THAT OF\n MATTHEW AND THAT OF LUKE\n\n ORDER OF MARK IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 19\n Table I: Showing Changes Made by Matthew and Luke in the Order\n of Marcan Material 24\n Deductions from the Table 28\n\n\n CHAPTER III: THE OMISSIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE MARCAN\n NARRATIVE\n\n OMISSIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN MARK 30\n Omissions Made by Both Matthew and Luke 30\n Omissions Made by Matthew in the Marcan Narrative 31\n Omissions Made by Luke in the Marcan Narrative 32\n\n\n CHAPTER IV: THE CHANGES OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE NARRATIVE OF\n MARK\n\n CHANGES OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN MARK 37\n The Baptism of Jesus 37\n The Calling of the First Disciples 38\n Jesus in the Synagogue at Capernaum 38\n The Healing of Peter's Mother-in-Law 38\n The Healing in the Evening 39\n The Retirement of Jesus 39\n The Calling of Peter 40\n The Healing of the Leper 41\n The Healing of the Paralytic 41\n The Calling of Levi (Matthew) 42\n The Question about Fasting 42\n The Walk Through the Corn 43\n The Man with the Withered Hand 44\n The Crowd and the Healings 44\n The Calling of the Twelve 44\n The Pharisaic Accusation and Jesus' Defense 45\n The True Brotherhood of Jesus; the Parable of the Sower; the\n Purpose of the Parables 45\n The Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower 46\n A Group of Detached Sayings 47\n The Parable of the Mustard Seed 47\n The Storm on the Lake 47\n The Gadarene Demoniac 48\n The Daughter of Jairus and the Woman with the Issue of Blood 49\n The Initial Preaching in Nazareth 51\n The Sending out of the Disciples 51\n The Judgment of Herod concerning Jesus 52\n The Death of the Baptist 53\n The Return of the Disciples and the Feeding of the Five Thousand 54\n The Walking on the Sea 55\n The Return to Gennesaret 56\n About the Things That Defile 56\n The Canaanitish Woman 57\n The Feeding of the Four Thousand 57\n The Demand for a Sign 57\n The Saying about Yeast 57\n The Confession of Peter, and the First Prediction of Sufferings 58\n The Demands of Discipleship 58\n The Transfiguration 59\n The Discussion about Elijah 59\n The Healing of the Epileptic Boy 60\n The Second Prediction of Sufferings 60\n The Strife about Rank 61\n Minor Passages 61\n\n SUMMARY OF MATTHEW'S AND LUKE'S TREATMENT OF THE MARCAN NARRATIVE 70\n\n\n CHAPTER V: HAVE WE THE GOSPEL OF MARK IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM?\n\n HAVE WE MARK IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM? 72\n Discussion of the Analysis of Mark by Wendling and von Soden 74\n Conclusions of von Soden and Wendling Compared 83\n Matthew and Luke Used Our Mark as a Source 88\n The Hypothesis of a Primitive Mark Superfluous; Simpler\n Explanations 88\n Some Remarkable Verbal Resemblances 93\n\n\n CHAPTER VI: USE OF A COMMON DOCUMENT BY MATTHEW AND LUKE\n\n USE OF A COMMON DOCUMENT BY MATTHEW AND LUKE 97\n A Recent Attempt to Prove Matthew a Source for Luke 100\n\n\n CHAPTER VII: THE EXISTENCE AND CONTENT OF Q\n\n EXISTENCE AND CONTENT OF Q 108\n Deductions from the Table 109\n Table II: Material from Q in Matthew 110\n Deductions from Table III 115\n Table III: Material in Luke Taken from Q 116\n The Necessity for a Further Extension of Q 120\n\n\n PART II: ANALYSIS OF Q INTO QMT AND QLK\n\n CHAPTER I: ANALYSIS OF Q\n\n ANALYSIS OF Q 123\n Q Originally an Aramaic Document, Used in Greek Translations\n by Matthew and Luke 123\n The Analysis of Q into QMt and QLk 126\n\n\n CHAPTER II: Q, QMT, AND QLK, IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION\n OF MATTHEW AND LUKE\n\n Q, QMT, AND QLK IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 129\n The Preaching of John the Baptist 129\n The Messianic Proclamation of the Baptist 130\n The Temptation 130\n \"Blessed Are the Poor\" 131\n \"Blessed Are They That Mourn\" 132\n \"Blessed Are They That Hunger\" 132\n \"Blessed Are The Persecuted\" 132\n A Saying about Salt 133\n A Saying about Light 133\n A Saying about the Law 135\n \"Agree with Thine Adversary\" 135\n About Non-Resistance and Love of Enemies 135\n The Lord's Prayer 136\n A Saying about Treasures 137\n A Saying about the Eye 137\n About Double Service 138\n About Care 138\n About Judging 139\n The Beam and the Mote 139\n About Seeking and Finding 139\n The Golden Rule 140\n The Narrow Gate 140\n The Tree and Its Fruits 141\n Warning against Self-Deception 141\n The Two Houses 143\n The Centurion's Son 143\n \"Many Shall Come from East and West\" 145\n Two Men Would Follow Jesus 146\n \"The Harvest Is Great\" 146\n \"The Laborer Is Worthy of His Hire\" 146\n \"Greet the House\" 147\n \"More Tolerable for Sodom\" 147\n \"Sheep among Wolves\" 148\n How to Act under Persecution 148\n The Disciple and His Teacher 148\n Exhortation to Fearless Confession 149\n Strife among Relatives 150\n Conditions of Discipleship 150\n \"He That Receiveth You\" 151\n The Question of the Baptist and Jesus' Answer 152\n The Woe upon the Galilean Cities 152\n \"I Thank Thee, O Father\" 152\n Jesus' Defense against the Pharisees 153\n \"He That Is Not with Me\" 153\n Jonah and the Ninevites 153\n A Speech about Backsliding 154\n \"Blessed Are the Eyes That See\" 154\n The Parable of the Yeast 154\n The Blind Leading the Blind 155\n A Saying about Faith 155\n A Saying about Offenses 156\n The Stray Sheep 156\n About Forgiveness 157\n Rewards for Discipleship 157\n Against the Pharisees 157\n \"Whoso Humbles Himself\" 158\n Against the Pharisees 158\n A Woe upon the Scribes 159\n \"I Send unto You Prophets\" 160\n The Lament over Jerusalem 161\n The Day of the Son of Man 161\n The Body and the Eagles 161\n The Days of Noah 161\n The One Taken, the Other Left 162\n The Watching Servant 162\n The True and False Servants 162\n Results of the Preceding Investigation 162\n\n\n CHAPTER III: Q IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW (QMT)\n\n Q IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW 166\n Two Beatitudes 167\n Four More Beatitudes 167\n \"Ye Are the Light of the World\" 169\n \"Let Your Light Shine\" 169\n Various Sayings from the Sermon on the Mount 170\n A Saying about Offenses 171\n The Commandment about Divorce 171\n About Oaths 172\n The Second Mile 172\n Another Old Testament Commandment 173\n About Alms-Giving 173\n About Prayer 174\n About Fasting 175\n Pearls before Swine 175\n The False Prophets 176\n A Saying about Trees 177\n \"By Their Fruits\" 177\n An Oft-Repeated Formula 177\n The Conclusion of the Story of the Centurion's Servant 178\n \"I Will Have Mercy and Not Sacrifice\" 179\n The Healing of Two Blind Men 179\n The Healing of a Dumb Man 180\n Instructions to the Disciples 180\n Further Instructions to the Disciples 180\n A Saying about Elijah 181\n \"He That Hath Ears, Let Him Hear\" 182\n The Occasion of Pronouncing Woes upon the Galilean Cities 182\n Reason Assigned for the Pronunciation of the Woes 182\n \"Come unto Me\" 183\n A Saying about the Law 184\n An Old Testament Quotation 184\n \"Generation of Vipers\" 184\n A Saying about the Judgment 185\n An Interpretation of the Sign of Jonah 185\n The Weed in the Field 185\n The Parables of the Treasure, the Pearl, the Fish-Net, and the\n Scribe Instructed in the Kingdom 186\n Peter Walking on the Water 187\n \"To the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel\" 187\n A Summary of Jesus' Healing Work 188\n The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven 189\n An Insertion in the Story of the Transfiguration 189\n \"Whosoever Humbles Himself as This Little Child\" 189\n The Unforgiving Servant 190\n About Eunuchs 190\n The Laborers in the Vineyard 190\n The Two Sons 191\n The Wedding Feast 191\n Against the Pharisees 191\n The Parables of the Ten Virgins, the Talents, the Judgment 191\n \"Twelve Legions of Angels\" 192\n\n\n CHAPTER IV: Q IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF LUKE (QLK)\n\n Q IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF LUKE 193\n The Preaching of John the Baptist 193\n The Initial Preaching of Jesus in Nazareth 194\n The Call of Peter 194\n The Woes 194\n The Reception of John's Preaching 195\n The Sinner in Simon's House 195\n A Would-Be Follower of Jesus 196\n The Return of the Seventy 196\n The Great Commandment 197\n The Good Samaritan 197\n Mary and Martha 197\n The Parable of the Friend on a Journey 198\n The Mother of Jesus Praised 198\n \"If Thine Whole Body Is Light\" 198\n The Parable of the Foolish Rich Man 198\n The Exhortation to Watchfulness 198\n \"To Whom Much Is Given\" 199\n \"I Came to Cast Fire upon the Earth\" 199\n The Galileans Slain by Herod 199\n The Parable of the Fig-Tree 200\n \"Go Tell That Fox\" 200\n The Healing of the Dropsical Man 201\n About Taking the Less Honorable Seats at the Table 201\n Whom to Invite to a Feast 202\n The Parable of the Dinner and the Invited Guests 202\n Conditions of Discipleship 203\n The Lost Sheep 203\n The Lost Coin and the Prodigal Son 203\n The Unjust Steward 203\n A Criticism of the Pharisees 204\n The Rich Man and Lazarus 205\n \"Unprofitable Servants\" and the Healing of the Ten Lepers 205\n About the Coming of the Kingdom of God 205\n Matter Peculiar to Matthew or to Luke 206\n Matter Peculiar to Luke 210\n Did Luke's Great Interpolation Originally Exist as a Separate\n Documentary Source? 214\n Other Possible Sources for Material Peculiar to Luke 217\n Conclusions Regarding Q Material in the Single Traditions of\n Matthew and Luke 218\n\n\n CHAPTER V: REVIEW OF Q MATERIAL IN MATTHEW, LUKE,\n AND MARK\n\n REVIEW OF Q IN MATTHEW, LUKE, AND MARK 221\n Considerations Favoring Analysis of Q into QMt and QLk 221\n Table IV: Contents of Q Material in Matthew 222\n Table V: Contents of Q Material in Luke 224\n Passages Closely Similar, Yet With Divergences Too Great to Be\n Accounted for upon the Hypothesis of an Undifferentiated Q 226\n With Matthew's Q before Him, Luke Would Not Have Omitted So\n Much of It 227\n The \"Secondary Traits\" Are in QMt and QLk, Not in Q 230\n\n\n CHAPTER VI: DID MARK ALSO USE Q?\n\n DID MARK ALSO USE Q? 234\n What Material Did Mark Take from Q? 236\n The Messianic Announcement of the Baptist 237\n The Baptism of Jesus 237\n The Temptation of Jesus 238\n The Beelzebul Controversy 238\n Five Detached Sayings 239\n The Parable of the Mustard Seed 240\n The Sending Out of the Twelve 241\n A Sign Refused 241\n \"Whosoever Will Follow Me\" 241\n \"Whosoever Is Ashamed of Me\" 242\n About Offenses 242\n About Salt 243\n About Divorce 243\n The First Who Shall Be Last 243\n True Greatness 244\n About Faith 244\n Against the Pharisees 244\n The Holy Spirit Speaking in the Disciples 244\n Other Marcan Passages Considered, But Rejected 244\n Table VI: Contents of Q Material in Mark 246\n Do the Vocabulary and Style of Mark and Q, Respectively, Throw\n Any Light upon Their Literary Relationship? 246\n Conclusions as to Mark's Dependence upon Q 248\n\n\n CHAPTER VII: THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF Q\n\n ORIGINAL ORDER OF Q 249\n Table VII 250\n Table VIII 250\n Table IX 251\n Table X 252\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS\n\n\n\n\nPART I\n\nACCEPTED RESULTS OF SYNOPTIC STUDY\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE DEPENDENCE OF MATTHEW AND LUKE UPON MARK\n\n\nThe one universally accepted result of modern study of the synoptic\nproblem is the dependence of Matthew and Luke upon the Gospel of Mark.\n\nTho it is no longer necessary to demonstrate this use of Mark by Matthew\nand Luke, the relation among the three Gospels is not to be dismissed with\na simple statement of this dependence. The Gospel of Mark is the one\ndocument possessed by us in substantially the same form in which it was\nused by Matthew and Luke. A consideration of how Matthew and Luke treated\nthe sources which we no longer have before us will be influenced by the\ntreatment which they accorded to this one source which we have. Our first\nwork, therefore, is to observe, with some thoroness, the manner in which\nMatthew and Luke use the Gospel of Mark. If any proof is still required\nthat Matthew and Luke did employ this Gospel, it will appear in the\ndiscussion.\n\n\nFRAMEWORK OF MARK'S GOSPEL IN MATTHEW AND LUKE--UP TO LUKE'S \"GREAT\nOMISSION\"\n\nMatthew and Luke begin with introductory matter of their own, occupying\nthe first two chapters of their Gospels. With the appearance of John the\nBaptist their narrative begins to coincide with that of Mark. Luke in a\nmanner characteristic of his Gospel attempts to supply historical details.\nMark (i, 6) gives a fuller description of the personal habits and\nappearance of the Baptist; the others omit this, and pass to a description\nof his preaching (Mt iii, 7-10; Lk iii, 7-9). Luke adds a brief section\n(iii, 10-14) on this subject derived from some source of his own.\n\nAfter these insertions of non-Marcan material, Matthew and Luke come back\nto the narrative of Mark, and recount (Mk i, 7-8; Mt iii, 11-12; Lk iii,\n15-18) the messianic prediction of the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus (Mk\ni, 9-11; Mt iii, 13-17; Lk iii, 21-22), the temptation (Mk i, 12-13; Mt\niv, 1-11; Lk iv, 1-13), and the initial appearance of Jesus in Galilee (Mk\ni, 14-15; Mt iv, 12-17; Lk iv, 14-15). Between the messianic preaching of\nthe Baptist and the baptism of Jesus, Luke has inserted a notice of the\narrest and imprisonment of John, and between the baptism and the\ntemptation, his table of the ancestors of Jesus.[2] The large amount of\nclosely parallel matter in Matthew and Luke, especially in their account\nof the Baptist's preaching and their narrative of the temptation, shows\ntheir use of a common non-Marcan source; but the order of their narrative,\nas well as its wording, shows their use of Mark also. To his account of\nthe initial appearance of Jesus in Galilee, Luke adds (iv, 16-30) an\naccount of Jesus' first preaching in Nazareth.\n\nMatthew proceeds to tell with Mark (Mt iv, 18-22; Mk i, 16-20) of the\ncalling of the first disciples. Luke postpones this, having a more\ndetailed and interesting account of the call of Peter which he will\nintroduce later (Lk v, 1-11). Mark (i, 21-28) then tells of Jesus'\npreaching in a synagogue at Capernaum. This Matthew omits, but Luke (iv,\n31-37) gives the story as Mark has it. Matthew here inserts his Sermon on\nthe Mount and the healing of the nobleman's daughter (Mt v, 1-viii, 13);\nhe then comes back to the narrative of Mark, and with Luke tells (Mk i,\n29-31; Mt viii, 14-15; Lk iv, 38-39) of the healing of Peter's\nmother-in-law. The three evangelists then relate together (Mk i, 32-34; Mt\nviii, 16-17; Lk iv, 40-41), the story of the healings at evening. Luke and\nMark add the story of Jesus' retirement into a desert place (Mk i, 35-38;\nLk iv, 42-43), which Matthew omits. Mark and Luke then add a brief\nstatement of a preaching tour thru Galilee (Mk i, 39; Lk iv, 44); Matthew\nhas already utilized this statement, somewhat enlarged, as introductory to\nhis Sermon on the Mount (Mt iv, 23-25). Luke inserts (Lk v, 1-11) his\naccount of the calling of Peter, postponed from its earlier position in\nMark. The three then tell together the story of the healing of the leper\nand the paralytic, the call of Levi (called Matthew in Matthew), and the\ndiscussion about fasting (Mk i, 40-ii, 22; Mt viii, 1-4; ix, 1-17; Lk v,\n12-39). Matthew (ix, 35-x, 16) inserts his account of the sending out of\nthe twelve, which Mark and Luke give later. After this he comes back into\nagreement with the other two, and all three relate the incident of Jesus'\nwalking thru the corn on the Sabbath (Mk ii, 23-28; Mt xii, 1-8; Lk vi,\n1-5), the healing of the withered hand (Mk iii, 1-6; Mt xii, 9-14; Lk vi,\n6-11), and the healings in the crowd (Mk iii, 7-12; Mt xii, 15-21; Lk vi,\n17-19).\n\nAt this point Luke has transposed two brief sections of Mark, because, it\nis evident, by so doing he secures a better introduction to his Sermon on\nthe Level Place, which he now (Lk vi, 20-49) proceeds to give. By placing\nthe account of the calling of the twelve (Mk iii, 13-19; Lk vi, 12-16)\njust before the account of the gathering of the throng (Mk iii, 7-12; Lk\nvi, 17-19) he secures his audience for his Sermon on the Plain; if the\nnarrative had been given in reverse order, as by Mark, the sermon might\nappear to have been addressed to the twelve alone. After his Sermon on the\nPlain (Lk vi, 20-49) Luke adds the story of the widow's son, the anointing\nin Simon's house, and the ministering women (vii, 11-17, 36-50; viii,\n1-3), not found in either Mark or Matthew, after which the three take up\nthe same story again in the accusation of the scribes and the speech about\nBeelzebub, tho Luke's order is here not that of the other two (Mk iii,\n20-30; Mt xii, 22-37; Lk xi, 14-23). After the insertion of non-Marcan\nmaterial by both Matthew and Luke, both return to Mark's narrative in the\nstory of the family of Jesus who had come to take him home (Mk iii, 31-35;\nMt xii, 46-50; Lk viii, 19-21), the parable of the Sower, the speech about\nthe purpose of the parables, the interpretation of the parable of the\nSower, and the group of detached sayings (Mk iv, 1-25; Mt xiii, 1-23; Lk\nviii, 4-18); Matthew, however, omits three out of the four sayings at this\npoint, because he has already incorporated them in his Sermon on the\nMount.\n\nThen follows in Mark alone (Mk iv, 26-29) the parable of the Seed that\ngrew of itself, the only section of Marcan material thus far omitted by\nboth Matthew and Luke. Then the parable of the Seed-Corn, which Luke omits\nbut Matthew gives (Mk iv, 30-32; Mt xiii, 31-32).[3] Then come the storm\non the lake, the story of the Gadarene demoniac, the healing of Jairus'\ndaughter, with the interpolation of the story of the woman with the\nhemorrhage (Mk iv, 35-v, 43; Mt viii, 23-34; ix, 18-26; Lk viii, 22-56),\nall in the same order. Then follows the rejection in Nazareth (Mk vi, 1-6;\nMt xiii, 53-58); Matthew follows Mark in it, but Luke omits it because he\nhas related a similar incident in his fourth chapter. Luke then follows\nMark in relating the incident of the sending out of the twelve (Mk vi,\n6-13; Lk ix, 1-6); Matthew has given it in an earlier location. The\njudgment of Herod concerning Jesus is then given by all three (Mk vi,\n14-16; Mt xiv, 1-2; Lk ix, 7-9). Matthew gives with Mark (Mk vi, 17-29; Mt\nxiv, 3-12) the story of the Baptist's death; Luke omits it, having\nconcluded his story of John in connection with his account of the baptism\nof Jesus (Lk iii, 19-20). Then follow in all three the return of the\ndisciples and the feeding of the five thousand (Mk vi, 30-44; Mt xiv,\n13-21; Lk ix, 10-17). Thus far, several items of Mark's narrative have\nbeen omitted now by Matthew and now by Luke, but only one fragment, the\nparable of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mk iv, 26-29), by both Matthew and\nLuke.\n\n\nLUKE'S \"GREAT OMISSION,\" AND BEYOND\n\nWith Mk vi, 45, begins a section extending to Mk viii, 26, in which\nMatthew follows Mark closely, both in wording and in order (Mt xiv,\n22-xvi, 12), except that Matthew omits Mark's healing of the deaf\nstammerer (Mk vii, 31-37), inserts (Mt xv, 29-31) a summary of the healing\nnarratives, and omits the healing of the blind man (Mk viii, 22-26). Luke\nomits the entire section. Luke picks up the thread of Mark's narrative\nagain at Mk viii, 27, and he and Matthew follow it thru the confession of\nPeter (Mk viii, 27-33; Mt xvi, 13-23; Lk ix, 18-22), the prediction of\nsufferings for the disciples (Mk viii, 34-ix, 1; Mt xvi, 24-28; Lk ix,\n23-27), and the transfiguration (Mk ix, 2-8; Mt xvii, 1-8; Lk ix, 28-36).\nLuke omits the question of the scribes concerning Elias, but Matthew\nfollows Mark in it (Mk ix, 9-13; Mt xvii, 9-13). After the omission of\nthese five Marcan verses Luke again continues Mark's narrative, as does\nMatthew, and the three relate together the healing of the epileptic boy\n(Mk ix, 14-29; Mt xvii, 14-21; Lk ix, 37-43_a_), and the second prediction\nof sufferings (Mk ix, 30-32; Mt xvii, 22-23; Lk ix, 43_b_-45).\n\nMatthew inserts from another source the passage about the temple-tax (Mt\nxvii, 24-27), and the three continue together in the passage concerning\nthe strife about precedence (Mk ix, 33-37; Mt xviii, 1-5; Lk ix, 46-48).\nMatthew then drops out for a few verses, but Luke follows Mark in the\nstory of the unknown exorcist (Mk ix, 38-41; Lk ix, 49-50). Luke omits\nMark's saying about offenses, but Matthew follows Mark in it (Mk ix,\n42-48; Mt xviii, 6-9). Both Matthew and Luke then forsake Mark for the\nmoment, since they have both given his saying about salt (Mk ix, 49-50) in\nother connections, their treatment of Mark here being evidently influenced\nby their use of another source.[4] Matthew then inserts a few sections\npeculiar to his Gospel (Mt xviii, 10-35), a few verses of which (Mt xviii,\n10-14; Lk xv, 3-7; Mt xviii, 15; Lk xvii, 3; Mt xviii, 21-22; Lk xvii, 4)\nare somewhat loosely paralleled in Luke.\n\n\nLUKE'S \"GREAT INTERPOLATION\": ITS CONTENT\n\nBeginning with the 51st verse of his 9th chapter, and extending thru the\n14th verse of his 18th chapter, occurs Luke's \"Great Interpolation,\" his\naccount of the journey thru Samaria. Here occur in Luke many of Jesus'\nsayings which Matthew has combined into his \"Sermon on the Mount\";\nnotably the Lord's Prayer, the speech about backsliding, and the saying\n\"Ask and ye shall receive.\" Here also is much material peculiar to Luke;\nnotably Jesus' visit to the home of Mary and Martha, the blessing of the\nwoman upon the mother of Jesus, the sending out and return of the seventy\ndisciples, the healing of the ten lepers, and the parables of the Good\nSamaritan, the Friend Asking for Bread, the Foolish Rich Man, the Lost\nSheep, the Lost Coin, the Prodigal Son, Dives and Lazarus, the Unjust\nJudge, and the Publican and Pharisee in the Temple.\n\nSince the purpose here is merely to indicate the relation of the framework\nof the Gospels of Matthew and Luke to that of Mark, the full content of\nthis great interpolation of Luke's does not need to be presented. Enough\nhas been given to show how long and important a section it is. Thruout it\nLuke appears to forsake Mark, tho there seem to be evidences that for some\nof the material contained in this section and also to be found in Mark,\nMark and Luke have been drawing upon a common source.[5]\n\nAfter forsaking Mark for so long, Luke comes back to him, and to Matthew\n(who has not made this deviation at the same place), in the blessing of\nthe children (Mk x, 13-16; Mt xix, 13-15; Lk xviii, 15-17), the danger of\nriches (Mk x, 17-31; Mt xix, 16-30; Lk xviii, 18-30), and the third\nprediction of sufferings (Mk x, 32-34; Mt xx, 17-19; Lk xviii, 31-34).\nMatthew has meantime inserted (Mt xx, 1-16) his parable of the Workers in\nthe Vineyard, but has not allowed this insertion to influence his\nadherence to the Marcan order. Luke then drops out of the triple\ntradition in the passage concerning the request of James and John for\nchief seats in the kingdom, but Matthew continues to follow Mark (Mk x,\n35-45; Mt xx, 20-28). After this brief omission of Luke's, the three come\ntogether again in the story of the healing of Bartimaeus (Mk x, 46-52; Mt\nxx, 29-34; Lk, xviii, 35-43). Luke inserts his story of Zaccheus, unknown\nto the other evangelists (Lk xix, 1-10), and his parable of the Talents\n(Lk xix, 11-27), more or less closely parallel to Matthew's parable (Mt\nxxv, 14-30).\n\n\nTHE JERUSALEM NARRATIVE\n\nIn their account of the happenings in Jerusalem, the three evangelists\nstart out together in the story of the triumphal entry (Mk xi, 1-11; Mt\nxxi, 1-11; Lk xix, 28-38). Matthew and Luke then insert some material\nunknown to Mark (Mt xxi, 14-17; Lk xix, 39-44). Matthew follows Mark in\nthe story of the cursing of the fig tree (Mk xi, 12-14; Mt xxi, 18-19);\nLuke omits this, perhaps considering it a variant of the parable of the\nBarren Fig Tree given later by all three. The three continue together in\nthe account of the cleansing of the temple (Mk xi, 15-18; Mt xxi, 12-13;\nLk xix, 45-48), and Matthew gives with Mark the speech of Jesus concerning\nthe withered fig tree (Mk xi, 20-26; Mt xxi, 20-22); Luke, having omitted\nthe cursing of the fig tree, omits also this speech concerning it.\n\nThe three then give together the Pharisees' question about Jesus'\nauthority for the cleansing of the temple (Mk xi, 27-33; Mt xxi, 23-27; Lk\nxx, 1-8). Matthew adds his parable of the Dissimilar Sons (Mt xxi, 28-32),\nand the three relate together the parable of the Evil Husbandmen (Mk xii,\n1-12; Mt xxi, 33-46; Lk xx, 9-19). Matthew next gives the parable of the\nWedding Feast (Mt xxii, 1-14) which Luke has given earlier, in his Great\nInterpolation (Lk xiv, 16-24). Matthew and Luke follow Mark again in the\nquestion about the tribute money (Mk xii, 13-17; Mt xxii, 15-22; Lk xx,\n20-26) and the question of the Sadducees about marriage (Mk xii, 18-27; Mt\nxxii, 23-33; Lk xx, 27-40). Matthew continues to follow Mark in the\nquestion about the great commandment (Mk xii, 28-34; Mt xxii, 34-40); Luke\nhas included this also in his Great Interpolation (Lk x, 25-28); both\nMatthew and Luke omit the complimentary remarks of the scribe to Jesus\ngiven by Mark (Mk xii, 32-34). This omission does not hinder their\nfollowing Mark in his next sections, the question of David's son, and the\nspeech against the Pharisees (Mk xii, 35-37; Mt xxii, 41-46; Lk xx, 41-44,\nand Mk xii, 38-40; Mt xxiii, 1-36; Lk xx, 45-47). Matthew's largely\nexpanded form of the latter of these two sections shows him to be here\ncombining some other source with Mark.\n\nLuke's discourse against the Pharisees recorded in this place agrees\nclosely with Mark's, but he has given in his eleventh chapter much of the\nnon-Marcan material which Matthew gives in this place (Lk xi, 39-50).\nMatthew then inserts the lament over Jerusalem (Mt xxiii, 37-39) which\nLuke has given at an earlier and less appropriate point (Lk xiii, 34-35).\nMatthew deserts, but Luke follows, Mark in the story of the widow's mite\n(Mk xii, 41-44; Lk xxi, 1-4). All three continue together in the\nprediction of the destruction of the temple (Mk xiii, 1-4; Mt xxiv, 1-3;\nLk xxi, 5-7), and in the signs of the parousia (Mk xiii, 5-9; Mt xxiv,\n4-8; Lk xxi, 8-11). Thruout the remainder of the \"Little Apocalypse\"\nMatthew has an occasional expansion of Marcan material, and Luke makes an\noccasional omission, but it is obvious that Matthew and Luke are here, in\nthe main, following Mark closely (Mk xiii; Mt xxiv; Lk xxi). There follow\nin Matthew several sections not duplicated in Mark, as the saying about\nthe days of Noah (Mt xxiv, 37-41), the parables of the Watching Servant\n(Mt xxiv, 42-44), the True and False Servant (Mt xxiv, 45-51), the Wise\nVirgins (Mt xxv, 1-13), the Talents (Mt xxv, 14-30), and the parable of\nthe Judgment (Mt xxv, 31-46). Luke has given to the \"Little Apocalypse\" an\nending of his own (Lk xxi, 34-36); the material which Matthew has inserted\ncontinuously in his xxiv, 37-xxv, 30, Luke has scattered over his\nseventeenth, twelfth, and nineteenth chapters; the Matthean parable of the\nJudgment is duplicated in neither Mark nor Luke. Luke adds a summary of\nthe activity of Jesus in Jerusalem (Lk xxi, 37-38).\n\n\nTHE STORY OF THE PASSION\n\nHere the three evangelists start out together with the machinations of the\nrulers (Mk xiv, 1-2; Mt xxvi, 1-5; Lk xxii, 1-2). Luke drops out the\naccount of the anointing in Bethany, which Mark and Matthew relate (Mk\nxiv, 3-9; Mt xxvi, 6-13), Luke having related a similar event in an\nearlier chapter (Lk vii, 36-50). The three then go on together in the\nstory of the bargain of Judas with the priests (Mk xiv, 10-11; Mt xxvi,\n14-16; Lk xxii, 3-6), and the account of the preparation for the Passover\n(Mk xiv, 12-17; Mt xxvi, 17-20; Lk xxii, 7-14). Luke then brings forward\nMark's story of the institution of the Lord's Supper, apparently feeling\nthat it fits better here than as given by Mark; except for the\ntransposition of Luke's xxii, 21-23 (= Mk xiv, 18-21; Mt xxvi, 21-25), the\nthree agree in their account of the prediction of the betrayal and the\ninstitution of the Supper. Luke then adds a section of seven verses (Lk\nxxii, 24-30) on the strife about rank in the coming kingdom, which Mark\nand Matthew have given earlier (Mk x, 42-45; Mt xx, 25-28). After this\ninterruption of the common order the three go on with the prediction of\nthe denial by Peter (Mk xiv, 26-31; Mt xxvi, 30-35; Lk xxii, 31-34). Then\ncome, tho interrupted by here and there a slight addition peculiar to\nMatthew or Luke, and with transpositions of verses or small sections more\nfrequent than in other parts of the Gospels, the scene in Gethsemane, the\narrest, trial, execution, and burial of Jesus, and the story of the empty\ngrave (Mk xiv, 32-xvi, 8; Mt xxvi, 36-xxviii, 10; Lk xxii, 39-xxiv, 11);\nthus bringing us down to the mutilated end of Mark's Gospel.\n\nMatthew and Luke have thus taken, between them, with trifling exceptions,\nthe entire Gospel of Mark. The historical framework of the Synoptic\nGospels goes back to Mark.\n\n\nTHE PRIORITY OF MARK\n\nWe add here a brief statement of the theory that Mark's Gospel is an\nabstract of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Tho this theory is no longer\ndefended, it may be worth while to summarize the more general\nconsiderations which have led to its abandonment.\n\n1. It is impossible, upon this theory, to account for the omission by Mark\nof so much of the material that stood before him in Matthew and Luke. He\nhas omitted most of the parables and sayings. He has added no narrative.\nHe has therefore made an abstract in which much is omitted, nothing is\nadded, and no improvement is introduced. No reason can be assigned for the\nmaking of such a Gospel by abstracting from the fuller and better Gospels\nof Matthew and Luke. The abstract not only adds nothing of its own, but\nfails to preserve the distinctive character of either of its exemplars.\n\n2. If Mark had wished to make such an abstract, it is impossible to\nexplain why in practically every instance he follows, as between Matthew\nand Luke, the longer narrative, while his own narrative is longer than\neither of those he copied. In the story of the healing of the leper, for\nexample, Matthew (viii, 1-4) has 62 words, Luke (v, 12-16, without his\nintroduction) has 87, and Mark (i, 40-45) has 97. In the healing of the\nparalytic (Mk ii, 1-12; Mt ix, 1-8; Lk v, 17-26) Matthew has 125 words,\nLuke 172, and Mark 190. In the calling of Levi (Matthew, in the Gospel of\nMatthew) Matthew has 92 words, Luke 93, and Mark 110 (Mk ii, 13-17; Mt ix,\n9-13; Lk v, 27-32). In the parable of the Sower (Mk iv, 1-9; Mt xiii, 1-9;\nLk viii, 4-8) Matthew has 134 words, Luke 90, and Mark 151. In the\ninterpretation of that parable (Mk iv, 13-20; Mt xiii, 18-23; Lk viii,\n11-15) Matthew has 128 words, Luke 109, and Mark 147. Many more such\ninstances might be given. In every case the additional words of Mark\ncontain no substantial addition to the narrative. They are mere\nredundancies, which Matthew and Luke, each in his own way, have\neliminated.\n\n3. Mark contains a large number of otherwise unknown or unliterary words\nand phrases. For example, [Greek: schizomenous], i, 10; [Greek: en\npneumati akatharto], i, 23; [Greek: krabattos], ii, 4, and in five other\nplaces; [Greek: epiraptei], ii, 21; [Greek: thygatrion], v, 23; vii, 25;\n[Greek: eschatos echei], v, 23; [Greek: spekoulator], vi, 27; [Greek:\nsymposia symposia], vi, 39; [Greek: eisin tines hode ton hestekoton], ix,\n1; [Greek: heis kata heis], xiv, 19; [Greek: ekperissos], xiv, 31. Such\nexpressions might easily have been replaced by Matthew and Luke with the\nbetter expressions which they use instead of these; they could hardly have\nbeen substituted by Mark for those better expressions.\n\n4. Mark contains many broken or incomplete constructions; as in iii, 16+;\niv, 31+; v, 23; vi, 8+; xi, 32; xii, 38-40; xiii, 11, 14, 16, 19; xiv, 49.\nSuch constructions would be easily corrected by Matthew and Luke; they\nwould not easily be inserted into the narratives of Matthew and Luke by\nMark.\n\n5. Mark has many double or redundant expressions, of which Matthew has\ntaken a part, Luke sometimes the same part, sometimes another. Such\ninstances may be found in Mark's Gospel at ii, 20, 25; iv, 39; xi, 2; xii,\n14; the corresponding passages in Matthew and Luke will show their\ntreatment of these redundancies.[6]\n\n6. Mark uses uniformly [Greek: kai], where Matthew and Luke have sometimes\n[Greek: kai], and sometimes [Greek: de]. Mark's use shows him to be nearer\nthe Hebrew or Aramaic. No explanation can be given for his substitution of\nthis monotonous conjunction in the place of the two conjunctions used by\nMatthew and Luke. The variation in Matthew and Luke of Mark's one\nconjunction is entirely natural.\n\n7. Mark has many Aramaic words, which he translates into Greek; see\nespecially iii, 17; v, 41; vii, 11; vii, 34. It would be easy for these to\nbe dropped out by writers making use of Mark's material for Hellenistic\nreaders; but very unnatural for Mark to have inserted these Aramaic words\ninto the Greek texts of Matthew and Luke.\n\n8. Mark's narrative thruout is more spirited and vivid than either\nMatthew's or Luke's. It would be much easier for these graphic touches to\nbe omitted for various reasons by Matthew and Luke, even tho they found\nthese before them in their Gospel of Mark, than for Mark to have added\nthese touches in copying the narratives of Matthew and Luke. One may\nmention especially the details about the appearance and dress of the\nBaptist (Mk i, 6); the four men carrying the litter (ii, 3); the\nstatement, \"He looked around upon them with wrath, being grieved at the\nhardness of their hearts\" (Mk iii, 5); the names of persons, and their\nrelatives, unknown to the other evangelists, the description of the\nGadarene demoniac, the additional details of the conversation between\nJesus and the parents of the epileptic boy (ix, 20-24), and many similar\nitems.\n\n\nLUKE'S GREAT INTERPOLATION: ITS NON-USE OF MARK\n\nThruout this Great Interpolation, Luke entirely forsakes Mark.[7] Out of\nthe two hundred and fifty-two verses of the interpolation, there are about\nthirty-five which contain material also to be found in Mark. But thirteen\nof these thirty-five verses are doublets. And of these doublets, the\nmember which appears in the interpolation seems never to agree in its\nsetting with the verse in Mark to which it is parallel, whereas the verse\nwhich, outside the interpolation, constitutes the other member of the\ndoublet does so agree. In the case of five of these doublets, the member\nstanding outside the interpolation is also more closely similar to Mark in\nwording than the half standing in the interpolation. The thirteen verses\ncontaining the doublets therefore came apparently from some other source\nthan Mark.\n\nNine other brief sayings in the interpolation have a parallel in Mark, and\nalso in Matthew. But the similarity in each case is greater between the\nMarcan and Matthean than between the Lucan and Marcan forms, and thus\nindicates that these Lucan verses were not drawn from Mark, tho Matthew's\nparallel verses apparently were.[8] The placing of these nine verses in\nLuke is unlike that in Mark, but their placing in Matthew is exactly\nsimilar to Mark's. In twenty-two out of the thirty-five verses of the\nGreat Interpolation that are paralleled in Mark there are thus but three\nexpressions, at the most, that can possibly be held to indicate that Luke\nis here following Mark.\n\nTwo more such expressions are found in the remaining thirteen verses. Four\nof these contain the discussion about the Great Commandment, paralleled in\nMk xii, 28-34, and Mt xxii, 34-40. The connection is identical in Matthew\nand Mark, but very different in Luke. The same is true of the introductory\nquestion of the scribe. Mark and Matthew assign to the questioner the Old\nTestament quotation which Luke assigns to Jesus. The commendation of the\nquestioner, common to Mark and Luke, and the addition, also common to them\nagainst Matthew, of [Greek: ex holes tes ischyos sou (en hole te ischyi\nsou)] would naturally point toward a dependence of Luke upon Mark, but are\nnot strong enough to counterbalance so much evidence in the opposite\ndirection.\n\nThe next seven verses (xi, 15, 17-23) contain the defense of Jesus against\nthe charge of having a devil. Mark and Luke agree but slightly, Matthew\nand Luke very closely. Matthew has 136 words, Luke 139, Mark only 98,\nwhereas the narratives which Luke takes from Mark are invariably\nabbreviated by Luke. Matthew and Luke have the same setting, Mark a\ndifferent one. Matthew follows Mark against Luke in the little parable of\nthe Strong Man Armed; Luke has no parallel. Matthew has conflated two\nsources, one of which was Mark, but Luke has forsaken Mark for the other\nsource.\n\nThe remaining two verses, the parable of the Mustard Seed (Lk xiii, 18-19;\nMk iv, 30+; Mt xiii, 31+) show the same features as those just considered.\nWe conclude that thruout his Great Interpolation, Luke, while having some\nmatter paralleled in Mark, was not following Mark, but some other source.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE ORDER OF MARK'S GOSPEL COMPARED WITH THAT OF MATTHEW AND THAT OF LUKE\n\n\nIn the treatment of the framework of the Synoptics, something has been\nsaid of the way in which Matthew and Luke treat the order of the material\nwhich they have taken from Mark. The subject, however, calls for a more\ncareful analysis.\n\nAt the opening of the 3d chapters of Matthew and Luke, these writers begin\ntheir use of Marcan material. Thru the story of John the Baptist, the\nbaptism and temptation of Jesus, and his first preaching in Galilee,\nMatthew and Luke follow Mark's order, with the trifling exception that\nLuke has brot forward to his 3d chapter the account of John's\nimprisonment, which in Mark is not given till his 6th chapter and in\nMatthew till his 14th, Matthew's order here being the same as Mark's.\nLuke's insertion of the genealogy of Jesus between the baptism and the\ntemptation of Jesus does not constitute a deviation from the order, but\nonly an addition to the material, of Mark. In Luke's 4th chapter (16-30)\nhe brings forward an incident which Mark relates much later (Mk vi, 1-6),\nthe incident also being much worked over by Luke. Matthew, on the\ncontrary, follows Mark in next relating the call of the first disciples;\nLuke continues his deviation in order by postponing this till later.[9]\n\nLuke then comes back to Mark's order (Mk i, 21-38; Lk iv, 31-43), and\nfollows it thru four sections: the incident in the synagogue at Capernaum,\nthe healing of Peter's wife's mother, the healings in the evening, and the\nretirement of Jesus. Of these four sections, Matthew omits the first,\npresumably because he considers himself to have given, in his Sermon on\nthe Mount, a much fuller account of the effect of Jesus' preaching than is\nconveyed by the words of Mark. The second and third of the four sections\nMatthew postpones till after his Sermon on the Mount. The last one, about\nthe retirement of Jesus, he omits, because he has no place for it, since\nhe has not recorded the preaching at Capernaum and the incident attached\nto it, out of which the retirement came.\n\nLuke then inserts (v, 1-11) his account of the calling of Peter. He then\nreturns to Mark's order (Mk i, 40-45; Lk v, 12-16) in the healing of the\nleper; this incident Matthew has postponed till after his Sermon on the\nMount. Matthew again brings forward the account of the storm on the lake\nand the Gadarene demoniac, which Mark does not relate till his 4th and 5th\nchapters. But after these deviations he again coincides with Mark and Luke\nin the healing of the paralytic, the calling of Levi, and the question\nabout fasting. Matthew again forsakes Mark's order by bringing forward the\nmission of the twelve to a place much earlier than it occupies in Mark's\nnarrative. Having done this he falls again into the Marcan order, which\nLuke has been still following, and relates in the same order with Mark the\nwalk thru the corn and the healing of the withered hand.\n\nLuke has thus far shown few deviations from Mark's order, Matthew many.\nThese deviations of Matthew's seem mostly to have been occasioned by his\ninsertion of so much non-Marcan material in his Sermon on the Mount. Luke\nnow makes a slight transposition; he relates with Mark the story of the\nhealings and the crowd, and the calling of the twelve, but in the reverse\norder; he has thus secured a better introduction to his Sermon on the\nLevel Place (beginning Lk vi, 20). After the conclusion of that sermon,\nand the inclusion of much non-Marcan material, in Luke; and after the\nSermon on the Mount in Matthew, and the insertion by him of much Marcan\nmaterial which in Mark's Gospel comes at later points, Matthew and Luke\ncome back to Mark's order in the Beelzebul controversy. Matthew continues\nwith Mark in the story of the family of Jesus, come to take him home, the\nparable of the Sower, and the interpretation of that parable. Luke also\nfollows Mark's order thruout these three sections, tho he has placed all\nthree of them at an earlier point in his Gospel, and has transposed the\nfirst section.\n\nBeginning again with the storm on the lake and the Gadarene demoniac,\nMatthew and Luke follow Mark's order thru two long sections. Matthew, in\ncopying Mark's earlier narrative, omitted his healing of the paralytic,\nhis call of Levi (Matthew), and his report of the discussion about\nfasting, where these occurred in Mark's 2d chapter. He therefore inserts\nthem here in his 9th chapter. After the insertion of these Matthew comes\nback to the order of Mark in his story of the daughter of Jairus. Luke,\nhaving followed Mark's order in the earlier narrative where Matthew\ndeviated from it, follows it here uninterruptedly thru the three sections\nabout the storm on the lake, the Gadarene demoniac, and the daughter of\nJairus. After omitting Mk vi, 1-6, the story of the rejection at Nazareth,\nwhich Luke has given in an expanded form much earlier, Luke again follows\nMark's narrative thru two sections on the sending out of the disciples and\nthe judgment of Herod concerning Jesus. He omits the death of the Baptist,\nperhaps under the impression that this will be inferred from his leaving\nhim in prison in an earlier chapter, but goes on with Mark again in the\naccount of the return of the disciples and the feeding of the five\nthousand. Matthew has come back to Mark's order at Mk vi, 14 (Mt xiv, 1),\nand follows it without deviation or interruption thru about seventy\nverses; after which, tho omitting several small sections of Marcan\nmaterial, and inserting some non-Marcan matter, he continues to follow the\nMarcan order to Mk ix, 48; thus following Mark's order, in spite of\nadditions and omissions, thru more than three of Mark's chapters, without\ndeviation. Luke has fallen out at Mk vi, 45, and takes nothing from Mark\nagain till he reaches Mark's viii, 27; at which point, without having made\nany insertion of his own peculiar material, he again takes up Mark's\nnarrative, and follows it from Mk viii, 27, to Mk ix, 8 (= Lk ix, 18, to\nix, 36); then making another omission of a few Marcan verses, he continues\nto follow Mark up to Mk ix, 40. In spite of Luke's omission of several\nbrief Marcan sections, and of more than three Marcan chapters at another\npoint, Luke has thus not disturbed the Marcan order from Mk vi, 6, to Mk\nix, 40.\n\nBeginning with Mk x, 1, Matthew follows Mark, tho making an insertion of\n16 verses, up to Mk xi, 11, at which point he transposes a few verses.\nLuke has come in at Mk x, 13, and has followed up to Mk x, 34, at which\npoint he makes an omission of ten Marcan verses. Going on with Mark at Mk\nx, 46, he continues to follow him (tho inserting his story of Zaccheus and\nhis parable of the talents) to Mk xiii, 9, omitting, however, Mark's\nstory of the cursing of the fig tree and the speech of Jesus attached to\nthis incident in Mark's Gospel. After the transposition of a few Marcan\nverses in Mt xxi, 12-13, Matthew also continues Mark's order, beginning\nwith Mk xi, 20, down to Mk xiii, 9.\n\nFrom Mk xiii, 9, to xiii, 32, both Matthew and Luke follow Mark's order.\nAt Mk xiii, 33-37, they come upon a section which Matthew postpones and\nwhich Luke has previously inserted. After the insertion of some non-Marcan\nmatter common to Matthew and Luke, and of some matter peculiar to each,\nboth Matthew and Luke go on with the Marcan material, beginning where they\nleft off at Mk xiv, 1. Luke omits Mk xiv, 3-9, because of a duplicate or\nvariant of the passage which he has inserted in his 7th chapter; except\nfor this omission (which does not affect Matthew), the three proceed in\nthe same order down to Mk xiv, 17, where Luke again transposes a few\nverses, but Matthew follows without deviation. From here on to the end of\nMark's Gospel, Matthew follows practically without deviation, tho adding\nmuch matter of his own. Luke makes a transposition of the story of Peter's\ndenial, and of one or two other items; except for which he also follows\nMark's order substantially as he finds it.\n\nThis statement of the relative order of Marcan material in the three\nSynoptic Gospels has been made in a way to facilitate comparison in the\nlarge, and give a general idea of how faithfully Matthew and Luke have\nfollowed the order of Mark. For purposes of studying the matter in more\ndetail, Table I is appended. The sections are given and numbered as they\noccur in Mark, and also as they occur in Matthew and Luke.\n\n TABLE I\n\n SHOWING CHANGES MADE BY MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE ORDER OF MARCAN MATERIAL\n\n =========================================================================\n | CHAPTER AND VERSE |SEC. NOS.\n SUBJECT-MATTER OF |--------------------------------------|---------\n SECTION | Mk | Lk | Mt |Mk|Lk|Mt\n ------------------------|-----------|------------|-------------|---|--|--\n John the Baptist | i, 1-6 | iii, 1-6 | iii, 1-6 | 1| 1| 1\n His messianic | | | | | |\n announcement | i, 7-8 | iii, 15-18| iii, 11-12| 2| 2| 2\n Baptism of Jesus | i, 9-11 | iii, 21-22| iii, 13-17| 3| 3| 3\n Temptation of Jesus | i, 12-13| iv, 1-13| iv, 1-11 | 4| 4| 4\n Appearance in Galilee | i, 14-15| iv, 14-15| iv, 12-17| 5| 5| 5\n Calling first disciples | i, 16-20| v, 1-11| iv, 18-22| 6|12| 6\n In the synagogue | i, 21-28| iv, 31-37| vii, 28-29| 7| 7|11\n Peter's wife's mother | i, 29-31| iv, 38-39| viii, 14-15| 8| 8|13\n Healings in the evening | i, 32-34| iv, 40-41| viii, 16-17| 9| 9|14\n Retirement of Jesus | i, 35-38| iv, 42-43| ......... | 10|10|..\n Preaching tour in | | | | | |\n Galilee | i, 39 | iv, 44 | iv, 23-25| 11|11| 7\n Healing of leper | i, 40-45| v, 12-16| viii, 1-4 | 12|13|12\n Healing of paralytic | ii, 1-12 | v, 17-26| ix, 1-8 | 13|14|17\n Calling of Levi | ii, 13-17| v, 27-32| ix, 9-13 | 14|15|18\n Question of fasting | ii, 18-22| v, 33-39| ix, 14-17| 15|16|19\n Walk thru the corn | ii, 23-28| vi, 1-5 | xii, 1-8 | 16|17|25\n The withered hand | iii, 1-6 | vi, 6-11| xii, 9-14 | 17|18|26\n Crowd and healings | iii, 7-12 | vi, 17-19| xii, 15-21| 18|20|27\n Calling of the twelve | iii, 13-19| vi, 12-16| x, 2-4 | 19|19|22\n The pharisaic accusation| iii, 20-22| xi, 14-16| xii, 22-24| 20|43|28\n Jesus' defense | iii, 23-30| xi, 17-23| xii, 25-37| 21|44|29\n Jesus' true kindred | iii, 31-35|viii, 19-21| xii, 46-50| 22|28|30\n Parable of the Sower | iv, 1-9 |viii, 4-8 | xiii, 1-9 | 23|23|31\n Purpose of parables | iv, 10-12|viii, 9-10| xiii, 10-15| 24|24|32\n Interpretation of Sower | iv, 13-20|viii, 11-15| xiii, 18-23| 25|25|33\n Saying about a light | iv, 21 |viii, 16 | v, 15 | 26|26| 9\n Hidden and revealed | iv, 22 |viii, 17 | x, 26 | 27|27|24\n Ears to hear | iv, 23 |viii, 8; | xi, 15; | 28|30|27\n | | xiv, 35 | xiii, 9 | | |\n The measure | iv, 24 | vi, 38 | vii, 2 | 29|21|10\n Whoever has | iv, 25 | vi, 38 | xiii, 12 | 30|22|32\n Seed Growing of Itself | iv, 26-29| .......... | .......... | 31|..|..\n Mustard Seed | iv, 30-32|xiii, 18-19| xiii, 31-32| 32|..|34\n Speaking in parables | iv, 33-34| .......... | xiii, 34-35| 33|..|35\n Storm on the lake | iv, 35-41|viii, 22-25| viii, 23-27| 34|29|15\n Gadarene demoniac | v, 1-20|viii, 26-39| viii, 28-34| 35|30|16\n Daughter of Jairus, and | v, 21-43|viii, 40-56| ix, 18-26| 36|31|20\n woman with issue of | | | | | |\n blood | | | | | |\n Rejection in Nazareth | vi, 1-6 | iv, 16-30| xiii, 53-58| 37| 6|36\n Sending out disciples | vi, 6-13| ix, 1-6 | ix, 35; | 38|32|21\n | | | x, 9-11| | |23\n Judgment of Herod on | | | | | |\n Jesus | vi, 14-16| ix, 7-9 | xiv, 1-2 | 39|23|37\n Death of the Baptist | vi, 17-29| .......... | xiv, 3-12| 40|..|38\n Return of disciples and | vi, 30-44| ix, 10-17| xiv, 13-21| 41|34|39\n feeding of five | | | | | |\n thousand | | | | | |\n Walking on the water | vi, 45-52| .......... | xiv, 22-33| 42|..|40\n Return to Gennesaret | vi, 53-56| .......... | xiv, 34-36| 43|..|41\n About hand-washing | vii, 1-23| .......... | xv, 1-20| 44|..|42\n The Canaanitish woman | vii, 24-30| .......... | xv, 21-28| 45|..|43\n Healing of deaf | | | | | |\n stammerer | vii, 31-37| .......... | .......... | 46|..|..\n Feeding of four thousand|viii, 1-10| .......... | xv, 32-39| 47|..|44\n Demand for a sign |viii, 11-13| xi, 29; | xvi, 1-4 | 48|45|45\n | | xii, 54-56| | |47|\n Saying about yeast |viii, 14-21| xii, 1 | xvi, 5-12| 49|46|46\n The blind man of | | | | | |\n Bethsaida |viii, 22-26| .......... | .......... | 50|..|..\n Confession of Peter |viii, 27-33| ix, 18-22| xvi, 13-23| 51|35|47\n Warnings of persecutions|viii, 34- | ix, 23-27| xvi, 24-28| 52|36|48\n | ix, 1| | | | |\n The transfiguration | ix, 2-8 | ix, 28-36| xvii, 1-8 | 53|37|49\n Question about Elias | ix, 9-13| .......... | xvii, 9-13| 54|..|50\n The epileptic boy | ix, 14-29| ix, 37-43a| xvii, 14-21| 55|38|51\n Prediction of sufferings| ix, 30-32| ix, 43b-45| xvii, 22-23| 56|39|52\n Strife about rank | ix, 33-37| ix, 46-48| xviii, 1-5 | 57|40|53\n The unknown exorcist | ix, 38-41| ix, 49-50| .......... | 58|41|..\n About offenses | ix, 42-48|xvii, 1-2 | xviii, 6-9 | 59|49|54\n About salt | ix, 49-50| xiv, 34-35| v, 13 | 60|48| 8\n Marriage and divorce | x, 1-12| .......... | xix, 1-12| 61|..|55\n Blessing the children | x, 13-16|xviii, 15-17| xix, 13-15| 62|50|56\n Danger of riches | x, 17-31|xviii, 18-30| xix, 16-30| 63|51|57\n Prediction of woes | x, 32-34|xviii, 31-34| xx, 17-19| 64|52|58\n The request for seats | x, 35-45| .......... | xx, 20-2 | 65|..|59\n Healing of Bartimaeus | x, 46-52|xviii, 35-43| xx, 29-34| 66|53|60\n Entry into Jerusalem | xi, 1-11| xix, 28-38| xxi, 1-11| 67|54|61\n Cursing of the fig tree | xi, 12-14| .......... | xxi, 18-19| 68|..|63\n Cleansing of the temple | xi, 15-19| xix, 45-48| xxi, 12-13| 69|55|62\n About the fig tree | xi, 20-26| .......... | xxi, 20-22| 70|..|64\n Question about authority| xi, 27-33| xx, 1-8 | xxi, 23-27| 71|56|65\n Parable of the Vineyard | xii, 1-12| xx, 9-19| xxi, 33-46| 72|57|66\n Question of Pharisees | xii, 13-17| xx, 20-26| xxii, 15-22| 73|58|67\n Question of Saducees | xii, 18-27| xx, 27-40| xxii, 23-33| 74|59|68\n The great commandment | xii, 28-34| x, 25-28| xxii, 34-40| 75|42|69\n The Son of David | xii, 35-37| xx, 41-44| xxii, 41-46| 76|60|70\n Against the Pharisees | xii, 38-40| xx, 45-47| xxiii, 1-36| 77|61|71\n Prediction about temple |xiii, 1-4 | xxi, 5-7 | xxiv, 1-3 | 78|62|72\n Signs of the parousia |xiii, 5-9a| xxi, 8-11| xxiv, 4-8 | 79|63|73\n Warnings of troubles |xiii, 9b-13| xxi, 12-19| xxiv, 9-14;| 80|64|74\n | | | x, 17-21| | |21\n Anguish in Judaea |xiii, 14-20| xxi, 20-24| xxiv, 15-22| 81|65|75\n The crisis |xiii, 21-23| .......... | xxiv, 23-25| 82|..|76\n The parousia |xiii, 24-27| xxi, 25-28| xxiv, 29-31| 83|66|77\n Parable of Fig Tree |xiii, 28-29| xxi, 29-31| xxiv, 32-33| 84|67|78\n The \"when\" of the | | | | | |\n parousia |xiii, 30-32| xxi, 32-33| xxiv, 34-36| 85|68|79\n Conclusion of speech |xiii, 33-37| xxi, 34-36| .......... | 86|69|..\n The plot against Jesus | xiv, 1-2 | xxii, 1-2 | xxvi, 1-5 | 87|70|80\n Anointing at Bethany | xiv, 3-9 | .......... | xxvi, 6-13| 88|..|81\n Treachery of Judas | xiv, 10-11| xxii, 3-6 | xxvi, 14-16| 89|71|82\n Preparation for Passover| xiv, 12-17| xxii, 7-14| xxvi, 17-20| 90|72|83\n Prediction of betrayal | xiv, 18-21| xxii, 21-23| xxvi, 21-25| 91|74|84\n Institution of Supper | xiv, 22-25| xxii, 15-20| xxvi, 26-29| 92|73|85\n Prediction of Peter's | | | | | |\n fall | xiv, 26-31| xxii, 31-34| xxvi, 30-35| 93|75|86\n In Gethsemane | xiv, 32-42| xxii, 39-46| xxvi, 36-46| 94|76|87\n The arrest | xiv, 43-54| xxii, 47-55| xxvi, 47-58| 95|77|88\n Trial before Sanhedrim | xiv, 55-65| xxii, 63-71| xxvi, 59-68| 96|79|89\n Denial of Peter | xiv, 66-72| xxii, 56-62| xxvi, 69-75| 97|78|90\n Delivery to Pilate | xv, 1 |xxiii, 1 | xxvii, 1-2 | 98|80|91\n Examination before | | | | | |\n Pilate | xv, 2-5 |xxiii, 2-5 | xxvii, 11-14| 99|81|92\n The condemnation of | | | | | |\n Jesus | xv, 6-15|xxiii, 18-25| xxvii, 15-26|100|82|93\n The mocking of Jesus | xv, 16-20| .......... | xxvii, 27-31|101|..|94\n The death journey | xv, 21 |xxiii, 26-32| xxvii, 32 |102|83|95\n The crucifixion | xv, 22-32|xxiii, 33-43| xxvii, 33-44|103|84|96\n The death of Jesus | xv, 33-41|xxiii, 44-49| xxvii, 45-56|104|85|97\n The burial | xv, 42-47|xxiii, 50-56| xxvii, 57-61|105|86|98\n The empty grave | xvi, 1-8 | xxiv, 1-12|xxviii, 1-10|106|87|99\n -------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nA comparison of the number in the Table which a given section bears\nrespectively in Matthew and Mark or Luke and Mark will show the number and\nextent of the changes which Matthew and Luke have permitted themselves in\ntheir disposition of Marcan material.\n\n\nDEDUCTIONS FROM THE TABLE\n\nAn examination of the preceding table will show how generally both Matthew\nand Luke have followed the order of Mark.\n\nOf the 87 Marcan sections retained by Luke, only 11 sections (Nos. 6, 12,\n21, 22, 23, 42-47) are seriously misplaced. From sec. 35 to the end, the\norder is particularly well preserved, the only changes being in the\nplacing of 49 before 48, and 74 before 73. Luke's displacements are\nusually made in the interest of a better historical or literary sequence;\nsome of them may also be occasioned by his large omissions of Marcan\nmaterial and his large insertions of peculiar matter.\n\nMatthew has made rather a larger number of changes in the order of his\nMarcan material; due perhaps to his habit of combining his Marcan and his\nother matter, and to his wish to present most of his sayings-material in\none block (chaps. v-vii). His notable transpositions occur near the\nbeginning of his Gospel, just before or after the insertion of his Sermon\non the Mount, and in that section (the sending out of the twelve) where he\nhas made his most obvious conflation of Marcan and other matter. From sec.\n37 to the end, however, changes in order are extremely few. The insertion\nof 8 between 54 and 55 may be only an apparent dislocation, since the\nsaying about salt may here not have been derived from Mark but from Q. The\nplacing of the cleansing of the temple before the cursing of the fig tree\n(secs. 62, 63) may be due to his wish to bring the cursing of the fig tree\ninto immediate connection with the remarks to which it gave rise; the\ntransposition is an improvement. From here on to the end the sections\noccur precisely as in Mark, except that 21 is inserted between 74 and 75;\napparently owing to the influence of Q. The table will also show that\nMatthew and Luke practically never concur in forsaking the order of Mark.\nIt also warrants the assertion often made of late years that Matthew is\nmore faithful to the content of Mark, permitting himself fewer omissions,\nbut Luke is more faithful to his order.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE OMISSIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE MARCAN NARRATIVE[10]\n\n\nOMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH MATTHEW AND LUKE\n\nThe omission of the stories of the healing of the deaf-and-dumb man and\nthe blind man (Mk vii, 31-37; viii, 22-26), is sufficiently accounted for\nby the character of those accounts. The crassness of the means used and\nthe apparent difficulty of the cures offended the growing sense of the\ndignity of Jesus.\n\nThe exceedingly patronizing answer of the scribe to Jesus in Mk xii, 32-34\nis probably omitted by Matthew and Luke for the same reason. The parable\nof the Seed Growing of Itself (Mk iv, 26-29) may have been omitted because\nit so closely duplicated other material in both Matthew and Luke;[11] it\nhas been suggested also that it might have a discouraging effect, or at\nleast not a stimulating one, upon the missionary activities of the early\nchurch.\n\nThe first visit of Jesus to the temple (Mk xi, 11) is mentioned by Mark in\nthree words only. No incident is connected with it, but Jesus is said to\nhave looked about and, as it was late, to have gone back to Bethany. The\nincident may have dropped out because unsupported by any events or\nsayings; or the three words [Greek: eis to hieron] may have crept into\nthe text of Mark after its use by Matthew and Luke (the sense is equally\ngood without them).\n\nThe mention of the man in the linen garment (Mk xiv, 51) and the names of\nAlexander and Rufus (Mk xv, 21) may have been omitted because neither\nMatthew nor Luke nor their readers would be acquainted with these persons.\n\n\nOMISSIONS MADE BY MATTHEW IN THE MARCAN NARRATIVE\n\nMatthew omits the account of the preaching of Jesus in the synagogue at\nCapernaum (Mk i, 21-28) because he wished to give a much more detailed\naccount of Jesus' preaching, in his Sermon on the Mount. This explanation\nbecomes a practical certainty when we observe that the statement which\nMark and Luke make concerning the effect of the sermon in the synagogue,\n\"They were astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one having\nauthority and not as the scribes,\" is used by Matthew to describe the\neffect of the Sermon on the Mount.\n\nMatthew's omission of the flight of Jesus (Mk i, 35-38) is probably due to\nits failure to fit into his story, as this has been changed on account of\nthe insertion of the Sermon on the Mount. The retirement takes place from\nCapernaum, as a result of the enthusiasm aroused by Jesus' preaching\nthere. Matthew does not represent Jesus as preaching in Capernaum. He\nbrings Jesus to Capernaum in chaps. 8 and 9, not however to preach, but to\nwork miracles. Jesus closes this series of healings with the statement (Mt\nix, 37-38), \"The harvest is great but the laborers are few. Pray ye\ntherefore the lord of the harvest that he send forth laborers into his\nvineyard.\" The retirement does not follow naturally upon this series of\nhealings, much less upon these words, and so is omitted.\n\nThe omission of the story of the unknown exorcist (Mk ix, 38-41), as\nWernle remarks,[12] is not so easy to explain. It may be observed,\nhowever, that by its omission Matthew secures a better connection between\nthe two sayings of Jesus which are thus brought into succession: \"He that\nreceiveth one such little one in my name receiveth me,\" and \"but he that\ncauseth one of these little ones that believe in me to stumble, it is\nbetter for him,\" etc. (Mt xviii, 5, 6).\n\nThe story of the widow's mite (Mk xii, 41-44) Matthew may have omitted\nbecause he lacks the connection for it which is supplied in the Gospel of\nMark. Mark makes Jesus speak of the Pharisees who \"devour widow's houses,\"\nand immediately after this introduces the incident of the widow's\nself-sacrifice. Matthew has omitted the incident because he has not the\nproper occasion for it.[13]\n\nMatthew's other omissions have been accounted for under the omissions\ncommon to him with Luke. The sum total of them is very small and in\ngeneral they are easily accounted for.\n\n\nOMISSIONS MADE BY LUKE IN THE MARCAN NARRATIVE[14]\n\nLuke omits the circumstantial account of the death of the Baptist (Mk vi,\n17-29); he has long ago inserted the account of his imprisonment (Lk iii,\n19-20), wishing to finish with John before beginning with Jesus. \"But the\ncircumstantial account did not fit in that place.\"[15]\n\nThe longest omission of continuous Marcan material is made by Luke in\nomitting the whole of Mk vi, 45 to viii, 26. This long omission\nimmediately precedes the long insertion of special Lucan material,\nindicating a possible difficulty in combining the two sources at this\npoint. Quite without this, however, there are more or less obvious reasons\nfor Luke's omission of every section in this long passage. He avoids[16]\nthe repetition of the same story, and may have regarded Mark's feeding of\nthe four thousand (Mk viii, 1-10) as a repetition of the feeding of the\nfive thousand which Luke has already copied from him.\n\nThe demand for a sign is a doublet in Matthew; Luke has taken it once with\nMatthew from Q and therefore does not care to take it with him here again\nfrom Mark (Mk viii, 11-13). The dispute about things that defile (Mk vii,\n1-23) had no significance for a gentile writer or his gentile readers. As\nearly as his 4th chapter, Luke has represented Jesus as turning from the\nJews, who had rejected him, to the gentiles; he cannot therefore use\nMark's story of the Canaanitish woman, (Mk vii, 24-30), with its\napparently narrow national outlook: \"It is not meet to take the children's\nbread and throw it to the dogs.\"[17] The crossing of the lake to\nGennesaret has in Mark (vi, 53-56) no particular incident connected with\nit, merely the statement that many people came to Jesus and were healed.\nIt may have been omitted by Luke because he has a duplicate in viii,\n22-25. The omission of this item was no particular loss to Luke's\naccount; but with its omission the incident of the walking on the water\nalso fell out. The latter may have been omitted also because of its\nimplied aspersion upon the disciples. Luke may have been the more ready to\ndrop this, as his interest in the miracles of Jesus is confined more\nlargely to the healings, the miracles peculiar to Luke being entirely of\nthis kind.\n\nLuke omitted the discussion of Jesus with the Pharisees about Elias (Mk\nix, 9-13) because it had no interest for his gentile readers. The omission\nof the saying about offenses (Mk ix, 42-48) is accounted for by Luke's\nhaving a parallel for the first part of it in another connection; the last\npart, about cutting off the hand or the foot, may have seemed to him, with\nhis Greek taste, too harsh a saying to be attributed to Jesus.\n\nLuke omitted the journey thru Judaea (Mk x, 1) (or Perea) because in its\nplace he has given a long account (Lk ix, 51-xviii, 14) (again his great\ninterpolation) of the journey thru Samaria. The terminus of both journeys\nand their place in the story are the same. The question about marriage and\ndivorce (Mk x, 2-12) is again connected with a Pharisaic dispute; Luke has\nalso given his own briefer version of the same item (xvi, 18); for either\nor both of these reasons he omits it here. The request of James and John\nfor chief seats in the kingdom (Mk x, 35-45) Luke omits because it\nreflects upon the motives of those disciples; Matthew perceives the same\nobjection to it, but, more faithful to his sources he gets over the\ndifficulty by attributing the request to the mother, instead of to the\ndisciples. Mark's discussion about the disciples' failure to bring bread\n(Mk viii, 14-21) Luke may have omitted because of its implication of\ncarelessness on the part of the disciples. Luke also uniformly avoids any\nimplication of lack of knowledge on the part of Jesus, and this incident\nincludes one such.[18]\n\nThe question about the great commandment (Mk xii, 28-34) Luke may have\nomitted because it also is connected with a dispute with a scribe. Or if\nLuke's passage (x, 25-28) be considered a parallel to it, this is enough\nto account for its omission here. On this latter supposition, Luke has\nused the saying as an introduction to his story of the Good Samaritan. The\ncursing of the fig tree (Mk xi, 12-14) Luke apparently regarded as a\nmisunderstanding of the parable of the Fig Tree, which he gives. Whether\nso or not, it is of the same kind as the other miracles which Luke omits,\nin that it is not a miracle of healing. The anointing in Bethany (Mk xiv,\n3-9) has a parallel in the anointing (both in the \"house of Simon\") by the\nsinful woman, which Luke has related in his 7th chapter (vss. 36-50). \"The\nsecond session of the sanhedrim he has combined with the first.\"[19]\n\nConcerning the great omission of Luke (Mk vi, 45-viii, 26), it should be\nadded that his Gospel is now considerably longer than Mark's and even than\nMatthew's. He had much material of his own to incorporate. Rolls of\npapyrus were of an average length, and not capable of indefinite\nextension. Luke could not include all Mark's material without omitting\nmuch that he has derived elsewhere. If it was necessary or convenient for\nhim to make an omission amounting in length to the matter he has passed\nover in Mark, it was much easier and simpler for him to omit an entire\nsection of that length, than to go here and there thru Mark to make his\nnecessary total of eliminations. This consideration, with the character of\nthe material omitted, sufficiently accounts for the \"great omission.\"[20]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE CHANGES OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE NARRATIVE OF MARK[21]\n\n\nTHE BAPTISM OF JESUS\n\n(Mk i, 9-11; Mt iii, 13-17; Lk iii, 21-22)\n\nMatthew adds to Mark's account the conversation in which John objects to\nbaptizing Jesus, and Jesus quiets his scruples (Mt iii, 14-15). This\nreflects the later time, when the superiority of Jesus to John had been\nhistorically demonstrated, and when the baptism might have given offense\nby seeming to imply a need of forgiveness. The item approaches the point\nof view of the similar addition in the Fourth Gospel. Matthew, who has\nadded this item here, is the only evangelist who says that John's baptism\nwas [Greek: eis metanoian] (iii, 11). Matthew's added conversation\nappears, still more elaborated, in the Gospel of the Hebrews. Luke (iii,\n21) adds that Jesus was praying during his baptism, which may be an\naccommodation to the custom of the early church. Mark says the voice from\nthe sky was addressed to Jesus; Matthew represents it as addressed to the\ncrowd, perhaps to give more public honor to Jesus. The Gospel of the\nEbionites adds to Mark's \"in thee I am well pleased,\" the quotation from\nthe Psalms, \"this day have I begotten thee\"; and certain MSS contain the\nsame words in the text of Luke, omitting \"in thee I am well pleased.\"\nThese variations show the freedom of the early tradition, but its\nunanimity in the idea that the baptism was Jesus' messianic consecration.\nMatthew and Luke replace Mark's [Greek: schizomenous], a word not\nelsewhere found, with a word common in such connections.\n\n\nTHE CALLING OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES\n\n(Mk i, 16-20; Mt iv, 18-22; Lk v, 1-11)\n\nLuke postpones this account, and in connection with it gives the story of\nthe miraculous draft of fishes, unknown to Mark and Matthew. The reason is\nnot apparent, especially since the transposition involves Luke in some\nanachronisms. Matthew follows Mark's account closely,[22] retaining even\nthe parenthetical and appended explanation in vs. 16. He omits Mark's\nwords, \"with the hired men,\" perhaps because of his general tendency\ntoward condensation, perhaps because the departure of James and John from\ntheir father is rendered less critical by Mark's mention of the hired men.\n\n\nJESUS IN THE SYNAGOGUE AT CAPERNAUM\n\n(Mk i, 21-28; Mt vii, 28-29; Lk iv, 31-37)\n\nLuke omits \"and not as the scribes,\" because his readers would not\nunderstand the allusion. He replaces Mark's awkward phrase [Greek: en\npneumati akatharto] by the good Greek phrase [Greek: echon pneuma\ndaimoniou akathartou]. He omits Mark's mention of Galilee at the end of\nhis account, because he has inserted it at the beginning. Matthew's\nomission of the whole story may be controlled by his unwillingness,\nelsewhere manifested, to represent the demons as recognizing Jesus as the\nMessiah.\n\n\nTHE HEALING OF PETER'S MOTHER-IN-LAW\n\n(Mk i, 29-31; Mt viii, 14-15; Lk iv, 38-39)\n\nMark calls Peter by the name of Simon, as is uniform with him up to the\ntime Jesus gives him the name of Peter at his calling of the twelve.\nMatthew calls him Peter, by which name he knows him from the beginning.\nLuke's displacement of the call of Peter involves him in the anachronism\nof having the healing take place in his house before he becomes a\ndisciple.\n\n\nTHE HEALINGS IN THE EVENING\n\n(Mk i, 32-34; Mt viii, 16-17; Lk iv, 40-41)\n\nMark says \"In the evening when the sun was set.\" Matthew has reduced the\nredundancy of this expression by saying merely \"When it was evening.\" Luke\nhas caught the point of Mark's expression, namely, that the Sabbath was\nover, and so has reduced the pleonasm by saying only \"The sun having set.\"\nMark says they brot all the sick to Jesus and he healed many. Matthew\nimproves this by saying they brot many and he healed all. Luke goes a step\nfarther and says they brot all, and he healed every one. No explanation is\nnecessary for these changes except the natural desire to avoid the\nimplication that there were some whom Jesus did not heal, and to make the\nstatement of his cures as positive and inclusive as possible. Matthew\nmentions only the possessed, Mark puts the sick and the possessed in the\nsame class, Luke gives a separate paragraph to each. Both Matthew and Luke\navoid Mark's irregular and unusual form [Greek: ephien].\n\n\nTHE RETIREMENT OF JESUS\n\n(Mk i, 35-38; Lk iv, 42-43)\n\nMatthew omits, for reasons already given.[23] Luke avoids Mark's strange\nword, [Greek: komopoleis]. Where Mark says \"Simon and those with him,\"\nLuke says \"the crowd,\" because in Luke's story Simon is not yet a\ndisciple.\n\n\nTHE CALLING OF PETER\n\n(Lk v, 1-11)\n\nLuke here displays his freedom in working over the story of Mark. He\nbuilds upon Mk i, 19, yet instead of saying that the fishermen were\nmending their nets in their boats, he says they had gone out of their\nboats and were washing their nets. He has apparently read Mk iv, 1, also,\nand builds upon this the statement about Jesus' going into the boat to get\naway from the crowd (which statement he later omits when he comes to it in\nMark's parable of the Sower). (There is a reminiscence here also of Mk\niii, 9.) After the draft of fishes, when he comes to the words of Jesus to\nPeter, he picks up again a fragment of Mark's account, tho still with an\naddition and with a deviation in the wording; Mark says [Greek: deute\nopiso mou, kai poieso hymas genesthai haleeis anthropon]; Luke says\n[Greek: me phobou; apo tou nyn anthropous ese zogron]. Luke's closing\nstatement, \"They left all and followed him\" is substantially, tho not\nquite in wording, the same as Mark's. No example could be more striking,\nof Luke's freedom in his treatment of Mark. He exercises this freedom,\nhowever, in the narratives rather than in the words of Jesus; when he\ncomes to these latter, even in the midst of a narrative which he has\nlargely created out of mere fragments of Mark, he follows Mark\ncomparatively closely. In not many narratives does Luke go to quite such\nlengths in his re-working as in this story and the account of the\nrejection (initial preaching) at Nazareth. But this is typical of him, as\ncompared with Matthew's treatment of the same source.\n\n\nTHE HEALING OF THE LEPER\n\n(Mk i, 40-45; Mt viii, 1-4; Lk v, 12-16)\n\nMatthew and Luke both omit Mark's [Greek: embrimesamenos], for which they\nhave in this case double ground; it is an unusual word, and it implies\nthat Jesus was angry. Luke avoids Mark's statement that the man directly\ndisobeyed Jesus' command not to tell of his cleansing.\n\n\nTHE HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC\n\n(Mk ii, 1-12; Mt ix, 1-8; Lk v, 17-26)\n\nBoth Matthew and Luke have supplied their own introductions. Both\nsubstitute [Greek: eipen] for Mark's [Greek: legei] (Mk ix, 5) (a\ncorrection which Luke invariably makes). Both use substitutes for Mark's\n[Greek: krabatton]. Luke avoids Jesus' address to the man as [Greek:\nteknon]. In the words of Jesus to his critics and to the paralytic, both\nfollow Mark with general fidelity, and tho Mark's vss. 5_b_-10 appear to\ninterrupt the story, both follow him in their inclusion of these verses.\nLuke's change of Mark's vs. 7 is a fine example of his ability to make an\nimprovement in the sense with the least possible change in the wording.\nMark reads, [Greek: ti houtos houtos lalei? blasphemei;] Luke changes to\n[Greek: tis estin hos lalei blasphemias?] The latter fits much better into\nthe question, \"Who has power to forgive sins except God?\" Mark has made\nJesus, in his dispute with his critics, say \"Which is easier, to say, ...\nor to say, rise, take up thy bed and walk?\" Matthew and Luke make him\nleave out the clause \"take up thy bed,\" reserving this for Jesus' actual\naddress to the man a little later, whereas Mark uses it in both places.\nLuke heightens the effect of his story by saying \"He took up that upon\nwhich he had been carried,\" instead of \"he took up his bed.\" This may be a\nheightening of the contrast, or perhaps a hint that he did not know\nexactly what Mark's [Greek: krabatton] was, tho he has elsewhere replaced\nit by [Greek: klinidion].[24]\n\n\nTHE CALLING OF LEVI (MATTHEW)\n\n(Mk ii, 13-17; Mt ix, 9-13; Lk v, 27-32)\n\nMatthew and Luke both correct Mark's unusual if not ungrammatical use of\n[Greek: hoti] in the sense of why. Mark says \"Why does _he_ eat with\npublicans and sinners?\" Matthew improves by reading, \"Why does _your\nmaster_ eat,\" etc. Luke improves still more by directing the question to\nthe disciples in such manner as to include Jesus, \"Why do _ye_ eat,\" etc.\n\n\nTHE QUESTION ABOUT FASTING\n\n(Mk ii, 18-22; Mt ix, 14-17; Lk v, 33-39)\n\nMatthew and Luke avoid Mark's verb [Greek: epiraptei], a word found\nnowhere but in this verse of Mark's (ix, 21). At the end they avoid Mark's\nclumsy expression, \"The wine and the bottles will be destroyed,\" and say,\n\"The wine will be spilled and the bottles destroyed.\"[25] They both omit\nthe last part of Mark's vs. 19, an obvious pleonasm and possibly a later\ninsertion. Luke's addition in his vs. 39 does not fit well, but is\nbracketed by Westcott and Hort and is probably an insertion. More\ndifficult (and so far as I see impossible) to explain is Luke's suggestion\nthat the patch to be put on the old garment is cut out of a new one--an\nunusual procedure, certainly. He may possibly have been misled into this\nstatement by his desire to heighten the contrast between old and new.\n\n\nTHE WALK THRU THE CORN\n\n(Mk ii, 23-28; Mt xii, 1-8; Lk vi, 1-5)\n\nMatthew and Luke avoid Mark's expression [Greek: hodon poiein], which\nsounds as if Mark meant to say that Jesus made a new path thru the corn.\nThey add, what Mark forgets to say, that he and his disciples ate the\ngrain. Luke adds that they rubbed it in their hands. They are led to these\ncorrections by the fact that the justification of Jesus by the example of\nDavid has to do, not with making a road thru the grain, but with eating on\nthe Sabbath and, perhaps, eating something which it would not ordinarily\nhave been proper for him to eat. Matthew and Luke omit Mark's colorless\nand unnecessary \"when he had need,\" and his historically difficult\nreference to Abiathar.[26] All three have the clause, \"and to those that\nwere with him,\" but each in a different place. Luke improves the order of\nthe clauses in Mark's 26th verse. Matthew adds to the words of Jesus the\nreference to the priests profaning the temple and yet being guiltless. The\naddition is suggested by David's eating the shewbread, but does not fit\nthe case so closely, since Jesus was not defending himself against the\ncharge of profaning a holy place. Both Matthew and Luke omit Mark's saying\nthat \"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.\" Sir John\nHawkins suggests that the saying may have been offensive to Jewish ears.\nThis may account for Matthew's omission of it; and Luke may have omitted\nit because he and his readers had not much interest in discussions about\nthe Sabbath. But it is perhaps still more likely that the sentence is a\nlater addition to Mark.\n\n\nTHE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND\n\n(Mk iii, 1-6; Mt xii, 9-14; Lk vi, 6-11)\n\nLuke changes Mark's [Greek: sabbasin] to [Greek: sabbato], perhaps because\nhe is not acquainted with the Hebrew (Aramaic) usage of the plural of this\nword in the sense of the singular. Both Matthew and Luke avoid the direct\nstatement of Mark in his 5th verse that Jesus was angry.\n\n\nTHE CROWD AND THE HEALINGS\n\n(Mk iii, 7-12; Mt xii, 15-21; Lk vi, 17-19)\n\nMatthew's treatment of Mark is influenced by the fact that just before his\nSermon on the Mount he has, in iv, 25, given a somewhat similar statement.\nLuke's transposition has been noticed.[27]\n\n\nTHE CALLING OF THE TWELVE\n\n(Mk iii, 13-19; Mt x, 2-4; Lk vi, 12-16)\n\nCharacteristic of Luke is his \"He was continuing all night in prayer.\"[28]\nThe addition by Matthew and Luke of the words [Greek: ho adelphos autou\n(ton adelphon autou)] is held by some to indicate their use of a Marcan\ntext different from ours. The order of the names is not the same in any\ntwo of the three lists. Both Matthew and Mark avoid an anacoluthon of Mark\nin his vs. 16, and omit the appellative \"Boanerges,\" with its\ntranslation. Matthew and Luke follow Mark in naming Matthew, tho in their\naccount of his call in Mt ix, 13, and Lk v, 27, Luke follows Mark in\ncalling him Levi. Luke changes Mark's \"Simon the Canaanite\" to \"Simon the\nZealot.\" Matthew alone gives the name of Lebbaeus, Mark alone says\nThaddeus, Luke alone names Judas the son of James. No simple explanation\nsuggests itself as covering all these deviations. Matthew or Luke or both\nmay have been influenced by a similar list of names in Q or some other\nnon-Marcan source; but that both of them are here following Mark is\nrendered practically certain by their addition of the appended\nparenthetical statement concerning Judas, with which all three accounts\nclose.\n\n\nTHE PHARISAIC ACCUSATION AND JESUS' DEFENSE\n\n(Mk iii, 20-30; Mt xii, 22-37; Lk xi, 14-23)\n\nThe discussion of this section is complicated by the presence of the\nsection in both Mark and Q, and is therefore postponed to a later\ntime.[29]\n\n\nTHE TRUE BROTHERHOOD OF JESUS; THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER; THE PURPOSE OF\nTHE PARABLES\n\n(Mk iii, 31-iv, 12; Mt xii, 46-xiii, 15; Lk viii, 4-10, 19-21)\n\nLuke has done more than Matthew to turn Mark's narrative into good Greek,\ntho Matthew has also improved it. The agreement of Matthew and Luke in the\naddition of [Greek: auton] in Mt xiii, 4, and Lk viii, 5, where it does\nnot occur in their exemplar (Mk iv, 4), is sometimes held to indicate a\ntext of Mark containing this word. The hypothesis of assimilation seems\nsimpler; or in this case even accidental agreement would not be strange.\nThe insertion of [Greek: palin] in Mk iv, 1, not in Matthew and Luke, has\nbeen suggested by Weiss to be the work of an editor who saw the confused\ncharacter of the geographical references since Mk iii, 7.[30]\n\n\nTHE INTERPRETATION OF THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER\n\n(Mk iv, 13-20; Mt xiii, 18-23; Lk viii, 11-15)\n\nMatthew changes Mark's [Greek: Satanas] to [Greek: ho poneros]. The latter\nis used by Matthew in this sense five times, and not at all by Mark and\nLuke. The change may therefore be regarded as stylistic. Luke's addition\nof \"lest they should believe and be saved\" sounds like a Christian\naddition, and may be explained by the development of the Christian\ndoctrine. Mark's loose and unliterary addition of \"and the desires for the\nrest of the things,\" after the \"cares of the world and the deceitfulness\nof riches,\" Luke very naturally corrects into \"the cares and wealth and\npleasures of life.\" In iv, 19, Mark uses the participle [Greek:\neisporeuomenai] in a somewhat inexact manner: \"The cares of the world and\nthe deceitfulness of riches and the desires for the rest of the things,\ncoming in, choke the word.\" Luke's change may be accounted for by his\ndesire to improve the style; which he does without discarding Mark's\nmisplaced participle. For he says, \"And by the cares ... as they [i.e.,\nthe people who have heard the word] proceed, they are choked and rendered\nunfruitful.\" Probably Schmiedel's statement, in his article in the\n_Encyclopedia Biblica_, that this instance alone would prove literary\nrelation between Mark and Luke is too strong; especially considering the\nfact that Luke's participle is not precisely the same as Mark's; but the\ndeviation is certainly an interesting one. In the earlier part of the\npassage Matthew and Luke both omit Mark's reference to the dulness of the\ndisciples. The omission is due to their customary deference to the feeling\nof a later time.\n\n\nA GROUP OF DETACHED SAYINGS\n\n(Mk iv, 21-25; Mt v, 15; x, 26; vii, 2; xiii, 12; Lk viii, 16-18; vi, 38)\n\nThe divergences in wording, the fact that the verses found together in\nMark are separated in both Matthew and Luke, and the additional fact of\ndoublets in Matthew or Luke for all but one of Mark's verses, indicate\nbeyond a doubt that these verses stood in both Mark and Q.\n\n\nTHE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED\n\n(Mk iv, 30-32; Mt xiii, 31-32; Lk xiii, 18-19)\n\nThis section also stood in both Mark and Q. Luke is perhaps independent of\nMark here, preferring to follow Q. Matthew seems, as often, to try to\ncombine the two sources, showing some resemblances to Mark as against\nLuke, and others to Luke as against Mark. The passage is narrative only in\nMark, parable only in Luke, and a combination of narrative and parable in\nMatthew. The anacoluthon in Mk iv, 31, is avoided by Matthew and Luke.[31]\n\n\nTHE STORM ON THE LAKE\n\n(Mk iv, 35-41; Mt viii, 23-27; Lk viii, 22-25)\n\nMatthew and Luke omit the statement that other boats accompanied the one\nin which Jesus sailed. Perhaps, as Hawkins suggests, they wondered how\nthese weathered the storm. Or, since the point of narrating the story has\nto do only with the boat in which Jesus sailed, they may simply have seen\nno advantage in relating the circumstance of the other boats. Matthew\nsubstitutes the comparatively common word, tho I believe not common in\nexactly this connection, [Greek: seismos], for Mark's rare word [Greek:\nlailaps]. Matthew and Luke omit the statement that Jesus was \"asleep on\nthe cushion\"; it has been suggested that they may have considered the use\nof the cushion as an effeminacy unworthy of Jesus; or more probably they\nhave omitted it as of no consequence. They both omit the direct address of\nJesus to the sea, as they often omit his words of address to the demons.\nThey do not wish to represent the disciples as distrustful; so while Mark\nsays \"Master, dost thou not care that we perish?\" Matthew says \"Save,\nLord; we perish,\" and Luke simply \"Master, we perish.\"\n\n\nTHE GADARENE DEMONIAC\n\n(Mk v, 1-20; Mt viii, 28-34; Lk viii, 26-39)\n\nThe name of the locality is different in each account. Some texts,\nhowever, make Matthew agree with Mark; others make him agree with Luke;\nwhile still other texts do the same for Luke with reference to Mark and\nMatthew. The exact location, or the proper name for it, may have been in\ndispute. Matthew shortens Mark's narrative, as almost invariably. Luke\nshows himself to be no mere copyist; in view of Mark's statement that\nafter the demoniac's cure they found him \"clothed,\" he supplies in his\noriginal description of the demoniac the statement which Mark does not\nhave, that the man wore no clothes. Matthew and Luke again omit Jesus'\ncommand to the demon to come out of the man. Luke includes Jesus'\nquestion, \"What is thy name?\" But to make it plain that this question is\naddressed to the man and not to the demon, he changes Mark's statement,\n\"for we are many,\" into his own editorial explanation, \"for many demons\nhad entered into him.\" Matthew and Luke are involved in a slight\ndifficulty by their abbreviation of Mark. For while Mark makes those who\nhave seen the cure of the demoniac tell their neighbors about him \"and\nabout the swine,\" Matthew and Luke omit this latter item. It therefore\nappears from Matthew and Luke that the Gadarenes requested Jesus to depart\nfrom their coasts lest their demoniacs should be cured; in Mark they asked\nhim to depart because they did not wish their property destroyed. Luke's\nchange of Mark's [Greek: ho kyrios] (Mk's vs. 19) into [Greek: ho theos],\nis not easily explained if Luke understood Mark to refer to Jesus by his\n[Greek: ho kyrios]. As the latter word, however, is ambiguous, and as Mark\nseems to use it more often than the other evangelists with reference to\nGod, Luke _may_ have so understood his narrative here. But as the man went\nand told, not what God, but what Jesus, had done for him, Luke can hardly\nhave so misunderstood Mark; and Luke's change may be due to his feeling\nthat Jesus did not call himself [Greek: kyrios]. This indeed seems to be\nthe only place where Mark puts this self-designation into the mouth of\nJesus. Matthew and Luke seem consistently to avoid it.\n\n\nTHE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS AND THE WOMAN WITH THE ISSUE OF BLOOD\n\n(Mk v, 21-43; Mt ix, 18-26; Lk viii, 40-56)\n\nThis curious insertion of one miracle within another might be held to be\nenough in itself to prove the literary dependence of the three synoptists.\nLuke's change of Mark's vs. 23 is explained by the anacoluthon in Mark.\nMatthew and Luke naturally avoid Mark's [Greek: thygatrion]. Their\nsubstitution of the \"tassel of his garment\" for \"his garment\" is unusual,\nsince it seems to indicate their closer definition of the kind of cloak\nworn by Jesus. The change may serve to heighten the appearance of\nreverence in the woman. Luke substitutes [Greek: parachrema] for Mark's\n[Greek: euthys]; the latter is Mark's uniform word for \"immediately,\" used\nby him forty-one times against Matthew's eighteen and Luke's seven; the\nformer is Luke's favorite word, being used ten times by him, twice by\nMatthew, and never by Mark. Matthew and Luke omit the question of the\ndisciples to Jesus, \"Sayest thou, Who touched me?\" as possibly implying\nlack of respect upon their part. They also omit Mark's parenthetical\nstatement that John was the brother of James; this had been mentioned\noften enough already. Luke's abbreviation of Mark involves him in the\ndifficulty of saying that Jesus allowed nobody to go _into the house_ with\nhim, except the three disciples and the parents of the child, whereas Mark\nexpressly says that he allowed only those to go with him _into the death\nchamber_. Matthew, not mentioning the death chamber, has a reminiscence of\nit in his participle [Greek: eiselthon], coming as it does after the\n[Greek: elthon eis ten oikian] of his previous verse. In this story also\nLuke has read Mark thru carefully; and finding that Mark inserts \"she was\ntwelve years old\" after the statement that she arose and walked, prefers\nto put this into the more appropriate place as part of the introductory\nnarrative; he is thus enabled at the same time to make the connection in\nthe latter part of the story much better by saying that as soon as the\ngirl sat up Jesus commanded her parents to give her something to eat; a\ncommand which in Mark follows only after several other items. Luke thus\nmakes the giving of food to the girl a part of the means used for her\nrecovery.\n\n\nTHE INITIAL PREACHING IN NAZARETH\n\n(Mk vi, 1-6; Mt xiii, 53-58; Lk iv, 16-30)\n\nLuke's working over of the account in Mk vi, 1-6, has already been\nconsidered.[32] He has preferred to put it at the beginning of Jesus'\nministry, as a sort of introductory resume of the reception which Jesus\nreceived at the hands of the Jews, and his consequent turning to the\ngentiles. The anachronism involved is seen in the fact that Jesus says,\n\"Ye will say to me, ... what we have heard done in Capernaum do also here\nin thine own town\"; whereas, in Luke's own account the wonders in\nCapernaum have not yet occurred. The words, \"No prophet is accepted in his\nown country,\" do not fit so well here as where Mark has them (vi, 4)\nfollowing upon the question, \"Is not this the carpenter, ... and are not\nhis sisters here with us?\" and where Mark adds to the word \"country\" the\nwords \"and among his own kinsmen and in his own house.\" Luke does not add\nthat Jesus was not able to do many wonders there, partly because he is\nspeaking of his preaching only, but still more because he always avoids\nsuch statements about the inability or limitation of Jesus.\n\n\nTHE SENDING OUT OF THE DISCIPLES\n\n(Mk vi, 6-13; Mt ix, 35; x, 1, 9-11; Lk ix, 1-6)\n\nLuke has a second sending out of disciples in his 10th chapter.\nConsidering his usual avoidance of duplicates, it seems probable that he\ntook one of these accounts from Mark and one from Q, and that the account\ntherefore stood in both Q and Mark. The account in Luke's chap. 10 is\nclosely akin to one part of Matthew's parallel section, and his account in\nhis 9th chapter is more closely akin to other verses of Matthew's account.\nThese latter verses of Matthew agree more closely with Mark's account\nthan do his other verses. It seems clear therefore that Matthew has\ncombined the account of the sending out of the disciples which he found in\nQ with that which he found in Mark. This combination of material from his\ntwo sources is characteristic of him, as the careful separation of it is\ncharacteristic of Luke.[33]\n\nComparing here the passages of Matthew and Luke which were apparently\ntaken from Mark, Luke and Matthew correct the anacoluthon of Mark's vss. 8\nand 9. Matthew and Mark mention the healing but once; Luke three times.\nMark says the disciples are to take nothing, except a staff; Luke and\nMatthew say they are to take nothing, not even a staff. Mark seems to\ncontemplate a mission chiefly to houses, not so much to cities, tho his\nword [Greek: topos] may indicate the latter. The substitution by Matthew\nand Luke of [Greek: koniortos] for Mark's [Greek: choun], as well as other\nminor and verbal deviations, may easily be accounted for by their\nacquaintance with the account in Q. Harnack suggests that Mark's\npermission of the staff, which is denied in Matthew and Luke, may indicate\na relaxation of the rule, arising in actual practice. If so, Matthew and\nLuke, because they here follow Q, may represent a more original form of\nthe saying.[34]\n\n\nTHE JUDGMENT OF HEROD CONCERNING JESUS\n\n(Mk vi, 14-16; Mt xiv, 1-2; Lk ix, 7-9)\n\nMatthew and Luke correct Mark's \"Herod the king\" into \"Herod the\ntetrarch,\" tho Matthew a few verses later falls back into the error which\nhe has corrected. Mark says that Herod himself surmised that Jesus was\nJohn the Baptist risen from the dead (tho some texts read [Greek: elegon]\nfor [Greek: elegen] in vs. 14). Matthew follows Mark in this by saying\ndistinctly that Herod \"said to those about him, it is John,\" etc. Luke\nsays Herod had heard of the things Jesus did, \"and was perplexed because\n_it was said_ that John was risen.\" Luke may here have been following one\ntext of Mark and Matthew another text. The fact that with [Greek: elegen]\nin Mark's vs. 14, his vs. 16 is a mere repetition of this verse (Matthew\nomits the parallel to Mark's vs. 16), may indicate either that [Greek:\nelegon] is the original reading of vs. 14, or that Luke, finding [Greek:\nelegen] there, corrected it into his own statement which upon the face of\nit is much better. Luke does not represent Herod as personally making any\nsuch statement about John, but says merely that when Herod heard of the\ndeeds of Jesus and of the explanation that was popularly given for them,\nhe desired to see Jesus.\n\n\nTHE DEATH OF THE BAPTIST\n\n(Mk vi, 17-29; Mt xiv, 3-12)\n\nLuke has omitted this because he has long ago finished with the Baptist\n(in iii, 19-20). The passage seems to be parenthetical in Mark, to explain\nHerod's statement that he has killed John the Baptist. Mark says Herod did\n_not_ wish to kill John, because he regarded him as a just and holy man.\nMatthew says Herod _wished_ to kill John, but _feared the people_, because\n_they_ considered John a prophet. Matthew's difference here may be due to\na different tradition which he considered superior to Mark's, or it may be\ndue simply to the abbreviation he has made in Mark's narrative. Mark's\naccount contains the somewhat improbable feature of the daughter of\nHerodias dancing before the drunken tetrarch and his companions; which\nMatthew omits. The Latin word [Greek: spekoulator] in Mark (vi, 27) is\ndropped in Matthew.\n\n\nTHE RETURN OF THE DISCIPLES AND THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND\n\n(Mk vi, 30-44; Mt xiv, 13-21; Lk ix, 10-17)\n\nMatthew assigns as the reason for Jesus' departure in the boat the news of\nwhat had happened to John the Baptist. Mark, treating this latter as\npurely parenthetical, says Jesus and his disciples went away to escape the\ncrowds. Luke, not having related the death of the Baptist, assigns still a\ndifferent reason for Jesus' withdrawal, saying that \"the _apostles_\" had\nreturned, and Jesus went aside with them, apparently to hear their report.\nLuke says they retired to Bethsaida, where it seems out of place that the\nfeeding of the five thousand should occur; this latter event being more\nappropriately located by Mark and Matthew in a \"desert place.\" Mark and\nMatthew both say the crowds went on foot; Mark says they preceded Jesus,\nMatthew and Luke, that they followed him when they knew of his departure.\nThe deviations are easily accounted for by the desire of Matthew and Luke\nto improve the story of Mark. Luke's mention of Bethsaida is accounted for\nby his desire to supply exact details wherever possible; perhaps also by\nthe fact that the second feeding, which he omits, was related to have\noccurred in that place. Luke is apparently unaffected, in his placing of\nthe five thousand in Bethsaida, by the fact that he represents Jesus as\nsaying, \"We are here in a desert place.\" He may also have been misled in\nhis location of the miracle by the mention, in Mark vi, 45 (which Luke\nomits), of the departure of Jesus and his disciples for Bethsaida. Luke\ntransposes Mark's statement of the numbers fed, to an earlier and\npresumably better position. Matthew adds, as in the feeding of the four\nthousand, that the numbers given were exclusive of women and children;\napparently from his desire, or the desire of the tradition lying back of\nhim, to heighten the impressiveness of the miracle. Mark's Hebraism,\n[Greek: symposia symposia], is omitted by both Matthew and Luke.\n\n\nTHE WALKING ON THE SEA\n\n(Mk vi, 45-52; Mt xiv, 22-33)\n\nMark's narrative seems to imply (vs. 46) that Jesus \"meant to walk past\nthem.\" Matthew implies, on the contrary, that Jesus was coming to their\nhelp. Matthew \"spiritualizes\" the account by adding the experiment of\nPeter: \"Peter can do it so long as he has faith.\"[35] It has been observed\nthat in this narrative, as in others which Matthew takes from Mark but\nwhich Luke omits, the verbal agreement is considerably closer than in the\nsections which Matthew and Luke both copy. Schmiedel has suggested that\nthis points to a common document occasionally employed by Matthew and Mark\nbut not by Luke. The hypothesis of a later assimilation of Matthew and\nLuke seems simpler. At all events, the very close agreement of Matthew and\nMark in this narrative, up to the point where Matthew inserts the\nexperiment of Peter, may possibly indicate that this latter is later than\nthe body of Matthew's Gospel. Whether so or not, its presence is easily\naccounted for by Matthew's ecclesiastical point of view, the primacy of\nPeter being asserted by him in one other notable passage which occurs in\nMatthew alone. Probably Matthew has drawn these special passages about\nPeter from a source of his own, and, according to his custom, has here\ncombined one of them with a narrative of Mark's.\n\n\nTHE RETURN TO GENNESARET\n\n(Mk vi, 53-56; Mt xiv, 34-36)\n\nThis section is omitted by Luke. There are no sayings in it. Matthew's\ncustomary abbreviation is shown in his 44 words against Mark's 72; but\nthere is much close verbal correspondence in spite of this.\n\n\nABOUT THE THINGS THAT DEFILE\n\n(Mk vii, 1-23; Mt xv, 1-20)\n\nMark has an editorial comment about the scrupulosity of the Jews. It may\nbe a later addition in his narrative, at least this may be the case with\nthe words [Greek: kai pantes hoi Ioudaioi], which make it apply to the\nwhole people and not simply to the Pharisees; or it may have seemed to\nMatthew to be somewhat exaggerated and have been omitted by him on that\naccount. Its omission improves the connection in Matthew's narrative, and\nmight be sufficiently accounted for by Matthew's tendency to omit\nsuperfluous or negligible portions of Mark's stories. In his vs. 11\n(Matthew has transposed several verses) Mark has the Aramaic word [Greek:\nkorban], omitted by Matthew. In Mark's vs. 19 occurs the phrase [Greek:\nkatharizon panta ta bromata]. The construction is loose, the nearest verb\nwith which the participle can be connected being the [Greek: legei] of the\nfirst part of the preceding verse. This alone might have induced Matthew\nto omit it; still more, the implication, that Jesus had in this saying\nabolished the distinction between clean and unclean. Nor is it surprising\nthat Matthew should omit, among Mark's list of the things that come out of\na man's heart and \"defile him,\" his mention of the \"evil eye.\"\n\n\nTHE CANAANITISH WOMAN\n\n(Mk vii, 24-30; Mt xv, 21-28)\n\nMatthew omits Mark's statement that Jesus was not able to be hid. It may\nhave seemed to him an unworthy limitation of the power of Jesus. Mark also\nrecounts a clever answer of the woman, \"The dogs under the table eat of\nthe children's crumbs\"; and Jesus, for the cleverness of her reply, as he\nsays, grants her wish. It is not strange that Matthew replaces this by\nJesus' words, \"Great is thy faith.\"\n\n\nTHE FEEDING OF THE FOUR THOUSAND\n\n(Mk viii, 1-10; Mt xv, 32-39)\n\nMatthew follows Mark closely. He seems in vss. 37 and 38 to be quoting\nfrom his own account of the previous feeding. This item brings out a\ntendency of Matthew to repeat in one place phrases which he has used in\nanother.\n\n\nTHE DEMAND FOR A SIGN\n\n(Mk viii, 11-13; Mt xii, 38-39; Mt xvi, 1-4; Lk xi, 29; xii, 54-56)\n\nDoublets in both Matthew and Luke indicate the presence of this section in\nboth Mark and Q.[36]\n\n\nTHE SAYING ABOUT YEAST\n\n(Mk viii, 14-21; Mt xvi, 5-12)\n\nMatthew omits the rebuke to the disciples in Mark (viii, 17, 18). He\napparently manufactures a saying of Jesus in his vs. 11, in order to\nintroduce therewith his own editorial statement of vs. 12.\n\n\nTHE CONFESSION OF PETER AND THE FIRST PREDICTION OF SUFFERINGS\n\n(Mk viii, 27-33; Mt xvi, 13-23; Lk ix, 18-22)\n\nMatthew spoils the question of Jesus by obtruding his own estimate of him\nin the words \"The son of man\" in vs. 13. Upon Peter's answer, he adds\nJesus' words of commendation, and makes Jesus reciprocate by telling Peter\nwho he (Peter) is, and that the church shall be founded upon him. The\naddition may be later than Matthew. If not, it betrays the ecclesiastical\ninterest, and especially the interest in the primacy of Peter, which comes\nout elsewhere in Matthew. Matthew and Luke correct Mark's statement,\n\"after three days he shall rise again,\" to \"on the third day,\" so making\nthe prediction agree more accurately with the facts, and giving a Greek\nmethod of reckoning instead of the Hebrew. It is not surprising that Luke\nomits the rebuke to Peter; Matthew's inclusion of it seems strange. Both\nomit Mark's statement that \"Jesus spoke the word openly,\" because, as\nHawkins suggests,[37] if this meant that he spoke to the crowd, it is\ncontradicted by Mark's vs. 34; if it meant that he told them clearly about\nthe resurrection, it would seem strange that the disciples did not\nunderstand.\n\n\nTHE DEMANDS OF DISCIPLESHIP\n\n(Mk viii, 34-ix, 1; Mt xvi, 24-28; Lk ix, 23-27)\n\nMark's redundant expression [Greek: opiso akolouthein] is corrected by\neach of the others, in a different way. The phrase [Greek: kai tou\neuangeliou] in Mark's vs. 35 sounds like a later addition; it would hardly\nhave been omitted by Matthew and Luke if it had stood in their source.\nMatthew makes Jesus say that \"the son of man is about to come\"; Mark and\nLuke say \"when the son of man comes\"; Matthew betrays his own attitude, or\nthe attitude of his time, to the long-expected parousia. Mark's extremely\nawkward order of words, [Greek: tines hode ton hestekoton],[38] each of\nthe other evangelists corrects in his own way.\n\n\nTHE TRANSFIGURATION\n\n(Mk ix, 2-8; Mt xvii, 1-8; Lk ix, 28-36)\n\nMark says \"he was changed in form\" ([Greek: metamorphothe]), which Luke\nimproves to \"the appearance of his countenance was different\" ([Greek: to\neidos tou prosopou autou heteron]). Both Matthew and Luke change Mark's\n\"Elias and Moses\" to the chronological order. Luke adds that these spoke\nof the approaching entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, and adduces, as an\nexcuse for the disciples' not understanding, or for Peter's apparently\nfoolish remark, that they were heavy with sleep. Matthew and Luke change\nMark's Aramaic [Greek: rhabbei] into Greek words, Luke using the [Greek:\nepistata] which is peculiar to him.\n\n\nTHE DISCUSSION ABOUT ELIJAH\n\n(Mk ix, 9-13; Mt xvii, 9-13)\n\nMark says Elias has come (in the person of John the Baptist), and they\nhave done whatever they would with him, \"as it was written of him.\"\nMatthew understands, rightly, that this last is a reference to the Old\nTestament, and not knowing where or what had there been written of the\nBaptist, omits it. Perhaps the statement is a later addition to Mark.\n\n\nTHE HEALING OF THE EPILEPTIC BOY\n\n(Mk ix, 14-29; Mt xvii, 14-21; Lk ix, 37-43_a_)\n\nMark says that when the crowd saw Jesus they were amazed. This might seem\nto be a parallel to the amazement of the Israelites on seeing Moses'\ncountenance when he came down from the mount. But Matthew and Luke have\nomitted it. They also omit Jesus' direct address to the demon,[39] and\nJesus' statement, \"This kind cometh not out except with prayer.\" This may\nreflect the custom in ecclesiastical exorcisms, and may have been added by\na later hand, or omitted by Matthew and Luke because as matter of fact\nJesus had not prayed and therefore the saying did not fit the case.\n\n\nTHE SECOND PREDICTION OF SUFFERINGS\n\n(Mk ix, 30-32; Mt xvii, 22-23; Lk ix, 43_b_-45)\n\nIn the second prediction of sufferings Matthew and Luke both avoid Mark's\n[Greek: ouk ethelen hina tis gnoi] (Mk ix, 30). It seems to be a part of\nMark's _Geheimnis-Theorie_; but since Matthew and Luke both include some\nof Mark's other references to this theory, this fact is not a sufficient\nexplanation of its omission, which may perhaps be attributed to the\ngrowing reverence for Jesus. Luke's vs. 44_a_, [Greek: thesthe hymeis eis\nta ota hymon tous logous toutous], is without parallel in Mark (or\nMatthew). Luke has also omitted a part of Mark's prediction, \"and they\nshall kill him,\" which he would hardly have done if he were here following\nMark, or if the clause had stood in his copy of Mark. These facts may be\ntaken to indicate that Luke is here following another source. The words\nquoted from vs. 44_a_ would be very unlikely to be added by Luke\nhimself.[40] Matthew seems to follow Mark, making his customary\nabbreviation and changing Mark's \"after three days\" to \"on the third day.\"\nIn another instance already noticed both Matthew and Luke make the same\nchange in Mark's statement. Luke may here be following Q. But the absence\nof any agreements between him and Matthew as against Mark would rather\nindicate his use of a peculiar source. There are no doublets to\nsubstantiate the supposition of the use of Q.\n\n\nTHE STRIFE ABOUT RANK\n\n(Mk ix, 33-37; Mt xviii, 1-5; Lk ix, 46-48)\n\nThe section on the strife about rank probably stood in both Mark and Q,\nbut the resemblances are too general for one to draw definite conclusions\nas to the exact source relationship.\n\n\nMINOR PASSAGES\n\nIt will be sufficient if we look with less detail thru a few more passages\nof the triple tradition, to note the changes made by Matthew and Luke in\nthe text of Mark.\n\nIn the case of the unknown exorcist (Mk ix, 38-41; Lk ix, 49-50) Luke says\n\"he followed not with us\" instead of \"he followed not us\"; the assumption\nof authority upon the part of John is thereby lessened.\n\nIn the saying about offenses (Mk ix, 42-48; Mt xviii, 6-9; Lk xvii, 1-2)\nMatthew has combined Mark's saying about the hand and his separate saying\nabout the foot, into one. The saying stood in Mark and Q. In the\ndiscussion about marriage and divorce (Mk x, 11-12; Mt v, 31-32; Lk xvi,\n18; xix, 9) Matthew has rearranged the order of Mark, and has added\n\"except for adultery,\" as he has done in another place; he has omitted\nMark's reference to the woman divorcing her husband, as this would mean\nnothing to his Palestinian readers.\n\nIn the blessing of the children (Mk x, 13-16; Mt xix, 13-15; Lk xviii,\n15-17) Matthew and Luke omit Mark's statement that Jesus was angry.\n\nIn the saying concerning the danger of riches (Mk x, 17-31; Mt xix, 16-30;\nLk xviii, 18-30) Mark makes Jesus say, \"Why callest thou me good?\" Matthew\nchanges this to \"Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?\" tho\nhis following words, \"There is One who is good,\" betray the fact that he\nhad Mark's reading before him. Matthew shows his Jewish affinities by\nmaking Jesus say that the questioner may \"enter into life,\" by keeping the\ncommandments. Both Matthew and Luke omit one commandment which Mark\nquotes, because it is not found in the Decalogue. Matthew changes Mark's\norder of the commandments to agree with the Old Testament. Matthew, having\ncalled the questioner a youth, omits from his reply to Jesus the words,\n\"from my youth up.\" Both omit Mark's vs. 24, which is practically a\nduplicate of the previous verse. Luke, having included the idea of\n\"sisters\" in his word for family, omits sisters, but, with his\ncharacteristic interest in women, adds \"wife.\"\n\nIn the third prediction of sufferings (Mk x, 32-34; Mt xx, 17-19; Lk\nxviii, 31-34) the agreement between Mark and Matthew is very close\nthroughout. The only agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark is in\ntheir substitution of [Greek: eipen] for [Greek: legei]. Both Matthew and\nLuke change Mark's \"after three days\" to \"on the third day.\" Three words\nin Mark's vs. 34 are reproduced in Luke alone; [Greek: anastesetai,\napoktenousin, emptysousin]. Matthew has added [Greek: kai staurosai].\n\nIn the request for seats in the kingdom (Mk x, 35-45; Mt xx, 20-28) Mark\nmakes James and John ask Jesus directly; Luke omits the incident; Matthew\nputs the burden of the ambitious request upon the mother instead of upon\nthe sons; tho he betrays the fact that he is remaking Mark, by making\nJesus direct his reply to the men.\n\nIn the healing of Bartimaeus (Mk x, 46-52; Mt xx, 29-34; Lk xviii, 35-43)\nMark says \"the son of Timaeus,\" perhaps in explanation of the Aramaic\nname. Matthew specifies two men instead of one, giving no names; it has\nbeen suggested that he may have been misled by Mark's \"Bartimaeus\" and\n\"the son of Timaeus,\" tho the Jewish affinity of Matthew's Gospel makes\nthis unlikely. Since \"the son of Timaeus\" did not serve to identify the\nman to their readers, Matthew and Luke omit the phrase. Mark's graphic\nstatement that the man threw off his cloak and ran to Jesus was unsuited\nto the dignity of the Later Gospels. Matthew and Luke again substitute the\nGreek [Greek: kyrie] for Mark's [Greek: rhabbouni]. They omit his [Greek:\nhypage], which seems out of place.[41]\n\nIn the preparation for the entry into Jerusalem (Mk xi, 1-11; Mt xxi,\n1-11; Lk xix, 28-38) Mark represents Jesus as telling the disciples who go\nafter the colt, to explain that Jesus has need of him and that he will\nreturn him soon. Luke omits the latter item; Matthew changes it to mean\nthat when the disciples have explained to the owner that Jesus needs the\nanimal, the owner will quickly send it to Jesus. The growing reverence for\nJesus easily explains the change and the omission. Matthew undoubtedly\nrepresents Jesus as riding into Jerusalem upon two beasts, the ass and her\nfoal; the strange phenomenon is explained by his attempt to harmonize the\nevent with an Old Testament prophecy. The prophecy, however, for that\nmatter, had only one beast in mind. Mark says Bethany (in some texts\nBethany and Bethphage), Matthew Bethphage, and Luke Bethany and Bethphage;\nthe two names in Luke, and in certain texts of Mark, are probably to be\nexplained as the harmonizing effort of some copyist.\n\nIn the cursing of the fig tree (Mk xi, 12-14; Mt xxi, 18-19), the\nstatement of Mark, \"For it was not the time for figs,\" may have been\nomitted by Matthew because seeming to imply an unreasonable expectation on\nthe part of Jesus. Or it may be a later addition to Mark. Matthew says\nthat the disciples noticed \"immediately\" that the tree had withered,\nwhereas Mark says they observed this the next day. Matthew's change may\nhave been in the interest of heightening the miracle. Upon his observation\nhere he has hung his statement about the wonder of the disciples in his\nvs. 20. Luke omits this miracle; probably because he considers the parable\nof the Fig Tree which he gives in xxi, 29-31 (taking it from Mk xiii,\n28-29 = Mt xxiv, 32-33) a variant of, or an improvement upon, the same\nstory.\n\nThe speech about the withered fig tree (Mk xi, 20-25; Mt xxi, 20-22) Luke\nomits because he has omitted the miracle upon which it depends. The saying\nabout faith apparently stood in both Mark and Q, since Matthew has a\ndoublet upon it. This may have been an additional reason for Luke's\nomission of it here, since he has incorporated it in his xvii, 6.[42]\n\nIn the question about authority (Mk xi, 27-33; Mt xxi, 23-27; Lk xx, 1-8)\nthe intervention of the fig tree story in Mark (and Matthew) obscures the\npoint of the question about Jesus' authority, which was directed toward\nhis action in cleansing the temple. There is very close agreement among\nthe three in the question of Jesus to his questioners (Mk xi, 30; Mt xxi,\n25; Lk xx, 4), tho both Matthew and Luke avoid Mark's anacoluthon at the\nbeginning of the following verse.\n\nIn the parable of the Evil Husbandmen (Mk xii, 1-12; Mt xxi, 33-46; Lk xx,\n9-19) Mark says, \"They took him and killed him and cast him out\"; Matthew\nand Luke say, \"They cast him outside the vineyard and killed him,\"\npresumably influenced in this correction by the fact of Jesus' crucifixion\noutside the city.[43] Matthew puts into the mouth of the questioners one\nsaying which Mark ascribes to Jesus; the questioners are thus convicted by\ntheir own testimony.\n\nIn the question of the Sadducees about the resurrection (Mk xii, 18-27; Mt\nxxii, 23-33; Lk xx, 27-40) Mark says, quite correctly, \"The Sadducees, who\n(as is well known) say there is no resurrection\";[44] Matthew not so\nhappily represents them as making this statement to Jesus; Luke corrects\nstill further, being apparently unacquainted with the tenets of the\nSadducees as a class, and so says, \"Certain of the Sadducees came, denying\nthat there is any resurrection.\" It is one of the instances, perhaps\ncomparatively few, where Mark would better have been left as he was. To\nmake the contrast between this world and the next stronger Luke adds in\nhis vs. 34, \"the sons of this world marry and are given in marriage.\" He\nalso attempts to explain the apparently incomplete statement, \"God is not\nof the dead but of the living,\" by adding \"for all live to him.\"[45]\n\nIn the question about the great commandment (Mk xii, 28-34; Mt xxii,\n34-40; Lk x, 25-28), Matthew's addition, \"Upon these two commandments hang\nall the law, and the prophets,\" is perhaps an old Christian formula, which\nseems to fit remarkably well in this place.\n\nIn the question about David's son (Mk xii, 35-37; Mt xxii, 41-46; Lk xx,\n41-44), Luke corrects Mark's statement, \"David said in the Holy Spirit,\"\nwith \"David says in the book of Psalms\"; Mark is nearer to Jesus, Luke\nwrites for the convenience of his readers who might wish to look up the\nreference.\n\nIn the speech against the Pharisees (Mk xii, 38-40; Mt xxiii, 1-7; Lk xx,\n45-47), Mark's \"Beware of the Pharisees, who love to walk about in robes,\nand greetings in the market\" is not positively ungrammatical, since the\ninfinitive and the noun may both be the object of the verb. But it is a\nloose construction; Luke corrects it by the insertion of a second verb\ngoverning the noun.\n\nIn the predictions of distress (Mk xiii, 9-13; Mt xxiv, 9-14; Lk xxi,\n12-19), Mark's [Greek: promerimnate], a word not found elsewhere in the\nNew Testament or Septuagint, is avoided by Matthew and Luke. Matthew's\npassage (xxiv, 10-12) about the false prophets who shall deceive many, and\nthe love of many growing cold, whether attributed to the evangelist, or to\nthe tradition lying just behind him, reflects the conditions of his times.\n\nIn the saying about the distress in Judaea (Mk xiii, 14-20; Mt xxiv,\n15-22; Lk xxi, 20-24), Mark's construction of a neuter noun with a\nmasculine participle, a construction according to the sense ([Greek:\nbdelygma ... hestekota]), his unusual construction of [Greek: eis ton\nagron] meaning \"in the field,\" and his equally strange combination of\nwords [Greek: esontai gar hai hemerai ekeinai thlipsis, hoia ou gegonen\ntoiaute], are all replaced by Matthew and Luke. Luke omits [Greek: ho\nanaginoskon noeito], because it is not applicable to his readers. He adds\n\"until the times of the nations are fulfilled,\" apparently upon Paul's\nhypothesis that the end could not come till the gospel had first been\npreached to all the nations (Rom xi, 11, 15, 31). This is Luke's\nsubstitute for the explanation which Matthew has copied from Mark, that\nthe Lord has shortened the days for the sake of the Christians. In the\nspeech about the parousia (Mk xiii, 24-27; Mt xxiv, 29-31; Lk xxi, 25-28),\nMatthew has added [Greek: eutheos]. This is Mark's favorite adverb, and\nits addition by Matthew where it is lacking in Mark is hard to understand.\nPerhaps, as Bacon says, Matthew the Palestinian wishes to encourage the\nhope of the speedy coming of Jesus, while Mark the Roman wishes to\ndiscourage it; but the reasons for this are not perfectly clear. Schmiedel\nconsiders the omission of the [Greek: eutheos] in Mark as a sign of his\nsecondary character at this point.\n\nIn the passage about the time of the parousia (Mk xiii, 30-32; Mt xxiv,\n34-36; Lk xxi, 32-33), Luke omits Mark's statement that \"the son\" does not\nknow the time; because he always avoids any implication of a limitation in\nthe knowledge of Jesus.[46] In the preparation for the Passover (Mk xiv,\n12-17; Mt xxvi, 17-20; Lk xxii, 7-14), Luke omits the \"my\" in the question\nwhich Jesus tells the disciples to ask, \"Where is my chamber where I\nshall,\" etc.; perhaps, as Hawkins[47] suggests, because it may have seemed\nto him a somewhat harshly expressed claim.\n\nIn the institution of the Last Supper (Mk xiv, 22-25; Mt xxvi, 26-29; Lk\nxxii, 15-20), Luke adds (xxii, 19-20) words which seem to be taken from\nPaul's account in I Cor xi, 25. Westcott and Hort regard them as\ninterpolated from that epistle. Matthew adds, in his vs. 28, as he has\nadded in his account of the purpose of John's baptism, \"for the remission\nof sins.\"\n\nIn the account of Jesus in Gethsemane (Mk xiv, 32-42; Mt xxvi, 36-46; Lk\nxxii, 39-46), Luke's vss. 43-44 are lacking in many manuscripts, and are\nprobably a later addition. Luke and Matthew, probably from the growth of\nthe tradition, and from the wish not to omit anything from this solemn\nscene, represent Jesus as addressing Judas, but do not agree in the words\nascribed to him.\n\nIn the account of the arrest (Mk xiv, 43-54; Mt xxvi, 47-58; Lk xxii,\n47-55) Mark has the words \"but that the scriptures might be fulfilled,\"\nwithout attaching the \"that\" to anything. Matthew fills out his incomplete\nsentence by writing, \"All this happened that the scriptures,\" etc. Luke\nomits the flight of the disciples, because the appearances of the risen\nJesus which he recounts take place in Jerusalem. Both Matthew and Luke\nomit the reference to the young man in the linen garment, either because\nthey did not understand it, or knew it would have no meaning for their\nreaders, or both. Mark says the crowd who came to arrest Jesus came\n\"_from_ the chief priests\"; Luke has apparently overlooked the\npreposition, and so represents the chief priests themselves as taking part\nin the arrest.\n\nTo Mark's mocking \"Prophesy!\" addressed to the blindfolded Jesus by the\nsoldiers, Luke and Matthew add the words, clearly explanatory, \"Who is he\nthat struck thee?\"\n\nIn the denial of Peter (Mk xiv, 66-72; Mt xxvi, 69-75; Lk xxii, 56-62),\nMatthew and Luke omit two obscure and strange words of Mark, [Greek:\nproaulion] in vs. 68 and [Greek: epibalon] in vs. 72. In the treatment of\nJesus by Pilate, Luke adds the charge that Jesus had stirred up the people\nnot to pay tribute to Caesar; it is probably a reflection of the\nanarchistic charges made against Christians in Luke's time. Matthew's\naddition of Pilate's hand-washing is probably due to his desire, or the\ndesire of the tradition back of him, to relieve the Roman authorities of\nresponsibility for the death of Jesus.\n\nIn the story of the journey to the crucifixion (Mk xv, 21; Mt xxvii, 32;\nLk xxiii, 26-32), the omission of the names of Rufus and Alexander is\nprobably due (as already said) to the fact that these men were unknown to\nMatthew and Luke and their readers, and added no weight to the testimony\nof Simon their father. Luke's extremely vivid touch of Jesus' address to\nthe \"Daughters of Jerusalem\" can be explained only as a part of his\nspecial material for this portion of the life of Jesus.\n\nIn the story of the crucifixion (Mk xv, 22-32; Mt xxvii, 33-44; Lk xxiii,\n33-43), Luke's words, \"Father forgive them, for they know not what they\ndo,\" are omitted in many manuscripts, are bracketed by Westcott and Hort,\nand are probably a later addition. Matthew corrects Mark, who says a man\ncame with a sponge, saying, \"Let him be,\" etc.; Matthew makes the crowd\naddress the \"Let him be\" to the man with the sponge.\n\nLuke apparently differs much more than Matthew, from Mark, in his story of\nthe crucifixion, and the events that led up to and followed it. This can\nbe explained by his possession of special sources for these last days of\nJesus, and his desire to use material from these sources with his Marcan\nmatter. Transpositions are especially frequent.\n\nIn his xxii, 18, e.g., Luke makes a transposition of Mk xiv, 25. This may\nbe taken as typical of his procedure throughout these sections. Mark gives\nthe reference to the approaching betrayal before the institution of the\nSupper; Luke, after that institution. Mark places the prediction of the\ndenial of Peter after Peter has left the room; Luke, before his leaving.\nSimilar transpositions are made in the story of the rending of the veil.\nIn all, Luke makes some twelve or thirteen such transpositions in Mark's\npassion narrative. Matthew follows Mark closely, both in matter and in\nwording.\n\nComparing Luke's use of Mark in the other parts of his Gospel with his use\nof him in these last sections, Hawkins[48] finds that \"the verbal\ncorrespondence with the Marcan source is about twice as great in the Lucan\naccount of the ministry as in the Lucan account of the passion.\" The\namount of actually new material in Luke's passion section is about three\ntimes as great as the amount of new material which Luke introduces into\nany other correspondingly large section of Marcan narrative.\n\n\nSUMMARY ON MATTHEW'S AND LUKE'S TREATMENT OF THE MARCAN NARRATIVE\n\nThe manner in which Matthew and Luke have treated the Gospel of Mark has\nbeen brought out in the concrete and detailed examples that have been\nconsidered. No single motive, especially no one so-called \"tendency\" of\neither writer explains all his modifications of his Marcan source. Both\nMatthew and Luke omitted what seemed to them superfluous, as well as\nwhatever appeared to them to conflict with the higher veneration for\nJesus which had developed in their times. Luke especially omitted what\nwould have no significance or interest for his Greek readers--disputes\nwith the Pharisees, questions of Jewish law, and other Judaistic features.\nBoth Matthew and Luke treated the actual words of Jesus, as recorded in\nMark, with great respect. But the narrative, and in a less degree the\nparables, they felt free to work over as they would. Matthew shows much\ngreater fidelity to his source than Luke. But both of them reconstructed\nsentences or whole stories, changed bad constructions into good ones,\nadded what material they would, Matthew combining this with his Marcan\nmaterial while Luke kept it for the most part distinct. Not every change\nwhich they made suggests its explanation to us, and we cannot be certain\nthat in most of them we have the actual motive operating in the mind of\nthe evangelist. But the method of their procedure, the kind of motives\nthat influenced them, the degree of freedom which they took in the\nre-working of their material from Mark, and their habits with reference to\nthe relation of this Marcan material to the other matter which they wished\nto combine with it, have been sufficiently established.[49]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nHAVE WE THE GOSPEL OF MARK IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM?\n\n\nThe number of instances in which Matthew and Luke agree in their changes\nof Mark has given rise to the theory that Matthew and Luke did not use our\nMark but an earlier form. A certain number of such agreements might be\npassed over as merely accidental. A certain number more might be assigned\nto assimilation. But if the agreements of Matthew and Luke in their\ncorrections of Mark are so numerous and so striking as to be quite beyond\naccounting for in these ways, the assumption would be justified that\nMatthew and Luke used, not our copy of Mark, but one in which the text ran\nas it now does in those passages where Matthew and Luke agree against\nMark.\n\nThere are some indications that we do not have the Gospel of Mark in its\noriginal form. The conclusion is lacking. This however throws no light on\nan Ur-Marcus, since the conclusion was lacking in the Mark used by Matthew\nand Luke.[50]\n\nThere are many signs of apparent transposition in our Mark. The insertion\nof one miracle into the midst of another, as in the case of Jairus'\ndaughter and the woman with the issue of blood (v, 21-43), might be held\nto be such a transposition. The incident of the Beelzebul dispute (iii,\n20-30) is inserted between the coming of the family of Jesus (iii, 21) to\ntake him home with them, and Jesus' statement (iii, 31-35), which is the\nsequel of their coming, about his true brotherhood. The speech about the\ncursing of the fig tree (xi, 20-26) intervenes between the cleansing of\nthe temple (xi, 15-19) and the demand of the scribes (xi, 27-33) as to the\nauthority by which Jesus has done so unwonted a thing. After this question\nabout authority, and before Jesus' reply to it, or before the description\nof the discomfiture of the scribes at the reply, seriously interrupting\nthe connection, comes the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen.[51]\n\nAfter the story of the transfiguration the prediction of Jesus' sufferings\ncomes in between the Scribes' question about Elijah and Jesus' answer to\nthat question (Mk ix, 11-13). Loisy thinks Mk xiv, 28, out of place. It\ncertainly disturbs the connection. Juelicher considers Mk xiv, 25, to be\nlater and less original than its parallel in Mt xxvi, 29. The saying in\nxiv, 9, about the name of the woman being known wherever the story of\nJesus is told has been suggested as the remark of some preacher or\ncommentator a propos of the occurrence, and not a saying of Jesus.\nWellhausen has even suggested that the whole story in xiv, 3-9, may be a\nlater addition. The saying, \"Ye shall say to this mountain\" (xi, 23)\nshould probably be placed in Galilee, presumably at Capernaum, where with\na wave of his hand Jesus could point to both mountain and sea--not in\nJerusalem where Mark gives it. Schmiedel considers Mk xiv, 58, secondary.\nIt has been argued, or almost assumed, that the second feeding of the\nmultitude could not have been written by the same hand that described the\nfirst, nor the events narrated in the first thirty-four verses of chap. iv\nhave been written in their present order. If one is at liberty to\nsubtract what he will from the Gospel of Mark, and to rearrange its parts\nsomewhat, he can undoubtedly make a much more readable and better arranged\nGospel of it than it now is.\n\n\nDISCUSSION OF THE ANALYSIS OF MARK BY WENDLING AND VON SODEN\n\nTwo attempts have recently been made to resolve our Gospel of Mark into\nits constituent elements, which are sufficiently successful to be noticed\nhere. The first is that of von Soden, in his _Die wichtigsten Fragen im\nLeben Jesu_, and the second Wendling's _Ur-Marcus_.[52]\n\nVon Soden[53] begins by distinguishing two strands of narrative, easily\nseparable from each other by matter and style. The great differences\nbetween these two strands betray two different authors. As the clearest\ninstance of the earlier strand, he takes Mk ii, 1-iii, 6, which he\ncontrasts with iv, 35-v, 43. In the first, all the interest is centered in\nthe words of Jesus; in the second, in the events themselves. \"Let one\ncompare the story of the Gadarene demoniac with its twenty verses and the\ndebate about fasting with its five verses, and estimate the weight of the\nreligious value of the thots expressed in the two sections.\"\n\nVon Soden next separates Mk vii, 32-37, and viii, 22-26 (the healing of\nthe deaf man and the blind man), as quite distinct in character from such\nstories as those in ii, 1-12, and iii, 1-6. \"In the former, the miracle of\nhealing is itself the subject of the representation; in the latter, the\nmiracle is merely a part of the story, whose real subject is Jesus'\nforgiveness of sins and his violation of the Sabbath laws.\"\n\nIn this way von Soden picks out his _Kernstuecke_. To these _Kernstuecke_\ncertainly belong the group of narratives in i, 21-39; ii, 1-iii, 6; xii,\n13-44; iii, 20-35; vi, 1-6; iv, 1-8; iv, 26-32; and x, 13-31; perhaps also\nvii, 24-30; vi, 14-16; i, 4-11. To these narratives which go back to Peter\nmay also belong the brief notices concerning the stages of growth of the\napostolic circle, in i, 16-20; iii, 13-19; vi, 7-13; viii, 27-ix, 1; and\nix, 33-40.[54] To these passages von Soden adds xiii, 1-6, 28-37. He says\nthat at the basis of the story of the days in Jerusalem, xi, 1-xii, 12,\nand the passion narrative in chaps. xiv and xv, lie narratives of a\nsimilar style; but these latter he does not include in his _Kernstuecke_.\n\nVon Soden then prints the passages which he thus refers to Peter (or the\nPetrine tradition), \"undisturbed by all that our Gospel of Mark has\ninterwoven with them.\"[55] The result presents the Petrine nucleus of the\nGospel as follows: John the Baptist and the Baptism of Jesus; a Sabbath in\nCapernaum; the offense of the Jews at Jesus' forgiving of sins, his\nassociation with sinners, his breaking of the Sabbath, and the fact that\nhis disciples do not fast; how the Jews attempt to take him; how Jesus\nmeets the general misunderstanding; parables about the kingdom of God; the\nquestion as to who shall enter that kingdom; the development of the\napostolic circle; glimpses into the future.\n\nThis makes (with the readjustment in the order of some of the sections) a\nremarkably straightforward and connected narrative. Von Soden's remarks\nconcerning it are well worth quoting:\n\n These narratives are without any embellishment or secondary interest.\n They are plastic and concrete in every feature. The local coloring is\n strikingly fresh and yet in no way artificial. No edificatory remarks\n are inserted, no reflections, only deeds and striking sayings. No\n story requires its secret meaning to be explained by symbol or\n allegory. In no one of them does one feel any occasion to inquire for\n the meaning, which lies clear upon the surface. Situations and words\n are too original to have been invented. Everything breathes the odor\n of Palestine. There is no reminiscence of Old Testament stories.\n Miracles appear only here and there, and incidentally.... The\n christological or soteriological question never constitutes the motive\n of a story. Not once is there any expression from the language of the\n schools, especially from that of Paul. Words and sentences are\n reminiscent of the Aramaic. The figure of Jesus itself bears in every\n reference a human outline. He is stirred and astonished, he is angry\n and trembles, he needs recuperation and feels himself forsaken of God,\n he will not have the thotless, conventional designation \"good\"\n addressed to him, and confesses that he does not know when all which\n he sees to be approaching shall be fulfilled. His mother and his\n sisters fear that he may be out of his mind. This and much else is\n told with the greatest naivete. So Jesus lived; so he expressed\n himself; thus they received him; thus the apostolic circle was formed\n and developed--this is what the writer intends to tell.[56]\n\nThese sections of Mark certainly have a very primary character; so far as\ntheir contents is concerned, they may well go back to the Petrine\ntradition.\n\nWith these sections von Soden contrasts the remaining parts of the Gospel,\nin which he finds not only much interruption of the primary narrative, but\nmuch interpretation, much allegorizing, much absence of actual situations,\nmuch reminiscence of Old Testament stories, much influence from Paul, and\nmany reflections of the experiences of individual Christians and the\nChristian church.[57] No one can work thru this analysis of von Soden's\nwithout feeling that it is easy to distinguish between primary and\nsecondary elements in the Gospel of Mark, and that von Soden has at least\npointed out many of the junctures between these two.\n\nThe attempt of Wendling in his _Ur-Marcus_[58] is still more thorogoing.\nThe basis of his discussion is Mark's 4th chapter, where he considers the\ntwo strands most easily separated. To the original belong iv, 1-9, and\nvss. 26-33. Vss. 10-25 are later; they have been inserted mechanically,\nyet so as to respect the older text; they have no organic connection with\nthe rest of the chapter, and even contradict its situation. Jesus is\nteaching from a boat (and other boats are with his); then suddenly, in\nvss. 10-25, he is alone with his disciples who ask him the meaning of the\nparable of the Sower. He gives his explanation, and again without any\nindication of change of situation he is in the boat surrounded by the\nother boats, with the people still on the shore, and the storm comes up\nand is stilled.\n\nThis little insertion (iv, 10-25) also contains theories of the writer,\nquite contradictory to those of the writer of other parts of the Gospel.\nIn other places, Jesus speaks to all the people in parables \"as they were\nable to hear him\"; he stretches out his hand over the multitude of his\ndisciples and says, \"These are my mother and my sisters\"; he is the\nteacher of the crowd, who understand him better than his own family; there\nis nothing in his parables that needs explaining. But in this insertion\n(iv, 10-25) the theory of the writer is that the parables are \"mysteries,\"\nenigmas, which not only need to be explained (by the allegorical method),\nbut which are spoken for the express purpose of preventing the people\nfrom understanding. Without the key which Jesus gives, even the disciples\ndo not understand them. The section is also marked by Pauline\ninfluences.[59]\n\nTwo clews are thus given, aside from interruptions in the narrative, by\nwhich the work of a second writer may be detected. He has the\n_Geheimnis-Theorie_ of the parables, and he has in thot and vocabulary\nreminiscences of the Pauline school. Applying these tests to another\nsection which seems to interrupt the narrative where it stands, Wendling\nadds a second insertion--iii, 22-30. This is the section about the dispute\nwith the Pharisees, which comes in inaptly between the introduction (iii,\n20, 21) and the continuation (iii, 31) of the story of Jesus' family who\nhave come to take him home. It seems to have been inserted in this place\nbecause the Pharisees also said \"he hath a devil.\" By repeating in vs. 30\nthe [Greek: elegon hoti] which he found in vs. 21, the redactor preserves\nfor the continuation of the original story precisely the same connection\nit would have had without his interpolation; and by the use of the same\nwords in vs. 22 he connects the interpolation with the opening narrative.\nHis hand is seen in the superfluous repetition of words, especially of the\nsubject, as in iii, 24, 25.[60]\n\nTo these two insertions should be added a third, iii, 6-19. The motives\nfor it seem to be copied from narratives in other chapters. It consists\n(in part) of generalization and interpretation, both marks of the\nredactor's work. It also contains his _Geheimnis-Theorie_.\n\nTo these should be added i, 34_b_ (\"he suffered not the demons to speak,\nbecause they knew him\"), because of the presence in it of this same\ntheory. Nor does i, 45, fit where it is; the connection without it is\ngood; it also contains the favorite theory of the redactor that the more\nJesus told people not to proclaim him, the more they did so, and the more\nhe tried to seclude himself the more they found him.\n\nTo these again, on somewhat other grounds and not so securely, should be\nadded the little groups of loosely strung logia which are found in vi,\n7-11; viii, 34-ix, 1; ix, 40-50; x, 42-45; xi, 23-25; xii, 38-40; xiii,\n9-13. The ground for asserting these to be additions is that these logia\nare not closely connected in the passages in which they occur, and that\nthey share this characteristic with the similar group of disconnected\nsayings in the first and best attested interpolation, iv, 21-25.\n\nIn i, 1-3, 14_b_, 15, the word [Greek: euangelion] arouses a natural\nsuspicion. The same word also occurs in four other places (viii, 35; x,\n29; xiii, 10; xiv, 9), all of which are in passages which are suspicious\nupon other grounds; consequently with the three instances in chap. i, they\nare ascribed to the redactor.\n\nWith the exception of the interpolation in iv, 10-25, the section i,\n16-iv, 33, appears to be a unit, and belongs to the oldest stratum. But\nwith iv, 35, says Wendling, begins a new section, easily distinguished\nfrom that just mentioned. It copies the motives and the characteristics of\nother sections.[61] The writer is to be distinguished, however, not merely\nfrom the writer of the earliest stratum, but from the author of the\ninsertions already identified. None of the criteria of the latter's manner\nappear in the section beginning at iv, 35. It shows no trace of Pauline\nconceptions, has none of Jesus' prohibitions to the demons, its\n_Heimlichkeit_ is of a different sort, and goes back to Old Testament\nexemplars. And since the insertion in iv, 10-25, presupposes the story of\nthe storm on the lake in iv, 35-v, 43, this latter is older than the\nformer. The writer of this section (iv, 35-v, 43) therefore stood between\nthe writer of the original strand, and the evangelist or redactor. The\nlast writer (Wendling calls him Ev) worked over the combined work of his\ntwo predecessors.\n\nTo the author who is intermediate between the first writer and the\nEvangelist, Wendling assigns twenty-nine different sections, some of\nconsiderable length and some of only a verse or part of a verse. They are\nas follows: i, 4-14_a_; iv, 35-v, 42; v, 43_b_; vi, 14, 17-30, 35-44; ix,\n2-8, 14-27; x, 46-xi, 10; xiv, 12-20, 26-35_a_, 36-37, 39-41_a_, 42, 47,\n51-56, 60-62_a_, 63, 64, 66-72; xv, 16-20, 23, 24_b_, 25, 29-30, 33,\n34_b_-36, 38, 40-43, 46-xvi, 7_a_, 8--about two hundred verses or parts of\nverses in all.\n\nThe contributions of the author of the Gospel are more extensive than\nthose of his predecessor. They comprise i, 1-3, 14_b_-15, 34_b_, 39_b_,\n45; ii, 15_b_-16_a_, 18_a_, 19_b_-20; iii, 6-19, 22-30; iv, 10-25, 30-32,\n34; v, 43_a_; vi, 1-13, 15, 16, 30-31, 45-viii, 26, 30_b_-33_a_, 33_c_-35,\n38-ix, 1, 9-13, 28-50; x, 2-12, 24, 26-30, 32_b_-34, 38-40, 45; xi, 11-14,\n18-25, 27_a_; xii, 14_b_, 32-34_a_, 38-44; xiii, 3-27, 30-32, 37; xiv, 8,\n9, 21, 35_b_, 38, 41_b_, 57-59, 62_b_; xv, 39, 44, 45; xvi, 7_b_, in all\nabout two hundred and seventy verses or parts of verses.\n\nThis leaves to the original writer the following sections: i, 16-34_a_,\n35-39_a_, 40-44; ii, 1-15_a_, 16_b_-17, 18_b_, 19_a_, 21-iii, 5, 20, 21,\n31-iv, 9, 26-29, 33; vi, 32-34; viii, 27-30_a_, 33_b_, 36, 37; x, 1,\n13-23, 25, 31-32_a_, 35-37, 41-44; xi, 15-17, 27_b_-xii, 14_a_, 14_c_-31,\n34_b_-37; xiii, 1-2, 28-29, 33-36; xiv, 1-7, 10, 11, 22-25, 43-46, 48-50,\n65; xv, 1-15, 21, 22, 24_a_, 26-27, 31-32, 34_a_, 37, in all about two\nhundred and twelve verses or parts of verses.[62]\n\nWendling calls the writers of these three strands M1, M2, and Ev. Printing\nthe text of M1 and M2 without rearrangement, but with the omission of all\nmatter assigned to Ev, he finds them to make a continuous story, well\nconnected and without breaks. Whether M1 alone makes such a story, he is\nin doubt; and therefore as to whether M2 found M1 as a connected\ndiscourse, or himself first assembled the sections of it in connection\nwith his own additions, the same doubt exists. The passion-story of M1 by\nitself seems to be a connected account; it may therefore be assumed that\nso much of M1 was found by M2 as a whole and in its present order.\nFurther, since the work of Ev in the passion-story is so slight, it is to\nbe assumed that the combination of M1 and M2 in this story was more\ncarefully done than in many other parts, and also that for this part of\nthe gospel history Ev possessed very few traditions which had not already\nbeen embodied in M1 + M2. This would agree with the natural assumption\nthat the earliest part of the gospel tradition to be carefully treasured\nwould be that relating to Jesus' death, and that it was only later that\nthe attempt was made to preserve with equal care the story of his whole\npublic career.\n\nWhen one remembers the fine-spun analyses of the historical books of the\nOld Testament, which, long ridiculed for their elaborateness, have finally\nbeen accepted by most scholars, one hesitates on this account alone to\npronounce an adverse judgment upon Wendling's theory. Yet his analysis\ncertainly seems over-elaborate. It is a great advantage to be able to\ndistinguish the more obvious work of the redactor from the earlier\ndocument upon which he worked. All students will feel this with reference\nto chap. iv, and the advantage in chap. iii is perhaps only less great.\nStill more welcome is the assignment of vi, 45-viii, 27, to the redactor.\nThe great stumbling-block of this section is its feeding of the four\nthousand, so obviously copied from the feeding of the five thousand. That\none and the same author should have written both these accounts has seemed\nstrange to many readers. But this duplication is as easily disposed of\nupon von Soden's theory as upon Wendling's. Von Soden's analysis into two\nstrata (without the assumption of two writers) is much simpler than\nWendling's analysis into three, with three writers. Wendling's theory is\nmore secure where it goes with von Soden's, and less convincing where it\ngoes beyond it.\n\nSome distinction has in any case to be made between the final writer of\nthe Gospel and the earliest tradition upon which he worked; and Wendling\nhas indicated the criteria which such a distinction must employ. Von\nSoden's division of the Marcan material into a Petrine and a later source\namounts to the same thing. The two critics do not differ greatly about the\npassages they regard as secondary. Von Soden's Petrine narrative does not\ndiffer greatly from Wendling's M1 + M2. But the line of demarkation\nbetween M1 and M2, and Wendling's reasons for drawing this, are not as\nself-evident as the line which Wendling and von Soden agree in drawing\nbetween the earlier document, or source, and the work of the Evangelist.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS OF VON SODEN AND WENDLING COMPARED\n\nA tabulation of the results discloses the following agreements and\ndisagreements between von Soden's Petrine narrative and Wendling's M1+M2.\n\n Von Soden i, 4-11, 16-20, 21-39 ii, 1-28\n Wendling i, 4-14a, 16-34a, 35-39a, 40-44 ii, 1-15a, 16b-17, 18b, 19b\n\n Von Soden iii, 1-6, 13-19, 21-35 iv, 1-9, 21-32\n Wendling 21-28 iii, 1-5, 20,21, 31-35 iv, 1-9, 26-29, 33, 35-41\n\n Von Soden vi, 6-16 viii, 27-38\n Wendling v, 1-42, 43b vi, 14, 17-30, 33-44 viii, 27-30a, 33b, 36, 37\n\n Von Soden ix, 1 32-40 x, 13-45\n Wendling ix, 2-8, 14-27 x, 1, 13-23, 25, 31, 32a, 35-37, 41-52, xi, 1-10\n\n Von Soden xii, 13-44 xiii, 1-6\n Wendling 15-17, 27b-33 xii, 1-14a, 14c-31, 34b-37 xiii, 1-2, 28-29\n\n Von Soden 28-37\n Wendling 33-36 xiv, 1-7, 10-20, 22-35a, 36-37, 39-41a, 42-56, 60-62a\n\n Von Soden\n Wendling 63-72 xv, 1-38, 40-42, 46-47 xvi, 1-7a, 8\n\nThe comparison shows Wendling's analysis to be much more complex than von\nSoden's. This results from his separation of his groundwork into two\nstrands. It also shows that Wendling assigns considerably more to M1 and\nM2 than von Soden to his Petrine source. This Wendling can afford to do,\nsince he supposes two documents instead of one. The matter assigned by von\nSoden to the Petrine source is in part assigned by Wendling to M1 and in\npart to M2. E.g., i, 4-11, is assigned by von Soden to the Petrine source,\nand by Wendling to M2; but i, 16-39, is assigned to the Petrine source,\nand (with the exception of two parts of verses) to M1. The passage ii,\n1-28, is assigned by von Soden to the Petrine source, by Wendling to M1\n(again with exception of a few parts of verses). Of the one hundred and\nseventy-seven verses assigned by von Soden to his Petrine source, up to\nand including xiii, 37 (after which he so assigns nothing), Wendling\nassigns about one hundred and twenty-four to his M1, and only ten to M2.\nTho he assigns some verses to M1 which von Soden does not give to the\nPetrine source, and omits some (assigning them to the redactor) which von\nSoden does so assign, up to xiii, 37, the M1 of Wendling agrees very\nclosely with the Petrine source of von Soden. The material assigned to M1\nand M2 after xiii, 37, is about equally divided between them. Wendling\nmakes no claims for the Petrine origin of his M1 or M2, but after these\nare subtracted from the whole Gospel there is a smaller amount left for\nthe work of his redactor than remains after the Petrine source is\nsubtracted. Since Wendling distinguishes between two sources and the work\nof the redactor, and von Soden only between the Petrine tradition and\nother matter, this result also is what would be expected.\n\nThe relatively great agreement of the results of these two investigations\nseems to prove that it is possible to distinguish an earlier and a later\ntradition in the Gospel. Beyond this, the difference between von Soden and\nWendling is that the former makes no assertions concerning the identity of\nthe final editor with the writer who recorded the Petrine tradition, while\nthe latter asserts that the redactor is quite another person than the\nwriter of either M1 or M2. Is this latter position of Wendling's\nsusceptible of proof or disproof?\n\nPerhaps the simplest criterion, and the one to be most safely applied, is\nthat of vocabulary. Sir John Hawkins compiled a list[63] of forty-one\nwords which he regards as characteristic of Mark. Do these words occur\nindiscriminately in M1, M2, and Ev, or are they confined some of them to\nM1, and some to M2, and some to Ev? Or is there sufficient difference in\nthe frequency with which these words occur in the three strata to justify\nthe assumption of three different authors, and especially that Ev was\ndistinct from the writers of the two documents? If not, the division\nbetween earlier and later material in Mark may still stand, but it may\nhave been one and the same writer who put the whole Gospel together out of\nthese earlier and later materials.\n\nCharacteristic of Mark[64] is the historic present. Hawkins finds one\nhundred and fifty-one examples of this use in Mark against seventy-eight\nin Matthew (twenty-one of these taken from Mark),[65] and four in Luke. Of\nthese one hundred and fifty-one historic presents in Mark, forty-nine\noccur in passages assigned by Wendling to M1, sixty-nine in M2, and\nthirty-three in Ev.\n\nOf the peculiarly Marcan words, some prove nothing in this connection.\n[Greek: Euangelion] is used only by Ev (seven times); but since Wendling\nuses the presence of this word as a criterion of Ev's work in six out of\nthe seven passages where it occurs, this adds nothing to the proof.\n[Greek: Alalos] is used once by M1, twice by M2, and not by Ev. But since\nEv adds no story of a dumb man, he has no occasion to use the word. (He\ndoes add a story of a stammering man, where he uses the word, [Greek:\nmogilalos].) [Greek: Klasma], used once by M2 and three times by Ev,\nsignifies little; since the three uses in Ev occur in the same passage,\nand this passage is a copy of the passage in M2 (the feeding of the\nmultitudes). [Greek: Stachys] occurs three times, all in M1, but this also\nsignifies nothing, since no passage in which it could occur is assigned to\nM2 or Ev. [Greek: Ekporeuomai] is used twice each by M1 and M2, and seven\ntimes by Ev; but since five of these seven occurrences are in the same\npassage, they cannot establish any particular fondness for this word on\nthe part of Ev as against the other two. [Greek: Eisporeuomai] looks a\nlittle more favorable for Wendling's hypothesis, since it is used once by\nM1, twice by M2, and five times, in separated passages, by Ev. [Greek:\nAkathartos], found three times in M1, four in M2, and three in Ev; [Greek:\napo makrothen], three times in M2 and twice in Ev; [Greek: didache], used\nthree times by M2 and twice by the redactor, and [Greek: phero], five\ntimes used by M1, eight times by M2, and twice by Ev, do nothing toward\nestablishing a distinct vocabulary for any one of the three. Only two\nwords, [Greek: diastellomai], used four times by the redactor in four\ndifferent chapters, and not by M1 or M2; and [Greek: ekthamboumai], used\nonly by M2, four times in three different chapters, point in the direction\nof distinct vocabularies. But the absence of the third of these words can\ncertainly, and of the second probably, be accounted for by the\nsubject-matter.\n\nThere is here practically no evidence of distinct vocabularies. Even if\nthere were, it would be fully offset by the use of words having no\nnecessary connection with any particular subject-matter, and therefore\nequally likely to occur in any part of the Gospel. Five such words are the\nadverbs [Greek: euthys], [Greek: palin], [Greek: polla], [Greek: ouketi],\nand [Greek: oupo]. Of these, the first (Mark's most characteristic word)\nis used seventeen times by M1, fifteen by M2, and ten by Ev. Considering\nthe relative amounts of narrative matter ascribed to the three, this usage\nseems to indicate an equal fondness for this word among them. The second\n([Greek: palin]) is used ten times by M1, eight times by M2, and nine\ntimes by Ev; the third ([Greek: polla]) is used adverbially three times by\nM1, six times by M2, and three times by Ev; the fourth ([Greek: ouketi]),\ntwice by M1, twice by M2, three times by Ev; the fifth ([Greek: oupo]),\nonce by M1 and four times by Ev.\n\nCharacteristic of Mark also is his use of the imperfects [Greek: elegen]\nand [Greek: elegon]. They are found fourteen times in M1, fifteen times in\nM2, and twenty-one times in the passages ascribed to Ev.\n\nOf the forty-one verses listed on p. 246 as standing in both Mark and Q,\nthirty-four are in passages assigned by Wendling to Ev. This would seem to\ntell in Wendling's favor, since the last writer who had a hand in the\nmaking of the Gospel of Mark would naturally be the one most likely to\nmake use of Q. Three verses, however, occur in passages assigned to M1,\nand four in M2. This would indicate that all three writers, besides having\nthe same favorite words, were acquainted with and made some use of Q. The\nitem of the relation of the various writers to Q, however, has little or\nno significance; since it is the sections having the greatest amount of\nlogian matter and the least narrative, that are assigned to Ev.\n\nThe cumulative effect of these considerations is very much to the\ndiscredit of Wendling's assumption of three different writers for our\nGospel of Mark. It cannot, to be sure, disprove that assumption; but it at\nleast shows a lack of proof where proof would be most easily found and\nmost convincing.\n\n\nMATTHEW AND LUKE USED OUR MARK AS A SOURCE\n\nEven if Wendling's analysis had been capable of substantiation on\nlinguistic grounds, his division of our Gospel of Mark into three strands\nfrom three different authors would not help us toward an Ur-Marcus lying\nbehind our Gospels of Matthew and Luke. For Matthew or Luke or both of\nthem follow Mark in all the transpositions, dislocations, and other\nmisarrangements of his Gospel. Whether these features stood in the\noriginal Mark or not, they evidently stood in the Mark used by Matthew and\nLuke.\n\nMatthew and Luke also used a Mark which contained the story of Jesus in\nthe same order given by our present Mark. Tho both of them deviate from\nthis order for assignable reasons, one or the other of them is found\nfollowing it all the time. If these deviations go back to an Ur-Marcus,\nthere must have been one Ur-Marcus in the hands of Matthew and another in\nthe hands of Luke.\n\n\nTHE HYPOTHESIS OF A PRIMITIVE MARK SUPERFLUOUS; SIMPLER EXPLANATIONS\n\nCan the verbal agreements of Matthew and Luke as against Mark, or their\ndeviations from him without apparent reason, be explained upon any simpler\nhypothesis than that of Ur-Marcus? It appears to the writer that they can.\n\nA certain number (tho no one can say exactly what proportion of the whole)\nof the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark may be allowed to be\naccidental. Many of them, like the substitution of [Greek: eipen] for\n[Greek: legei], or of an occasional [Greek: de] for Mark's invariable and\nmonotonous [Greek: kai] or the substitution of a common for an uncommon\nword (like [Greek: kline] for [Greek: krabattos]) require no explanation.\n\n_Agreements_ of Matthew and Luke _in their omissions_ from the Marcan\nnarrative do not stand upon the same plane with the agreements in\n_substitutions_, and may all be accounted for on the ground of accident,\nor by the same desire on the part of both writers to be more concise, or\nto avoid anything derogatory to Jesus or the apostles; or by some other\nsimilar motive at work separately in the minds of the two later\nevangelists. It is only the agreements in corrections and substitutions\nthat require accounting for. I believe these can be explained chiefly on\ntwo grounds:\n\n1. It is not necessary to assume that Matthew and Luke both worked upon\nthe same identical copy of our Mark. If they used two copies, these two\nwould not be expected to agree absolutely with each other in the wording\nof every passage. This would account for some of the slight deviations in\nthe wording of either Matthew or Luke where the other agrees with our\npresent Mark. These two copies that Matthew and Luke used may neither of\nthem have been the original (since in both of them the conclusion at least\nwas gone); or at least not the original in its original form. One of them\nmay have been a copy of the original, and the other a copy of this copy.\nOr they may both, as Sanday argues, have belonged to a type later, and not\nearlier, than our present Mark. This would account for the agreements, and\nfor such deviations as have not already been accounted for, or cannot be\naccounted for, by the known literary peculiarities of Matthew and Luke.\nSince the text of Mark that has come down to us is more corrupt than that\nof either Matthew or Luke, various words in which Matthew and Luke now\nagree against Mark may have stood in the text which both of them used, and\nmay later have dropped out, before the copy was made to which our present\ntexts go back. Or the two copies of Mark, assumed above, may both have\nbeen made from the original copy which Mark made with his own hand. Upon\nthis supposition even, they would not always agree, and so deviations in\nMatthew and Luke from Mark, and occasional agreements in such deviations,\nwould be explained. Or these agreements may be explained, as is obvious in\nmany instances, by the working of similar motives in the minds of Matthew\nand Luke, even assuming them to have made their extracts from one and the\nsame copy, or from two practically identical copies, of Mark.\n\nDr. E. A. Abbott, in his _Corrections of Mark_ (London, 1901) gives an\nexhaustive list of the deviations from Mark in which Matthew and Luke\nagree. Many of these are such as to suggest that Matthew and Luke used not\nan Ur-Marcus, but a text of Mark later than the one that has come down to\nus. E.g., in twelve instances Matthew and Luke agree in supplying the\nsubject or object which our Mark omits. In fifteen, they agree in\ncorrecting abrupt constructions, supplying a connecting word. In thirteen\n(exclusive of [Greek: legei]) they agree in correcting Mark's historic\npresent. In twelve they agree in replacing Mark's relative clause or his\nsubjunctive by a participle. In twenty-three they agree in substituting\n[Greek: eipen] for [Greek: legei]. In thirty they agree in the use of\n[Greek: de] for [Greek: kai]. It is not impossible that Matthew and Luke,\nindependently bent on improving Mark's style, have accidentally agreed in\nmaking these same improvements in the same places (especially since there\nare other improvements of the same sort in which they do not agree). But\nit is a much simpler and more adequate hypothesis, that they both used a\ntext of Mark in which these corrections had already been made.\n\nYet even of this text they probably did not use the same identical copy.\nAnd as the copy used by one or both of them may have been two or three\nremoves from the text from which it started, many changes may have crept\ninto the copy used by one of them, not contained in the copy used by the\nother. This would account alike for the agreements in deviations from our\npresent Mark, and for the fact that these corrections are not all of them\nfound in both Matthew and Luke. This last item is further accounted for by\nthe freedom of Matthew and Luke in making their own corrections in the\ncopy that lay before them.[66] Allowance should also be made for the fact\nthat we cannot be sure that we have yet recovered the true text of either\nMatthew or Luke.[67]\n\n2. The agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark can further be\naccounted for by the hypothesis of assimilation. Matthew made certain\nchanges of his own in the wording of Mark; Luke apparently made many more.\nThe various texts still extant show many efforts of copyists to bring the\ndeviations of Matthew and Luke in small verbal items into an agreement. If\nthis same process went on during the period covered by our earliest\nmanuscripts, it is probable that it went on to a much greater extent at an\nearlier date, before our Gospels had acquired the sacredness which they\nlater came to possess. A fine illustration of this process and its results\nis to be seen in the Matthean and Lucan versions of the Lord's Prayer, in\nwhich the probably original \"Let thy Holy Spirit come upon us and purify\nus,\" of Luke, has been assimilated to \"Thy kingdom come,\" and in many\nmanuscripts also to \"Thy will be done as in heaven so upon earth,\" of\nMatthew. The extent of this sort of assimilation can never be determined;\nbut it seems quite sufficient to account for agreements of Matthew and\nLuke against Mark not easily accounted for on other grounds.\n\nA more general reason against the assumption of an Ur-Marcus in the hands\nof Matthew and Luke is the comparatively small number and importance of\ntheir agreements against Mark, as compared with the very large number of\nthe deviations in which they do not agree, and as compared also with the\nvastly greater number of instances in which both Matthew and Luke follow\nMark faithfully. In other words, if Ur-Marcus differed from our Mark only\nin those words and phrases in which Matthew and Luke agree against our\nMark, then Ur-Marcus was at the most not a different Mark from ours, but\nonly a different copy or text of our Mark. The assumption of an Ur-Marcus\nwas a natural one for the explanation of the phenomena in question; but it\nis a cumbersome hypothesis, and insecure; further study seems to discredit\nit. Matthew and Luke used our Mark, not another.\n\nIt has often been suggested that the Marcan material covered by the \"great\nomission\" of Luke (Mk vi, 45-viii, 26) was absent from the copy of Mark\nused by Luke, tho present in that used by Matthew. Reasons for Luke's\nomission of this long Marcan section have been given, and seem sufficient\nwithout the assumption of its absence from Luke's copy of Mark. But the\ntheory of its absence has also important items directly against it. The\nsection has the general Marcan characteristics. Mark has one hundred and\nforty-one historic presents; eighteen of them are in this section. He uses\n[Greek: euthys] thirty-four times, five in this section; [Greek: palin]\ntwenty-six times, five in this section. He is partial to the imperfects\n[Greek: elegen] and [Greek: elegon], which he uses fifty times (against\nMatthew's twenty-three and Luke's nine), six times in this section. The\nsame habit of duplicate expression which occurs in other parts of his\nGospel appears here. [Greek: ho estin] in the sense of \"i.e.,\" peculiar to\nMark among the evangelists, appears here twice (four times elsewhere in\nthe Gospel). Seven out of the nine sections begin with [Greek: kai]. The\nsection seems to be too homogeneous with the rest of the book to be from a\ndifferent hand.[68]\n\nThe foregoing considerations seem to render the hypothesis of Ur-Marcus\nsuperfluous. The phenomena for which it was designed to account are more\neasily and naturally explained by other suppositions.\n\n\nSOME REMARKABLE VERBAL RESEMBLANCES\n\nIn the preceding pages sufficient consideration has been given not only to\nthe fact, but to the manner, of the use of Mark by Matthew and Luke.\nVisual illustration, by the printing of a few passages in different kinds\nof type may serve to enforce some of the more general facts already brot\nout. The words (or parts of words) common to the three Synoptics, in the\nfollowing passages, will be printed in heavy-faced type.\n\n Mt ix, 5-6: [Greek: =ti= gar =estin| Mk ii, 9-10_a_: [Greek: =ti estin|\n eukopoteron, eipein=: | eukopoteron, eipein= |\n =aph=ie=ntai | to paralytiko: =aph=ie=ntai |\n sou hai hamartiai, e | sou hai hamartiai, e |\n eipein: egeire kai= | eipein: egeire kai= |\n | aron ton krabbaton |\n peripatei? =hina de eidete | sou kai hypage? =hina de eidete |\n hoti exousian | hoti exousian |\n echei ho hyios tou anthropou | echei ho hyios tou anthropou |\n epi tes ges aphienai | epi tes ges aphienai |\n hamartias=, tote legei | hamartias=, legei |\n =to paral=ytiko | =to paral=ytiko: soi lego, |\n =eger=theis =ar=on =sou= | =ege=i=r=e =ar=on ton |\n ten klinen kai hypage | krabbaton =sou= kai hypage |\n =eis ton oikon sou=.] | =eis ton oikon sou=.] |\n\n\n Lk v, 23-24: [Greek: =ti estin\n eukopoteron, eipein=:\n =aph=eo=ntai=\n soi =hai hamartiai sou\n e eipein: egeire kai=\n\n peripatei? =hina de eidete\n hoti ho hyios tou anthropou\n exousian echei\n epi tes ges aphienai\n hamartias=, eipen\n =to paral=elymeno: soi lego,\n =ege=i=r=e kai =ar=as to\n klinidion =sou= poreuou\n =eis ton oikon sou=.]\n\nHere the evangelists differ each from the other in the words ascribed to\nJesus, but when they come to the parenthetic explanation injected into the\nmidst of the sentence, [Greek: hina de eidete], etc., they agree exactly,\nnot only in the wording, but in the awkward placing of the clause. The\nthree accounts agree in the first five lines, except for the presence of\n[Greek: gar] in Matthew, the insertion of [Greek: to paralytiko] in Mark,\nand a slightly different form of the verb [Greek: aphiemi] in Luke. In the\nfourth line Luke also inserts [Greek: soi], after which come seven\nconsecutive agreeing words (tho with slight rearrangement in order by\nLuke). Mark then has a clause of six words which Matthew and Luke omit.\nThe latter agree in substituting [Greek: peripatei] for [Greek: hypage],\nand two (different) words from the same root for Mark's [Greek:\nkrabbaton]. Luke has preserved the [Greek: soi lego] which Matthew has\ndropped.\n\n Mt xii, 3-4: [Greek: ouk | Mk ii, 25-26: [Greek: oudepote|\n =anegnote= ti =epoiesen | =anegnote= ti =epoiesen |\n Daueid, hote epeinasen | Daueid hote= chreian eschen |\n kai | kai =epeinasen autos kai |\n hoi met' autou?= | hoi met' autou?= |\n p=os eiselthen eis ton | p=os eiselthen eis ton |\n oikon tou theou= | oikon tou theou= epi |\n | Abiathar archiereos |\n =kai tous artous tes | =kai tous artous tes |\n protheseos | protheseos |\n ephagon=, ho =ouk ex=on en | ephagen=, hous =ouk ex=estin |\n auto =phagein= oude =tois= | =phagein ei me |\n met' =aut=ou, =ei me= | to=u=s hiere=i=s=, kai edoken |\n =to=i=s hiere=usin monois?]| kai =tois= syn |\n | =aut=o ousin?] |\n\n Lk vi, 3-4: [Greek: oude touto\n =anegnote= ho =epoiesen\n Daueid= hop=ote epeinasen=\n autos =kai=\n =hoi met' autou= ontes?\n =hos eiselthen eis ton\n oikon tou theou=\n\n =kai tous artous tes\n protheseos= elaben kai\n =ephagen=, kai edoken kai\n =tois= met' =aut=ou, hous =ouk\n ex=estin =phagein ei me=\n monous =to=u=s hiere=i=s=?]\n\nFew brief passages in the triple tradition will better repay study than\nthis. Note that the three introduce their question with three different\nparticles. Matthew and Luke omit the apparently superfluous words of Mark,\n[Greek: chreian eschen], but Luke retains the [Greek: autos] of Mark which\nMatthew has dropped. Luke adds [Greek: ontes], perhaps in deference to\nMark's [Greek: ousin], used in a similar phrase but different connection.\nHe substitutes [Greek: hos] for the [Greek: pos] of Mark and Matthew. Mark\nand Luke both have the statement that David \"gave\" the bread to those that\nwere with him, Luke adding that he \"took\" it. All three have in conclusion\nthe phrase \"to those with him,\" but each has inserted it in a different\nplace. Matthew follows Mark more closely than does Luke, the latter\ntransposing one or two clauses. Both Matthew and Luke have omitted the\nreference to Abiathar, either because they (or Luke at least) had no\ninterest in it, or for its historical difficulty. In spite of these\nchanges there is a most remarkable verbal agreement thruout. Except for\nMark's superfluous \"had need,\" and his reference to Abiathar, nothing can\nbe found in either account that is not duplicated, practically word for\nword and almost letter for letter, in one or both of the others.\n\n Mt iv, 18-22: [Greek: Peripaton de =para ten\n thalassan tes Galilaias eiden= dyo\n adelphous, =Simona= ton legomenon Petron\n =kai Andrean ton adelphon au=tou\n =ballontas= amphiblestron =e=is =te=n =thalass=an;\n =esan gar haleeis. Kai= legei\n =autois: deute opiso mou, kai\n poieso hymas haleeis anthropon=. hoi\n de =eutheos aphentes ta diktya ekolouthesan\n auto. Kai probas= ekeithen\n =eiden= allous dyo adelphous,\n =Iakobon ton tou Zebedaiou kai Ioannen\n ton adelphon autou, en to ploio=\n meta Zebedaiou tou patros auton\n =katartizontas ta diktya= auton; =kai\n ekalesen autous=. hoi de (=eutheos=)\n =aphentes t=o =ploi=on kai (=ton patera\n auton=) ekolouthesan =auto=.]\n\n Mk i, 16-20: [Greek: Kai paragon =para ten\n thalassan tes Galilaias eiden\n Simona\n kai Andrean ton adelphon= Simonos\n amphi=ballontas e=n =te thalass=e;\n =esan gar haleeis. kai= eipen\n =autois: deute opiso mou, kai poieso\n hymas= genesthai =haleeis anthropon=. kai\n =euthus aphentes ta diktya ekolouthesan\n auto. Kai probas= oligon\n =eiden\n Iakobon ton tou Zebedaiou kai Ioannen\n ton adelphon autou=, kai autous =en to\n ploio\n katartizontas ta diktya. kai= (=euthys=)\n =ekalesen autous=; kai =aphentes= (=ton patera\n auton=) Zebedaion en =t=o =ploi=o meta ton\n misthoton apelthon opiso =aut=ou.]\n\nThis passage contains the striking addition of the parenthetical\nexplanation [Greek: esan gar haleeis]. That this should occur in a\nnarrative portion, and not in a saying of Jesus, is the more significant.\nFor the rest, the saying ascribed to Jesus runs word for word (tho its\nbrevity in this case robs this fact of any very remarkable significance);\nin the narrative portion Matthew mentions that Simon was called Peter (a\nremark which Mark saves till he comes to the formal naming of the twelve),\nand in the conclusion he says \"they left the boat and their father,\" while\nMark says \"they left their father in the boat,\" adding, \"with the hired\nmen.\" Mark says Jesus _called_ the two \"immediately.\" Matthew says they\n_left_ \"immediately.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nUSE OF A COMMON DOCUMENT BY MATTHEW AND LUKE\n\n\nThe document used by Matthew and Luke as the source of their common\nnon-Marcan material was for some time generally identified with the\n\"Logia\" which Papias says Matthew, the disciple of the Lord, wrote in\nHebrew, undoubtedly meaning Aramaic. Until some sufficient justification\nfor this identification has been given, it seems better to refer to the\ncommon non-Marcan source of Matthew and Luke under the more colorless\nsymbol Q.\n\nThe common non-Marcan tradition of Matthew and Luke consists almost\nexclusively of logian material. It contains a few parables, brief, and\ndealing usually with the \"kingdom of heaven,\" and one or two sections\n(such as that concerning the centurion from Capernaum, and the Temptation)\nwhich may quite properly be regarded as narrative, but which also contain\nlarge logian content and may have been introduced for the sake of the\nsayings.\n\nThe proof that the source of the common non-Marcan material of Matthew and\nLuke was a document and not an oral tradition lies in the extent and\ncharacter of the agreements between the two Gospels; it cannot be\nsummarized in a paragraph, but comes out only in a detailed examination of\nthe double tradition such as is undertaken in the following pages.\n\nBefore the theory of a common documentary source for the non-Marcan\nmaterial in Matthew and Luke can be accepted, it must defend itself\nagainst two apparently simpler hypotheses, viz., that Matthew copied from\nLuke or Luke from Matthew.\n\nDid Matthew copy from Luke? His genealogical tree does not agree with\nLuke's.[69] He betrays in his story of the birth at Bethlehem no knowledge\nof the fact that Joseph's home was originally at Nazareth. This latter\nplace he first mentions in ii, 23, as the place to which Joseph went upon\nhis return from Egypt. Matthew has a greater interest in John the Baptist\nthan has Luke, as is indicated by his fuller treatment of the fact and\ncircumstances of his death, contrasted with Luke's leaving him in prison\nundisposed of. Yet Matthew does not employ the material concerning the\npreaching of John, which Luke has embodied in his iii, 10-14. Matthew\nmakes a specialty of the sayings of Jesus, yet omits many that Luke\ncontains. In short, the reason for denying that Matthew copied from Luke\nis the impossibility, upon that hypothesis, of explaining the omissions of\nLucan material from Matthew's Gospel, and the very great divergences\nbetween the two Gospels where such divergences would not be expected with\neither one using the other as an exemplar.\n\nThe same argument which refutes Matthew's use of Luke refutes Luke's use\nof Matthew.\n\nBut it may be added, that upon either of these hypotheses it becomes\nimpossible to explain the changes which appear to have been made by both\nMatthew and Luke in the material common to them, both in its wording and\nits order. If Matthew copied from Luke, he would naturally have followed\nhis order, which he does not do. Or, deviating from that order for obvious\nreasons, he would naturally return to it when those reasons no longer\nprevailed, which he does not do. Or if Luke copied from Matthew, he could\nhardly have inserted a genealogical tree which is at variance with\nMatthew's, in the unnatural place where it now is, as against the natural\nplace in which he found it in Matthew. Nor could he, when he had the\nSermon on the Mount before him in the form in which Matthew gives it,\nbreak it up into little pieces and scatter it up and down thruout his\nGospel. Moreover, in the sayings common to Matthew and Luke it is now one\nand now the other who preserves what we must consider the most original\nreading; as when Matthew says, \"Cleanse first the inside of the cup,\" and\nLuke in place of this says, \"Give alms of that which is within.\" But again\nit is not Matthew but Luke who gives the more original form of a saying;\nas when Luke says \"Blessed are ye poor,\" and Matthew says, \"Blessed are\nthe poor in spirit.\"\n\nThe phenomena of peculiar words, ninety-five characteristic of Matthew and\none hundred and fifty-one characteristic of Luke, is also impossible of\nexplanation upon the theory that either writer copied from the other. If\neither one were copying from the other, they would certainly agree against\nMark in some really important matter, and not merely in an occasional word\nor phrase. If Luke were copying from Matthew, he would certainly have\nincorporated some one of those numerous additions which Matthew makes to\nthe narratives of Mark.[70]\n\nIn addition to any of the more general considerations which have suggested\nthe possible use of Matthew by Luke, a recent writer has evolved an\ningenious and somewhat elaborate proof for this use, which it may be well\nto consider in some detail.\n\n\nA RECENT ATTEMPT TO PROVE MATTHEW A SOURCE FOR LUKE\n\nMr. Robinson Smith[71] attempts to dispose both of Ur-Marcus and Q by\nmaintaining that Luke copied from Matthew. His argument rests upon the\ndeviations which Matthew and Luke make, respectively, in their common\nabbreviations of certain of Mark's narratives. \"Where a choice from two or\nmore Marcan expressions has been made, the first choice falls to Matthew\nand the second to Luke.\"\n\nAs examples of these first choices by Matthew and second choices by Luke,\nMr. Smith instances (with the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke) Mk i,\n32; iii, 7, 8; x, 29, 33, 34; xii, 3; xiv, 1, 12, 65; xv, 42. The argument\nseems to be that Luke having both Mark and Matthew before him, and seeing\nthat in each of these instances Matthew has chosen a certain part of\nMark's phrase and rejected the rest, himself avoids using that part of the\nphrase which Matthew has chosen, restricting himself to the part which\nMatthew has left unused. We will take up first the particular instances,\nand see whether other, perhaps simpler, reasons suggest themselves for\nthese deviations; after that we will consider the general argument.\n\nMk i, 32 (Mt viii, 16; Lk iv, 40): Mark's phrase runs [Greek: Opsias de\ngenomenes, hote edy ho helios]. Of this phrase, Matthew takes the first\nthree words as they stand. Luke appropriates the remainder, changing into\n[Greek: Dynontos de tou heliou]. Mark's phrase is here redundant, and\nMatthew and Luke (as usual) both reduce the redundancy. But Matthew has\nomitted the point of Mark's phrase, since in Matthew's account the events\ndescribed did not happen on the Sabbath. Luke has retained the essential\npart of the phrase.[72]\n\nMk iii, 7, 8 (Mt iv, 25; Lk vi, 17): \"Mark gives in order and by name six\ndistricts from which the multitudes came. Matthew mentions all save the\nlast, Tyre and Sidon. Luke omits the first, fourth, and fifth, but does\nmention the last, Tyre and Sidon.\" The changes in these lists seem to be\nmore various than Mr. Smith suggests. Matthew adds Decapolis and omits\nIdumaea.[73] The thing hard to account for in Luke's list is his omission\nof Galilee, not his inclusion of Tyre and Sidon. These latter regions\nwould interest him especially, with his universalistic tendency; we should\nhardly have been surprised to find him adding them if he had not found\nthem in Mark. A simple explanation of the changes made by both Matthew and\nLuke may perhaps be seen in Matthew's Judaistic tendency, which led him to\nomit Tyre and Sidon, and in Luke's universalistic tendency which made him\ninclude them. To make Mr. Smith's argument hold in this case, Luke should\ncertainly have come much closer than he does, to preserving the parts\nwhich Matthew rejects, and rejecting the parts which he retains. It\nappears that Luke has no great knowledge of nor interest in Palestinian\ngeography, but Tyre and Sidon suited his purpose.\n\nMk x, 29 (Mt xix, 29; Lk xviii, 29): Mark here has [Greek: heneken emou\nkai heneken tou euangeliou]. Matthew has [Greek: heneka tou emou\nonomatos], and Luke [Greek: heineken tes basileias tou theou]. But\nMatthew's \"my name's sake\" is not the same as Mark's \"my sake,\" and seems\nto bespeak Matthew's later date of writing. Luke's \"for the sake of the\nkingdom of God\" has a more primitive sound than the latter part of Mark's\nphrase. It probably represents the original words of Jesus which Matthew\nhas everywhere changed into the \"kingdom of heaven.\" Since all the\npassages in Mark where the word [Greek: euangelion] occurs are on\nindependent grounds suspected of being later additions, it seems probable\nthat the reading of Mark which Matthew and Luke had before them here was\nmerely [Greek: heneken emou], that both Matthew and Luke changed this\nphrase as they would, and that the [Greek: heneken tou euangeliou] of Mark\nis later than either Matthew or Luke. At all events, it does not seem to\nbe true in this instance that Matthew takes the first part of Mark's\nphrase and Luke the last.\n\nMk xii, 3 (Mt xxi, 35; Lk xx, 10): Matthew's account here is quite\ndifferent from Mark's (which is followed much more closely by Luke).\nAccording to Mark, only one servant was sent, whom the vineyard-keepers\n\"caught and beat and sent away empty.\" According to Matthew several\nservants were sent; the vineyard-keepers caught them, beat one, killed\none, and stoned another. This form of the story indicates the times of\npersecution in which it was worked over by Matthew--when more than one man\nhad suffered more than one kind of indignity. Luke sticks close to the\nstory of Mark, and merely omits the [Greek: labontes] which Matthew\nretains. Perhaps Luke had reflected that the servant had to be caught if\nhe was to be beaten, and so regarded the item as superfluous. It does\nhappen to come before the items that Luke retains, but there is no reason\nto suppose Luke would have had any greater antipathy to omitting it if it\nhad stood last or if Matthew had also omitted it. It is not only hard to\ndetect any influence of Matthew upon Luke here, but much harder to see, if\nLuke were copying Matthew, why he should not have preferred his several\nservants to Mark's one. Later in the same story, Luke again omits Mark's\n[Greek: labontes] where Matthew retains it (Mk xii, 8), tho here both\nMatthew and Luke change the order of the incidents in the verse, probably\nto make them conform more exactly to the experience of Jesus. The omission\nof the participle by Luke and its inclusion by Matthew is most simply\nexplained by Luke's greater interest in stylistic improvement. The\ninstance seems to be barren for Mr. Smith's purpose.\n\nMk xiv, 1 (Mt xxvi, 2; Lk xxii, 1): Matthew's account is here very\ndifferent from Mark's. He introduces it with the words, \"And it came to\npass when he had ended these sayings.\" This is a formula which Matthew\nuses five times,[74] and which is found in Matthew alone. Since the\nconstruction [Greek: egeneto] followed by a finite verb is found in these\nfive passages alone in Matthew, the formula appears to have stood (once,\nat least, if not in all five instances) in Q.[75] It also seems to be used\nby Matthew to mark his transition from one of his sources to the\nother.[76] The remark which Mark here makes about the approach of the\npassover, Matthew puts into the mouth of Jesus as a part of the speech\nwhich Mark does not have. Luke follows Mark in making the statement a part\nof his narrative and in omitting the speech which Matthew gives. These\nfacts would seem to indicate that Matthew is here following Q, while Luke\nfollows Mark. Luke's looser statement (omitting the [Greek: meta dyo\nhemeras], and substituting his own favorite [Greek: engizen],[77] and\nadding his [Greek: he legomene pascha]) would seem to go back to his\ndesire not to trouble his Greek reader with too exact details, and yet to\nsupply him with a little information about the Jewish feast. Here again,\nas in the last instance, it seems especially strange to suggest Matthew as\na source of Luke where he shows such an absence of any influence from him.\n\nMk xiv, 12 (Mt xxvi, 17; Lk xxii, 7): Here, says Mr. Smith, Matthew gives\nthe first and second parts of Mark's phrase, Luke the second and third\nparts. The fact seems to be that Matthew here, with his usual habit of\ncondensing Mark's narrative, omits (what his Jewish readers would know\nwithout his stating it) the statement that on the first day of the feast\nof unleavened bread they \"killed the passover.\" Luke changes this from a\nparticular to a general statement, so (as above) conveying to his Greek\nreader some information about the custom of the occasion ([Greek: edei\nthyesthai to pascha]). Luke here shows the influence of Mark and not of\nMatthew; since he follows Mark (Mk xiv, 13; Lk xxii, 10) in including\neleven words which he copies very closely and which Matthew omits. He also\nagrees with Mark in the ascription of supernatural knowledge to Jesus upon\nthis occasion, whereas Matthew's narrative does not carry this\nimplication.\n\nMk xiv, 65 (Mt xxvi, 67, 68; Lk xxii, 63, 64): Mr. Smith finds the\ninfluence of Matthew upon Luke in this passage, in the fact that while\nMark says that they \"spat upon Jesus, blindfolded him and smote him,\nMatthew records the first and third of these actions, Luke the second and\nthird.\"[78] Why Luke omits the spitting, may not be easy (or necessary) to\nsay. But that Luke here shows the reverse of any influence from Matthew is\nindicated in the fact that whereas Matthew follows Mark in relating, first\nthe examination of Jesus, then the mockery, and third the denials of\nPeter, Luke rearranges the Marcan narrative to make it run, first the\ndenials, second the mockery, and third the examination. He has received\nhis suggestion for this rearrangement from the fact that Mark, just before\nhe begins the story of the mockery, has mentioned that Peter was outside\nthe hall, warming himself by the fire.[79] It has seemed (quite naturally)\nto Luke that this is the place where the story of the denials should be\nrelated, tho Mark inserts the story of the mockery before he goes on[80]\nwith the denials. In a passage where Luke has so thoroughly rearranged\nMark it seems unnecessary to account for his omission of one word,\nespecially by such a remote theory as that of Mr. Smith; and in a passage,\ntoo, where his rearrangement of Marcan material contradicts Matthew's\nslavish following of it.\n\nMk xv, 42 (Mt xxvii, 57; Lk xxiii, 54): \"Where Mark says, 'When the even\nwas come because it was the preparation, that is the day before the\nSabbath,' Matthew says, 'When even was come,' and Luke 'the rest.'\"[81]\nBut Luke does not quite say \"the rest.\" He says,[82] \"It was the day of\npreparation, and the Sabbath was dawning.\" And this he says, not in the\nsame connection, nor with the same purpose, as Mark (and Matthew). Mark\nand Matthew use their statement about the evening having come as an\nintroduction to their story about the request of Joseph of Arimathea.\nLuke tells his story of Joseph without any such introduction, and mentions\nthe time only after he has finished that story, apparently with reference\nto the story of the women which follows, rather than to that of Joseph\nwhich precedes. The argument of the last paragraph will apply here.\n\nIt will not be necessary to go with equal care thru the five other\ninstances in which Mr. Smith detects in a similar way the influence of\nMatthew upon Luke.[83] He admits \"two, or three, or at the most four,\ncases of Marcan expressions\" of which (without explanation) it might\nappear that Luke uses the first part and Matthew the last. His willingness\nto push his theory to the extreme may be inferred from his general\nestimate of the character of Luke as a writer: \"He blurs, obliterates,\nblunders, fabricates, falsifies, flattens out, mutilates, murders.\"[84]\n\nThe secondary interest of the writer would also seem to have influenced\nhis work somewhat too strongly. That interest is indicated in the\nfollowing statements: \"If Acts was written in A.D. 62, ... and Luke was\nwritten before Acts, then Matthew, slipping in between Mark and Luke must\nthrow Mark still further back.... We thus would come very close to the\nresurrection, perhaps to within fifteen years, and the possibility of\nlegendary and controversial elements having entered into the gospel story\nwould accordingly be reduced to a minimum.... With our understanding of\nLucan derivations from Matthew, as well as from Mark, the ghost of a\nchance of existence belonging to postulated common sources, such as an\nearlier or a later Mark and a Q is frightened away, and we are left with\nthe Gospels Mark, Matthew, Luke, written in that order,\" etc.[85]\n\nPassing from the details of Mr. Smith's statement to the general argument\nupon which they rest, the present writer can see no cogency in that\nargument. Even if the use of Matthew by Luke were not contradicted by so\nmany characteristics of both those Gospels, the writer cannot see how the\nchoice by Luke of the second part of a phrase of which Matthew has taken\nthe first part should prove the use of Matthew by Luke. Why should not\nLuke feel free to take precisely that part of a Marcan phrase which\nMatthew has taken--if he wanted it? Why should his finding it in Matthew\nmake him feel that he was not at liberty to use it? Why, indeed, if Luke\nwas copying Matthew, should he not have _followed_ him in his quotation of\na certain part of a Marcan phrase, instead of putting himself every time\nto the trouble of going back to his Mark to pick out that part of the\nphrase which Matthew had left? It does not quite appear why the facts\ncited by Mr. Smith (so far as analysis of the passages from which they are\ncited leaves any of them standing) might not just as well be turned\nagainst his theory as for it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHE EXISTENCE AND CONTENT OF Q\n\n\nComing back to the theory that Matthew and Luke used a common document for\ntheir sayings-material, we have next to determine what the content of that\ndocument was.\n\nA reasonable degree of unanimity prevails among scholars as to this\ncontent, or at least as to a considerable part of it. Where students\ndiffer is as to the sayings which are not very closely parallel in the two\nGospels, or as to sayings that are contained in only one of the two. As to\nthe sayings which are practically identical in the two, or which show such\nvery marked literary agreements as to put different sources out of the\nquestion, there is no dispute.\n\nThere appears to be a disposition on the part of some scholars to extend Q\nindefinitely. In his essay in the _Oxford Studies_, Mr. Bartlet seems to\nuse the symbol to cover the general apostolic tradition (it is not always\napparent whether he means written or not). Among German scholars, B. Weiss\nshows the same disposition. Among American scholars, Mr. B. W. Bacon\nsuggests that Q might originally have contained much more and other\nmaterial than can now be identified for it; as the narrative parts of it,\nbeing taken up by Mark, and copied from him by Matthew and Luke, would\nfail to leave in these latter Gospels any traces of themselves. This is\nquite true. But if Q, in addition to nearly all the logian material in\nMatthew and Luke originally contained all the narrative matter of Mark, Q\nwas not only a complete Gospel, but quite as complete a Gospel as that of\nMatthew or Luke; perhaps more so, since Matthew and Luke may each have\nomitted something from Q; and no motive remains for the writing of these\nlater Gospels. Mr. Burkitt[86] has maintained that Q very probably\ncontained some references to the passion; but this position has not\ncommended itself to many, if to any, other students.\n\nQ was a collection of sayings. That the content of it, within limits, can\nbe made out with some degree of unanimity is indicated by the following\ntables. The first represents the content of Q in Matthew, as given by the\nfive scholars whose names head the five columns, with additional\nstatements in the following columns, concerning the amount of agreement or\ndivergence. The second table does the same thing for the Q matter assigned\nto the Gospel of Luke by the same five investigators.\n\n\nDEDUCTIONS FROM THE TABLE\n\nIn Table II the verses are indicated as they stand in Matthew without\ntheir parallels in Luke (which would add nothing for our purpose here),\nand without indicating the rearrangement of order which most if not all of\nthese scholars attempt at various places. The purpose here is simply to\npresent the content of Q as made out by these different men. Besides\nshowing what each one of them assigns to Q, I have (in the column headed\n\"All Five\") tried to show the verses which all these scholars agree in so\nassigning; and in the next column the verses assigned to Q by three or\nmore out of the five. In the last two columns I have indicated the total\nnumber of verses out of each chapter, assigned to Q by all five, and by\nthree or more, respectively. No attempt was made to select men whose work\nwould have special tendency toward agreement; undoubtedly two\ninvestigators[87] might be substituted for Wellhausen and Wernle, whose\nwork would make the total agreement much greater than it is in the present\ntable.\n\n TABLE II\n\n MATERIAL FROM Q IN MATTHEW\n\n ====================================================================\n Chap.| Harnack |Wellhausen| Hawkins | J. Weiss |\n -----|----------------|----------|---------------|-----------------|\n iii |5, 7-12 |1-12 |7-10, 12 |7-10 |\n iv |1-11 |1-11 |3-11 |1-11 |\n v |1-4, 6, 11, |1-12, |1-4, 6, 11-12, |1b-6, 10, 13, |\n | 12, 39-40, | 38-48 | 18, 25-26, |15, 18, 20-48 |\n | 42, 44-48, | | 39-40, 42, | |\n | 15, 25-26, | | 44-48 | |\n | 13, 18, 32 | | | |\n vi |9-13, 22-23, |19-34 |9-13, 20-24, |1-9(?), 10-15, |\n | 19-21, 25-33, | | 25-33 | 19-33 |\n | 24 | | | |\n vii |12, 1-5, 16-19, |1-6, 7-11,|1-2, 3-5, 7-14,|1-5, 7-13, |\n | 24-27, 28, | 15-27 | 21-27 | 17-22a, |\n | 7-11, 13-14 | | | 24-28 |\n | | | | |\n viii |5-10, 13, 19-22,|5-13 |5-10, 11, 12, |5-13, 19-22 |\n | 8, 11-12 | | 19-22 | |\n ix |37-38 | |37-38 |37-38 |\n x |24, 25, 7, 10, |5-15 |7, 8a, 10, |7-8a, 10, 11a, |\n | 16a, 12, | | 11-13, | 12-14, |\n | 13, 10b, | | 15-16a, | 15-16a, |\n | 15, 40, 26-33,| | 24-25a, | 17-22, |\n | 34-36, | | 26-38, 40 | 24-25a, |\n | 37, 38, 39 | | | 26a-40 |\n xi |2-13, 16-19, |1-19, |2-3, 4-13, |3-9, 11, 16-19, |\n | 21-23, 25-27 | 20-30 | 16-19, 21-27 | 21-27 |\n | | | | |\n xii |33, 22-23, 25, |22-42 |22-23, 27-28, |11, 23-24, |\n | 27-28, 30, | | 30, 33-35, | 27-28, 33, |\n | 43-45, | | 38, 39, | 35, 38, 39, |\n | 38-39, 41, | | 41-45 | 41-45b |\n | 42, 32 | | | |\n xiii |16, 17, 31-33 | |16, 17, 33 | 16, 17, 31-33(?)|\n xv |14 | |14 | |\n xvii |20b | |20 | |\n xviii| 12, 13, 7, 15, | |7, 12-14, 15, | 7, 12-13, 15, 22|\n | 21, 22 | | 21-22 | |\n xix | 28 | |28 | |\n xxi | | | | 32ab |\n xxii | |1-14 | | 1-10 |\n xxiii| 4, 13, 23, 25, |13-39 |4, 12-14, 23, | 4, 6-7, 13-15, |\n | 27, 29, 30-32, | | 25-27, 29-31,| 23ab, |\n | 34-36 | | 34-39 | 25, 27, 29-31, |\n | | | | 34-39 |\n xxiv | 26-28, 37-41 |1-51 |27-28, 37-41, | 26-28, 37-41 |\n | | | 43-51a | 42-44(?), 45-51 |\n xxv | 29 |14-30 | | 1-13(?) |\n |----------------|----------|---------------|-----------------|\n Total| 190 | 256 | 194 | 248 |\n --------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n ==================================================================\n | Wernle | All Five | Three or More |Total 5|Total 3\n |----------------|----------------|---------------|-------|-------\n | 7-12 | 7-10 | 7-12 | 4 | 6\n | 3-10 | 3-10 | 1-11 | 8 | 11\n | 3-48 | 3, 4, 6, 39-40,| 1-4, 6, 11, | 11 | 23\n | | 42, 44-48 | 12, 18, 25-26,| |\n | | | 38, 40-48, | |\n | | | 13, 32 | |\n | | | | |\n | 9-13, 19-34 | 20-33 | 9-13, 20-33 | 14 | 19\n | | | | |\n | | | | |\n | 1-6, 7-11 | 1-2, 3-5, 7-11 | 1-5, 7, 11-13,| 10 | 21\n | | | 17-19, | |\n | | | 21, 22, | |\n | | | 24-27 | |\n | 5-13, 19-22 | 5-13 | 5-13, 19-22 | 6 | 10\n | | | | |\n | 37-38 | | 37-38 | | 2\n | 5-16, 23-25, | 7, 10, 12, 13, | 7, 10, 12, 13,| 5 | 22\n | 40-42, 26-39 | 15 | 15, 16, | |\n | | | 24-40 | |\n | | | | |\n | | | | |\n | | | | |\n | 33, 20-27, 2-19| 3-9, 11, 16-19,| 2-13, 16-27 | 18 | 24\n | | 21-23, | | |\n | | 25-27 | | |\n | 22-37, 58-59, | 22, 23, 27, | 22-25, 27, | 8 | 16\n | 38-45 | 28, 38, 39, | 28, 30, 32, | |\n | | 41, 42 | 35, 38, 39, | |\n | | | 41-45 | |\n | | | | |\n | 16, 17, 31-33 | | 16-17, 31-33 | | 5\n | | | | |\n | | | | |\n | 7, 12-22 | | 7, 12, 13, 15,| | 6\n | | | 21, 22 | |\n | | | | |\n | | | | |\n | 1-14 | | 1-10 | | 10\n | 1-39 | 13, 23, 25, | 13-15, 23, | 10 | 17\n | | 27, 29-31, | 25-27, 29-32, | |\n | | 34-36 | 34-39 | |\n | | | | |\n | 26-28, 37-51 | 27-28, 37-41 | 26-28, 37-51 | 7 | 15\n | | | | |\n | 14-30 | | 29 | | 1\n |----------------|----------------|---------------|-------|-------\n | 302 | 101 | 208 | 101 | 208\n ------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe analysis of Wellhausen is the least elaborate of the five, and that of\nWernle is almost as simple. The other three show more disposition to\nselect out the verse or part of the verse which, occuring in the midst of\nQ material, should nevertheless be assigned to some other source. Weiss\nadds a question mark to several of his sections, but these have been\nincluded in the table. All the students say that not the same certainty\nattaches to all the sections which they have included. Sir John Hawkins,\nespecially, says he does not consider his work a \"reconstruction of Q,\"\nwhich, with Mr. Burkitt, he considers a task beyond the data at our\ncommand.\n\nAccording to these five scholars, Q has furnished a source for Matthew in\neleven chapters. According to three out of the five, Q is found in sixteen\nchapters. Harnack and Hawkins agree in finding one verse each in chaps.\nxv, xvii, and xix. Weiss alone finds two-thirds of a verse in xxi. Among\nthe five, they find Q in twenty chapters. The only chapters in which Q is\nnot found by any of them are i, ii, xiv, xvi, xx, xxvi, xxvii, and xxviii.\n\nThe most conspicuous absences of Q from Matthew are in his first two\nchapters, in his chapters dealing with the Passion (chaps. xxvi-xxvii),\nand in his story of the empty grave and the resurrection appearances\n(chap. xxviii).\n\nConcerning the absence of Q from chaps. xiv, xvi, and xx, and its\npractically negligible presence in chaps. xv, xvii, xix, and xxi, it will\nbe observed that these chapters do not deal exclusively with narrative\nmaterial. Their content is, in brief, the death of the Baptist, the return\nof the disciples, the feeding of the five thousand, the walking on the\nsea, the dispute about hand-washing, the Canaanitish woman, the feeding of\nthe four thousand, the demand of the Pharisees for a sign, the confession\nof Peter, the demands for discipleship, the transfiguration, the healing\nof the epileptic boy, the prediction of Jesus' sufferings, the temple-tax,\nthe strife about rank, the strange exorcist, the speech about offenses and\nabout the rescue of the lost, the rules for reconciliation with a brother\nand for forgiveness, the parable of the Evil Steward, the dispute about\nmarriage and divorce, the blessing of the children, the danger of riches,\nthe parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard, the second prediction of\nsufferings, the demand of the sons of Zebedee, the healing of Bartimaeus,\nthe entry into Jerusalem, the offense of the scribes and priests, the\ncursing of the fig tree, the purification of the temple, the parables of\nthe Dissimilar Sons and the Evil Vineyard-Keepers.\n\nSo far as the narrative material in these chapters is concerned, it is\nderived from Mark. Of the discourse material, some is connected with the\nnarrative in Mark, and taken, like the narrative, from him.[88] Other\npassages of discourse material, like the demands of discipleship (Mt xvi,\n24-28), not closely connected with Marcan narrative, yet apparently taken\nfrom Mark, contain verses elsewhere duplicated in Matthew. For these\nverses, some of which Luke takes from Mark, he has duplicates elsewhere.\nSince these duplicates in both Matthew and Luke are elsewhere closely\nconnected with Q material, and are in their other connections apparently\nuninfluenced by Mark, it appears that in these chapters, where Matthew\nforsakes Q, he has nevertheless embodied certain material from Mark which\noriginally stood alike in Mark and Q.\n\nOther instances of this kind occur in Mt xviii, 1-5, the strife about\nrank; in xviii, 6-9, about offenses; and in xx, 24-28, about true\ngreatness. These verses represent passages in which, according to Sanday's\nstatement,[89] Mark and Q \"overlapped\"; or, according to other students\n(notably Mr. Streeter in the same volume), Mark also copied from Q. As we\nare here interested, not in the relation of Mark to Q, but only in the\ncontent of the latter as it is found in Matthew, we may go back to our\nstatement that Matthew has combined his material from Q in his chaps.\niii-viii and x-xii, and practically (if not quite) forsaken him in chaps.\nxiii-xxii.\n\nGoing back once more to Table II, the largest content ascribed to Q is\ngiven by Wernle: three hundred and two verses (including a few parts of\nverses). The next largest are from Weiss and Wellhausen, two hundred and\nforty-eight and two hundred and fifty-six verses respectively. Harnack and\nHawkins assign only one hundred and ninety and one hundred and\nninety-four.[90] But the facts that out of the largest content ascribed by\nany one of the five students (three hundred and two by Wernle), two\nhundred and eight of the same verses are likewise assigned by two others,\nand that out of the smallest content (one hundred and ninety by Harnack),\none hundred and one are likewise assigned by all five, show that as to the\nnucleus of Q, including more than half of it according to Harnack and\none-third of it according to Wernle, there is practically no dispute.\n\nTable III will show the results of the work of the same five scholars as\nto the Q material in Luke.\n\n\nDEDUCTIONS FROM TABLE III\n\nTable III, containing the content ascribed to Q as it is found in Luke, by\nthe same five scholars mentioned above, discloses some interesting results\nwhen compared with Table II (pp. 110-11). As was the case with Q in\nMatthew, the smallest total is assigned by Harnack. That he finds one\nhundred and ninety verses (including a few parts of verses) in both\nMatthew and Luke indicates that he has limited his Q pretty closely to the\nduplicate matter in both Gospels. Hawkins' results are very close in this\nrespect to Harnack's (one hundred and ninety-four Q verses in Matthew and\none hundred and ninety-two in Luke), and indicate the same basis of\ncomputation. Wellhausen finds Q in two hundred and fifty-six verses of\nMatthew, and in only two hundred and ten of Luke.\n\nBoth tables show that Wellhausen's analysis of Q is much less elaborate\nthan that of any of the other students. Since the number of Q verses which\nhe finds in both Matthew and Luke is considerably larger than that which\nHarnack and Hawkins find, the disparity between his Q matter in Matthew\nand in Luke may be accounted for by his willingness to go farther beyond\nthe duplicate material in those two Gospels for his Q. His two hundred and\nten Q verses ascribed to Luke are not greatly in excess of the number\nascribed by Harnack and Hawkins to both Luke and Matthew. He gives to Luke\ntwenty more Q verses, and to Matthew sixty-six more, than Harnack. Of\nthese sixty-six, he may consider thirty to be duplicates in Matthew and\nLuke (since what constitutes derivation from a common source must always\nbe matter of opinion). The other thirty-six verses he assigns to Q in\nMatthew, tho lacking duplicates in Luke, on the ground of their general\ncharacteristics. The habits of Matthew and Luke, respectively, in their\ntreatment of Mark, render it practically certain that Matthew would feel\nless at liberty to omit Q material than Luke. Wernle's assignments (three\nhundred and two Q verses to Matthew and two hundred and fifty-five to\nLuke) may be explained in the same way.\n\n TABLE III\n\n MATERIAL IN LUKE TAKEN FROM Q\n\n =================================================================\n Chapter | Harnack |Wellhausen| Hawkins | J. Weiss |\n | | | | |\n --------|-------------|----------|----------------|-------------|\n iii |7-9, 16-17 |1-7 |7-9, 17 |7-9, 17-18 |\n iv |1-13 |1-15 |3-13 |1-13 |\n vi |17, 20-23, |20-23, |17, 20-23 |47-49 |\n | 27-33, | 27-49 | 27-49 | |\n | 35b-44, | | | |\n | 46-49 | | | |\n vii |1-10, 18-28, |1-10, |1-3, 6-9, 18-19,|1-3, 7-10, |\n | 31-35 | 18-35 | 22-28, | 18-26, |\n | | | 31-35 | 28-35 |\n ix |2, 57-60 | | 57-60 |57-60 |\n x |2-7b, 9, |1-24 |2-6, 7b-9, |2-3, 13-14, |\n | 16, 21-22, | | 12-16, | 16, 21-27 |\n | 23b, 24 | | 21-24 | |\n xi |2-4, 9-14, |9-32, |2-4, 9-14, |2-4, 9-11, |\n | 16-17, 19- | 37-52 | 16, 19-20, | 15-16, 24- |\n | 20, 23-26, | | 23-26, 29-32, | 26, 29-31, |\n | 29-35, 39, | | 34-35, | 33-35, |\n | 42, 44, | | 39, 41, 42, | 39-52 |\n | 46-52 | | 44, 46-51 | |\n xii |2-10, 22-31, |22-46 |2-9, 22-31, |2-8, 10-12, |\n | 33-34, 39- | | 33b-34, | 22-31, 33- |\n | 40, 42-46, | | 39, 40, 42-46,| 34, 39-46, |\n | 51, 53, | | 51-53, | 51-52 |\n | 58-59 | | 58, 59 | |\n xiii |18-21, 24, |34-35 |20-21, 23-29, |18-21, 23-25,|\n | 28-29, 34, | | 34-35 | 28-30, |\n | 35 | | | 34-35 |\n xiv |11, 26-27, |16-24 |11, 26-27 |11, 16-23, |\n | 34-35 | | | 26-27, 34, |\n | | | | 35 |\n xv |4-7 | |4, 5, 7 |3-5 |\n xvi |13, 16-18 | |13, 16-17 |13, 16-18 |\n xvii |1, 3-4, 6, |20-35 |1, 3, 4, 6, 24, |1-2, 5-6, 23,|\n | 23-24, 26, | | 26, 27, 34, | 24, 26, 27,|\n | 27, 32, 34,| | 35, 37 | 31, 33b-4 |\n | 35, 37 | | | |\n xviii | | | |13, 15, 16 |\n xix |26 |11-27 | | |\n xxii |28, 30 | |28, 30 |22-25 |\n --------|-------------|----------|----------------|-------------|\n Total | 190 | 210 | 192 | 174 |\n -----------------------------------------------------------------\n\n ===========================================================\n | Wernle | All Five | Three or |No. in|No. in\n | | | More | Five | Three\n |-------------|---------------|--------------|------|------\n |7-9, 16-17 |7 |7-9, 17 | 1 | 4\n |3-12 |3-12 |1-13 | 6 | 13\n |20-49 |47-49 |20-23, 27-49 | 3 | 27\n | | | | |\n | | | | |\n | | | | |\n |2-10, 18-35 |1-3, 6-9, 18, |1-10, 18, 28, | 19 | 26\n | | 19, 22-26, | 31-35 | |\n | | 31-35 | | |\n |57-62 | |57-60 | | 4\n |1-16, 21-24 |2-3, 16, 21-24 |2-9, 12-16 | 7 | 13\n | | | | |\n | | | | |\n |2-4, 9-26, |9-11, 16, |19, 20, 23-26,| 19 | 39\n | 29-36, | 24-26, 29-31,| 29-35, | |\n | 39-52 | 39, 42, | 39-52, 2-4, | |\n | | 44, 46-51 | 9-17 | |\n | | | | |\n | | | | |\n |2-12, 22-34, |22-31, 33-34, |2-10, 22-31, | 19 | 34\n | 39-46, 51- | 39-40, | 33-34, 39- | |\n | 53, 58-59 | 42-46 | 46, 51-53, | |\n | | | 58-59 | |\n | | | | |\n |18-21, 28-30,|34-35 |18-21, 24, | 2 | 9\n | 34-35 | | 28, 29, 34, | |\n | | | 35 | |\n |16-24, 26-27 | |16-23, 26-27 | | 10\n | | | | |\n | | | | |\n |3-10 | |4-7 | | 4\n |13, 16-17 | |13, 16-17 | | 3\n |1-4, 23-37 |24, 26, 27, 34 |1, 3, 4, 6, | 4 | 14\n | | | 23, 24, 26, | |\n | | | 27, 31-35, | |\n | | | 37 | |\n | | | | |\n |12-27 | |26 | | 1\n | | | | |\n |-------------|---------------|--------------|------|------\n | 255 | 80 | 201 | 80 | 201\n -----------------------------------------------------------\n\nSomewhat more difficult to understand is Weiss's assignment of two hundred\nand forty-eight Q verses to Matthew against only one hundred and\nseventy-four to Luke. He has here in common sixteen fewer verses than\nHarnack and Hawkins assign in common to Matthew and Luke from Q. But he\nalso assigns to Matthew seventy-four Q verses not paralleled in the Q\nmaterial which he assigns to Luke. The difference goes back again to the\ndifference of opinion as to the degree of literary similarity which must\nbe taken to indicate a common source; as also to Weiss's interest in the\nspecial source (S) of Luke. If we deduct from Weiss's Q in Matthew the\ntwenty-eight verses after which he places an interrogation mark, this will\nleave him with only forty-six Q verses in Matthew unduplicated in Luke.\nThis is only ten more than Wellhausen has.\n\nAll five scholars find Q material in nine of Luke's chapters (against\neleven of Matthew's). Three find it in fourteen chapters. Chaps. iii and\niv in Matthew correspond with the same chapters in Luke. Harnack finds in\nMatthew's two chapters seventeen Q verses, and in Luke's two chapters,\neighteen. Hawkins finds fourteen in Matthew's two, and fifteen in Luke's.\nMatthew's chaps. v-viii (Sermon on the Mount) contain according to Harnack\nsixty-six Q verses, according to Hawkins sixty-eight. To these three\nchapters of Matthew, chap. vi of Luke forms a partial parallel. It\ncontains, according to Harnack, twenty-six, and according to Hawkins\ntwenty-eight Q verses, parallel to that number of Matthew's sixty-six. Of\nthe remaining forty Q verses in Matthew (chaps. v-viii), Luke has in other\nconnections, in chaps. xi, xii, xiii, xiv, and xvi, thirty-four parallel Q\nverses. All but six of the verses assigned by Hawkins and Harnack to Q in\nthe Sermon on the Mount are therefore paralleled by Q material in Luke.\nBut of this Q material in Luke more than half is scattered about in\ndifferent chapters, in marked contrast to its concentration in Matthew.\nThis is perhaps the best single illustration of the fact, often mentioned,\nthat Luke blends his Q material with material from other sources, while\nMatthew inserts it in blocks.\n\nIt does not appear upon the surface why the same five investigators should\nnot reach results concerning Q in Luke with the same consensus as\nconcerning Q in Matthew. It is perhaps explained by the fact that Luke's\nblending of his material from different sources and his freer treatment of\nit render Q less identifiable with him. If, however, Wernle, Wellhausen,\nand Weiss be disregarded, and attention be paid only to the lists of\nHawkins and Harnack, these latter lists will be found to agree as closely\nin their identification of Q material in Luke as in Matthew. This merely\nshows that we are on firm ground in the identification of Q, so long as we\nrestrict ourselves closely to the duplicate passages in Matthew and Luke,\nand require a reasonably strict agreement before admitting a common\nsource. It is when we leave this duplicate material, to extend the limits\nof Q beyond it, that the uncertainties begin.\n\n\nTHE NECESSITY FOR A FURTHER EXTENSION OF Q\n\nYet the presence in both Matthew and Luke, especially in the former, of\nmuch sayings-material which is not only imbedded in Q matter, but has all\nthe characteristics of Q; the presence of \"translation variants\"; the\nnatural assumption that even if Matthew and Luke had before them the same\nidentical copy of Q, they would not agree entirely in the amount of\nmaterial they would respectively quote from it; and the desire to assign\nas much as seems reasonable to this source before positing another, all\nlead us to the task of a further determination of the content of Q. This\nfurther determination issues in an analysis of Q into QMt and QLk.\n\n\n\n\nPART II\n\nANALYSIS OF Q INTO QMT AND QLK\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE ANALYSIS OF Q\n\n\nQ ORIGINALLY AN ARAMAIC DOCUMENT, USED IN GREEK TRANSLATIONS BY MATTHEW\nAND LUKE\n\nThe starting-point of a further determination of the content of Q is the\nfact that Matthew and Luke seem to have taken their duplicate matter from\na Greek document, but that this Greek document was a translation from the\nAramaic. If Matthew and Luke had been independently translating from an\nAramaic document, they could not have hit so generally upon the same order\nof words, especially where many other arrangements would have done as well\n(and occasionally better), nor would they have agreed in the translation\nof an Aramaic word by the same unusual Greek word, as notably in the\n[Greek: epiousion] of the Lord's Prayer. The Q they used was a Greek\ndocument.\n\nBut Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek; and if Q is Palestinian, and as early\nas 60-65 or 70, it would be strange for it to have been written in any\nlanguage except that which Jesus spoke. Mark had an Aramaic tradition; and\ntho he probably wrote in Greek he preserved many Aramaic words and\nexpressions; Q as found in Matthew and Luke has no Aramaic words; this\nseems to be explicable only upon the supposition that though the original\nof it was in Aramaic, Matthew and Luke knew it only in its Greek form.\n\nThe hypothesis of an Aramaic original for Q is rendered practically\ncertain by some of the variations that occur between Matthew's and Luke's\nversions of it. The clearest illustration of this is found in the speech\nagainst the Pharisees. Matthew reads, [Greek: katharison proton to entos\ntou poteriou]. Luke reads, [Greek: plen ta enonta dote eleemosynen]. One\nof these Greek clauses would be as difficult to derive from the other, or\nboth of them from the same Greek original, as would be the English\ntranslation of the words. The meaning of Luke's is far from clear. In an\nAramaic original, however, Matthew's verb might have read [Hebrew], while\nLuke's might have read [Hebrew]. A mere stroke of the pen, if the saying\noriginally stood in Aramaic, explains a variation which cannot be\nexplained at all if the saying was originally in Greek. This statement,\nhowever, will apply only if the Aramaic was written and not merely spoken;\nfor the two letters so alike in appearance are not particularly similar in\nsound.\n\nTho the above is the simplest and clearest instance, others of the same\nsort are not wanting. In Matthew's Sermon on the Mount Jesus says, \"So\npersecuted they the prophets which were before you\"; while in the\ncorresponding passage in Luke's Sermon on the Plain he says, \"In the same\nmanner their fathers treated the prophets.\" Matthew's phrase (v. 12),\n[Greek: tous pro hymon], and Luke's (vi, 23), [Greek: hoi pateres auton],\nare equivalents, respectively, of the Hebrew or Aramaic phrases for \"your\nancestors\" and \"their ancestors.\" But whereas the two Greek phrases look\nnothing alike and could not be mistaken for one another, the difference in\nthe Aramaic again reduces itself to the difference in one letter between\nthe endings [Hebrew] and [Hebrew]. For Matthew's saying (x, 12), [Greek:\naspasasthe auten (ten oikian)] Luke reads (x, 5), [Greek: legete: eirene\nto oiko touto]. Here Luke preserves the wording of the Aramaic greeting,\n\"Peace be unto you,\" while Matthew says, \"Greet the house.\" The form\nwhich Luke gives of the greeting is that which is used in Yiddish at the\npresent time--[Hebrew], \"Peace to you,\" equivalent to our \"good morning.\"\nThat this is what underlay the tradition in Matthew is indicated by the\nfact that he goes on to say, \"If the house is worthy, _your peace_ shall\nabide upon it; but if it is unworthy, _your peace_ shall return to you.\"\n\nThe very peculiar Greek used by both Matthew and Luke in the saying about\nexcommunication ([Greek: eiposin pan poneron kath' hymon] in Mt v, 11, and\n[Greek: ekbalosin to onoma hymon hos poneron] in Lk vi, 22) seems to go\nback to the one Aramaic phrase for giving one a bad name. In the speech\nagainst the Pharisees Matthew (xxiii, 25) says, \"Ye cleanse the outside of\nthe cup and dish but inwardly they [the cup and platter] are full of greed\nand baseness.\" Luke makes much better sense by reading (xi, 39), \"Ye\ncleanse the outside of cup and platter, but inwardly ye are full of\ngreed,\" etc. If it be assumed that the present tense of the verb \"to\ncleanse\" was represented in Aramaic by the participle (which would be the\nusual construction), and that the second person pronoun stood with it in\nthe first clause but was not repeated in the second (as would also be\nnatural in the Aramaic), Matthew's change of the verb in the second\nclause, from the second person to the third, and his consequent use of\n\"cup and dish\" as the subject of it, are easily explained; since the\nparticiple carries in itself no distinction between second and third\nperson, and the plural form would fit equally the \"ye\" and the \"they.\"\nInstances such as these (I owe them all to Wellhausen)[91] seem to prove\nconclusively (Juelicher says \"beyond a doubt\") that, not merely an Aramaic\noral tradition, but an Aramaic document lies behind the Greek Q used by\nMatthew and Luke.\n\n\nMETHODS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THEIR USE OF Q\n\nUpon the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke used essentially the same text\nof Q, an elaborate treatment of their respective use of that document is\ncalled for to show which of them, in instances where they differ, is to be\ncharged with the alterations, and to assign the reasons for those\nalterations. Two scholars, Harnack in his _Sayings of Jesus_ and Wernle in\nhis _Synoptische Frage_, have made such an analysis, with the thoroness\ncharacteristic of them. The writer has studied these analyses carefully,\nand upon the basis of them and of such study of the texts as they\nsuggested, made his own analysis. But upon the hypothesis of Q as\noriginally an Aramaic document, used by Matthew and Luke in Greek\ntranslations going back to different Aramaic texts, such an analysis\nbecomes superfluous, because superseded by the analysis of Q into the two\nrecensions, QMt and QLk.\n\n\nTHE ANALYSIS OF Q INTO QMT AND QLK\n\nIf Q was originally an Aramaic document, used by Matthew and Luke in Greek\ntranslations going back to different copies of the Aramaic original, it is\nfair to assume that these two translations would have had different\nhistories. Q would always be growing, by the aid of oral tradition; and if\nQ was written before Mark, there was ample time, say twenty-five years at\nleast, before it was used by Matthew and Luke, for the two recensions,\ncirculating in different communities and perhaps originally shaped to suit\nthe needs of different readers, to acquire many dissimilar features. Not\nonly would the same saying in many instances become changed to meet the\nvarying need, or to adapt itself to what was considered a better\ntradition, but many things would be included in either recension which\nwere not included in the other. Matthew will thus have had a recension of\nQ which we may designate by the sign QMt, and Luke one which we may call\nQLk.\n\nThe following pages represent an attempt to determine the content of Q, as\nthat is represented in both Matthew and Luke.[92] Of the sections of\nMatthew and Luke examined, some are marked QMt, some QLk, and some merely\nQ. By this it is not meant that Matthew and Luke each had a document Q,\nand besides this a document QMt or QLk, and that they took now from one\nand now from the other. But where the wording of Matthew and Luke is\nidentical, or so closely similar that the variations can be easily\nexplained as changes made by Matthew or Luke, the material is assigned\nsimply to Q. But where the variations are too great, much greater for\nexample than any changes that have been made by Matthew and Luke or by\neither one of them where they are taking their logian material from Mark,\nthe material is assigned to QMt and QLk. Reasons for the assignment to QMt\nor to QLk instead of to simple Q are given in each case seeming to require\nthem. The sum of all passages assigned to any form of Q will constitute\nthe total content of Q, so far as it is contained in both Matthew and\nLuke. This total content will be somewhat larger than the content that\ncould be assigned to Q without the hypothesis of QMt and QLk, since by\nthis hypothesis many sections will be sufficiently alike to be assigned\nto Q (QMt and QLk) which otherwise would have to be ascribed to different\nsources.[93]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nQ, QMT, AND QLK IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW AND LUKE\n\n\nTHE PREACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST\n\n(Mt iii, 7_b_-10; Lk iii, 7_b_-9)\n\nThis section is universally ascribed to Q. In Matthew's Gospel it contains\nsixty-three words; in Luke's sixty-four. These are identical in the two\nGospels, except for Luke's addition of [Greek: kai] at the beginning of\nhis 9th verse, his plural ([Greek: karpous]) where Matthew has the\nsingular, and his substitution of [Greek: arxesthe] for Matthew's [Greek:\ndoxete]. The parallelism begins in the middle of the 7th verse of each\nGospel; the first part of the verse in each case evidently being supplied\nby the evangelist. Matthew says John's remark was addressed to the\nPharisees and Sadducees. With his customary indifference to class\ndistinctions among the Jews, Luke represents the words as being addressed\nto all those who came for baptism. They do not seem appropriate to\ncandidates for baptism, whether Pharisees, Sadducees, or others. Luke uses\nsome form of the verb [Greek: archo] with the infinitive [Greek: legein]\neight times as against Matthew's twice. As it seems here to have no\nadvantage over [Greek: dokeo] it might be safe to suppose that the\nsubstitution was made unintentionally, and from the influence of the\nrecollection of similar usage in other parts of Luke's Gospel. The first\nhalf of vs. 7 in each Gospel should be assigned to the evangelists; the\nremainder of the section to Q.\n\n\nTHE MESSIANIC PROCLAMATION OF THE BAPTIST\n\n(Mt iii, 11-12; Lk iii, 16-17)\n\nMatthew's vs. 11 and Luke's vs. 16 are closely parallel to Mark i, 7-8.\nBut they are still more closely parallel with each other, and contain\ncommon deviations from Mark which cannot be explained upon the supposition\nthat they are taken from the latter. The wording in the two Gospels, for\ntwenty-six consecutive words, is identical, except for Luke's omission of\n[Greek: kai] in his vs. 17, and his consequent change of verbs from the\nfinite to the infinitive mood. This section is universally assigned to Q.\n\n\nTHE TEMPTATION\n\n(Mt iv, 3-11; Lk iv, 3-13)\n\nThe whole story of the temptation as told by Matthew and Luke includes the\ntwo verses of each Gospel which immediately precede the section here\nspecified. These verses are not included here because they seem to the\nwriter to be taken by Matthew and Luke from Mark and not from Q. The\ncommon avoidance by Matthew and Luke of Mark's statement that Jesus was\n\"with the wild beasts,\" and their common substitution of [Greek: diabolos]\nfor Mark's [Greek: satanas], would point toward their exclusive use of Q\nand their avoidance of Mark in these verses. On the other hand, Matthew\nand Luke use very different phraseology to express their common idea of\nthe hunger of Jesus (Luke saying [Greek: ouk ephagen ouden en tais\nhemerais ekeinais, kai syntelestheison auton epeinasen], while Matthew\nsays [Greek: kai nesteusas hemeras tesserakonta kai tesserakonta nyktas,\nhysteron epeinasen]). Matthew agrees with Mark in six consecutive words\n(except for the transposition of two of them) where Luke has a wording of\nhis own. Whereas Mark says that Jesus was tempted forty days, saying\nnothing about his hunger, Matthew says he fasted for forty days and was\ntempted at the expiration of this time, and Luke that he fasted forty days\nand was tempted during that time. The best explanation for these\ndivergences and similarities is that Matthew and Luke take these verses\nfrom Mark but correct him freely under the influence of Q. Q also of\ncourse contained these verses, and they will be assigned to him when we\ncome to consider the Q material in Mark. In the rest of the temptation\nnarrative, where Mark has no parallel, there is great verbal similarity.\nThe enlargement of the Old Testament quotation may perhaps be ascribed to\nMatthew. The transposition of Matthew's second temptation to the third\nplace in Luke seems to spoil the climax in the narrative; Mr. Streeter\n(_Oxford Studies_, p. 152) argues that Luke would not have spoiled so good\nan arrangement if he had found it in his source. If this argument were\nallowed, the section would have to be assigned to QMt and QLk. The writer\ndoes not feel that the divergences are great enough to necessitate this,\nand so assigns it to Q.\n\n\n\"BLESSED ARE THE POOR\"\n\n(Mt v, 3; Lk vi, 20_b_)\n\nMatthew's beatitude is in the third person, Luke's in the second. Matthew\nadds \"in spirit.\" If the beatitude stood alone, the changes in it are not\ntoo great to be attributed to Matthew, and the \"in spirit\" is what might\nbe expected. But taking it in close connection with much material that\ncould not have stood alike in Matthew's source and in Luke's it is better\nto assign it to QMt and QLk.\n\n\n\"BLESSED ARE THEY THAT MOURN\"\n\n(Mt v, 5; Lk vi, 21_b_)\n\nThe wording is not at all similar, [Greek: makarioi] being the only word\nin common. Yet the two beatitudes sound like two versions of the same one.\n[Greek: klaio] is a Lucan word, used eleven times by Luke in his Gospel,\nagainst twice by Matthew and three times by Mark. [Greek: gelao] is used\ntwice in Luke's Gospel, and not elsewhere in the New Testament. Both of\nthese occurrences are in Luke's \"Sermon on the Level Place.\" These facts,\nwith the context, indicate a source in Luke's hands partly like, and\npartly unlike, the source in Matthew's. The verse is therefore assigned to\nQMt and QLk.\n\n\n\"BLESSED ARE THEY THAT HUNGER\"\n\n(Mt v, 6; Lk vi, 21_a_)\n\nMatthew's version is again in the third person and Luke's in the second.\nLuke understands the hunger to be literal. Matthew \"spiritualizes\" by\nadding [Greek: ten dikaiosynen]. Luke adds [Greek: nyn], to point the\ncontrast between his beatitude and the corresponding woe, which Matthew\ndoes not have. In spite of these differences, out of ten words in\nMatthew's form and six in Luke's, five words are identical (except for a\ndeviation in personal ending). Except for the context the verse might be\nassigned simply to Q; but it is better ascribed to QMt and QLk.\n\n\n\"BLESSED ARE THE PERSECUTED\"\n\n(Mt v, 11-12; Lk vi, 22-23)\n\nThe verbal similarity is close only in a few places; notably in the\n[Greek: ho misthos hymon polys en tois ouranois (to ourano)]. Out of\nthirty-five words in Matthew and fifty-one in Luke, only twelve are\nidentical. Two considerations prevent the assignment of these verses to\ntwo totally different sources. The first is their contiguity to so much Q\nmaterial. The second is the presence in them of two translation\nvariants.[94] The second of these two verses, at least, therefore goes\nback to two different recensions or translations of one original Aramaic\ndocument--QMt and QLk.\n\n\nA SAYING ABOUT SALT\n\n(Mt v, 13; Lk xiv, 34)\n\nThis saying evidently stood in both Mark and Q. Luke follows Mark in\n[Greek: kalon oun to hala] and Q in the rest of his saying. Matthew's form\nof the saying, which makes it addressed to the disciples, \"Ye are the salt\nof the earth,\" involves a much greater change than Matthew ever permits\nhimself when he transcribes the words of Jesus which he finds in Mark.\nLuke, on the other hand, could scarcely have found the saying in his\nsource with this application to the disciples, and have changed it to its\nmuch less pointed and personal form in his own Gospel. The only conclusion\npossible from a comparison of Matthew and Luke here is that this saying\nlay in different forms in their sources. But since it occurs in the midst\nof so much Q material, it is better to assign it to different recensions\nof Q than to some other unknown source.\n\n\nA SAYING ABOUT LIGHT\n\n(Mt v, 15; Lk xi, 33)\n\nThis is another saying that stood in both Mark and Q. Mark has the saying\nin Mk iv, 21. His form of it is the apparently less natural one, \"Does\nthe lamp come in order that it may be put under a bushel?\" etc. Weiss\nsuggests[95] that it has been given this form to make it refer to the\ncoming of Jesus as the light of the world. Neither Matthew nor Luke has\ncopied this feature of Mark's saying. By his context Matthew makes the\nsaying refer, like the saying about salt, directly to the disciples. Luke\nhas the saying twice: in xi, 33 and viii, 16. In both cases his context\nwould indicate that he took the saying to refer to the teaching of Jesus.\nMatthew says the light is to give light \"to all that are in the house.\"\nLuke does not mention the house, but implies it in his statement that\n\"those who are entering in see the light,\" this form being found in both\nhis reports of the saying. Mark says \"under the bushel or under the bed\";\nMatthew, \"under the bushel\"; Luke once, \"in a dish or under the bed,\" and\na second time, \"in a cellar or under the bushel.\" Luke's fondness for the\nsame ending in his two uses of the saying can be explained only by the\nsupposition that it so stood in one of his sources. The same idea in the\nconclusion of the saying as it appears in Matthew and Luke, and their\ncommon avoidance of the opening formula which is peculiar to Mark, would\nindicate that Matthew and Luke practically forsake Mark in this saying,\nand follow their other source. Luke, having a doublet for the saying, may\nbe assumed to have taken it once from Mark and once from his other source;\nbut he is evidently much more influenced by his other source than he is by\nMark. The non-Marcan source in which the saying was found by Matthew and\nLuke was evidently an allied, but not an identical, one; the saying is\ntherefore assigned to QMt and QLk.\n\n\nA SAYING ABOUT THE LAW\n\n(Mt v, 18; Lk xvi, 17)\n\nThere are twenty-seven words in Matthew's form of this saying; fifteen in\nLuke's. Only nine words show any correspondence. Matthew's \"until all be\nfulfilled\" is held by Schmiedel[96] to be a gloss, added, not by the final\neditor of Matthew, who did not care for Jewish legalism, but by an earlier\neditor. Harnack maintains that it goes back to Jesus, and does not\nnecessarily mean that the law shall ultimately pass away. In his essay in\nthe _Oxford Studies_ Hawkins maintains that the section can be made \"very\nprobable\" for Q. Considering the wide divergences, the writer would add\nthat this probability can be established only upon the hypothesis of two\nrecensions of Q; upon that hypothesis it would be granted by everyone.\n\n\n\"AGREE WITH THINE ADVERSARY\"\n\n(Mt v, 25-26; Lk xii, 58-59)\n\nLuke prefaces this saying with one peculiar to his Gospel: \"Why do ye not,\nof yourselves, judge what is right?\" The close connection of this saying\nwith the passage here under consideration, and the verbal resemblances and\ndivergences of the sections in Matthew and Luke--twenty-five identical\nwords out of a total of forty-three in Matthew and forty-nine in\nLuke--warrant their assignment to QMt and QLk.\n\n\nABOUT NON-RESISTANCE AND LOVE OF ENEMIES\n\n(Mt v, 39, 40, 42, 44-48; Lk vi, 27-30, 32, 36)\n\nIt is possible to choose out of these verses here and there a few words\nwhich, if they stood alone, would be naturally assigned simply to Q. By\nregarding only the words which very closely correspond, this is\naccomplished, but with the result that the other words, standing in the\nsame context and in closest connection, must be assigned to totally\ndifferent sources, or ascribed to the invention or alteration of one of\nthe evangelists. The verbal similarity thruout the section is sometimes\nclose, sometimes remote. Transpositions are frequent. Where Matthew has\nthe simile of the rain and sun, Luke has the comparatively weak words\n\"good to the unthankful and evil.\" This is a substitution that Luke\ncertainly would never have made for the strong words of Matthew if these\nhad stood in his source. The author assigns the section to the two\nrecensions, QMt and QLk.\n\n\nTHE LORD'S PRAYER\n\n(Mt vi, 9-13; Lk xi, 2-4)\n\nThis is one of the sections that point most clearly to different\nrecensions of Q in the hands of Matthew and Luke. It is improbable that\nany collection of the sayings of Jesus should have lacked this prayer. It\nis equally improbable that Luke could have had it before him in the more\nelaborated form of Matthew, and have abridged it to suit himself.\nMatthew's more elaborate form, on the other hand, does not sound like the\ndeliberate alteration of any one author, but like the accumulated\nliturgical usage of the Christian community. Luke's introduction to the\nprayer is certainly not his own invention, and is so appropriate that it\nis hard to believe that Matthew found it in connection with the prayer in\nhis source and deliberately omitted it. Luke's form seems decidedly more\nprimary. The use in both Gospels of the strange word [Greek: epiousion]\nseems to carry the two traditions back to one original; but the\nvariations are certainly greater than can be accounted for by the literary\nhabits of Matthew and Luke, working upon the same original. In other\nwords, that original had passed thru a different history before it reached\nour two evangelists. The section is assigned to QMt and QLk.\n\n\nA SAYING ABOUT TREASURES\n\n(Mt vi, 19-21; Lk xii, 33-34)\n\nThe verbal similarity is not close. Except for the proximity of other Q\nmaterial, the section might be assigned to two entirely different sources.\nThere is, especially, a quite different turn given to the saying in Luke,\nfrom that which it has in Matthew, by the introduction of the words \"Sell\nyour goods and give alms.\" In spite of Luke's interest in alms-giving, as\ndisclosed in the Book of Acts, it is hard to credit him with such a\nre-wording of his text without some help from his source. But the last\ntwelve words in the section are identical in the two Gospels, except that\nLuke uses the plural form of the pronoun where Matthew uses the singular.\nLargely on account of these last twelve words the section is assigned to\nQMt and QLk.\n\n\nA SAYING ABOUT THE EYE\n\n(Mt vi, 22-23; Lk xi, 34-35)\n\nOf forty-four words in Matthew and forty in Luke, thirty-two are\nidentical. The divergences in the use of conjunctions ([Greek: hotan] for\n[Greek: ean], e.g.) and the improvement by condensation of the last\nsentence are such changes as might be easily ascribed to Luke. The section\nmay, with reasonable assurance, be assigned merely to Q.\n\n\nABOUT DOUBLE SERVICE\n\n(Mt vi, 24; Lk xvi, 13)\n\nThere are twenty-seven words in this saying according to Matthew,\ntwenty-eight according to Luke. Luke appears to have been the innovator;\nhis addition of [Greek: oiketes] improves the sentence in a way often\naccomplished by him. With the exception of the presence of this word in\nLuke and its absence in Matthew the saying is identical in the two\nGospels. It is therefore assigned simply to Q.\n\n\nABOUT CARE\n\n(Mt vi, 25-33; Lk xii, 22-31)\n\nConsidering the length of this passage, the verbal similarity is\nremarkably close. Out of one hundred and sixty words in Luke and one\nhundred and sixty-six in Matthew, about one hundred and fifteen are\nidentical. Beginning in the middle of Luke's vs. 22, and at the first of\nMatthew's vs. 25, there are twenty-six words in Luke which are identical\nwith the same number of words arranged in identical order, in Matthew;\nexcept that Luke has omitted (or Matthew has supplied) three words,\nwithout affecting the meaning of the passage. Beginning with Matthew's vs.\n32 and Luke's vs. 30, there are again twenty-one identical words out of\ntwenty-four in Luke and thirty-one in Matthew. Matthew may here easily be\ncredited with the addition of the words which constitute the difference;\nfor his [Greek: ho ouranios] and his [Greek: kai ten dikaiosynen] are\ncharacteristic of him: the former expression being used by him seven times\nand not at all by the other evangelists; the latter, seven times by\nMatthew, once by Luke, and not at all by Mark. His addition of [Greek:\nproton] in his vs. 33 has a decidedly secondary sound. The passage may\ntherefore be assigned simply to Q.\n\n\nABOUT JUDGING\n\n(Mt vii, 1-2; Lk vi, 37-38)\n\nBetween the beginning and the end of this saying, both of which are alike\nin the two Gospels, Luke has an amplification of some length. It is highly\nimprobable that this amplification is the work of Luke, who is much more\ninclined to condense than to enlarge. The Q context in both Gospels, and\nthe almost exact agreement of the saying, except for the enlargement in\nLuke, warrant the assignment to QMt and QLk.\n\n\nTHE BEAM AND THE MOTE\n\n(Mt vii, 3-5; Lk vii, 41-42)\n\nThe verbal agreement is very close. Out of sixty-four words in Matthew and\nsixty-nine in Luke fifty-six are identical, except for deviation in mode\nor number. The greater condensation seems characteristic of Matthew. The\nchanges do not seem too great to be ascribed to the two evangelists\nworking on the same source, Q.\n\n\nABOUT SEEKING AND FINDING\n\n(Mt vii, 7-11; Lk xi, 9-13)\n\nThe agreement is close, except where Luke in his vs. 12 adds the item of\nthe egg and the scorpion which has no parallel in Matthew. In spite of the\naddition of this verse in Luke, out of eighty words in his version and\nseventy-three in Matthew's sixty-two are still identical. Luke's\nsubstitution of \"holy spirit\" for Matthew's indefinite \"good things\" is\ncharacterized by Schmiedel as a \"deliberate divergence.\" The same phrase\nwould hardly describe the addition of vs. 12. According to the principle\nhere followed, it might seem natural to assign this verse, and so the\nwhole context, to Luke's recension of Q. But in the whole section, aside\nfrom this verse, there are so few deviations, and these so easily\naccounted for on the part either of Matthew or Luke, that the writer\ninclines to assign the section simply to Q. Luke's vs. 12 would then be\nregarded as a gloss, or an addition of Luke from some source of his own,\nperhaps oral. Between this disposal of the matter and the assignment of\nthe entire section to QMt and QLk there is not much to choose.\n\n\nTHE GOLDEN RULE\n\n(Mt vii, 12; Lk vi, 31)\n\nThe last clause of Matthew may be his own addition, or perhaps a formula\ncommon among the Christians. It may have been a gloss, or may have been\nfound by Matthew in his recension of Q. At all events, it is not like\nMatthew to have added it himself; his tendency toward condensation is too\nwell known. Except for this addition the section is sufficiently alike in\nthe two Gospels to admit its assignment simply to Q.\n\n\nTHE NARROW GATE\n\n(Mt vii, 13-14; Lk xiii, 23-24)\n\nWith much resemblance in meaning there is here very little similarity in\nwording. Luke's saying is much briefer, and is introduced by a question\naddressed to Jesus. It sounds almost like an abstract of the saying as it\nstands in Matthew--if only a precedent could be shown for Luke's making\nsuch an abstract. One can hardly speak with any assurance; but considering\nthe difference of setting, the fact that in Luke the verses we are here\nconsidering are part of a considerably longer speech, and the slight\nverbal resemblances, it may be best to assign Matthew's version to Q, and\nLuke's to some source of his own, whether oral or written. If assignment\nto QMt and QLk is not impossible, it is certainly difficult.\n\n\nTHE TREE AND ITS FRUITS\n\n(Mt vii, 16-18; Lk vi, 43-44)\n\nFor this saying Matthew has a doublet in xii, 33-35. Mt vii, 20, is also\nan exact reproduction of vii, 16, with the particle [Greek: arage]\nprefixed. If Matthew found this saying in two of his sources, it is\nimpossible to say what the second of these was, for it apparently was not\nMark. In Matthew's second report of the same saying he has used the words\n\"generation of vipers,\" which he has in iii, 7, ascribed to John the\nBaptist. The fact that both speeches in which the phrase occurs have to do\nwith trees, and the fact of the repetition, not only of the saying twice\nin Matthew, but of the same sentence twice in one report, may perhaps\nindicate that Matthew found the saying only in his version of Q, and is\nhimself responsible for the repetition. Or the saying may have been\nrecorded twice in Matthew's version of Q, with the variations shown in\nMatthew's two citations of it. Upon either hypothesis the form of Mt xii,\n35, is much nearer to Lk vi, 45, than is Mt vii, 19-20, or vss. 16-18. The\nwriter assigns the section to QMt and QLk.\n\n\nWARNING AGAINST SELF-DECEPTION\n\n(Mt vii, 21-23; Lk vi, 46; xiii, 26-27)\n\nOf the first of these three verses in each Gospel, Harnack says it is\n\"perhaps not derived from Q.\" But the verse stands in substantially the\nsame context in both Gospels--in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and\nthe Sermon on the Level Place in Luke. In spite of the difference\nintroduced thruout the verse by Matthew's having it in the third person\nand Luke's giving it in the second, a reminiscence of the same source may\nbe found in the fact that [Greek: kyrie] is used by Matthew in the\nvocative, where a more strict construction would require the accusative.\nThe last two verses of the section Matthew has combined with the first,\nwhereas in Luke the context for them is quite different. Thru all three\nverses Luke seems to have the more primary form. Not only the second\nperson of the verbs, and the direct address of Jesus to the crowd, but the\nwords, \"we have eaten and drunk in thy presence and thou hast taught in\nour streets\" have an original sound, whereas Matthew's form, \"Many shall\nsay to me in that day, Lord, we have preached in thy name and in thy name\nhave cast out demons,\" would seem rather to come from a time when many men\nhad been preaching in the name of Jesus. Harnack says that the two sayings\nare \"quite independent,\" but that there is \"a common source in the\nbackground.\" This common source in the background might be the\nundifferentiated Q, and the immediate sources might be the two recensions\nof that document. The general character of the sayings, and the context,\nwould encourage such an assignment. Since here as in many other places the\nversion of Matthew seems to indicate adaptation to a later time, but since\nthe Gospel of Matthew cannot be shown to be later than the Gospel of Luke,\nit seems fair to attribute the divergence between the two evangelists here\nto the different history thru which their two versions of their common\nsource had passed before coming into their hands. The writer therefore\nassigns the section to QMt and QLk, tho not without admission that it\nmight be as well to assign the section in one Gospel to Q and in the other\nto some entirely other source.\n\n\nTHE TWO HOUSES\n\n(Mt vii, 24-27; Lk vi, 47-49)\n\nComparison of these sections shows a much slighter verbal agreement\nbetween them than might have been expected from their general agreement in\nidea. Even in idea the agreement is not extremely close. Matthew's two\nhouses are built, respectively, upon the rock and the sand; Luke's are\nbuilt, respectively, with and without a foundation, irrespective of the\nsoil. If Matthew's version be here regarded as the more primary, as is\nwarranted by the fact of its greater simplicity (Matthew seems here also\nto be nearer to the Aramaic, as indicated by his recurrent use of [Greek:\nkai] at the beginning of a sentence), the reinterpretation and consequent\nre-wording shown in Luke's version are altogether too great to be ascribed\nto the hand of Luke himself, working upon a source identical with\nMatthew's version. Let anyone compare Luke's treatment of the sayings of\nJesus in Mark with the treatment of this saying, which would be required\nupon the hypothesis of an identical source before him and Matthew, and he\nwill feel that that hypothesis cannot be maintained. And yet, in addition\nto the general similarity in the sections, there is one other thing that\nargues strongly for their inclusion in some form of Q, viz., their\nposition, as conclusions, respectively, to the Sermon on the Mount, and\nthe Sermon on the Plain. The writer therefore ascribes them to QMt and\nQLk.\n\n\nTHE CENTURION'S SON\n\n(Mt viii, 5-10; Lk vii, 1-9)\n\nThis is the one narrative section almost universally assigned to Q. But in\nthe first part of the story there is wide divergence. Matthew says the\ncenturion himself came to Jesus. Luke not only says he did not come, but\nexplains why he sent messengers instead of coming himself. Burton alleges\nthat Matthew's omission of the item of the messengers is characteristic of\nhim, with his tendency to condensation. But that the messengers were not\nin the original story, but were added by Luke (or his source) and not\nomitted by Matthew, is plain from the fact that the conversation, even in\nLuke, is based upon the supposition that the centurion had made his\nrequest in person. In Luke's vss. 3-6, which contain the account of the\nsending of the messengers, there are at least five Lucan words ([Greek:\nentimos, paragenomenoi, spoudaios, makran, apechontos]). These occur in\nthe portion of the story unparalleled in Matthew. But there are also three\nsuch Lucan words in the two following verses, where the story of Luke runs\nquite closely parallel to that of Matthew ([Greek: dio, exiosa,\ntassomenos]). The changing of a detail, even an important detail, in the\nnarrative part of such a section, especially when contrasted with general\nfaithfulness to the source in that part containing the words of Jesus,\nwould be characteristic of Luke. The humility and faith of the centurion\nare much enhanced by the change. Yet, as Juelicher remarks, Luke probably\ndid not invent this item of his story; he may have imported it from an\noral tradition, following Q in the remainder of the story. Even the\npresence of the \"Lucan\" words would not prove the Lucan invention of the\nsending of the messengers, since these words may have come from Luke's\nspecial source for this item and not from himself, tho this latter\nsupposition would tell against the assumption that this special source was\nan oral one. Of these Lucan words, [Greek: entimos] is used a second time\nby Luke (xiv, 8) in a passage not paralleled in Matthew; it is not used by\nhim in Acts. [Greek: Paragenomenoi] is used once by Mark, three times by\nMatthew, eight times by Luke in his Gospel, and twenty times in the Book\nof Acts. [Greek: Spoudaios] is found here only in the Gospels, and not in\nActs. [Greek: Makran] is used once by Matthew, once by Mark, twice by Luke\nin his Gospel, and three times in Acts. [Greek: Apechontes] (in the\nintransitive sense) occurs twice in Matthew, once in Mark, three times in\nLuke's Gospel, and not in Acts. [Greek: Dio] occurs once in Mark, once in\nMatthew, twice in Luke's Gospel, and eight times in Acts. [Greek: Axioo]\nis found in Luke only among the Gospels, and twice in Acts. [Greek: Tasso]\nis found in some texts of Matthew in this passage, but has probably been\nassimilated from Luke. It is found in one other passage in Matthew, in\nthis passage in Luke, not in Mark, and five times in Acts. These facts\ncannot be said to throw much light on whether Luke is here to be charged\nwith the verses in which these words occur, or whether they may have stood\nin his source. But considering the extremely close agreement between\nLuke's vss. 7_b_-9 and Matthew's vss. 8_b_-10 (note especially the [Greek:\neipe logo], unparalleled elsewhere), the best conclusion may be that the\nstory stood in Q, much as it now stands in Matthew, and that Luke, perhaps\nhaving heard this other version of the story, has himself altered the\nnarrative part of it.\n\n\n\"MANY SHALL COME FROM EAST AND WEST\"\n\n(Mt viii, 11-12; Lk xiii, 28-29)\n\nIn Matthew these words are interpolated into the story of the centurion's\nson; in Luke they occur as part of an eschatological speech. They seem\nbetter in place with Luke than with Matthew. The sentence \"There shall be\nweeping,\" etc., is transposed by one evangelist or the other; as it is\nused in five other places by Matthew, and as he has probably imported\ninto the story of the centurion the verses in which it occurs, it is\nprobable that the transposition is due to him. There is sufficient\ndivergence in wording between Matthew and Luke to warrant the assignment\nof the verses to QMt and QLk.\n\n\nTWO MEN WHO WOULD FOLLOW JESUS\n\n(Mt viii, 19-22; Lk ix, 57-60)\n\nTo these two sayings Matthew and Luke supply respectively their own\nintroductions. In the first saying, after the introduction, thirty-one\nconsecutive words are identical, except for Luke's substitution of [Greek:\neipen] for the original [Greek: legei] which still appears in Matthew. In\nthe second saying, after the introduction, the verbal resemblance is\nclose, tho not so close as in the first saying. The second half of Luke's\nvs. 60 has a late sound, and may be attributed either to Luke or his copy\nof Q. But the resemblance thruout is close enough to warrant the\nassignment of the section simply to Q.\n\n\n\"THE HARVEST IS GREAT\"\n\n(Mt ix, 37-38; Lk x, 2)\n\nThis saying occurs in Matthew's sending out of the twelve and in Luke's\nsending out of the seventy. Twenty-one consecutive words are identical\nexcept for the transposition of two words. It is assigned to Q.\n\n\n\"THE LABORER IS WORTHY OF HIS HIRE\"\n\n(Mt x, 10_c_; Lk x, 7_b_)\n\nMark and Q both contained accounts of the sending out of the disciples.\nThis is one of the fragments preserved from Q by Matthew and Luke, but not\nfound in Mark. It is identical except for the substitution of [Greek:\nmisthou] for [Greek: trophes]. The change may be attributed to Luke or his\nrecension of Q; in this case the change is so slight as to be easily\nchargeable to Luke; it may bespeak a time later than that indicated by\nMatthew's form--a time when the traveling preachers received not only\ntheir food but some slight wage. It stood in Q.\n\n\n\"GREET THE HOUSE\"\n\n(Mt x, 11-13; Lk x, 5-8)\n\nThis is one of the best illustrations of the advantages of the hypothesis\nof the two recensions of Q. Matthew says \"greet the house.\" Luke preserves\nthe Aramaic form of that greeting, which was \"Peace to this house.\" But\nthat this, and not Matthew's indefinite form, was what stood in the\noriginal Q is shown by the fact that Matthew adds, \"If the house is\nworthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is unworthy, let your peace\nreturn to you.\"[97] Luke has here the phrase \"son of peace,\" similar to\nthe phrases elsewhere found in his Gospel, \"sons of light,\" \"sons of\nconsolation,\" \"sons of this generation,\" \"sons of the resurrection.\" These\nphrases have an Aramaic sound which we should expect to encounter in\nalmost any of the Gospels sooner than in Luke's. He certainly never would\nhave invented them. The translation variants stamp the section as\nbelonging to QMt and QLk.\n\n\n\"MORE TOLERABLE FOR SODOM\"\n\n(Mt x, 15; Lk x, 12)\n\nThe variations are slight. [Greek: Amen] might be taken to indicate QMt,\nbut it might also easily have been omitted by Luke because of its Aramaic\ntone. The section may be safely ascribed to Q.\n\n\n\"SHEEP AMONG WOLVES\"\n\n(Mt x, 16_a_; Lk x, 3)\n\nLuke substitutes [Greek: arnas] for Matthew's [Greek: probata], thus\nheightening the contrast. It may be assigned to Q.\n\n\nHOW TO ACT UNDER PERSECUTION\n\n(Mt x, 19-20; Lk xii, 11-12)\n\nAlthough there is general similarity in idea, there is very little verbal\nresemblance here, perhaps not enough to warrant assignment to any common\nsource, even in differing recensions. Yet the proximity of other Q\nmaterial in both Gospels and the general character of the verses will\nperhaps make assignment to QMt and QLk more reasonable than any other.\n\n\nTHE DISCIPLE AND HIS TEACHER\n\n(Mt x, 24-25; Lk vi, 40)\n\nThe agreement here is close for a part of the saying; but Matthew adds a\nclause about the servant and his lord, and a reference to the Beelzebul\ncontroversy. Whether attributed to Luke or his source, his addition of\n[Greek: katertismenos] may indicate the feeling that the statement as to\nthe equality of the disciple and his teacher required some qualification.\nThis would be more strongly felt, however, if Luke had preserved the word\n[Greek: kyrios], which would refer more unmistakably to Jesus. In Luke\nthis section occurs in the Sermon on the Plain; since Matthew has put much\nmaterial in his corresponding Sermon on the Mount which is not in Luke's\nSermon on the Plain, even when he has had to bring this from many other\nconnections, it is strange that he has left out of that sermon this\nsaying, which stands in the corresponding discourse in Luke. This is one\nof the phenomena difficult of explanation upon the simple hypothesis of\nQ; since upon that hypothesis Matthew should have found this saying in the\nsame connection as that in which Luke found it, and why, so finding it, he\nnot only took pains to add so much to it, but to transpose it upon the\nopposite principle to that which he has followed in the transposition of\nmost other Q material, is not easy to explain. On these grounds the saying\nis ascribed to QMt and QLk.\n\n\nEXHORTATION TO FEARLESS CONFESSION\n\n(Mt x, 26-33; Lk xii, 2-9)\n\nThe agreements and variations in this section are precisely such as to\nindicate an ultimate common source, but immediate different sources. In\nMatthew's vs. 27 and Luke's vs. 3, with many of the same words retained,\nthe meaning is directly reversed. On the other hand, [Greek: phobeisthe\n(phobethete)] with [Greek: apo] is found here only in the New Testament,\nand not at all in the Septuagint. Unless this be ascribed to assimilation,\nit is a coincidence too marked to be explained except by the supposition\nof an ultimate common source. The same thing is to be said of the phrase\n[Greek: homologesei en] in Matthew's vs. 32 and Luke's vs. 8. Yet in the\nmidst of the section there is a passage of twenty or twenty-five words in\nwhich there is practically no verbal coincidence, tho the idea is the\nsame. Luke substitutes \"have not anything else that they can do,\" for\nMatthew's phrase \"can not kill the soul\"; it has been suggested that this\nlatter was not congenial to Luke's Greek method of thot. Where Matthew\nmentions the price of sparrows as \"two for a farthing,\" Luke specifies it\nas \"five for two farthings.\" The section contains no narrative matter. A\ncomparison of the deviations between Matthew and Luke here, with their\nagreements with each other in sections where they are taking over the\ndiscourse material of Jesus from Mark, will show that these deviations are\ndecidedly too great to be ascribed to the agency of either Matthew or\nLuke. The passage is therefore assigned to QMt and QLk.\n\n\nSTRIFE AMONG RELATIVES\n\n(Mt x, 34-36; Lk xii, 51-53)\n\nLuke's version seems more elaborated and less original than Matthew's.\nLuke certainly would not have substituted the comparatively colorless word\n[Greek: diamerismon] for [Greek: machairan] if this latter had stood in\nhis source. Without the hypothesis of the two recensions this section\nwould have to be assigned to totally different, perhaps oral, sources.\n[Greek: diamerizo] is used once by Mark, and Matthew and Luke have both\ncopied it from him in that connection. Neither Matthew nor Mark uses the\nword again; Luke uses it in five other places in his Gospel, including the\nsection now under consideration. As he uses it but twice in Acts, it seems\nmore likely to have been found in his source than to have been here\ninserted by him. This would tell strongly against the supposition that\nMatthew and Luke are here working over an identical source; in other\nwords, it would remove this section from simple undifferentiated Q. Only\nthe general character of the material, its close resemblance in meaning in\nthe two Gospels, and its proximity in each Gospel to other Q material, can\njustify its assignment to QMt and QLk--and then, even, with uncertainty.\n\n\nCONDITIONS OF DISCIPLESHIP\n\n(Mt x, 37-39; Lk xiv, 26-27; xvii, 33)\n\nLuke's statement is much stronger, and so presumably older, than\nMatthew's. Wellhausen says Matthew has been \"refined out of Luke.\" In\nMatthew, the two sayings about taking up the cross, and about finding and\nlosing one's life, follow each other; in Luke, at this place, they are\nseparated by more than three chapters. But both Matthew and Luke give both\nof these sayings a second time, and the second time the two sayings are\ncontinuous in both, as they also are in Mark, from whom they are taken.\nThe facts seem therefore to have been that Matthew and Luke each took both\nof these sayings from two sources; that in Mark the two sayings occurred\ntogether; that in Luke's recension of Q (at least), they were separated;\nthat they were probably separated in Matthew's Q also, but he has combined\nthem according to his habit, helped here by the recollection of the\ncontinuity of the two sayings in Mark. The substitution of \"who seeks to\nfind his soul\" for the simpler form \"who finds his soul\" might easily be\nascribed to Luke; it is in the interest of logicality. But it is quite\nunlike Luke to have added from oral tradition, or to have inserted from\nany other written source, so much matter of his own as is found in his vs.\n26. The section is therefore assigned to QMt and QLk.\n\n\n\"HE THAT RECEIVETH YOU\"\n\n(Mt x, 40; Lk x, 16)\n\nLuke has a doublet for this saying in Lk ix, 48, where the form is\nslightly more like Matthew's than at this point; but ix, 48, appears to be\ntaken from Mark, with reminiscence of Q. The saying is also given twice in\nthe Fourth Gospel, and with the saying just considered constitutes the\ntotal of sayings occurring in all four Gospels. Luke has taken the saying\nonce from Mark and once from Q. Considering Matthew's partiality to\ndoublets, the fact that he has the saying only once might be taken to\nindicate its absence from his recension of Q. The saying may therefore be\nassigned to QLk.\n\n\nTHE QUESTION OF THE BAPTIST AND JESUS' ANSWER\n\n(Mt xi, 2-19; Lk vii, 18-35)\n\nWith the exception of the introduction in Luke, this long section may\nsafely be assigned to Q. The preceding narrative in Matthew has supplied a\nwarrant for the statement of Jesus about his healings; Luke, not having\nled up to the conversation by a similar narrative, inserts the statement\nhere that \"in that hour he healed many sick,\" etc. After the\nintroductions, the verbal resemblance is extremely close, considering the\nlength of the section. Of one hundred and ninety-nine words in Matthew and\ntwo hundred and three in Luke, about one hundred and sixty-eight are\nidentical.\n\n\nTHE WOE UPON THE GALILEAN CITIES\n\n(Mt xi, 20-24; Lk x, 13-15)\n\nThis section is practically identical in both Gospels, except for\nMatthew's vs. 24 and the last half of vs. 23, which have no parallel in\nLuke. They are an elaboration upon the words that precede them, and may be\nascribed to Matthew or an editor. The section may be assigned to Q.\n\n\n\"I THANK THEE, O FATHER\"\n\n(Mt xi, 25-27; Lk x, 21-22)\n\nThe introduction, again, has been supplied by each evangelist, tho it is\nnot impossible that the introduction given in Matthew may have been taken\nfrom Q. After the introductions, twenty-nine consecutive words are\nidentical. Again, after Luke's insertion of a few transitional words, the\nsaying, \"All things are given to me of my Father,\" runs almost, tho not\nquite, word for word in the two Gospels. The connecting words in Luke\nwould seem to indicate that these two sayings were not consecutive in Q.\nIt is not necessary to have recourse to the recensions here.\n\n\nJESUS' DEFENSE AGAINST THE PHARISEES\n\n(Mt xii, 27-28; Lk xi, 19-20)\n\nThese verses occur in the midst of a narrative which Matthew and Luke have\ntaken from Mark. Mark has no parallel for these verses, and the\nresemblance in Matthew and Luke is very close; the saying is in fact\nidentical except for Luke's use of [Greek: daktylo] for Matthew's [Greek:\npneumati]. The fact that in the succeeding verses Matthew follows Mark\npractically word for word, while Luke has a version entirely his own, may\nperhaps indicate that the narrative stood in both Mark and Q, Matthew\nhaving followed Mark thruout, except for the verses here considered, and\nLuke having followed chiefly Q, with an occasional deference to Mark. It\nmay safely be assigned to Q.\n\n\n\"HE THAT IS NOT WITH ME\"\n\n(Mt xii, 30; Lk xi, 23)\n\nA statement the exact reverse of this occurs in Mk ix, 40, in a different\ncontext. The words here are identical in the two Gospels, the order also\nbeing the same. It stood in Q.\n\n\nJONAH AND THE NINEVITES\n\n(Mt xii, 38-42; Lk xi, 29-32)\n\nEach evangelist has supplied his own introduction. Matthew's vs. 40 is\nprobably an interpolation, or at least a late addition. Beginning with\nMatthew's vs. 41 and Luke's vs. 32 (the order of Luke's verses has been\nreversed, perhaps by error of a scribe, since no motive appears for the\nchange), there are fifty-three words in Matthew, fifty-five in Luke, and\nfifty-three of them are identical. The verses are therefore universally\nassigned to Q.\n\n\nA SPEECH ABOUT BACKSLIDING\n\n(Mt xii, 43-45; Lk xi, 24-26)\n\nThe correspondence here also is very close; out of sixty-two words in\nMatthew and fifty-five in Luke, fifty-four are identical. Matthew's\nsurplus of eight words is accounted for by the addition of a clause not\nfound in Luke, and probably a later addition in Matthew; it does not\ndisturb the practical identity thruout the rest of the saying. It\nevidently stood in Q.\n\n\n\"BLESSED ARE THE EYES THAT SEE\"\n\n(Mt xiii, 16-17; Lk x, 23-24)\n\nLuke has supplied his own introduction. Matthew has, as parallel to \"the\neyes that see,\" \"the ears that hear.\" This may be a later addition in\nMatthew; or Luke, not caring so much for the Aramaic parallelism as\nMatthew does, may have omitted it. Luke has \"kings\" where Matthew has\n\"righteous men\"; [Greek: dikaios] is a favorite word with Matthew; on the\nother hand, Luke's use of \"kings\" may indicate an apologetic intention\nupon Luke's part. The saying may be assigned to Q, and the variations\ncharged jointly to Matthew and Luke.\n\n\nTHE PARABLE OF THE YEAST\n\n(Mt xiii, 33; Lk xiii, 20-21)\n\nThe introductions in the two Gospels are slightly different. After these,\nfourteen consecutive words are alike, the only deviation being Matthew's\nuse (as always) of [Greek: ton ouranon] where Luke has [Greek: tou theou].\nThe parable stood in Q.\n\n\nTHE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND\n\n(Mt xv, 14; Lk vi, 39)\n\nThis is another instance of a saying which occurs in Luke's Sermon on the\nPlain but outside of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. Matthew has apparently\ninserted it in the midst of a discourse against the Pharisees, the rest of\nwhich he has taken from Mark. The sayings in Matthew and Luke are not\nidentical. If the saying stood in Q, and Matthew removed it from its Lucan\nconnection to its present position in his Gospel, this was certainly a\nvery unusual procedure with him. The saying is given as a \"parable\" in\nLuke, and has the brevity of the parables that were given in Q, tho not\ntheir usual reference to the kingdom of God. It is hard to think of\nMatthew, with his fondness for these brief parables, deliberately omitting\nto call the saying by this name when it was so called in his source. On\nthe whole, however, it seems best to assign the saying to Q, and to charge\nMatthew with its displacement.\n\n\nA SAYING ABOUT FAITH\n\n(Mt xvii, 20; Lk xvii, 6)\n\nThe parallel here is not close. But Matthew has a doublet in xxi, 21, and\nMark a similar saying in xi, 22. The saying seems therefore to have been\nin both Mark and Q, and was taken by Matthew from both sources and by Luke\nfrom one. The connection of the saying in Luke indicates that he took it\nfrom Q; yet his saying is not the same as Matthew's, in that he\nsubstitutes a sycamore tree for Matthew's mountain, thus greatly weakening\nthe comparison. The two sayings certainly cannot have been derived by\nMatthew and Luke from an identical source. It is only on the ground of\ntheir general logian character that they can be assigned to QMt and QLk.\n\n\nA SAYING ABOUT OFFENSES\n\n(Mt xviii, 7; Lk xvii, 1)\n\nThe comparison here is complicated by the fact that this saying apparently\nstood in both Mark and Q. It is closely, but in reverse order by the two\nlater evangelists, connected with a saying taken from Mark. It may be\nassigned to Q.\n\n\nTHE STRAY SHEEP\n\n(Mt xviii, 12-14; Lk xv, 4-7)\n\nThere seems here to be little or no literary relationship. The two\npassages appear to be rather different versions of the same parable, which\nhave come down thru different channels. If it be assumed that Matthew's\nversion is from Q, there is not enough literary agreement between it and\nLuke's to prove the latter to be from any recension of that document.\nConsidering the larger content of Matthew's recension, and his apparently\ngreater unwillingness to make omissions from it, it might be safe to\nassign this to QMt, but to leave Luke's source for his version\nunspecified. At the same time it is well to remember that the parables\nstand apparently half-way between the narratives and the sayings, as\nregards the willingness of the evangelists to deviate from the wording\nfound before them. If enough may be allowed for this difference between\nparables and sayings, the divergence between the two Gospels in this\nsection might not be considered too great to be accounted for by the known\nhabits of Matthew and Luke, working on different recensions of an original\nQ; and so the passage might be assigned to QMt and QLk--but certainly not\nwith any confidence.\n\n\nABOUT FORGIVENESS\n\n(Mt xviii, 21-22; Lk xvii, 4)\n\nThese might be considered merely as variants of the same original saying.\nIf the reference to Peter be taken, like some of the other references to\nhim in Matthew, to be later than the saying itself, the insertion of this\nreference in Matthew, whether by Matthew or his source, may have changed\nthe form of the saying from its original as preserved in Luke. But the\nvery slight verbal agreement makes any specification of a common literary\nsource hazardous.\n\n\nREWARDS FOR DISCIPLESHIP\n\n(Mt xix, 28; Lk xxii, 28-30)\n\nThe first part of this section varies greatly between Matthew and Luke;\nwith strong similarity in idea, there is practically no verbal agreement.\nThe last ten words are almost identical. Matthew inserts the section into\na speech the rest of which is taken from Mark. Luke takes the same speech\nfrom Mark, without making this insertion. The verses occur with him in\nquite another context. His vs. 30_a_ is more primary than anything in\nMatthew's version. The first part of the section contains too little\nagreement to have been worked out of an identical source; the last part\nagrees so closely as to indicate an ultimate common source. We therefore\nassign the section to QMt and QLk.\n\n\nAGAINST THE PHARISEES\n\n(Mt xxiii, 4; Lk xi, 46)\n\nThe agreement is slight, but somewhat significant. [Greek: phortion] is\nused only thrice in the New Testament outside of this passage. This is the\nchief linguistic warrant for assigning the passage to QMt and QLk.\n\n\n\"WHOSO HUMBLES HIMSELF\"\n\n(Mt xxiii, 12; Lk xiv, 11)\n\nThis proverbial saying is used by Luke in this instance as the conclusion\nof a speech about taking the chief seats at a feast. He also uses it in\nxviii, 14, as the conclusion to his parable of the Publican and the\nPharisee in the temple. Matthew also uses it in two very different\ncontexts; here as part of a speech against the Pharisees, and in xviii, 4,\nwith reference to a child as type of true greatness. Considering these\nvarious usages, the brevity of the saying, and its apparently proverbial\ncharacter, it can scarcely be assigned to any form of Q, tho it certainly\ncannot be proved not to have been in that document.\n\n\nAGAINST THE PHARISEES\n\n(Mt xxiii, 13; Lk xi, 52)\n\nIt is possible to regard these rather as variants of the same saying than\nas workings over of the same source. Even in the divergences, however,\nsome striking resemblances are to be noted. Matthew says [Greek: kleiete\nten basileian]; Luke says [Greek: erate ten kleida]. These words seem to\nbetray a common literary source in the background. The idea conveyed by\nthe two phrases is the same. Matthew says, \"Ye shut up the kingdom of\nheaven before men\"; Luke says, \"Ye take away the key of knowledge\" (of\nsalvation, probably, as in Lk i, 77). The last part of the saying is still\nmore unmistakably based upon an ultimate common source. Yet, as I have so\noften argued with reference to other and similar sections, to ascribe to\neither Matthew or Luke, working upon an identical source, the amount of\nre-working here involved, credits them with a degree of freedom in the\ntreatment of Jesus' sayings which finds no parallel in their treatment of\nsuch sayings as they take them from the Gospel of Mark. We therefore\nassign the section to QMt and QLk. But such assignment cannot be insisted\nupon.\n\n\nAGAINST THE PHARISEES\n\n(Mt xxiii, 23-26; Lk xi, 39-42)\n\nThere is thruout this section a varying degree of verbal agreement. The\nsections are very differently placed, Matthew putting them among the\nJerusalem sayings, Luke early in the ministry. What is conclusive evidence\nfor some form of Q, indeed for the two recensions, is the translation\nvariant in vss. 26 and 41.[98] The section is thus not merely assigned,\nbut we may say is demonstrated to belong, to QMt and QLk.\n\n\nA WOE UPON THE SCRIBES\n\n(Mt xxiii, 29-31; Lk xi, 47-48)\n\nThere is so little verbal agreement here as to raise the question whether\nwe have not merely two different traditions of the same saying. What\ninclines us to cling to the assignment to QMt and QLk is the fact that\nthese words are preceded and followed in both Gospels by passages which\nhave much more close verbal agreement with each other than is found in\nthis section. The verses are assigned to Q by all five of the\ninvestigators quoted at the beginning of this chapter. But anyone who will\ncompare the slight verbal agreement thruout these verses with the verbal\nidentity shown in other passages assigned to Q will wonder why these\nscholars have not availed themselves of the hypothesis of the two\nrecensions. For upon the basis of their treatment of other passages, both\nfrom Q and from Mark, the divergences in this passage are altogether too\ngreat to be assigned directly to Matthew or Luke.\n\n\n\"I SEND UNTO YOU PROPHETS\"\n\n(Mt xxiii, 34-36; Lk xi, 49-51)\n\nThe assignment of this section to simple Q, and the ascription of all\ndivergences to one or the other of the evangelists, would be easier if it\ncould be shown that either evangelist shows a uniform tendency in the\ndivergences. But such is not the case. Luke seems more primary, and nearer\nto the source, when he quotes the words of the passage from \"The Wisdom of\nGod\"; for no evangelist, finding the words ascribed to Jesus in his\nsource, would take them away from him and ascribe them to anyone else. But\nMatthew, or his source, may merely have interpreted the words \"The Wisdom\nof God\" to refer to Jesus. Luke is later than Matthew, where he\nsubstitutes \"apostles\" for Matthew's \"scribes\"; but Matthew is secondary\nto Luke where he has [Greek: staurosete], in apparent reminiscence of the\ndeath of Jesus. He is also secondary in his vs. 34, which seems to reflect\nthe persecutions of the Christians. But Luke again is secondary in\nomitting Matthew's mistaken identification of Zachariah as the son of\nBarachiah. The use of verbs in the second person in Luke and in the third\nperson in Matthew is accounted for by the quotation in the one Gospel and\nthe direct address in the other. [Greek: epi tes ges] and [Greek: apo\nkataboles kosmou] may be translation variants. Careful comparison of the\nverbal similarities indicates unmistakably a common literary source lying\nin the background; but a source much worked over before reaching Matthew\nand Luke.\n\n\nTHE LAMENT OVER JERUSALEM\n\n(Mt xxiii, 37-39; Lk xiii, 34-35)\n\nTho placed so differently by Matthew and Luke, this section has the\ngreatest verbal agreement. Out of fifty-six words in Matthew and\nfifty-three in Luke, fifty are identical. Luke omits the repetition of one\nverb, omits \"desolate\" and substitutes two particles of his own for four\nof Matthew's. Harnack's explanation of Luke's omission of \"desolate\"[99]\non the ground that the meaning is the same without it does not seem\nconclusive. It is better to assume that it was added by Matthew in\ndeference to Jer xxii, 5. The wording of the section shows so little\ndeviation between the two Gospels that it may be assigned simply to Q.\n\n\nTHE DAY OF THE SON OF MAN\n\n(Mt xxiv, 26-27; Lk xvii, 23-24)\n\nThere is slight verbal resemblance here, but enough to indicate\nunmistakably a literary relationship. QMt and QLk are much more likely\nthan simple Q.\n\n\nTHE BODY AND THE EAGLES\n\n(Mt xxiv, 28; Lk xvii, 37)\n\nIn Matthew, but not in Luke, these words form the conclusion to the words\njust considered. The substitution of [Greek: soma] for [Greek: ptoma]\nsounds like an oral variation; but it may be Luke's way of avoiding a word\nwhich he nowhere uses. The wording is otherwise so close as to warrant\nassignment to simple Q.\n\n\nTHE DAYS OF NOAH\n\n(Mt xxiv, 37-39; Lk xvii, 26-27)\n\nLuke, or his recension of Q, says here, as elsewhere, \"the days of the Son\nof man,\" where Matthew says \"the parousia of the Son of man.\" The reason\nfor this deviation is not obvious, unless the variation was in the source.\nWe therefore assign the passage to the two recensions.\n\n\nTHE ONE TAKEN, THE OTHER LEFT\n\n(Mt xxiv, 40-41; Lk xvii, 34-35)\n\nIn Matthew, but not in Luke, these words are immediately connected with\nthose just discussed. Luke, or his source, wishes to indicate that the\nparousia may be in the night, and so adds the words [Greek: nykti] and\n[Greek: klines]. But the arrangement of the verses is in the same order in\nboth Gospels, and there is strong similarity, especially in vss. 41 and\n35. We consider assignment to QMt and QLk to account most nearly for all\nthe facts.\n\n\nTHE WATCHING SERVANT\n\n(Mt xxiv, 43-44; Lk xii, 39-40)\n\nThe verbal coincidence here is great. The last fourteen words are exactly\nalike in both Gospels, even to their order. It should be assigned to\nsimple Q.\n\n\nTHE TRUE AND FALSE SERVANT\n\n(Mt xxiv, 45-51; Lk xii, 42-46)\n\nThe connection of these sections with the one just considered is the same\nin both Gospels. The verbal agreement is equally striking. Out of one\nhundred and ten words in Matthew and one hundred and two in Luke,\neighty-two are identical; twenty-six of these occur consecutively and with\nno deviation in order. The section may be assigned to Q.\n\n\nRESULTS OF THE PRECEDING INVESTIGATION\n\nThis investigation yields about one hundred and ninety Q verses (in some\ninstances only parts of verses) in Matthew, paralleled by about one\nhundred and eighty Q verses in Luke. The difference in the number of\nverses has no significance, being due chiefly to the verses not being\nsimilarly divided in the two Gospels. Of this total, ninety-eight in\nMatthew and ninety-four in Luke are ascribed simply to Q. This does not\nmean, as has been said before, that Matthew and Luke both had a document\nQ, and in addition Matthew had a document QMt and Luke another document\nQLk; but merely that Matthew and Luke had two recensions of Q, each of\nwhich had passed thru a history of its own, and had become in many ways\ndifferentiated from the other; and that in certain parts of each recension\nsuch differentiation had not occurred, so that these sections of the two\nrecensions may still be referred to under the symbol Q. Of the two\nrecensions, therefore, so far as these reappear in parallels in Matthew\nand Luke, about half in each differs so widely from the same half in the\nother that it is altogether unreasonable to attribute the difference to\neither or both of the evangelists.\n\nIf it be asked, why we should attempt to attribute to any form of Q this\nmaterial which is too seriously dissimilar to have been drawn directly by\nthe evangelists from an identical source--why we do not simply assign this\nto totally separate sources, and restrict Q to the sections which are\npractically identical in the two Gospels--the answer is: this material in\nthe two gospels seems to betray not merely an oral but a literary\naffinity; it is of the same general character as that which is assigned\ndirectly to Q; and almost without exception, in one gospel or the other or\nin both, it is inextricably mingled with this.\n\nThruout this discussion the distinction between narrative material and\nsayings-material, and the difference in treatment accorded to these two\nkinds of material by Matthew and Luke, must be constantly borne in mind.\nThe amount of literary divergence that may be fairly assigned to the\ninitiative of Matthew or Luke in their use of a document of sayings is\nhard to define. But Sir John Hawkins is surely wrong when he says[100]\nthat Matthew and Luke need not be expected to adhere more closely to Q\nthan they do to Mark. For in the sayings of Jesus which they find in Mark,\nMatthew and Luke do generally adhere very closely. It is in the narrative\nportions of Mark that they permit themselves liberties. But there is\nlittle or no narrative in Q; the only certain instance of narrative being\nthat of the healing of the centurion's son; and in this instance it is\nsignificant that the deviations between Matthew and Luke are in the\nnarrative and not in the logian portions. Speaking of each document as a\nwhole, it should be clear that Q would be followed with very much greater\nfidelity than Mark by both Matthew and Luke.\n\nNow the translation variants are proof positive of two Greek translations\nof the original Aramaic Q, these two translations having been made from\ntwo texts of the original which betray some divergences or corruptions.\nTho these two Greek translations were thus made from two Aramaic copies,\nnevertheless in about half of the matter which Matthew and Luke agree in\ntaking from these translations no substantial differences had crept in;\nbut half, also, shows deviations too great to be ascribed to Matthew and\nLuke. If all the matter common to Matthew and Luke were identical, or\nnearly so, no need would arise for QMt and QLk. If it were all as\ndissimilar as half of it is, no place would be left for Q of any sort.\nThe distinction between Matthew's and Luke's recensions of Q best accounts\nalike for the agreements and the divergences.\n\nIn the preceding examination the number of Q (including QMt and QLk)\nverses ascribed to Matthew and Luke respectively is substantially the same\nas the number ascribed to them by Harnack and Hawkins in Tables II and III\n(pp. 110-11 and 116-17). This agreement merely indicates that Harnack and\nHawkins have confined their Q material pretty closely to the sections\nwhich show the greatest verbal agreement. The difference between the\nposition reached in these pages and that reached by Harnack and Hawkins is\nthat the present writer feels that those two scholars cannot be justified\nin ascribing such wide divergences to the literary activity of the\nevangelists themselves, and that they have hampered themselves by not\ntaking advantage of the fact of the recensions, as guaranteed to us by the\ntranslation variants.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nQ IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW (QMT)\n\n\nThus far, examination has been made of only such material as is somewhat\nclosely duplicated in Matthew and Luke. Examination will now be made of\nthe sayings that are found in Matthew, unduplicated in Luke, to see\nwhether any of these may also be assigned, with any great probability, to\nQ. In this unduplicated material no data are at hand for distinguishing\nQMt from simple Q; but since QMt is the symbol for the copy of Q used by\nMatthew, that symbol will be employed here instead of Q.\n\nThe criteria for distinguishing Q material in Matthew unduplicated by Luke\nare the general character of the material, chiefly its eschatological use\nof the phrase \"the kingdom of heaven,\" its Jewish coloring, its antipathy\nto the Pharisees, the absence of indications of Matthean invention, and\nthe proximity to and connection with other material heretofore attributed\nto Q or QMt. This last item is not so important in Matthew, on account of\nhis habit of transposing his Q material; yet within limits it is a\nvaluable criterion.\n\nExamination will be made of all passages in which there is reason to\nsuspect the possible presence of Q material. This having been done in the\ncase of the Gospel of Matthew, a similar examination will be made of the\nGospel of Luke. The results of these two examinations will give us data\nfor the comparison of Q as used by Matthew and Q as used by Luke. We shall\nthen be able to say whether the differences between what we have called\nQMt and what we have called QLk are too great for the assumption that they\nare different recensions of the same ground-document. Matter already\nassigned to Q (or QMt or QLk) will not be examined again. As the sayings\nreported in each Gospel are examined, in cases where the material is\nrejected from QMt or QLk, suggestions will be made as to possible or\nprobable sources.\n\n\nTWO BEATITUDES\n\n(Mt v, 4-5)\n\nMany manuscripts invert the order of these beatitudes. Vs. 4_a_ is a\nquotation from Ps xxxvii, 11. Vs. 5 sounds like a reminiscence of Ps\ncxxvi, 5, and Isa lxi, 2. The tendency to apply prophecy to Jesus is\nespecially strong in Matthew; but whether this should be charged to him or\nhis source remains to be determined. The [Hebrew] of the Hebrew, or the\n[Greek: echrisen] of the Greek, of Isa lxi, 1, would forcibly suggest such\napplication in this case. Of the Judaistic and the universalistic\ntendencies found side by side in Matthew it is probable that the Judaistic\nare earlier, and therefore that they belonged in the source; the\nuniversalistic, naturally assumed to be later, will be more easily\nattributed to Matthew. Aside from this it is hardly to be assumed that\nMatthew invented any beatitudes on his own account. From both these\nconsiderations it is reasonable to conclude that these two beatitudes were\nadded to Q before it reached Matthew.\n\n\nFOUR MORE BEATITUDES\n\n(Mt v, 7-10)\n\nFor vs. 7 there is no close Old Testament exemplar, tho Joel ii, 13, has\nbeen suggested. The suggestion is the more plausible since the same verse\nwould also have served as an indirect source of the next beatitude in vs.\n8. There is no reason for crediting Matthew with the manufacture of either\nof these beatitudes. Vs. 8 may be reminiscent of Ps xxiv, 4; li, 10;\nlxxiii, 1, as well as of the verse in Joel. \"They shall see God\" is\nprobably used here in an eschatological sense. An expression combining the\nideas and in part the wording of vss. 8 and 9 is found in Heb xii, 14:\n[Greek: Eirenen diokete ... hou choris oudeis opsetai ton kyrion]. If this\nis not a reminiscence of these beatitudes in Matthew, it at least embodies\na similar tradition. The [Greek: dikaiosynes] of vs. 10 is peculiar to\nMatthew among the Gospels. From its Judaistic coloring it is to be\nascribed to Matthew's Q rather than to the evangelist himself. If I Peter\niii, 14, be allowed to be a direct reference to this beatitude, this will\nheighten the probability that all these beatitudes were added to Q before\nits use by Matthew. It is not impossible that Matthew found in Q only the\nbeatitudes now standing in Luke, and that he added these others (also\nmaking correction in those now duplicated in Luke), not inventing these\nhimself, but possibly taking them from an oral tradition, or from a\nseparate written source. But this theory seems to the writer to be much\nmore complicated and less probable than the one here advocated. It is\nquite out of the question that Luke should have found these six beatitudes\nin his Q and should have omitted them. Yet the beatitudes common to\nMatthew and Luke are by all scholars attributed to Q. Harnack is\nundoubtedly correct in saying, \"The beatitudes certainly circulated in\nvarious recensions from the beginning.\"[101] The process of alteration and\naccretion would begin long before the days of Matthew.\n\n\n\"YE ARE THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD\"\n\n(Mt v, 14)\n\nIn the Johannine tradition this saying has become \"I am the light of the\nworld.\" Like the saying, \"Ye are the salt of the earth\" (in Mt v, 13), it\nemphasizes, as against Luke's version, the direct address of the\nbeatitudes and the conjoined sayings to the disciples. It probably stood\nin Matthew's Q.\n\n\n\"LET YOUR LIGHT SHINE\"\n\n(Mt v, 16)\n\nThe intervening vs. 15 is found in Luke. With that verse omitted, the\nconnection between vss. 14 and 16 is improved. I Peter ii, 12, is a\nreminiscence, or almost a direct quotation, of vs. 16. Of vss. 13_a_, 14,\nand 16 it should be observed that, while they are unduplicated in Luke,\nthey change the character of all the words in their context from the\ncharacter which those words have, so far as they are duplicated, in Luke;\nfor they make of them no longer general remarks, but words of extremely\nearnest exhortation addressed directly to the disciples. It is extremely\nunlikely that Matthew should have found the sayings in Q as mere general\nremarks, and should himself have given them this character of pointed\nexhortation by inserting the words, \"Ye are the salt of the earth,\" \"Ye\nare the light of the world,\" etc. But it is equally improbable that Luke\nshould have found these pointed words in his recension of Q, and should by\ntheir omission have degraded the sayings to the rank of mere general\nobservations. The best way to save these sayings for Q is by the\nhypothesis of the recensions.\n\n\nVARIOUS SAYINGS FROM THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT\n\n(Mt v, 17, 19-24, 27-28)\n\nConcerning the section v, 17-48, Hawkins says, \"I would place this section\nby itself as one which we may regard as more likely to have formed part of\nQ than any other which is to be found in a single Gospel.\"[102] Yet it is\nto be noted that in the section of which Hawkins makes this statement\nthere are eleven verses (vss. 18, 25, 26, 32, 39, 40, 42, 44-47) which are\nnot \"found in a single Gospel,\" but which have very close parallels in\nLuke, and would on this latter consideration be assigned to Q. This fact\nheightens the probability that the unduplicated verses should also be\nassigned to some form of that document. Only those verses are considered\nhere which have no parallel in Luke.\n\nThruout these verses there is a strong Judaistic coloring. They may be\ncompared in this respect with such other New Testament passages as Rom\niii, 31; x, 4; Jas ii, 10; II Pet ii, 14. The words, \"till heaven and\nearth pass away\" at the beginning of vs. 18 do not quite agree with the\nwords \"until all things be fulfilled\" at the end of the verse; the latter\nwords have been suggested by Schmiedel as being a gloss. If, with the two\nverses that follow them, they be not such a gloss, they are, says\nSchmiedel,[103] not from the final editor, who does not care for Jewish\nlegalism, but from some earlier editor. In other words, universally\nattributed as the section is to Q, these words were not in Luke's version\nof that document, and it is inconceivable that Matthew should have added\nthem. They are part of the accretion that took place in Matthew's\nrecension of Q before it reached Matthew. Harnack, however, maintains\nthat there is no inconsistency in attributing the words to Jesus himself.\nVs. 20 illustrates the unchronological placing of the sayings, since it\nimplies that the break with the pharisees has already occurred. In vss. 21\nand 22 is the word [Greek: enochos], occurring four times; Matthew uses it\nin one other passage where he has taken it from Mark, who uses it twice;\nbut Luke consistently avoids it, both in his Gospel and in Acts.\nUnchronological in their setting are also the words in vss. 23-24; they\nwere evidently spoken in Jerusalem, not in Galilee. They would not have\nbeen added from an oral tradition, much less invented, in times as late as\nthose of the final editor of the Gospel.\n\n\nA SAYING ABOUT OFFENSES\n\n(Mt v, 29-30)\n\nFor this saying there is a doublet in Mt xviii, 8-9, taken from Mk ix,\n43-48. Mark may in this passage also have been following Q. That this\nsaying should have been absent from Luke's recension of Q, while present\nin that of both Matthew and Mark, and that it should also, as Dr. Stanton\nmaintains, have been absent from Luke's copy of Mark, seems rather too\nmuch of a coincidence. But the saying is like several others which Luke\nomits because of their strong tincture of asceticism, or because the\ninstructions in them might be understood in too literal a way. Whether it\nwas or was not in Luke's recension of Q, its character and connection seem\nto indicate its presence in Matthew's recension of that document.\n\n\nTHE COMMANDMENT ABOUT DIVORCE\n\n(Mt v, 31)\n\nLike vss. 21, 27, 33, 38, and 43 of this same chapter, this verse quotes\nan Old Testament commandment, as introductory to the teaching of Jesus\nupon the subject of that command. Since much of the teaching of Jesus upon\nthese items is duplicated in Luke, but this quotation of the Old Testament\ncommandment is omitted by him each time, the quotation will be ascribed\neither to Matthew or his source. The fact that it is his source, and not\nthe final editor (who for convenience is all along here called Matthew),\nwho is responsible for the Judaistic coloring of the Gospel, the\nuniversalistic tendency being attributed to Matthew, inclines us to assign\nall these verses in quotation of the commandments to QMt.\n\n\nABOUT OATHS\n\n(Mt v, 33-37)\n\nThis passage has also a strong Judaistic coloring. It is reminiscent of Ps\nxlviii, 3. Most students assign it simply to Q. If it stood in Luke's\nrecension of that document, the same non-Jewish bias which is observable\nin many of his omissions of Marcan material would account for his omission\nof the saying. It is neither possible nor necessary to prove that these\nverses were not in Luke's recension. But considering their character and\ntheir context, it is much more likely that Matthew took them from his\nrecension of Q than from any other source known to us.\n\n\nTHE SECOND MILE\n\n(Mt v, 41)\n\nThis sounds like a secondary accretion. It adds little or nothing to the\nforce of the injunction, and rather interrupts the connection between vss.\n40 and 42. It may have been added by Matthew from some source of his own;\nbut more probably stood in Matthew's Q.\n\n\nANOTHER OLD TESTAMENT COMMANDMENT\n\n(Mt v, 43)\n\nIn this verse and the five others which quote the commandments, the word\n[Greek: errhethe] occurs; it is not used by Mark or Luke, and by Matthew is\nused only in these verses. So far as this may be said to throw any light\nupon the origin of these verses, it would indicate their presence in\nMatthew's recension of Q, rather than their invention or addition by\nMatthew.\n\n\nABOUT ALMS-GIVING\n\n(Mt vi, 1-4)\n\nDr. Robinson, in his _Study of the Gospels_,[104] maintains, quite\ncorrectly, that Matthew's chap. vi breaks the connection in his Sermon on\nthe Mount. If it is omitted, the connection is not only better, but is the\nsame as that of Luke's in his Sermon on the Plain. He also considers that\nMt vi, 7-15, breaks the connection between the verses that immediately\nprecede and immediately follow them. He therefore concludes that Mt vi,\n1-5, 16-18, at one time had a separate existence of its own. This is not\nimpossible. The disarrangement by the insertion of chap. vi is indeed\nobvious. Bacon, in his _Sermon on the Mount_, and Votaw, in his article\nunder the same title in Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_, bring out the\nsame composite character of the Sermon as Matthew has it. But much of this\nmaterial which Matthew has inserted in his Sermon on the Mount is\nduplicated word for word in other connections in Luke, and so is uniformly\naccredited to Q. This creates a presumption that the rest of this\ninterpolated material, especially where it is obviously homogeneous in\ncharacter with the Q material generally, was taken by Matthew from his\nrecension of Q. It is not contended that none of this material which\nMatthew has here inserted and which is nowhere duplicated in Luke was in\nLuke's recension; it is only contended that since Matthew's recension and\nLuke's recension are demonstrated to have been different from each other\nin certain passages, it is fair to press the argument from this difference\nto its reasonable limit, and assume that much if not most of this logian\nmatter peculiar to Matthew stood before him in his source. In the case of\nthe verses now before us, however, it seems extremely improbable that Luke\nwith his interest in alms-giving (see Lk xi, 41; xii, 33) should have\nfound them in his source and have omitted them.\n\n\nABOUT PRAYER\n\n(Mt vi, 5-8)\n\nThis sounds like a \"midrash\" on the Lord's Prayer. There are several\nMatthean words in the passage. [Greek: Misthos] is used ten times by\nMatthew as against once by Mark and thrice in Luke's Gospel. [Greek:\nBattalogeo] is found here only in the New Testament, and not in the\nSeptuagint. [Greek: Polylogia] is found here only in the New Testament.\n[Greek: Eisakouo] is an infrequent word in the New Testament, being used\nonly in this passage, in Luke's chap. i, once in Acts, and twice in the\nEpistles. [Greek: Apodidomi] is used eighteen times by Matthew; seven of\nthese uses are found in the section xviii, 25-34, and three in the\nunduplicated verses vi, 4, 6, 18. It is used once by Mark and eight times\nby Luke in his Gospel. These facts are hardly enough to establish any\nverdict as to the origin of the section now in question, tho they would\nrather look toward Matthew's derivation of it, with its corresponding\nsections vi, 1-4, and vi, 16-18, from some written source. Such being the\ncase, Matthew's recension of Q will certainly fit the requirements better\nthan any other known document.\n\n\nABOUT FASTING\n\n(Mt vi, 16-18)\n\nIf the Lord's Prayer, which Luke gives in another and better connection,\nbe omitted from Matthew's chap. vi, we shall have here three consecutive\nsections which have very striking literary resemblances; they are the\nsections on alms-giving, on prayer, and on fasting. That these should have\nfound no echo in the Gospel of Luke, if they stood in his source, is\nstrange; especially considering his peculiar interest in alms-giving and\nprayer. As to the literary affinities among these three sections, the use\nof [Greek: misthos], four times, has been noted. The phrase [Greek:\napechousin ton misthon auton] occurs three times; the longer phrase\n[Greek: en to krypto, kai ho pater sou ho blepon en to krypto apodosei\nsoi], three times.[105] Quite without these recurrences of the same\nformulae, the form and sentiment of the three sections are so markedly the\nsame as to suggest that they were originally consecutive, and that they\nhave been taken from one written source. No more probable source can be\nsuggested than QMt.\n\n\nPEARLS BEFORE SWINE\n\n(Mt vii, 6)\n\nSchmiedel has suggested that this fragment may \"indicate a time when the\neucharist had been so long celebrated as materially to influence the\ngeneral tradition of the doctrines of Jesus.\" A passage somewhat similar\nin tone is that occurring in the story of the Canaanitish woman: \"it is\nnot proper to take the bread of the children and give it to the dogs.\"\nMatthew takes this story from Mark; but, significantly, he has omitted one\nsentence of Mark's which tones down the Jewish particularism of the\npassage, \"let the children first be fed.\" He also inserts in that story\nthe sentence, not in Mark, \"I am not sent except to the lost sheep of the\nhouse of Israel,\" which corresponds somewhat closely with this statement\nconcerning the command of Jesus to his disciples, also peculiar to\nMatthew, \"Into the way of the nations do not go, and into a city of the\nSamaritans do not enter; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of\nIsrael.\" It is only fair to admit that these instances, in which Matthew\nheightens, once by insertion and once by omission, the Jewish coloring in\na story taken from Mark, tell against the theory generally advocated by\nthe writer, that the Judaistic features of Matthew's Gospel are referable\nto his source, and the universalistic features to Matthew himself. But, on\nthe other hand, this vs. 6 has no discernible connection in its present\ncontext, and no reason suggests itself for Matthew's insertion of it,\nexcept his desire to retain what was in his source. This source may have\nbeen a special one, perhaps even an oral one; but considering the\nJudaistic character of so many sayings attributed to Matthew's Q, that\nrecension would also fit this saying.\n\n\nTHE FALSE PROPHETS\n\n(Mt vii, 15)\n\nThe mention of \"the\" false prophets, as a class to be avoided, has a late\nsound. It is not found elsewhere in the Gospels except in the \"little\napocalypse\" and in Luke vi, 26. It is not necessarily as late as Matthew,\nand may fairly be assigned to his recension of Q.\n\n\nA SAYING ABOUT TREES\n\n(Mt vii, 19)\n\nIn an earlier place this saying is attributed by both Matthew and Luke to\nJohn the Baptist. In that earlier connection it evidently was taken from\nQ. It probably did not occur twice in that document, but was inserted here\nby Matthew from memory, being suggested naturally by the context. It\noffers no new Q material.\n\n\n\"BY THEIR FRUITS\"\n\n(Mt vii, 20)\n\nThis verse is a repetition, with the particle [Greek: arage] prefixed, of\nvs. 16. Vs. 18 is also a repetition in the form of a declarative sentence\nof what is said in vs. 17 in the form of a question. The whole speech is\nconsiderably longer than the corresponding speech in Lk vi, 43-44. These\nrepetitions and duplications suggest a good deal of re-working; but not\nthe sort of re-working that would be done by Matthew, whose tendency is to\ncondense instead of to expand. Vs. 20 may be a gloss, tho I am not aware\nof any manuscript authority against it. There is no new Q material here.\n\n\nAN OFT-REPEATED FORMULA\n\n(Mt vii, 28_a_)\n\nThis formula must be considered, as it is also found in five other places\nin Matthew (xi, 1; xiii, 53; xix, 1; xxvi, 1). The first six words of the\nformula are precisely alike in all five instances, [Greek: kai egeneto\nhote etelesen ho Iesous]. In two instances these words are followed by the\nwords [Greek: tous logous toutous]; in one instance by the words [Greek:\npantas tous logous toutous]; in another instance by the words [Greek: tas\nparabolas tautas]. In these four instances the formula not only follows a\ngroup of sayings, but is followed by a narrative section; and so\napparently marks the transition from one of Matthew's sources to another.\nIn the fifth instance, however, the closing words of the formula are\n[Greek: diatasson tois dodeka mathetais autou]; and in this instance the\nformula does not mark a transition from Q to Mark, but is followed as it\nis preceded by Q material. It is generally argued that since the formula\ndoes not occur in either Mark or Luke, and since the construction [Greek:\negeneto hote] does not occur in Matthew outside of these five passages,\nbut is found twenty-two times in Luke, the formula was each time taken by\nMatthew from his source. This source must have been Matthew's recension of\nQ, since the formula is always found with Q material. Considering\nMatthew's tendency to repeat himself, all that need be affirmed is that in\nat least one of the five instances Matthew did find the formula in Q. It\ncertainly could not have occurred five times, or even three or four times,\nin Luke's source, and have been each time omitted by him.\n\n\nTHE CONCLUSION OF THE STORY OF THE CENTURION'S SERVANT\n\n(Mt viii, 13)\n\nHarnack thinks this verse of Matthew's and the corresponding verse in Luke\n(Lk vii, 10) were not in Q, tho the rest of the story was. But the\ndeviation here is no greater than it is in the earlier part of the story,\nin the item of the messengers. Matthew has separated this conclusion of\nthe story from the body of it by his insertion of Jesus' saying, \"Many\nshall come from the east and west,\" which Luke gives in another context\n(Lk xiii, 28-29). Luke's conclusion evidently belongs with his version of\nthe story, for it contains the reference to the messengers who do not\nappear in Matthew's version. Some manuscripts give the conclusion to the\nstory in Matthew in words almost identical with Luke's. If this deviation\nin manuscripts suggests that the verse in Matthew may be a gloss, this\nsuggestion may be held to be strengthened by the assumption that if\nMatthew himself had inserted this concluding verse he would hardly have\ncut it off from the rest of the story by the saying \"Many shall come,\"\netc. Chiefly on the ground of the alternative reading in [Hebrew], and the\nease with which a gloss would be suggested to a scribe who had the Lucan\nnarrative also before him, the writer inclines to the opinion that the\nverse is a later addition.\n\n\n\"I WILL HAVE MERCY AND NOT SACRIFICE\"\n\n(Mt ix, 13)\n\nThere is a duplicate of this quotation in Mt xii, 7. In each instance\nMatthew has inserted the quotation into a Marcan narrative. Considering\nthe fact of this insertion in each case, and the absence of a duplicate in\nLuke, the verses may be ascribed to Matthew, perhaps upon the basis of an\noral tradition.\n\n\nTHE HEALING OF TWO BLIND MEN\n\n(Mt ix, 27-31)\n\nThere is a strong similarity between this story and the story of the\nhealing of two blind men near Jericho (Mt xx, 29-34). In the latter case\nMatthew substitutes the two men for Bartimaeus in the story of Mark and\nLuke. The source is apparently a special one, perhaps an oral tradition\ninfluenced by Mk x, 46-52.\n\n\nTHE HEALING OF A DUMB MAN\n\n(Mt ix, 32-34)\n\nVs. 34 is a doublet of Mt xii, 24; the latter is from Mk iii, 22, where\nMark also appears to be following Q. Perhaps ix, 27-34, has been inserted\nat just this place, in order to warrant the statement of Jesus to John the\nBaptist that \"the blind see and the deaf hear.\" It is hardly necessary to\nassign it to a special literary source.\n\n\nINSTRUCTIONS TO THE DISCIPLES\n\n(Mt x, 5-8)\n\nThese verses have a strong Judaistic coloring: \"Into a way of the Gentiles\ndo not go, and into a city of the Samaritans do not enter,\" etc. They also\nbetray the expectation of the early coming of the parousia. These two\nitems are inconsistent with the invention of these verses by Matthew. They\nmust have arisen long before Matthew's time. Yet they are imbedded in Q\nmaterial. No theory of their origin suits all these facts so well as that\nthey are a portion of the Q material which was added to that document\nafter its original compilation, and in the recension that was finally used\nby Matthew. It is interesting to observe that Matthew here makes Jesus\nteach his disciples (vs. 7) the same formula which he himself had learned\nfrom John the Baptist.\n\n\nFURTHER INSTRUCTIONS TO THE DISCIPLES\n\n(Mt x, 16_b_-25, 41-42)\n\nOf the chapter in which this section occurs Mr. Streeter says that Matthew\nbegins with Mark, adds some Q material parallel to Luke's Q material in\nthe same connection, then Q material unparalleled, then Q material\nparalleled in other connections in Luke, then material from a totally\ndifferent part of Mark.[106] The verses enumerated here are not paralleled\nin either Mark or Luke. They are not like the verses, for the most part,\nwhich Matthew and Luke agree in taking from Q; and they show marked\ndifference in some respects from those which we have thus far assigned to\nMatthew's recension of Q. In his _Apostolic Age_ Professor James Hardy\nRopes[107] suggests that at least one purpose of the collection of Jesus'\nsayings was \"to furnish a kind of handbook of missionary practice for\nthose times.\" These verses, better almost than any other section out of\nthe instructions to the disciples, answer this purpose. If they rest upon\nwords of Jesus spoken at the time he sent out his disciples, they are at\nleast colored by the needs of Christian missionaries who went out toward\nthe end of the apostolic age. They betray the conviction that the time of\nthe parousia is near. As coming from Jesus they contain a prediction so\nobviously unfulfilled as to make their later invention and ascription to\nhim very difficult. On the other hand no words ascribed to him would by\nthemselves more easily originate in the times of the early Christian\nmissions. Considering their position here, and giving due weight to\nProfessor Ropes's suggestion, it seems much more probable that they are\ntaken by Matthew from some written source than from an oral tradition. If\nso, no better source can be posited than Matthew's recension of Q.\n\n\nA SAYING ABOUT ELIJAH\n\n(Mt xi, 14)\n\nLike the reference to Elijah in Mk ix, 12, this verse sounds like a\nparenthesis. It adds nothing to the context, and rather interrupts than\nfurthers the matter. If not inserted by Matthew from some unknown,\nperhaps oral, source, it may perhaps best be considered as a gloss.\n\n\n\"HE THAT HATH EARS, LET HIM HEAR\"\n\n(Mt xi, 15)\n\nThis is a proverbial saying occurring seven times in the Gospels (eight\ntimes in the received text); three times in Matthew, twice each in Mark\nand Luke. It also occurs eight times in the Apocalypse. Each evangelist\nhas a form of his own, to which he adheres thruout. The saying sounds here\nas if it were intended to drive home what has just been said about Elijah,\nand may with propriety be assigned to the same hand as the preceding\nverse.\n\n\nTHE OCCASION OF PRONOUNCING WOES UPON THE GALILEAN CITIES\n\n(Mt xi, 20)\n\nThis verse is quoted here chiefly because it furnishes so excellent an\nillustration of the nature of the introductory formulae found in Matthew\nand Luke in conjunction with their Q material. Sometimes, as in the case\nof the Lord's Prayer, such an introduction is present in Luke and absent\nin Matthew. In the present instance Matthew alone has it. Yet few passages\nfrom Q disclose a closer verbal agreement with the corresponding passage\nin Luke than the passage to which this verse is an introduction. In all\nsuch instances as this the writer sees no difficulty in ascribing the\nintroductions to the evangelist in whose pages they are found.\n\n\nREASON ASSIGNED FOR THE PRONUNCIATION OF THE WOES\n\n(Mt xi, 23_b_-24)\n\nFollowing the woes, Matthew alone has this statement of the reasons for\ntheir being given. He has a doublet for vs. 24 in x, 15. As this latter\nis paralleled by Lk x, 12, it may in that context be assigned to Q; here\nit may be assigned either to Matthew or one of his early editors. There is\nat least no new Q material here.\n\n\n\"COME UNTO ME\"\n\n(Mt xi, 28-30)\n\nIt is impossible to suppose that this unusually fine utterance could have\nbeen in Luke's copy of Q and could have been omitted by him. Yet of the\nfive scholars quoted in Table II (pp. 110-11), Wellhausen alone attributes\nit to Q. The others all attribute the preceding section to Q, but stop at\nvs. 27, where the parallelism between Matthew and Luke breaks off. This is\nnecessary, of course, upon the assumption that nothing should be\nattributed to Q except what is thus paralleled. But if anything stood in\nMatthew's recension of Q that was not also in Luke's, certainly these\nverses stood there. Weiss's remarks concerning them indicate that he has\nno reason for assigning them, as he does, to a special source, except the\nfact that they do not appear in Luke. He says \"Since these words are not\nin Luke we have no right to refer them to Q. This is not to say that they\nare the work of Matthew; they have been taken from another source, oral or\nwritten.\"[108] It has been pointed out by Montefiore that these verses are\nlargely made up of quotations. \"The last bit of vs. 29 comes from Jer xi,\n7, and the rest is an adapted echo of Sirach li, 23 seq.\"[109] The\nparallel, however, as Montefiore also says, covers vss. 25-27 as well as\nthose now under consideration. Loisy[110] argues that the words cannot\nsafely be ascribed to Jesus, but adds, \"It may be readily admitted that\nthe evangelist found them in the collection of Logia.\"\n\n\nA SAYING ABOUT THE LAW\n\n(Mt xii, 5-7)\n\nThis saying occurs, not in the midst of Q material, but as an appendix to\na discussion which Matthew and Luke both take from Mark. The passage seems\nto be well attested textually. Considering its context, and its relation\nto the material immediately preceding, it seems natural to assign the\nverses either to Matthew himself or to some early editor, rather than to\nseek a special source for them or to attribute them to Matthew's Q. Vs. 7\nhas already been considered in connection with ix, 13. If the [Greek:\nanaitious] in this latter verse were singular instead of plural it would\ncertainly be taken as a reference to the condemnation and death of Jesus;\nindeed, it may naturally, tho not with so much assurance, be so taken as\nit stands.\n\n\nAN OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATION\n\n(Mt xii, 17-21)\n\nThis long quotation, occurring as it does in the midst of a Marcan\nnarrative, may be ascribed either to Matthew or one of his sources; but\nthere is no evidence that such quotations were part of Q.\n\n\n\"GENERATION OF VIPERS\"\n\n(Mt xii, 34_a_)\n\n[Greek: Gennemata echidnon] is used once by Matthew and Luke in common (Mt\niii, 7; Lk iii, 7) and twice by Matthew alone. The question in which it\noccurs here seems to render the statement in vss. 36-37 less justifiable.\nThe repetition, not only of the one phrase, but of the idea, in the\nsection might be taken to indicate that this half of a verse is an\naddition either by Matthew or by some later hand.\n\n\nA SAYING ABOUT THE JUDGMENT\n\n(Mt xii, 36-37)\n\nIf Matthew be credited with the insertion of vs. 34_a_, it is not unlikely\nthat he added these verses also, as a corrective of the impression that\nmight be drawn from the previous insertion. In character, however, the\nverses are similar enough to Q, and might be assigned to Matthew's\nrecension.\n\n\nAN INTERPRETATION OF THE SIGN OF JONAH\n\n(Mt xii, 40)\n\nThis verse occurs in a passage concerning the demand for a sign, which\nMatthew and Luke have evidently taken from Q. Luke's form of the saying\nabout Jonah is evidently the original one. Matthew's reference to the\nthree days spent by Jesus \"in the heart of the earth\" is _post eventum_,\nand even so cannot be early. It may perhaps be taken for a gloss, or it\nmay have been added by Matthew. It may equally well have been added by\nsome editor of Q before that document fell into Matthew's hands; there is\nnothing to determine, except that the strong resemblance, almost amounting\nto identity, between Matthew and Luke in the rest of the passage may\nproperly incline one toward the assumption of a late addition.\n\n\nTHE WEED IN THE FIELD\n\n(Mt xiii, 24-30)\n\nThis parable, tho it has a Q sound in the first verse, is too long for any\nrecension of that document. It is better assigned to a special source,\noral or written. The allegorical character of the parable, with its\nelaborate interpretation in vss. 36-43, seems to indicate its\ncomparatively late origin, and it may be based upon Mk iv, 26-29. At all\nevents it should not be ascribed to Q.\n\n\nTHE PARABLES OF THE TREASURE, THE PEARL, THE FISH-NET, AND THE SCRIBE\nINSTRUCTED IN THE KINGDOM\n\n(Mt xiii, 44-52)\n\nIn this chapter Matthew has eight parables.[111] The parables of the Sower\nand of the Mustard Seed he has taken from Mark. That of the Yeast he and\nLuke have taken from Q. That of the Weed in the Field has just been\nassigned to some special source. The four in vss. 44-52 we assign to\nMatthew's recension of Q. The grounds upon which this assignment is made\nare the following: the parables are extremely similar in form and content\nto those that admittedly come from Q, as the parable of the Yeast in this\nsame chapter. They are so brief as to come under the category of \"sayings\"\nrather than of \"parables\" in the ordinary sense. They are, with one\nexception, without allegorical or other interpretation. These facts\nestablish their general Q character. The parable of the Fish-Net, in vss.\n47-50, contains an allegorical interpretation. Vs. 50 also contains the\nphrase [Greek: ekei estai ho klauthmos kai ho brygmos ton odonton], which\nMatthew employs in five other connections. This phrase occurred at least\nonce in Q (Mt viii, 12; Lk xiii, 28).\n\nBut in spite of a tendency toward repetition which may be observed in\nMatthew, it seems hardly fair to charge him with having inserted the\nphrase in the other five places where it occurs. It seems strange also\nthat Matthew should record the parables of the Treasure, the Pearl, and\nthe Converted Scribe without interpretation, but should himself be\nresponsible for the interpretation of the parable of the Fish-Net. It is\nmuch more likely that he found the interpretation, with the parable, in\nhis source.\n\nIn these four parables obviously there are two items which most scholars\nwould agree in calling secondary: the allegorical interpretation of the\nparable of the Fish-Net, and the entire parable of the Converted Scribe.\nYet the parables of the Pearl and the Treasure are as primary as any\nutterances recorded of Jesus. The strong general similarity in form and\ncontent between these parables and those taken by Matthew and Luke from Q\nargues the probability of their presence in some form of that document.\nTheir absence from the Gospel of Luke indicates their absence from the\nrecension in his hands. And the presence in them of these secondary traits\nargues their addition to Q at some time after its original compilation.\nAll these considerations make the assignment of these four little parables\nto QMt in a high degree probable.\n\n\nPETER WALKING ON THE WATER\n\n(Mt xiv, 28-31)\n\nThe presence of so much narrative material in this section argues at once\nagainst its derivation from any form of Q. It belongs to a cycle of\nPeter-sayings preserved in Matthew alone. The source appears to have been\na special one, very probably oral.\n\n\n\"TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL\"\n\n(Mt xv, 22-24)\n\nThese verses are an insertion of Matthew's into the story of the\nSyrophoenician woman, which he has copied from Mark. It is worthy of note\nthat thruout the entire story the verbal agreement is much more slight\nthan is usual in narratives, especially such as contain sayings of Jesus,\ntaken by Matthew from Mark. Luke has no parallel. Considering the very\nslight proportion of narrative, and the great preponderance of\nsayings-material, in the section, it would not be strange if it stood in\nQ. If it stood in Luke's recension, the attitude of Jesus toward\nnon-Jewish peoples, as implied in the story, would be sufficient to\naccount for Luke's omission of it. The sentiment of vs. 24, in particular,\nis extremely \"primary.\" It could hardly have been invented and ascribed to\nJesus after his time. Mark's words, \"Let the children first be fed,\" tone\ndown the excessively Jewish particularism of Matthew's account; even aside\nfrom these words, which are absent from Matthew, Matthew's entire version\nof the incident is more primary than Mark's. This may be, and has been,\nexplained by saying that Mark's story has been worked over by an editor,\nsubsequent to Matthew's use of his Gospel. But since Mark and Q have been\nshown to coincide in a certain amount of material, a simpler explanation\nis that they coincided in this story of the Syrophoenician woman; the more\nprimitive character of Matthew's account is then explained by its\ndependence upon Q, which is older than Mark. It cannot be shown to have\nbeen absent from Luke's recension, and its presence there may be probable,\nbut cannot be demonstrated. It is therefore assigned--but with some\nhesitation--to QMt.\n\n\nA SUMMARY OF JESUS' HEALING WORK\n\n(Mt xv, 29-31)\n\nThis little summary, like that in Mt iv, 23-25, would naturally be\nascribed to Matthew. It might be regarded as a re-working of Mk vii, 31,\nand a substitute in general terms for the story which immediately follows\nthat verse in Mark.[112] The use by Matthew of such a phrase as [Greek:\nton theon Israel] would be explained by the fact that the cures are\nrepresented as being worked outside of Jewish territory. With this\nexplanation the verses may be ascribed to Matthew.\n\n\nTHE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN\n\n(Mt xvi, 17-19)\n\nThis is another Peter-section inserted in a story taken from Mark. Luke\nhas the story but not this insertion. The section apparently belongs to\nthe same cycle of Peter-stories with the incident of the walking on the\nwater, already considered. It should be ascribed to some special and\nundetermined source. The general character of this particular section\nwould indicate its very late origin.\n\n\nAN INSERTION IN THE STORY OF THE TRANSFIGURATION\n\n(Mt xvii, 6-7)\n\nNo special source, other at least than oral tradition, is necessary to\naccount for so slight an addition. Yet considering Matthew's general\ntendency to condense, rather than to expand, Mark's narratives, and the\nfaithfulness with which he has transcribed the rest of this narrative, it\nmay be easier to regard this insertion as a gloss.\n\n\n\"WHOSOEVER HUMBLES HIMSELF AS THIS LITTLE CHILD\"\n\n(Mt xviii, 4)\n\nThe verse immediately preceding this is found in Mark, but in another\ncontext, from where Matthew has evidently transposed it to this place.\nThis vs. 4 is found in Matthew alone. A variant of it is found in Mt\nxxiii, 12. This latter is closely similar to, but not identical with, the\nsaying twice given by Luke (Lk xiv, 11; xviii, 14). Considering his\ndislike for doublets, the fact that the saying occurs twice in Luke may\nnaturally be taken to indicate its presence in both Mark and Q. But the\nverse under consideration here can be at most but a reminiscence of the\nsaying which occurs twice in Luke and in Mt xxiii, 12. Considering the\nfact that Matthew is here obviously exercising his talent at combination,\nthe verse should probably be ascribed to his editorial hand.\n\n\nTHE UNFORGIVING SERVANT\n\n(Mt xviii, 23-35)\n\nIn spite of its reference to the kingdom of Heaven this parable is much\ntoo long for Q, and should be assigned to a special source.\n\n\nABOUT EUNUCHS\n\n(Mt xix, 10-12)\n\nThis saying is appended to a discussion taken from Mark. Considering its\nloose connection in the context, it is perhaps safer to assume that it has\nbeen added from some oral authority.\n\n\nTHE LABORERS IN THE VINEYARD\n\n(Mt xx, 1-16)\n\nThe parable is too long for Q, tho like the Q parables it has to do with\nthe kingdom of God. The last verse is an apparently proverbial saying, for\nwhich Matthew has a doublet in xix, 30, and Luke a variant in Lk xiii,\n30.\n\n\nTHE TWO SONS\n\n(Mt xxi, 28-32)\n\nLike the other matter in this vicinity peculiar to Matthew, and like the\nparables of this length thruout, this parable should be assigned to a\nspecial source.\n\n\nTHE WEDDING FEAST\n\n(Mt xxii, 1-14)\n\nJ. Weiss assigns this parable, with Lk xiv, 16-24, to Q. But upon the\nprinciple we have been following the parable is too long for Q. While it\nis evidently the same parable as that told in Lk xiv, 16-24, there is\nclearly no literary connection between Matthew and Luke here. Both\nWellhausen and Wernle assign it to Q; Harnack and Hawkins to a special\nsource. This instance brings up the question of what degree of literary\nsimilarity must be present in order to warrant the assumption of literary\nconnection. No words are identical here except such as had to be to enable\ntwo men to tell the same story.\n\n\nAGAINST THE PHARISEES\n\n(Mt xxiii, 2-3, 5, 8-10, 15-22)\n\nMatthew here conflates his Q material with his Marcan material. The matter\nis partially duplicated in Luke's chap. xi. The similarities and the\ndifferences between the Matthean and Lucan versions are precisely such\nfeatures as have led to the hypothesis of the two recensions. The verses\nshould be assigned to QMt.\n\n\nTHE PARABLES OF THE TEN VIRGINS, THE TALENTS, THE JUDGMENT\n\n(Mt xxv, 1-46)\n\nThe first two of these parables J. Weiss assigns to Q; presumably on the\nground that parallels for them are found in Luke's chaps. xii and xix.\nBut if Q be extended to include so many such long parables as these, it\nloses entirely its character as a collection of \"sayings.\" Moreover, the\nparallelism between Matthew's and Luke's versions of these two parables is\nextremely slight. The subject-matter is the same, but there is no\nindication of dependence upon a common written source. The parable of the\nJudgment is peculiar to Matthew. It seems better to assign all three of\nthese parables to a special source.\n\n\n\"TWELVE LEGIONS OF ANGELS\"\n\n(Mt xxvi, 52-54)\n\nThis is an insertion of Matthew's in the story which he has taken from\nMark. There is no indication of Q in it.\n\nWe have now gone over all the logian sections of Matthew unparalleled in\neither Mark or Luke. We have found some of these that ought, in our\njudgment, to be assigned to Matthew's recension of Q. This assignment\ncannot claim to be anything more than a suggestion; in many instances,\nhowever, it may reach a very high degree of probability; and we have tried\nto restrict it to such instances. By saying that a certain section should\nbe assigned to a \"special source,\" it is not meant that this is one and\nthe same source for all sections so assigned; but only that these sections\ncannot be assigned either to Matthew or to his recension of Q. In a few\ninstances I have ventured to suggest an oral rather than a written source.\nFurther comments will be made upon this analysis when a similar study has\nbeen made of the sections peculiar to the Gospel of Luke.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nQ IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF LUKE (QLK)\n\n\nThe single tradition of Luke will now be examined with reference to\npossible Q material unparalleled in Matthew. Narrative material will not\nbe considered. As Luke has omitted much more of Mark than Matthew has, and\nas he has a much larger amount of non-Marcan material which obviously\nbears no sign of having stood in any form of Q, it is natural to expect\nthe additions to our total of Q matter to be much less in the single\ntradition of Luke than of Matthew.\n\n\nTHE PREACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST\n\n(Lk iii, 10-14)\n\nThis section in Luke follows immediately the description of John's\npreaching which Luke and Matthew have taken from Q. It is a natural\nsupposition that it stood in Luke's Q, tho not in Matthew's, just as the\ndiscussion between Jesus and John at the baptism stood in Matthew's but\nnot in Luke's. But there is one thing which indicates either that it did\nnot so stand, or that it has been worked over by Luke in a manner peculiar\nto him. That is the presence of dialogue. If this dialogue appeared only\nin those sayings of Jesus that appear in Luke but not in Matthew, and that\nare of a character to have come from any form of Q, we should pick out\nthis item as a characteristic of the recension used by Luke. But dialogue\nis also a characteristic of many of the Lucan parables which could not\nunder any hypothesis be attributed to Q. In spite of its general\nresemblance to the Q matter just preceding, it seems best, therefore, to\nattribute this little section to some peculiar Lucan source.\n\n\nTHE INITIAL PREACHING OF JESUS IN NAZARETH\n\n(Lk iv, 16-30)\n\nThis is a complete re-working of Marcan material. In his _Synoptische\nTafeln zu den drei aelteren Evangelien_, J. Weiss attributes it to a\nspecial source. This assignment is correct, in the sense that there are\nsayings of Jesus in the section which Luke would certainly not\nmanufacture, and which he must therefore have derived from some source. At\nall events there is no Q material in the passage.\n\n\nTHE CALL OF PETER\n\n(Lk v, 1-11)\n\nThe same is to be said of this section as has just been said of iv, 16-30.\nIt is a re-working of Mk i, 16-20. The latter part of vs. 10 has an\nespecially genuine sound. [Greek: Zogron] occurs here only in the Gospels.\nThe dialogue characteristic of Luke appears here also. With the possible\nexception of the latter half of vs. 10, nothing in the section could be\nattributed to any form of Q.\n\n\nTHE WOES\n\n(Lk vi, 24-26)\n\nWe have here the alternatives of supposing that Luke invented these woes,\nthat he found them in some altogether different source and inserted them\nhere in the midst of his Q material, or that they stood, with the\nbeatitudes, in his recension of Q. Since the beatitudes themselves,\nwithout the woes, show such difference as to preclude Matthew's and Luke's\nhaving drawn them from an identical source, but since they seem, if\nanything, to have stood in Q, it seems natural to assign these woes of\nLuke's, as we have assigned the beatitudes peculiar to Matthew, to the\nrecension used by him. The sympathy shown in the Gospel of Luke for the\npoor has usually been referred to Luke himself. It may just as well have\nbeen a characteristic of one or more of his sources.\n\n\nTHE RECEPTION OF JOHN'S PREACHING\n\n(Lk vii, 29-30)\n\nThese two verses are inserted in the midst of Jesus' testimony to John the\nBaptist. They have the sound of a purely editorial insertion. On the other\nhand, if they were found elsewhere by Luke, his insertion of them in this\nplace is accounted for by his desire to explain Jesus' saying about John.\nA possible hint of a source is found in the presence of [Greek: dikaioo].\nThis verb is found in three other passages that are peculiar to Luke and\nthat are evidently not from QLk. If not from Luke himself, these verses\nare from some special source. But they are only what might be expected\nfrom Luke himself in the way of editorial comment.\n\n\nTHE SINNER IN SIMON'S HOUSE\n\n(Lk vii, 36-50)\n\nTho this narrative has considerable resemblance to that in Mk xiv, 3-9,\nand Mt xxvi, 6-13, the different placing of the story, and the differences\nin the story itself, far outweighing the resemblances, seem to indicate a\nspecial source for it. There is no reason to attribute it, or any saying\nin it, to Q.\n\n\nA WOULD-BE FOLLOWER OF JESUS\n\n(Lk ix, 60_b_-63)\n\nThis may either be attributed to Luke (or to some later scribe) as an\namplification of the incident just related by both Matthew and Luke from\nQ, or may be assumed to have stood in Luke's recension of Q. The two\nfacts, that such amplification would be quite unlike Luke, as his literary\nhabits are revealed to us in his treatment of Mark, and that the saying\nabout the man who has put his hand to the plow has an extremely original\nand genuine sound, lead us to the latter alternative.\n\n\nTHE RETURN OF THE SEVENTY\n\n(Lk x, 17-20)\n\nTho the existence and mission of a separate band of seventy disciples be\nattributed to Luke, he would certainly never have manufactured these\nsayings that are connected with their return. The sayings may indeed be\nascribed to a special source; and are so ascribed by those who allow\nnothing to Q except the paralleled material. But these sayings are\nextremely primary in character, especially vss. 18 and 20; and they are\nsimilar to much Q material. If in Luke's recension of Q the mission of the\ndisciples was a mission of seventy instead of twelve, Luke will be\nrelieved of the burden of personal responsibility for the creation of this\nmission of the seventy; he has then merely conflated the account of the\nmission of the seventy which he found in his recension of Q with the\nmission of the twelve which he found in Mark. It must be admitted that\nsuch conflation is contrary to Luke's habit. The alternatives to this\nhypothesis are, either that he invented the mission of the seventy\nhimself, or that he had before him three accounts of the sending out of\ndisciples, one by Mark and one in Q, and a third in some unknown source.\nThis lends probability to the ascription of these sayings to QLk.\n\n\nTHE GREAT COMMANDMENT\n\n(Lk x, 25-28)\n\nMark has a partial parallel to this section in Mk xii, 28-31, which\nMatthew takes from him (Mt xxii, 34-40). Luke's account is evidently not\nfrom Mark, however. Luke may have omitted the Marcan narrative because of\nthis parallel of it in his own Gospel. The logian material in the section\nis of a primary character; the implication that one might inherit eternal\nlife by merely keeping the commandments is not such as to have been later\ninvented, and sounds particularly strange in Luke's Gospel. No source is\nmore probable for it than QLk.\n\n\nTHE GOOD SAMARITAN\n\n(Lk x, 29-37)\n\nThis parable is entirely too long to be ascribed to any form of Q. Its\naffinities with others of the long parables peculiar to Luke is such as to\nindicate for all of them a special source.\n\n\nMARY AND MARTHA\n\n(Lk x, 38-42)\n\nMr. Streeter[113] suggests a reason why this incident may have been\nomitted by Matthew even if it stood in Q. But I can see no reason for\nassuming it to have stood in the latter source. It has great affinity with\nmuch other Lucan material which should not be assigned to Q, and is\napparently from a special source.\n\n\nTHE PARABLE OF THE FRIEND ON A JOURNEY\n\n(Lk xi, 5-8)\n\nThis parable is brief enough to have stood in Q. But it does not,\napparently, relate to the kingdom of God, as the undoubted Q parables do.\nIt is also similar in motive to other Lucan parables assigned to a special\nsource.\n\n\nTHE MOTHER OF JESUS PRAISED\n\n(Lk xi, 27-28)\n\nWellhausen considers this a variant of Lk viii, 19-21, which latter is\ntaken from Mark (iii, 31-35). The parallelism is not very close, to say\nthe least. While a case may be made out for the occurrence of this section\nin Q, as is apparently done by Mr. Streeter, it seems better to us to\nassign it to a special source of Luke's.\n\n\n\"IF THINE WHOLE BODY IS LIGHT\"\n\n(Lk xi, 36)\n\nIf this saying were genuine, it would naturally be assigned to QLk. But\nthe text is not well attested, and it is perhaps better to regard it as a\ngloss.\n\n\nTHE PARABLE OF THE FOOLISH RICH MAN\n\n(Lk xii, 13-21)\n\nWernle remarks concerning this section that anyone with a sense for\n_Herrenworte_ will recognize at once that vss. 15 and 21 are from Luke and\nnot from Jesus. Vs. 21 is omitted in some manuscripts. The parable is from\na special source.\n\n\nAN EXHORTATION TO WATCHFULNESS\n\n(Lk xii, 35-38)\n\nThis might almost be considered as a variant of Matthew's parable of the\nTen Virgins. It stands in close connection here with Q material. No more\nprobable source can be suggested for it than Luke's recension of Q.\n\n\n\"TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN\"\n\n(Lk xii, 47-48)\n\nThis section, consisting entirely of sayings, and occurring between two\nblocks of Q material, is almost universally ascribed to a special source,\nsimply because it is not paralleled in Matthew. But it is quite\nhomogeneous with Q. It is, indeed, unlikely that Matthew would have\nomitted it if it had stood in his recension of Q; but no better source can\nbe posited for it than QLk. Of fifteen occurrences of [Greek: dero] in the\nNew Testament, eight are found in Luke's Gospel and in Acts. The three\noccurrences in Acts are not indicative, as they are accounted for by the\nsubject-matter; the five in the Gospel are, except in this passage,\nparalleled in Matthew and Mark. While the word is therefore in a sense a\n\"Lucan\" word, there is nothing to indicate that it was not in the source\nLuke used.\n\n\n\"I CAME TO CAST FIRE UPON THE EARTH\"\n\n(Lk xii, 49-50)\n\nThese two verses have a very primary sound. The difficulty of them is much\nagainst their invention by Luke or anyone in his time. But if Luke derived\nthem from any written source, they are exactly such sayings as would have\nfound a place in his recension of Q.\n\n\nTHE GALILEANS SLAIN BY HEROD\n\n(Lk xiii, 1-5)\n\nThis saying was evidently spoken in Jerusalem, but Luke has placed it\nduring the journey thither. We may perhaps detect here the beginnings of a\nJerusalem tradition.\n\n\nTHE PARABLE OF THE FIG TREE\n\n(Lk xiii, 6-9)\n\nLike the preceding, the parable is given as part of the conversation on\nthe Samaritan journey. But it seems to be Luke's version of the story told\nby Mark of the cursing of the fig tree; and this latter Mark places in\nJerusalem. This may be taken as another hint of the origin of this section\nin a Jerusalem tradition.\n\n\n\"GO TELL THAT FOX\"\n\n(Lk xiii, 31-33)\n\nMr. Streeter[114] remarks of this section that it is so \"un-Lucan in its\nrough vigor that it is certainly original\"; in other words, that it\ncertainly stood in Luke's source. This source Mr. Streeter maintains is Q,\nnot only for this brief section, but for the solid block of Lk ix,\n51-xiii, 59 (with the possible exception of the two parables of the Good\nSamaritan, the Rich Fool, and perhaps the story of Martha). The passage,\nxiii, 1-17, he suggests may have been interpolated into Q before Q came to\nLuke.\n\nThe primary character of the section now under consideration cannot be\ndoubted. The fact that Luke has apparently left his Q material by itself,\ninstead of mingling it with his Marcan and other matter, would argue for\nMr. Streeter's position. Yet Luke has not altogether followed this general\nrule of his; and he has made some very notable transpositions of Marcan\nmaterial. This saying, also, is not quite like most of the sayings that\nare by common agreement to be ascribed to Q. It is neither a general rule\nof conduct, like the sayings in the Sermon on the Mount, nor has it to do\nwith the kingdom of God, like the brief parables of Q. If Luke inserted\nit from another source, his reason for inserting it in just this place may\nhave been the fact of its closing with the word \"Jerusalem.\" Yet the\nlament over Jerusalem which immediately follows is evidently wrongly\nplaced by Luke, in the midst of his Perean journey. We are inclined to\nassign these verses, tho with some uncertainty, to a special source. The\nwords were apparently spoken neither on the Perean journey (assuming such\na journey to have taken place) nor at its close in Jerusalem, but in\nGalilee.\n\n\nTHE HEALING OF THE DROPSICAL MAN\n\n(Lk xiv, 1-6)\n\nThe only saying in this section is that paralleled in Lk xiii, 15-16, and\nduplicated in Mt xii, 11. The incident is somewhat similar to that\nrecorded in Mk iii, 1-6; and it is noticeable that Matthew, in taking over\nthat incident from Mark, inserts in the midst of it this saying of Jesus\nabout the ox or ass falling into the pit on the Sabbath. If the saying\noccurred in Q, Matthew has thus taken it out of its original context and\nmade it a part of a Marcan story; but he would hardly have done this if it\nalready, in his copy of Q, constituted part of another and equally good\nstory. In view of the general character of Q as a collection of \"sayings,\"\nwith as little mixture of incident as possible, it seems better to say\nthat this saying about the ox or ass falling into the pit occurred once in\nQ, unconnected, and that Luke found it again in the story before us, in\nsome other source.\n\n\nABOUT TAKING THE LESS HONORABLE SEATS AT TABLE\n\n(Lk xiv, 7-11)\n\nThis saying may have been manufactured upon the basis of Mk xii, 39 (\"they\nlove the chief seats at feasts,\" etc). Vs. 11 is the oft-repeated formula\ndiscussed on p. 182. While this and the following section are not\nimpossible for QLk, it seems better to assign them both to one of Luke's\nspecial sources.\n\n\nWHOM TO INVITE TO A FEAST\n\n(Lk xiv, 12-14)\n\nThis saying of Jesus seems out of place at a dinner to which he had been\ninvited. The saying itself is not unlike Q. Observing that this saying and\nthe two just preceding are placed by Luke at feasts given for Jesus, but\nthat they contain sayings of Jesus either placed elsewhere by Matthew or\nnot given by him at all, Mr. Streeter is inclined to assign the setting of\nthese sayings in each case to Luke, and the sayings to Q. This would seem\nmore justifiable if it were not plain that Luke had, besides his recension\nof Q and Mark, at least two or three other sources. One cannot be\ncategorical on such a matter, and it is possible that this section with\nthe two preceding should be assigned to QLk.\n\n\nTHE PARABLE OF THE DINNER AND THE INVITED GUESTS\n\n(Lk xiv, 15-24)\n\nThis parable is generally regarded as parallel to Mt xxii, 1-10, and the\ntwo are assigned to Q. But while the two evangelists are evidently\nrelating the same parable, there is so little verbal resemblance as to\ngive no proof of a common literary source. Upon the assumption of such a\nsource, the violence done to it by Matthew or Luke or both in its\ntranscription is quite beyond belief. If the parable in either Gospel is\nassigned to Q, the one in the other should be otherwise assigned. It seems\nbetter to ascribe both of them to special sources. The two versions are\nabout as unlike as they could well be, and still be versions of the same\nparable.\n\n\nCONDITIONS OF DISCIPLESHIP\n\n(Lk xiv, 28-35)\n\nHere are four detached sayings, the first two similar in meaning. Vs. 28\nsounds like a genuine logion, with vss. 29 and 30 added as an explanatory\ncomment. The same may be said, respectively, of vss. 31 and 32. Vs. 33,\ntho beginning with [Greek: houtos], does not seem to fit in this place.\nVs. 34_a_ is from Mark (ix, 50) or influenced by it. Considering the\nconnections, it is probably best to assign the passage to QLk, with\nimprovements by Luke.\n\n\nTHE LOST SHEEP\n\n(Lk xv, 1-7)\n\nMr. Streeter suggests that Luke may have elaborated this parable out of\nthe saying in Mt xviii, 12-13. Johannes Weiss, as indicated in his\n_Synoptische Tafeln zu den drei aelteren Evangelien_, seems also to\nconsider that while the parable as a whole is drawn from one of Luke's\npeculiar sources, there is a literary connection between vss. 4-7 and\nMatthew's saying. Considering the connection of the parable with the two\nthat immediately follow, it seems better to assign all three to a common\nLucan source.\n\n\nTHE LOST COIN AND THE PRODIGAL SON\n\n(Lk xv, 8-32)\n\nThese parables may be assigned without comment to one of Luke's special\nsources.\n\n\nTHE UNJUST STEWARD\n\n(Lk xvi, 1-12)\n\nThe composite character of this parable has been asserted by various\nwriters. Schmiedel[115] suggests that vss. 10-12 have been added by a\nlater hand. If the parable stops with vs. 9, the meaning of it apparently\nis that one should give mammon away; the two following verses seem merely\nto inculcate honesty in business matters. Indeed, perhaps the parable\nshould be considered as ending with vs. 7, and vs. 8 as probably an\neditorial comment upon it. In the latter case, the [Greek: ho kyrios] of\nvs. 8 refers to Jesus. This supposition requires the further one that the\nwriter of vs. 9 has forgotten that vs. 8 is indirect discourse attributed\nto Jesus. Vs. 13 is from Q and is duplicated in Mt vi, 24. But there is no\nnew Q material here.\n\n\nA CRITICISM OF THE PHARISEES\n\n(Lk xvi, 14-15)\n\nThe verses which immediately follow these are from Q. Streeter[116]\ninclines to assign vss. 14-15 to the same source. But if vss. 16-18 be\nomitted here and placed in some other connection, vss. 14-15 constitute an\nexcellent introduction to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus which\nfollows in vss. 19-31. In favor of Mr. Streeter's assignment is the fact\nthat Q was apparently a collection of sayings neither topically nor\notherwise arranged, and that the four sayings in vss. 15-18 are thus\ndetached, Matthew having taken the three in vss. 16-18 and \"worked them\ninto appropriate contexts.\" Of vss. 14 and 15 about all that can be said\nis that the latter sounds like Q. Considering Matthew's fondness for\neverything that reflects upon the Pharisees, it seems likely that if vs.\n15 stood in any form of Q it was in Luke's recension only.\n\n\nTHE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS\n\n(Lk xvi, 19-31)\n\nThis parable seems to show something of the same composite character as is\nfound in that of the Unjust Steward, the first part having to do with rich\nand poor and the second part with believing and unbelieving. There is no Q\nmaterial in it.\n\n\n\"UNPROFITABLE SERVANTS\" AND THE HEALING OF THE TEN LEPERS\n\n(Lk xvii, 7-10; xvii, 11-19)\n\nThe former of these two sections might conceivably have stood in Luke's\nrecension of Q; the latter not in any recension. It is better to assign\nthem both to a special source.\n\n\nABOUT THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD\n\n(Lk xvii, 20-21)\n\nThis little section certainly has a Q sound. If it stood in Matthew's\nrecension, reasons may easily be given for his omission of it; he would\nnot have understood the non-apocalyptic statement, \"the kingdom of God is\nwithin [or among] you.\" But it cannot be proved, at least, that the\nsection stood in Matthew's Q; therefore if it is assigned to Q at all it\nwould better be assigned merely to Luke's recension.\n\nLater than this in the Gospel of Luke there is nothing that needs to be\nexamined for possible Q material. His single tradition from here on\nincludes the parables of the Unjust Judge, and the Pharisee and the\nPublican in the Temple, the story of Zacchaeus, the lament over Jerusalem,\nthe institution of the Lord's Supper, and a few sections in the story of\nthe trial, the death, and the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Of these\nonly one, the lament over Jerusalem, bears any resemblance to the Q\nmaterial in general. Professor Burkitt suggests, indeed, that xxii, 15-16,\n24-32, and 35-38, may be remnants of Q's account of the passion. We have\nseen no reason to suppose that there was such an account in Q. If there\nwas, there are no signs by which it can be identified in this portion of\nLuke's narrative. It is better to assign all this material to a special\nsource. The fact that Luke has no resurrection appearances in Galilee may\nperhaps be taken as confirmation of our hypothesis of a Jerusalem source\nin his hands.\n\n\nMATTER PECULIAR TO MATTHEW OR TO LUKE\n\nIn the determination of Q material in the single traditions of Matthew and\nLuke on pp. 166-206, the writer has ventured occasionally to suggest a\npossible source for such material as is not assigned to any form of Q.\n\nIn addition to the sayings-material considered on pp. 166-92, Matthew has\nin his single tradition the following narratives: the birth and infancy\nsections, chaps. i, ii; the temple tax, xvii, 24-27; the children in the\ntemple, xxi, 14-16; the death of Judas, xxvii, 3-10; the wife of Pilate,\nand Pilate and the crowd, xxvii, 19, 24-25; miracles at the death of\nJesus, xxvii, 51-53; the watch at the grave, xxvii, 62-66; xxviii, 11-15;\nthe angel rolling away the stone, xxviii, 2-3; the appearances of Jesus to\nthe women, xxviii, 9-10; to the disciples, xxviii, 16-20.\n\nIn addition to the sayings and parables of the single tradition of Luke,\nconsidered on pp. 193-206, that tradition contains the following\nnarratives: the birth of John the Baptist, the birth and infancy of Jesus,\nwith the ancestry, chaps. i, ii, iii, 1-38; the miraculous draft of\nfishes, v, 4-9; the raising of the widow's son, vii, 11-17; the\nministering women, viii, 1-3; an event in a Samaritan village, ix, 51-56;\nthe healing of the woman, xiii, 10-17;[117] the ten lepers, xvii, 11-19;\nZacchaeus, xix, 2-10; the trial before Herod, xxiii, 6-12; the thief on\nthe cross, xxiii, 39-43; the walk to Emmaus, xxiv, 13-35; the appearances\nof the risen Jesus, xxiv, 36-53.\n\nMatthew's peculiar material is scattered thru his entire Gospel. He begins\nand ends with it. After he reaches the Passion, his peculiar material\nbecomes unusually abundant. In the twenty-three chapters between the\ninfancy and the passion, he has only seventeen insertions of peculiar\nmaterial. In the three chapters that follow, he has nine. These latter are\nof a different sort. In the earlier part of his single tradition, sayings\nand parables predominate; here, except for the saying about the legion of\nangels, the peculiar material is all narrative.\n\nLuke has likewise distributed his peculiar material thruout his gospel,\nand also begins and ends with it. But after his stories of the birth and\nchildhood, he has, up to his chap. ix, five insertions of peculiar matter.\nFour of these are incidents, one is a speech of John the Baptist. With ix,\n51, begins his great interpolation. In the less than ten chapters covered\nby this he has grouped twenty-five sections of his peculiar material. This\nmatter has a prevailing character of its own. There are four narratives in\nit, three of them being healings. The other twenty-one sections consist of\nsayings and parables. If we consider the relative length of the sayings,\nthe narratives, and parables of this section, we shall see that the whole\nis practically a parable section. With the coming of Jesus to Jerusalem,\nthis material stops. From here on Luke has two brief sayings and one\nlonger one, five sections of narrative, and no parable, in his single\ntradition.\n\nWhether the source of Matthew's peculiar material was one or more than\none, it suggests itself at once that the birth and infancy stories may\nhave come from a place by themselves. They have, to a considerable extent,\na vocabulary of their own. Constituting about one twenty-second of the\ntotal matter of Matthew's Gospel, they contain almost one-tenth of the\noccurrences of the characteristic words of that Gospel.[118] Even if the\nconstantly recurring [Greek: gennao] of the genealogy be removed, the\npeculiar words occur with much more frequency in this birth and infancy\nsection than in the rest of the Gospel. The force of this fact, however,\nis considerably weakened by the peculiar subject-matter of these chapters.\n\nMore decisive upon this matter is the general character of the birth and\ninfancy sections, which is sharply distinguished from that of the body of\nthe Gospel. This is not due to the presence of the marvelous in these\nearly chapters, since that is found to some degree throughout, but to the\npresence of what may be more distinctly called the legendary element. In\nthis characteristic it is like some of the material at the end of\nMatthew's Gospel. Let one compare the general character of the stories of\nthe star and the magi, the slaughter of the innocents, and the flight into\nEgypt with the story of the opening of the graves and the awakening of the\ndeparted dead, and the angel rolling away the stone from the grave, and\nthe question will suggest itself, whether Matthew may not have obtained\nall these stories from one source.\n\nThis suggestion might appear to be seconded by the fact that this\nmaterial, which has such a striking family resemblance, is not scattered\nthru the body of Matthew's work, but occurs, part of it before he has\nreached his junction with Mark and Luke, and the rest of it after he has\nparted from them. He not only begins and ends alone, but he begins and\nends with material of a remarkably similar character. This is not enough,\nof course, to prove the unity of Matthew's source for the first and last\nparts of his single tradition; but it is enough to suggest it.\n\nAs to the source of the rest of Matthew's peculiar material, we cannot get\nbeyond guesswork. Some of it has an extremely genuine sound; for example,\nthe sayings appended to the Sabbath discussion, \"The priests break the\nsabbath in the temple and are blameless,\" etc. (xii, 5-6); the saying\nabout the angels of the little ones (xviii, 10); the parable of the\nFish-Net, preserving so well the eschatological features of the preaching\nof Jesus (xiii, 47-50); the parable of the Two Sons (xxi, 28-31). The\nincident of the temple tax (xvii, 24-27) seems to go back for its origin\nto a time when the temple was still in existence, and, when it is relieved\nof the item of the coin in the fish's mouth (which may easily be a later\naddition to the story), seems to bear traces of undoubted genuineness.\n\nThe parable of the Laborers who received every man a penny (Mt xx, 1-16)\nseems likewise to indicate a time considerably later than that of Jesus; a\ntime, namely, when those who had long waited for the parousia were asking\nwhether those who had come in at the eleventh hour were to receive the\nrewards of the coming kingdom exactly as those who had \"borne the burden\nand the heat of the day.\" That it was in such a time as this that Matthew\nwrote his Gospel may suggest the hypothesis that he has here worked over\nsome genuine saying of Jesus, or received such a saying as it had been\nworked over by the waiting community, to suit the need of the times.\n\nIn much the same manner the story of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (XXV,\n1-13) seems to come from a period when the church was commonly spoken of\nas the bride of Christ, or when Christ was awaited as the coming\nbridegroom of the church; this is not necessarily later than the times of\nPaul's letter to the Ephesians, and so may be much earlier than Matthew,\nbut is certainly later than the time of Jesus.\n\nThe saying about eunuchs who have made themselves such for the kingdom of\nheaven has a harsh sound in the mouth of Jesus; and we wonder whether the\ncircumstances of the expectation of the kingdom warranted such a statement\nat the time Jesus is said to have made it. We cannot but notice also, as\nWernle has remarked, that the saying seems to be displaced in Matthew,\ncoming in with extreme inappropriateness between Jesus' insistence upon\nthe sacredness of marriage and his blessing of the children. It may\nbespeak the period of developing asceticism within the church. If it is\nnot to be assigned to Jesus we cannot fix very closely the date of its\norigin.\n\nOn the whole, we must probably say that some parts of Matthew's tradition,\noutside of his infancy section and the stories of the wonders at the\ncrucifixion, show indications of antiquity and genuineness, while others\narouse our suspicions as to their coming from Jesus, or even from Matthew.\n\n\nMATTER PECULIAR TO LUKE\n\nAs to whether the source of Luke's single tradition was one or many the\nstatement in his prologue predisposes us toward the latter supposition.\nThe difference between the infancy sections and the rest of Luke's\npeculiar material, as in the case of Matthew, is marked. Hawkins reckons\none hundred and fifty-one words as characteristic of Luke. Of these,\nseventy-seven, or more than half, occur once or more in the first two\nchapters, while seventy-four of them are absent from these chapters. These\nfirst two chapters contain about one hundred and thirty-two verses, about\none-ninth of the whole Gospel; yet one-half of the occurrences of Luke's\npeculiar words are found here.\n\nA strong Hebraic character is observable in Luke's infancy sections, quite\nabsent from his other peculiar material. In the twenty-one verses in i,\n5-25, [Greek: kai] is used many times where Luke's habit elsewhere would\nlead us to expect the substitution of [Greek: de]. There are also many\nHebraic phrases, such as [Greek: poreuomenoi en pasais tais entolais,\nprobebekotes en tais hemerais, megas enopion kyriou], and the construction\n[Greek: egeneto], thrice used, as the formula introducing a paragraph.\nLuke's own hand may be seen in the introduction of [Greek: de] three\ntimes. One of these is in connection with [Greek: eipen], which is\nprobably Luke's substitute for the historic present. The retention of so\nmany Hebraistic and non-Lucan features probably justifies Juelicher's\nsuggestion of a special (Hebraistic, Aramaic) written source for these\ninfancy sections. A written and not an oral source is also indicated in\nLuke's table of ancestors,[119] especially in its awkward placing after\nthe baptism. It is quite impossible that Luke is here drawing upon the\nsame source as in his great interpolation. Even more decisive in this\ndirection than the vocabulary is the general character of the material.\n\nSanday is \"especially glad to see the stress that is laid [in certain\nother essays in the same volume] on the homogeneity of the peculiar matter\nof Luke.\"[120] He does not expressly say that he includes here the infancy\nsections, or whether he refers merely to the great interpolation; in the\nabsence of such a statement, it may be fair to assume the former. He adds,\n\"I fully believe, myself, in its Jewish-Christian and Palestinian origin.\"\nBut when he adds further, \"I can altogether go along with the view that\nSt. Luke probably collected this material during his two years' stay at\nCaesarea (Acts xxiv compared with xxi and xxvii, 1); I could even quite\nbelieve with Harnack, Mr. Streeter, and Dr. Bartlet that his chief\ninformants were Philip the evangelist and his four daughters,\" he is open\nto the suspicion of being too much influenced by a desire to trace the\ntradition back to a definite and authentic source, even where the data do\nnot warrant it. There is certainly no justification for referring the\ninfancy stories to Philip and his four daughters (and perhaps, as\nsuggested above, Dr. Sanday does not mean to do this).\n\nDr. Sanday further agrees with Dr. Bartlet \"that the information derived\nin this way probably lay before St. Luke in writing. The interval between\nhis stay in Caesarea and the publication of his Gospel could hardly have\nbeen less than some fifteen years and I doubt if the freshness, precision,\nand individual touches which characterize St. Luke could well have been\npreserved otherwise than by writing.\" If Dr. Sanday means that the writing\nwas done by Luke during his stay in Caesarea, from oral tradition given\nhim by Philip and his daughters, we are left with the assumption that Luke\nkept this written material of his own for fifteen years (probably a good\ndeal longer) before he incorporated it in his Gospel. This would agree\nwell with the theory that Luke, as the traveling companion of Paul, kept a\ndiary of events, which he preserved for a still longer period, until he\nfinally incorporated it in his Book of Acts. Both these assumptions are\nstrange upon the face of them; and for those who do not accept the same\nauthorship for the \"we sections\" and the rest of Acts (as the present\nwriter does not), and who also think the Gospel of Luke was not written\ntill considerably more than fifteen years from the time of Luke's stay in\nCaesarea, and who do not identify the author of the Third Gospel with the\ntraveling companion of Paul, Dr. Sanday's statement will not appear\nconclusive.\n\nOutside of Luke's infancy sections (and the passion sections which will be\nconsidered in a succeeding paragraph) there is an apparent homogeneity in\nmuch of Luke's single tradition. Luke and Matthew start out in their\nattempt to tell the gospel story, each on his own independent line. They\ncome together at the point where Mark has begun his story. Except for a\nfew insertions and transpositions they stay together and with Mark up to\nLk ix, 51. Here Luke inserts something more than nine chapters before he\ngets back again to Matthew and Mark.\n\nIn these more than nine chapters there are some sections which Matthew has\nin the earlier part of his Gospel, and little which Mark has;[121] but in\nthese nine chapters Luke inserts most of the material peculiar to himself,\nand by far the greater part of the nine chapters is made up exclusively\nof such material. From the end of Luke's infancy section to his great\ninterpolation there are about one hundred and fourteen verses of\nexclusively Lucan material, but in this interpolation there are about one\nhundred and seventy verses. The suggestion of these facts, to the effect\nthat Luke is here employing a source distinct from that which he has used\nin his infancy section, and that he is for the most part employing one\nsource and not several, may be further favored by the fact that when he\ncomes back to the story told in Mark (and Matthew) he takes that up, not\nwhere he left it, at Mk vi, 41, but at viii, 27; as if he had found it\ninconvenient to make his peculiar source here work in with the common\ntradition.[122]\n\n\nDID LUKE'S GREAT INTERPOLATION ORIGINALLY EXIST AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENTARY\nSOURCE?\n\nThe material of Luke's \"great interpolation,\" after the comparatively\nsmall amount of matter common to Luke and Matthew is subtracted from it,\nhas a decided homogeneity of its own. It consists of nine sayings, one\nincident (the occurrence in the Samaritan village) which might with almost\nequal propriety be reckoned as a saying, three healings, all of which have\nthe appearance of being introduced, not for the sake of the cure, but of\nthe appended saying, and thirteen parables.\n\nThese thirteen parables have not only a striking similarity among\nthemselves, but an equally striking _dis_similarity to those parables\nwhich Luke has in common with one or both of the other evangelists.\nMatthew's parables are usually brief sayings, beginning with the phrase,\n\"The kingdom of heaven is like,\" etc. The parables peculiar to Luke (there\nare fourteen in all and thirteen of them occur in this section) are\nstories rather than parables in the strict sense. Some of them are\nintroduced by the brief formula, \"And he said unto them,\" or \"And he said\nto his disciples,\" etc. Others are given a more definite setting, like the\nstory of the Good Samaritan, which is introduced as an answer to the\nquestion \"Who is my neighbor?\" However introduced, they usually contain a\nmore or less elaborated conclusion, easily distinguished from the parable\nproper. Thus in the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asks the lawyer\nwhich of the three men he considers to have been neighbor to him who fell\namong the thieves. The lawyer makes his reply, and upon the basis of it\nJesus dismisses him with a word of pointed advice. In the same manner the\nstory of the Rich Fool is introduced as a rebuke to the man who asks Jesus\nto help him secure his portion of an estate, and closes with the\nreflection that whoever has the riches of this world but is not \"rich\ntoward God\" is like this man. So the stories of the Lost Sheep and the\nLost Coin are introduced with the statement that the Pharisees objected to\nJesus' eating with \"sinners,\" and close with the statement, \"Likewise\nthere is joy in the presence of the angels of God,\"[123] etc.\n\nAt least one or two of these parables seem to be provided with more than\none conclusion. The story of the Unjust Judge (xviii, 1-8) is introduced\nin vs. 1 as being spoken concerning the necessity of continued prayer. The\nstory or parable itself then follows in vss. 2-5. Vss. 6-8_a_ give the\nconclusion in the words of Jesus, beginning with the words, \"And the Lord\nsaid.\" Then Luke himself, in vs. 8_b_, adds, \"But, when the Son of man\ncometh will he find the faith in the earth?\"[124] The story of the Rich\nMan and Lazarus is introduced as a rebuke to the Pharisees (Lk xvi,\n14-15), who loved riches and thot well of themselves. The parable as thus\nintroduced and as answering to this purpose appropriately closes at vs.\n25, where Abraham reminds the rich man that he had his good things and\nLazarus his poverty upon the earth, but now their situations are\nreversed.[125] What follows in vss. 27-31, tho here given as a\ncontinuation of the same story, has nothing to do with the contrast\nbetween rich and poor, or with heartlessness and pity, but only with\nbelief and unbelief.\n\nIt may be observed also that the insertion of here and there a few verses\nthat are elsewhere paralleled in Matthew interrupts the otherwise good\nconnection of Luke's peculiar account. Thus the story of the Rich Man and\nLazarus is introduced, as just remarked, as a rebuke to the Pharisees, who\nloved money and \"justified themselves in the sight of men.\" If it were\nallowed to follow immediately upon this, the setting would be appropriate.\nBut between this introduction, which is peculiar to Luke, and the story\nitself, also peculiar to him, there are inserted three verses (xvi, 16-18)\nin regard to law and divorce, which quite break the connection. These\ninterrupting verses, however, are not peculiar to Luke, but are found in\nMatthew also.\n\nWhen all these facts are taken into account it is not surprising that the\nhypothesis has risen that the great interpolation, exclusive of the Q\nmaterial contained in it, came from a special source.\n\nBut the unity of this source is much harder to demonstrate than is the\nunity of Q. A considerable amount of the material, aside from the Q\nmaterial, in these sections is more or less closely duplicated by Matthew,\nand the Perean source or its equivalent in parts must therefore have been\nused by him also. Matthew's demonstrated faithfulness to his sources\nraises serious doubt as to whether he could have known this Perean source\nand have omitted so much of it. The assumption that he did so, and the\nassignment of the double tradition thruout this portion of Luke, would\nrequire also an entire rearrangement of Q. Burton accepts this\nrequirement, and, instead of Q, goes back to the Logia as a special source\nof Matthew. The fact that some of this material in the so-called Perean\nsection of Luke may easily be assigned to his own invention, and that in\nthe larger part of it where he is not duplicated by Matthew his own hand\ncan be clearly seen in additions and rearrangements, would seem to tell\nagainst the unity of the Perean source, or against the assumption of any\nPerean source properly so called, and common to Matthew and Luke. On the\nwhole the hypothesis of a Perean source does not seem to the writer to\nhave been substantiated.\n\n\nOTHER POSSIBLE SOURCES FOR MATERIAL PECULIAR TO LUKE\n\nSuggestion has been made in connection with a few of the passages\nconsidered on pp. 193-206 as to a possible Jerusalem source. Nothing can\nperhaps be said in support of such a hypothesis, except what is suggested\nin the analysis on those pages and lies upon the surface of the passages.\nAnother possible clew to the determination of one of Luke's sources lies\nin the material that has to do particularly with women. Compare the\nraising of the widow's son and the speech of Jesus referring to the Old\nTestament widow; the ministering women, Mary and Martha, and the speech of\nthe woman about the mother of Jesus. The writer does not consider this (or\nthe preceding) to be anything more than a suggestion.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS REGARDING Q MATERIAL IN THE SINGLE TRADITIONS OF MATTHEW AND\nLUKE\n\nThe preceding investigations represent the recension of Q used by Matthew\nas containing about two hundred and sixty-seven verses, or parts of\nverses. Of these ninety-eight are so closely parallel to Luke as to be\nmarked simply Q. Eighty-nine, paralleled in Luke, but with divergences\nsuch as to indicate a different wording in the source that lay before\nMatthew and Luke and eighty without any parallels in Luke, are assigned to\nQMt. The recension of Q used by Luke, according to our analysis, contained\nabout two hundred and thirty-eight verses or parts of verses. Of these,\nninety-four are closely enough paralleled in Matthew to be assigned simply\nto Q; eighty-one are paralleled in Matthew, but with such differences as\nto suggest different wording in the source; and sixty-three are peculiar\nto Luke.\n\nIt is not to be assumed that all of Q is reproduced in either Matthew or\nLuke. But from the treatment accorded to Mark by Matthew and Luke,\nrespectively, it is to be expected that Matthew would omit less of the Q\nmaterial that lay before him than would Luke; and this presumption is\nconfirmed by the results obtained. The examination of Luke's material\nindicates his command of a larger number of sources aside from Mark and Q\nthan are apparent in Matthew, and this again agrees with Luke's statement\nin his preface. Luke's Gospel is longer than Matthew's, and approaches the\nlimit apparently convenient in ancient documents.[126] This fact, together\nwith the greater amount of material he wished to incorporate from other\nsources, would further account for Luke's greater omissions from his Q.\nYet there is nothing to prove that Luke's Q, as it was certainly different\nin some of its contents, was not also briefer than Matthew's.\n\nIt is possible to limit Q strictly to the sections of Matthew and Luke in\nwhich the correspondences are extremely close, to leave the remainder of\ntheir double tradition to unidentified sources, and to make no claims for\nQ (QMt and QLk) in the single traditions of Matthew and Luke. This indeed\nis the procedure of most scholars. But it has the disadvantages of\nignoring much material in the single traditions which is extremely similar\nto the Q material and often stands, in one or both Gospels, in closest\nconnection with it, and of leaving without explanation the material which\nis nearly enough alike to require some common basis but not near enough\nalike to indicate the use of the same recension of the same document. The\nassumption of QMt and QLk, going back to two different translations, from\ndifferent copies of the Aramaic original, and undergoing the process of\nalteration and accretion in different surroundings before falling into the\nhands of Matthew and Luke, best accounts for the agreements, the\ndivergences, and the peculiar but strongly similar material.\n\nThus far we may claim that the facts of two hundred and sixty-seven verses\nin one source against two hundred and thirty-eight in the other,\nninety-eight in one extremely close in wording (with many verses\nabsolutely identical) to ninety-four in the other, and eighty verses in\none against sixty-three in the other, unduplicated, but strongly\nsuggesting by form and content their relationship with the rest, do not\nthrow any discredit upon the assumption of two recensions (translations)\nof one document, but are what would be expected. If the date for the\noriginal Q is to be set as early as the year 60, or even earlier, and its\nuse by Matthew and Luke be put as late as 85 to 95, the divergences\nbetween Matthew's and Luke's recensions will be further justified.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nREVIEW OF Q MATERIAL IN MATTHEW, LUKE, AND MARK\n\n\nThe accompanying tables of contents of Q material in Matthew, Luke, and\nMark are prepared to facilitate comparison between the evangelists as to\nthe amount and character of their Q material. They will help to determine\nwhether QMT and QLK have enough in common, and of such a sort, as to\nentitle them still to be regarded as recensions of the same original. They\nwill also help us toward a determination of the original order of Q. The\ndivision into sections is a somewhat arbitrary one, but has been made as\nnearly equal in Matthew and Luke as possible. Title and number are given\nto each section in each Gospel, to make the comparative study of contents\nand order more easy. Some slight differences may occasionally be detected\nbetween the assignments as they are made here, and as they were made in\nthe examinations of the double and single traditions. These will be\nchiefly due to the necessity of taking the material here in sections\ninstead of in detached verses and will not affect the results heretofore\nobtained.\n\n\nCONSIDERATIONS FAVORING ANALYSIS OF Q INTO QMT AND QLK\n\nIn the subjoined tables of Q material in Matthew and in Luke the\nduplicated material is starred. The sections which are identical (or in a\nfew cases not absolutely but practically so), or in which the deviations\nare so slight as easily to be ascribed to the editorial work of Matthew\nor Luke, are marked Q. The sections unduplicated, or duplicated but with\ndeviations too great to be assigned to Matthew or Luke working upon a\nsimilarly worded text, are marked QMt or QLk.\n\n TABLE IV\n\n CONTENTS OF Q MATERIAL IN MATTHEW\n\n --------------------------------------------------------------------\n Sec.|Chap. Verse| Subject |Source\n ----|------------|-------------------------------------------|------\n *1 | iii, 7-10|Preaching of the Baptist |Q\n *2 | iii, 11-12|Messianic announcement of the Baptist |Q\n *3 | iv, 1-11|The temptation |Q\n *4 | v, 3 |Blessed are the poor in spirit |QMt\n 5 | v, 4 |Blessed are the meek |QMt\n 6 | v, 5 |Blessed are they that mourn |QMt\n *7 | v, 6 |Blessed are they that hunger after |\n | | righteousness |QMt\n 8 | v, 7 |Blessed are the merciful |QMt\n 9 | v, 8 |Blessed are the pure in heart |QMt\n 10 | v, 9 |Blessed are the peace-makers |QMt\n *11 | v, 10-12|Blessed are the persecuted |QMt\n *12 | v, 13 |Ye are the salt of the earth. If the salt, |\n | | etc. |QMt\n *13 | v, 14-16|Light of the world. Candle and bushel |QMt\n *14 | v, 17-20|Relation to the law. Except your |\n | | righteousness, etc. |QMt\n 15 | v, 21-22|Do not kill. Whoever is angry |QMt\n 16 | v, 23-24|If thou bring thy gift to the altar |QMt\n *17 | v, 25-26|Agree with thine adversary |QMt\n 18 | v, 27-28|On adultery and lustfulness |QMt\n 19 | v, 29-30|If thine eye, hand, offend thee |QMt\n *20 | v, 31-32|On divorce |Q (Mk)\n 21 | v, 33-37|On the taking of oaths |QMt\n *22 | v, 38-42|On revenge. Resist not |QMt\n *23 | v, 43-48|Love your enemies |QMt\n 24 | vi, 1-4 |On almsgiving |QMt\n 25 | vi, 5-8 |On prayer: be not as the hypocrites are |QMt\n *26 | vi, 9-13|The Lord's Prayer |QMt\n *27 | vi, 14-15|About forgiveness |QMt\n 28 | vi, 16-18|On fasting: not as the hypocrites |QMt\n *29 | vi, 19-21|About treasures not on the earth |QMt\n *30 | vi, 22-23|The light of the body. If thine eye be |\n | | single |Q\n *31 | vi, 24 |About serving two masters |Q\n *32 | vi, 25-34|About care |Q\n *33 | vii, 1-2 |About judging |QMt\n *34 | vii, 3-5 |The mote and the beam |Q\n 35 | vii, 6 |Pearls before swine |QMt\n *36 | vii, 7-11|Seeking and finding |Q\n *37 | vii, 12 |The Golden Rule |Q\n *38 | vii, 13-14|The narrow gate |QMt\n 39 | vii, 15 |Warnings against false prophets |QMt\n *40 | vii, 16-18|By their fruits ye shall know them |QMt\n *41 | vii, 21-23|Not everyone that saith, \"Lord, Lord\" |QMt\n *42 | vii, 24-27|House on rock and sand |QMt\n 43 | vii, 28a |And it came to pass when he had finished, |\n | | etc. |QMt\n *44 | viii, 5-10|The centurion's servant healed |Q\n *45 | viii, 11-12|Many shall come from east and west |QMt\n *46 | viii, 19-22|Two men who would follow Jesus |Q\n *47 | ix, 37-38|The harvest is great, the laborers are few |Q\n *48 | x, 1 |The commission of the twelve |Q (Mk)\n 49 | x, 5-6 |Not in way of gentiles. Lost sheep of |\n | | Israel |QMt\n *50 | x, 7 |Preach the kingdom of heaven at hand |QMt\n 51 | x, 8 |Heal sick, raise dead; freely ye have |\n | | received |QMt\n *52 | x, 9-10|Instruction as to what to take. Laborer |\n | | and his food |Q (Mk)\n *53 | x, 11-13|Conduct on the way. Greet the house |Q (Mk)\n *54 | x, 14 |Whoever does not receive you |Q (Mk)\n *55 | x, 15-16|More tolerable for Sodom, I send you |\n | | forth as sheep among wolves |Q\n *56 | x, 19-20|Take no thot what ye shall answer |Q\n *57 | x, 24 |The disciple not above his teacher |Q\n *58 | x, 26-33|Fearless confession. Be not afraid of |\n | | them; things hidden and revealed |QMt\n *59 | x, 34-36|Division among relatives |QMt\n *60 | x, 37-39|Conditions of discipleship; saving and |\n | | losing one's soul |QMt\n *61 | x, 40-42|He that receiveth you |QMt\n *62 | xi, 2-6 |The question of the Baptist, and answer |Q\n *63 | xi, 7-10|Jesus' testimony to John. Law and |\n | | prophets till John |Q\n *64 | xi, 21-23|Woes upon Galilean cities |Q\n *65 | xi, 25-27|Wise and prudent. All things are given |\n | | unto me |Q\n 66 | xi, 28-30|Come unto me, all ye that labor |QMt\n 67 | xii, 5-7 |The priests blameless; mercy, not sacrifice|QMt\n *68 | xii, 22-32|The Beelzebul controversy. Blasphemy |Q (Mk)\n *69 | xii, 24-35|A good man out of the good treasure of |\n | | his heart |Q\n *70 | xii, 39-40|The sign of Jonah |QMt\n *71 | xii, 41 |The men of Nineveh |Q\n *72 | xii, 42 |Queen of the South |Q\n *73 | xii, 43-45|About backsliding; \"empty, swept\" |Q\n *74 | xiii, 12 |Whoso has, to him shall be given |Q (Mk)\n *75 | xiii, 16-17|Blessed are your eyes |QMt\n *76 | xiii, 31-32|Parable of the Mustard Seed |Q (Mk)\n *77 | xiii, 33 |Parable of the Yeast |Q\n 78 | xiii, 44 |Parable of Treasure Hid in Field |QMt\n 79 | xiii, 45-46|Parable of the Pearls |QMt\n 80 | xiii, 47-48|Parable of the Fish-Net |QMt\n 81 | xiii, 51-52|Pharisee instructed in the kingdom of |\n | | heaven |QMt\n *82 | xv, 14 |Blind leading the blind |Q\n *83 | xvii, 20 |Faith like a grain of mustard seed |QMt\n *84 |xviii, 6-7 |About offenses |Q (Mk)\n 85 |xviii, 12-14|Parable of Lost Sheep |QMt\n *86 | xix, 28 |The apostles on twelve thrones |QMt\n *86a| xxii, 35-38|The great commandment |Q (Mk)\n 87 |xxiii, 2-3 |Scribes and Pharisees in Moses' seat |QMt\n 88 |xxiii, 4 |They bind heavy burdens |QMt\n 89 |xxiii, 5 |They broaden their phylacteries |QMt\n 90 |xxiii, 8-10|Be not called rabbi |QMt\n *91 |xxiii, 13 |Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven |QMt\n *92 |xxiii, 15-16|Woes upon Pharisees |QMt\n *93 |xxiii, 37-30|Lament over Jerusalem |Q\n *94 | xxiv, 26-27|The day of the Son of man |QMt\n *95 | xxiv, 28 |Where the body is, there the eagles, etc |Q\n *96 | xxiv, 37-39|The days of Noah |QMt\n *97 | xxiv, 40-41|The one taken, the other left |QMt\n *98 | xxiv, 42-44|The watching servant |Q\n *99 | xxiv, 45-51|The true and false servants |Q\n --------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n * The asterisk indicates Q material in Matthew duplicated in Luke.\n\n\n TABLE V\n\n CONTENTS OF Q MATERIAL IN LUKE\n\n --------------------------------------------------------------------\n Sec.|Chap. Verse | Subject |Source\n ----|------------|-------------------------------------------|------\n *1 | iii, 7-9 |Preaching of the Baptist |Q\n *2 | iii, 16-17|Messianic announcement of the Baptist |Q\n *3 | iv, 1-13|The temptation |Q\n *4 | vi, 20 |Blessed are ye poor |QLk\n *5 | vi, 21 |Blessed are ye that hunger |QLk\n *6 | vi, 22-23|Blessed are ye when men hate you |QLk\n 7 | vi, 24-26|Woes upon rich, full, laughing, popular |QLk\n *7a| vi, 31 |The Golden Rule |Q\n *8 | vi, 27-36|Love your enemies |QLk\n *9 | vi, 37-38|About judging |QLk\n *10 | vi, 39 |Parable of the Blind Leading the Blind |Q\n *11 | vi, 40 |The disciple not above his teacher |Q\n *12 | vi, 41-42|The mote and the beam |Q\n *13 | vi, 43-44|Tree known by its fruits |QLk\n *14 | vi, 45 |A good man out of the good treasure of |\n | | his heart |Q\n *15 | vi, 46 |Why call ye me \"Lord, Lord\" |QLk\n *16 | vi, 47-49|House with and without foundation |QLk\n *17 | vii, 1-2,|The centurion's servant healed |Q\n | 7-9 | |\n *18 | vii, 18, |Question of John the Baptist and answer |Q\n | 22-23 | |\n *19 | vii, 24-28|Jesus' testimony to John |Q\n | 31-35| |\n *20 | viii, 16 |Candle and bed (bushel) |QLk\n *21 | viii, 17 |Things hidden and revealed |QLk\n *22 | viii, 18 |Whoever has, to him shall be given |Q (Mk)\n *23 | ix, 1-2 |The mission of the twelve |Q (Mk)\n *24 | ix, 5 |Whoever shall not receive you |Q (Mk)\n *25 | ix, 57-60|Two men who would follow Jesus |Q\n 26 | ix, 61-62|A third; no man putteth his hand to the |\n | | plow |QLk\n *27 | x, 2 |The harvest is great; the laborers are |\n | | few |Q\n *28 | x, 3 |I send you forth as lambs among wolves |Q\n *29 | x, 4 |Instructions as to what to take |Q (Mk)\n | (ix, 3) | |\n *30 | x, 5-7 |Conduct on the way; greet the house. |\n | | Laborer worthy of his hire |Q (Mk)\n *31 | x, 8-11|Whoever receives, or does not receive, you |Q (Mk)\n *32 | x, 12 |More tolerable for Sodom |Q\n *33 | x, 13-15|Woes upon Galilean cities |Q\n *34 | x, 16 |He that heareth (receiveth) you |QLk\n | (ix, 48) | |\n 35 | x, 17-20|Satan falling from heaven, names written |QLk\n *36 | x, 21-22|Wise and prudent; all things are given unto|\n | | me |Q\n *37 | x, 23-24|Blessed are the eyes that see what you see |QLk\n *38 | x, 25-28|The great commandment |Q (Mk)\n *39 | xi, 2-4 |The Lord's Prayer |QLk\n *40 | xi, 9-13|Seeking and finding |Q\n *41 | xi, 17-23|Beelzebul controversy |Q (Mk)\n *42 | xi, 24-26|About backsliding; \"empty, swept\" |Q\n *43 | xi, 29-30|The sign of Jonah |QLk\n *44 | xi, 31 |Queen of the South |QLk\n *45 | xi, 32 |The men of Nineveh |Q\n *46 | xi, 34-35|The light of the body. If thine eye be |\n | | single |Q\n *47 | xi, 39-52|Woes upon Pharisees. Take away the |\n | | key of knowledge |QLk\n *48 | xii, 4-9 |Fearless confession; be not afraid of them |QLk\n *49 | xii, 10 |Blasphemy against Son of man (Beelzebul |\n | | controversy) |Q (Mk)\n *50 | xii, 11-12|Take no thot what ye shall answer |QLk\n *51 | xii, 22-31|About care |Q\n 52 | xii, 32 |Fear not, little flock |QLk\n *53 | xii, 33-34|About treasures, not on the earth |QLk\n 54 | xii, 35-38|About the necessity for watchfulness |QLk\n *55 | xii, 39-40|The watching servant |Q\n *56 | xii, 42-46|The true and false servants |Q\n 57 | xii, 47-48|Beaten with few stripes or with many |QLk\n 58 | xii, 49-50|I came to cast fire; I have a baptism |QLk\n *59 | xii, 51-53|Division among relatives |QLk\n 60 | xii, 54-56|Signs of the time |QLk\n *61 | xii, 57-59|Agree with thine adversary |QLk\n *62 | xiii, 18-19|Parable of the Mustard Seed |Q (Mk)\n *63 | xiii, 20-21|Parable of the Yeast |Q\n *64 | xiii, 23-24|The narrow door (gate) |QLk\n 65 | xiii, 25-27|When the door is shut |QLk\n *66 | xiii, 28-29|Many from east and west |QLk\n *67 | xiii, 34-25|Lament over Jerusalem |Q\n 68 | xiv, 7-11|About taking the chief seats at a feast |QLk\n 69 | xiv, 12-14|About whom to invite to a feast |QLk\n *70 | xiv, 26-27|Conditions of discipleship |QLk\n 71 | xiv, 28-30|Man building a tower |QLk\n 72 | xiv, 31-33|King going to war |QLk\n *73 | xiv, 34-35|Salt is good. If the salt has lost |(Mk) QLk\n *73a| xvi, 13 |About serving two masters |Q\n *74 | xvi, 16 |The law and prophets until John |Q\n *75 | xvi, 17 |Relation to the law |QLk\n *76 | xvi, 18 |Divorce |Q (Mk)\n *77 | xvii, 1-2 |Offenses |Q (Mk)\n *78 | xvii, 3-4 |On forgiveness |QLk\n *79 | xvii, 5-6 |Faith as a grain of mustard seed |QLk\n 80 | xvii, 20-21|The kingdom cometh not with observation |QLk\n *81 | xvii, 22-25|The day of the Son of man |QLk\n *82 | xvii, 26-27|The days of Noah |QLk\n 83 | xvii, 28-32|The days of Lot |QLk\n *84 | xvii, 33 |Saving and losing one's soul |Q\n *85 | xvii, 34-35|Two in one bed (field) |QLk\n *86 | xvii, 37 |Where the body is, there the eagles, etc. |Q\n 87 |xviii, 1-8 |The parable of the Unjust Judge |QLk\n 88 | xxi, 34-35|The necessity for watchfulness and prayer |QLk\n 89 | xxii, 30 |Eating and drinking in the kingdom of God; |\n | | twelve thrones |QLk\n -----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n * The asterisk indicates Q material in Luke duplicated in Matthew.\n\nAs to the generally homogeneous character of the sections marked Q, there\nwill be no dispute. Since these are restricted to the passages showing\nthe very closest parallelism, there can be no question about the propriety\nof assigning them to Q. The only question will be as to the assignment of\nany unduplicated material to any form of Q, and the assignment of the\nduplicated but not closely paralleled sections to QMt and QLk instead of\nsimply to Q. Reasons have been given[127] for such assignments in each\ncase. But a few sections may be taken as again illustrating the advantages\nof the QMt-QLk hypothesis.\n\n\nPASSAGES CLOSELY SIMILAR, YET WITH DIVERGENCES TOO GREAT TO BE ACCOUNTED\nFOR UPON THE HYPOTHESIS OF AN UNDIFFERENTIATED Q\n\nSections 42 in Matthew and 16 in Luke contain the saying about the house\non the rock and the sand (with and without foundations). These sections\nare universally ascribed to Q, both from their general similarity and from\ntheir position in each Gospel as the conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount\n(Plain). But the wording is very dissimilar. Only those words are alike\nwhich must necessarily be so if two men were using the same subject as an\nillustration; and this is true, not only of the wording, but of the\nthought. Those who assign the passage simply to Q are compelled to suppose\nthat, Matthew representing the original text, Luke has observed that the\ncorrect antithesis is not between a house built on a rock and a house\nbuilt on the sand, but between one built with a foundation and one built\nwithout one. So he says nothing about the soil, whether rock or sand, but\nsays that in one case the man built upon the surface, and that in the\nother he digged deep and laid a good foundation. The amount of re-working,\nreinterpreting, and re-writing thus required of Luke is wholly\nunjustified by any treatment he has accorded to any of the sayings of\nJesus in Mark. It is presumable that he exercised his editorial function\non his recension of Q as he did upon the sayings-material in Mark. But it\nis much more natural to suppose that the story that lay before him in his\nsource lay before him in a form considerably different from that which it\nhad in Matthew's source. The assumption of the two recensions therefore\nhas the advantage of preserving the section for Q, without the\ndisadvantage of ascribing to Luke a wholly unwarrantable amount of\nre-working.\n\nSections 4-11 in Matthew and 4-6 in Luke contain their different versions\nof the beatitudes. Those who assign indiscriminately to Q all the verses\ncontained in these sections have to assume that Luke omitted five of the\nbeatitudes. No reason can be assigned for his doing so, and it is wholly\nimprobable that he would have deliberately mutilated a passage so\nliturgically complete and impressive. The five omitted beatitudes are\nadditions to the teachings of Jesus, manufactured on the basis of Old\nTestament exemplars. But if anything stood in Q, these five beatitudes\nstood there, only not in Luke's recension, but in Matthew's.\n\n\nWITH MATTHEW'S Q BEFORE HIM, LUKE WOULD NOT HAVE OMITTED SO MUCH OF IT\n\nThose who argue for Luke's omission of so much Q material which (according\nto their assumption) stood before him, allege as a precedent his omission\nof so much Marcan material, especially of the continuous section Mk vi,\n45-viii, 21. It is held by many students that the copy of Mark used by\nLuke did not contain this section.[128] The writer does not see the\nnecessity for this assumption as there are obvious reasons for Luke's\nomission of the section if it stood in his copy of Mark. It contains the\ndoublet of the feeding of the four thousand. Luke avoids doublets as far\nas possible. It contains the story of the walking on the sea, a story\nsimilar in many respects to that of the storm at sea which Luke had\nalready taken from Mark. The dispute about hand-washing and the things\nthat defile would have no interest for Luke or his gentile readers. The\nstory of the Canaanitish woman and her difficulties in securing help from\nJesus, and the methods of healing the dumb man, would offend Luke's\nnon-Jewish sympathies and his artistic sense. The discussion about leaven\nhe would omit because he had a partial parallel from another source. In\nthis whole section which Luke omits from Mark there are very few sayings\nof Jesus, and those of a character not to please or interest Luke. The\nomission of such a section, or of anything else that Luke omits from Mark,\noffers no precedent for the omissions he is alleged to have made from Q.\n\nIn the preceding table of contents for Q material in Matthew (pp. 222-23),\nthere are twenty-nine sections for which Luke has no parallel. Five of\nthese, the omitted beatitudes, have already been discussed. Of the\nremaining twenty-four there are a few which, it may be admitted, Luke\nmight not have cared to include, even if they were in his Q. Such are the\nsections on oaths, on fasting, on the blamelessness of the priests, and on\nthe Pharisee instructed in the kingdom of God--all of a strongly Jewish\ncharacter. To these may be added four other brief sections, all from\nMatthew's discourse against the Pharisees; especially, the reference to\nphylacteries, which would have no meaning for Luke's readers, and the\ninjunction not to be called \"Rabbi.\" The saying, \"Give not that which is\nholy unto the dogs [heathen] nor cast your pearls before swine\n[unbelievers],\" he would hardly have taken if it had stood in his source.\nBut there are other sections which would particularly have delighted him,\nand which it is almost inconceivable that he should have read and omitted.\nSuch are the sections on alms-giving (a favorite subject with Luke; see Lk\nxi, 41; xii, 33); on prayer (a subject which he mentions eighteen times\nagainst Matthew's ten, outside of this passage); the three little parables\nof the Treasure Hid in the Field, the Pearls, and the Fish-Net, and the\nbeautiful saying, so fitted to Luke's universalistic purpose, \"Come unto\nme.\"\n\nMuch less can any reason be assigned for Matthew's omission of the sixteen\nunduplicated sayings ascribed to QLk.[129] Matthew almost invariably\nshortens Mark's narratives, and sometimes omits a narrative section, but\npractically never omits a saying of Jesus given in Mark. The case of the\nthird would-be follower of Jesus, with the particularly fine saying, \"No\nman having put his hand to the plow\"; the little parables of the Man\nBuilding a Tower and the King Going to War; the sayings, \"I came to cast\nfire upon the earth,\" \"I have a baptism to be baptized with,\" \"Fear not,\nlittle flock,\" would attract Matthew as much as they did Luke, and with\nMatthew's almost slavish adherence to Mark in all Mark's sayings-material,\nno reason can be given for his omission of them.\n\nIf it be asked why these unduplicated sections, which have been assigned\nto QMt and QLk, are not assigned simply to special and undetermined\nsources, the answer is that all these sections stand more or less closely\nconnected with Q material, they are strongly similar to the other Q matter\nin form and idea, and equally different in form and feeling from the\npassages assigned to special sources. They consist, in both Matthew and\nLuke, of short parables of the undoubted Q type (cf. the Treasure Hid in\nthe Field, the Pearls, the Fish-Net, the Unjust Judge) and of short\nsayings; whereas the special source or sources (whether of Matthew or\nLuke) consist of narratives (the opening chapters of both Gospels, the\nPeter-sections in Matthew, the death of Judas in Matthew, Jesus before\nHerod in Luke, the watch at the grave in Matthew, the Emmaus incident in\nLuke, and the peculiar matter of both Matthew and Luke in their accounts\nof the days in Jerusalem) and of story-parables like the Prodigal Son, the\nLost Coin, the Good Samaritan, the Entrusted Money. These similarities in\nthe material assigned to a special source or sources are not enough to\nprove the unity of that source for either Matthew or Luke, and are not so\nintended; but they are enough to distinguish the material so assigned from\nthat assigned to QMt and QLk, and to establish the comparative homogeneity\nof this latter material in each case.\n\n\nTHE \"SECONDARY TRAITS\" ARE IN QMt AND QLk, NOT IN Q\n\nThe distinction between Q and QMt and QLk is further justified by the\nconsideration of secondary traits. QMt and QLk represent deviations from,\nor additions to, an original Q. Since these deviations and additions would\ngo back to a very early time, and even when comparatively late might\nembody an early tradition, the presence of primary traits in QMt and QLk\nneed not surprise us.[130] Since Q cannot be proved to be earlier than\n60-65, it may also easily contain secondary traits. But since QMt and QLk\nare in general later than Q, and presumably represent a later tradition,\nwe should naturally expect to find in them a larger number of secondary\ncharacteristics.\n\nIn the material assigned to Q in Tables IV and V[131] the writer believes\nthat not many unmistakably secondary traits appear. The messianic\nannouncement of the Baptist is certainly primary as compared with Mark\npredicting Jesus as the fire-judge, contrary to the facts of his life. The\ntemptation in Q is also primary as compared with Mark, with the exception\nof the conversation between Jesus and John in Matthew, which is obviously\nsecondary and belongs to QMt. Of the sayings, only a few have a secondary\nsound. Such are especially those connected with the instructions to the\ntwelve, which seem to embody some of the experiences, or bespeak some of\nthe needs, of the early Christian itinerant preachers: \"The laborer is\nworthy of his hire [or his keep]\"; \"I send you forth as sheep among\nwolves\"; \"The disciple is not above his master\"; \"The law and the prophets\nprophesied until John\"; perhaps also Matthew's long beatitude, \"Blessed\nare ye when men persecute you,\" etc.\n\nBut by far the most of the secondary traits, and the most unmistakable of\nthem, are found in the additions to and deviations from the Q tradition\n_in QMt and QLk_. Such are the additional beatitudes supplied by Matthew's\nQ and made up of Old Testament quotations; the insertion into the\ntemptation story, in QMt, of the protest of John the Baptist and the\nanswer of Jesus; the warning against false prophets in Matthew; the speech\nabout those who say \"Lord, Lord\"; the prediction of division among\nrelatives (seemingly answering the condition in which the early church\nfound itself); the many coming from the east and the west (written in the\ndays of the expanding church); the sign of Jonah interpreted (in Matthew)\nas referring to the resurrection; the parable of the Fish-Net with its\neschatological interpretation; the saying about the twelve apostles on\ntwelve thrones; and the various sections interpolated, apparently from QMt\nand QLk, into Mark's apocalypse.\n\nCloser analysis of particular sections tends to corroborate this\nimpression of secondary traits as coming not from Q but from the\nrecensions. For example, the sayings about the light and the bushel and\nabout the salt that had lost its savor appear to have stood in Q. But from\nhis own recension of Q, Matthew prefixed to the saying what Luke did not\nfind in his recension, \"Ye are the light of the world,\" \"Ye are the salt\nof the earth,\" two sayings which seem to reflect the exalted estimate of\nthe apostles in the sub-apostolic age. The Lord's Prayer probably stood in\nthe original Q much as it is in Luke; Matthew's amplifications, found in\nhis source, have the liturgical and ecclesiastical coloring that betray\nthe later time.\n\nSo, further, Luke's parable of the Unjust Judge, with its generally Q\nsound, but with its pathetic question appended (from Luke's recension),\n\"Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find the faith on the\nearth?\" bespeaks the times of persecution when the survival of the new\nfaith looked problematical. Matthew's \"Cast not your pearls before swine,\"\n\"The Pharisee instructed in the kingdom of heaven,\" \"The scribes and\nPharisees in Moses' seat,\" all from QMt, and Luke's \"Rejoice that your\nnames are written in heaven,\" his saying about discerning the signs of the\ntime (of the parousia), his \"kingdom cometh not with observation,\" and his\ntwice repeated injunction to watchfulness, all from QLk, certainly have a\nsecondary sound. The presence of so many secondary traits in QMt and QLk\ndoes not prove that the passages so assigned might not be assigned to S or\nsome other special or undefined source; but many if not all of them being\npassages ordinarily assigned simply to Q, the large number of secondary\ntraits in them does tend to substantiate, in an unlooked-for manner, the\nassumption of the two recensions.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nDID MARK ALSO USE Q?\n\n\nIn the introduction to his _Beginnings of Gospel History_, Bacon remarks\nthat the \"dependence of Mark upon Q can be demonstrated.\" Wellhausen says\nthat \"independence [between Mark and Q] is not to be thot of.\" Streeter,\nin _Oxford Studies_, has made the most recent and thoro study of the\nrelation of Mark and Q, and some of his results have already been utilized\nand acknowledged. Even Dr. Sanday, in the introduction to _Oxford\nStudies_, confesses himself an unwilling convert to the theory that Mark\nwas acquainted with, and made some use of, Q. Wellhausen alone, so far as\nI know, maintains the apparently untenable position that Q is later than\nMark, and that where the two overlap, Q has used Mark instead of Mark\nusing Q. His acceptance of this position is partially explained by the\nfact that he makes no distinction between the original Q and the\nrecensions of it in the hands of Matthew and Luke; he also allows to Q\nmuch material (e.g., the conversation between John and Jesus at the\nbaptism) which other scholars, without the hypothesis of QMt and QLk,\nascribe to the hand of Matthew or Luke. Harnack and Wernle maintain the\npriority of Q to Mark. Wernle concedes some small use of Q by Mark, and\nHarnack thinks Mark was at least \"acquainted with\" Q.\n\nThe discrimination between QMt and QLk and the original Q makes\nunnecessary a good deal of the work that has heretofore been done toward\ndetermining the primary and secondary traits in Mark and Q respectively.\nAssuming that Mark used either the original Q, or as near to the original\nof that document as we can yet get, the recensions used by Matthew and\nLuke would be perhaps thirty, certainly twenty, years later than that used\nby Mark. In the fifty or more verses of Mark that appear to have stood\nalso in Q, there is nothing that can be shown to be later than the year 70\n(the date generally assigned to Mark). There is nothing to suggest that\nthe author had witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, or the events\nimmediately leading up to it. The presence of the same material in Mark\nand Q is demonstrated by the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark,\nor by the deviations of the one or the other of them from the Marcan form\nof a saying, in such way as not to admit of explanation except by the\nassumption of two sources (Mark and Q) in the hands of Matthew and Luke.\nIn other words, if Mark did use Q, but if he used the same text of it as\nwas used by Matthew and Luke, and if the three followed Q with equal\nfaithfulness, in all such instances Q would fail to appear, since both\nMatthew and Luke would appear to be following only Mark. It is therefore\nwhere there are deviations of either Matthew or Luke from Mark in sections\nwhere the other follows Mark closely, or where there are agreements of\nMatthew and Luke against Mark in sayings-material, that the presence of Q\nbehind Mark can be detected.\n\nUpon the hypothesis of Q without QMt or QLk, the argument by which the use\nof Q by Mark, as against the use of Mark by Q, was proven, consisted of\npicking out the primary and secondary traits in Mark and Q respectively,\nand of showing that the primary traits were in Q and the secondary in\nMark. But this was very difficult to do, so long as, e.g., the Peter\nincidents peculiar to Matthew, or the conversation during the baptism,\nwere attributed to Q. For these were indisputably secondary. If the\npriority of Mark was to be maintained, all such traits had to be removed\nfrom Q and assigned to the evangelist or to some special source.\n\nUpon the theory now advocated by the writer, these secondary traits are\npractically all assigned, not to the original Q, but to QMt or QLk.[132]\nBut if Mark used any form of Q, it was not QMt or QLk, but some much\nsimpler, more primary, and doubtless less extended, form. The presence of\nsecondary traits in QMt and QLk therefore does nothing toward proving the\nsecondary character of Q in its original form, or in such an early form as\nwould have been used by Mark. Since nothing can be found in Q which is\neither demonstrably or probably later than the date of Mark, the\nassumption that Mark used Q may be permitted to stand; and with the\nremoval of the secondary traits to the recensions, it does not require the\nminute analysis which earlier hypotheses made necessary, since there are\nno longer any indications militating against Mark's use of Q. What now\nremains therefore is to determine as nearly as possible what material\nstood in Mark and Q.\n\n\nWHAT MATERIAL DID MARK TAKE FROM Q?\n\nIn the attempt to determine what material Mark has taken from Q, an effort\nwill also be made to decide whether Matthew and Luke took the same\nmaterial directly from Q, or indirectly from Q thru Mark. The verses which\none or both of them appear to have taken directly from Q (tho these verses\nstand also in Mark) will be added to the number of verses already\nattributed to Q (or QMt and QLk). We shall thus have before us the\nlargest possible sum-total of Q material. The tables of contents already\nmade out for the Q material, as it now stands in Matthew and Luke\nrespectively,[133] will throw further light upon the propriety or\nimpropriety of regarding QMt and QLk as recensions of one original\ndocument. The same tables will serve to indicate the probable order of Q,\nand the investigation now following will then be used to determine what\nacquaintance, if any, Mark had with Q, and what use, if any, he made of\nthat document.\n\n\nTHE MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE BAPTIST\n\n(Mk i, 7-8)\n\nMatthew and Luke are close to Mark in their wording here, but agree\nagainst him in putting his verses in reverse order and in the addition of\n[Greek: kai pyri]. They then each add a verse (Mt iii, 12; Lk iii, 17)\nwhich has already been assigned to Q. In each Gospel this verse develops\nthe idea introduced by the [Greek: kai pyri]. The order of Matthew and\nLuke is here necessarily, and apparently originally, different from that\nof Mark, since the relative clause which begins the additional matter of\nMatthew and Luke depends upon the order of sentences in these two Gospels\nand will not fit Mark's arrangement. In spite therefore of the close\nagreement of Matthew's vs. 11 and Luke's vs. 16 with Mark, these verses\nmust be assigned to Q. In other words, it is probable that here Matthew\nand Luke are depending directly upon Q, and not merely indirectly upon him\nthru Mark.\n\n\nTHE BAPTISM OF JESUS\n\n(Mk i, 9-11)\n\nThis section is added to Q by many critics, on the ground of its position\nbetween the preaching of the Baptist and the temptation of Jesus, both\nrelated in Q. The agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are\nnot, however, frequent or important enough by themselves to suggest this\nassignment. On the other hand, the addition in Matthew of the conversation\nbetween Jesus and John points to a source in that respect different from\nthat of either Mark or Luke. Matthew also represents the voice from heaven\nas directed to the crowd, and not to Jesus alone, as do Mark and Luke. In\nboth these deviations Matthew has an apparently later tradition, and has\npreferred to follow his recension of Q. Either Luke's recension here\nagreed substantially with Mark's, or else Luke has followed Mark more\nclosely than Q.\n\n\nTHE TEMPTATION OF JESUS\n\n(Mk i, 12-13)\n\nThe very brief account in Mark is followed in Matthew and Luke by nine and\neleven verses respectively, which have been already assigned to Q. The\nquestion here is whether Matthew and Luke followed Mark in the first two\nverses of their narratives, and after that forsook him for Q, or whether\nthey followed Q thruout. Matthew and Luke agree in substituting [Greek:\ndiabolos] for Mark's [Greek: satanas], in the omission of the clause \"and\nwas with the wild beasts,\" and in placing the temptation in the period of\nhunger following the forty days' fast. They apparently followed Q rather\nthan Mark, but each introduced some changes out of deference to the\nlatter. Mark's account is similar enough to that of Matthew and Luke to be\na brief extract from Q.\n\n\nTHE BEELZEBUL CONTROVERSY\n\n(Mk iii, 20-29)\n\nThis Marcan section is duplicated in Mt xii, 24-32, and Lk xi, 15-23; xii,\n10. Of these Matthean and Lucan accounts, Mt xii, 26-28, and Lk xi,\n18-20, are practically identical, but not paralleled in Mark. In xii, 29,\nMatthew follows Mk iii, 27, almost word for word. At the same place Luke\nforsakes Mark and deviates widely, tho agreeing closely with Matthew in\nthe three preceding verses. Matthew's xii, 30, and Luke's xi, 23, are\nagain unparalleled in Mark, and are evidently from Q. Matthew's vs. 31\nagain goes back to Mark's vs. 28, but is influenced by his own Q material\nin the following verses. The derivation of Mark from Q in this passage is\nrendered doubly sure by the facts that the verses seriously interrupt the\nconnection in Mark, and that the passage here consecutive in Matthew and\nMark is separated in Luke. Matthew is a conflation of Mark and Q. Luke is\napparently Q thruout. Matthew's Marcan and Q material being mixed, it is\nimpossible to tell whether Matthew's Q was here identical with Luke's or\nnot. Out of this section there should be added to Q the passages Mt xii,\n25, and Lk xi, 17, 21.\n\n\nFIVE DETACHED SAYINGS\n\n(Mk iv, 21-25)\n\nSuch detached sayings, unconnected with Mark's narrative, create at once a\npresumption of their having been taken from Q. Luke has the first saying\n(about the lamp) in two places (viii, 16; xi, 33), indicating that he\nfound it both in Mark and Q. He also has a duplicate for the second\nsaying, while the fifth is repeated twice in both Matthew and Luke. Mk iv,\n23, is the proverbial saying used twice in both Mark and Luke and three\ntimes in Matthew. There is thus only one of Mark's sayings (iv, 24) which\nis not given twice by Matthew or Luke or both. An additional indication of\nthe occurrence of these verses in Q, and Mark's derivation of them from\nthat source, is the fact that they are part of a section in Mark which\nseriously interrupts his narrative, interposing a private conversation of\nJesus with his disciples between the teaching in the boat and the storm on\nthe lake. The verses are also given by Matthew in four different chapters,\nand by Luke in two, and by both in different order from each other and\nfrom Mark. All five of these Marcan verses, therefore, and their parallels\nin Matthew and Luke, should be assigned to Q.\n\n\nTHE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED\n\n(Mk iv, 30-32)\n\nThis parable has a strong resemblance to those already assigned to Q.\nMatthew's connection is the same as Mark's; Luke's is different. Luke\nagrees with Mark in beginning with a question, tho he omits the second\nhalf of the double question in Mark. Matthew follows Mark, or is strongly\ninfluenced by him in Mt xiii, 32. Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in\nthe words [Greek: hon labon anthropos]. According to a suggestion of\nWellhausen's, [Greek: ebalen eis kepon] and [Greek: espeiren en to agro]\nmay be translation variants. In the conclusion Matthew and Luke agree much\nmore closely with each other than with Mark. Except for the influence of\nMark at the beginning, Luke seems to be following Q, while Matthew's\nparable is a conflation of Q and Mark. If Mark here rests upon Q, then\nMatthew is conflating a parable which Mark drew from Q with the same\nparable as he (Matthew) found it in his recension of Q. Complicated as\nthis may seem, Mark's parable is too closely similar to Luke's to have had\nany but a Q origin. To Q in Luke should be added Lk xiii, 18-19; and to Q\nin Matthew, Mt xiii, 31-32.\n\n\nTHE SENDING OUT OF THE TWELVE\n\n(Mk vi, 7-11)\n\nThis passage is to be compared with Mt x, 1, 7-8, 9-16, and Lk ix, 1-5; x,\n1, 3, 4-7, 9-12 (with considerable rearrangement of order in the verses).\nThe Marcan material, as it reappears in both Matthew and Luke, is mixed\nwith much other material from Q. Luke's addition of a mission of seventy\nand his division of this Marcan material between that mission and the\nmission of the twelve add to the confusion. Matthew (x, 14) and Luke (ix,\n5) agree in six words against Mark. In the verb [Greek: ektinaxete],\nMatthew (x, 14) follows Mark against Luke. Matthew and Luke agree against\nMark in saying [Greek: mete rhabdon] instead of [Greek: ei me rhabdon]. In\nthose parts of Matthew's and Luke's narratives that are not paralleled in\nMark there is probably an oral tradition mingled with the Q material.\nMark's version might be considered an excerpt, rather than a copy, of Q.\nTo Q in Matthew may be added Mt x, 1, 9, 10_ab_, 14; and to Q in Luke, Lk\nix, 1, 3, 5; x, 4, 10.\n\n\nA SIGN REFUSED\n\n(Mk viii, 12)\n\nOn the ground of Matthew's having doublets for this saying (Mt xii, 39;\nxvi, 4) and Luke a parallel to it (Lk xi, 29), it may without further\nconsideration be assigned to Q. The agreement of Matthew and Luke, and the\nagreement of Matthew's doublets, in adding \"Except the sign of Jonah,\" may\nbe taken to indicate the difference here between Mark's Q and the later\nrecensions.\n\n\n\"WHOSOEVER WILL FOLLOW ME\"\n\n(Mk viii, 34-35)\n\nMatthew has doublets for this saying in x, 38-39; xvi, 24-25; Luke in ix,\n23-24; xiv, 27; xvii, 33. Matthew and Luke copy the Marcan version with\nunusual fidelity thru about forty words. They agree against him in saying\n[Greek: ei tis] for Mark's [Greek: hostis], in the substitution of a form\n(tho not the same form) of the verb [Greek: erchomai] for [Greek:\nakolouthein], and in the employment of a subjunctive in place of an\nindicative of the verb [Greek: apollymi]. Luke adds the phrase \"day by\nday.\" Considering the remarkably close verbal agreement as well as the\nagreement in order, there can be no doubt that Matthew in xvi, 24-25, and\nLuke in ix, 23-24, are following Mark; their agreements against him may be\nexplained partly by a desire to correct his style, and partly by\nassimilation. The resemblances between the other member of the doublet in\neach case, and the saying as here reported in Mark (i.e., between Mt x,\n38-39; Lk xiv, 27; xvii, 33, and Mk viii, 34-35), are sufficiently close\nto suggest, if not to prove, that Mark's saying was derived by him from Q.\nSince these verses have already been assigned to Q in the examination of\nthe double tradition, they yield no new Q material here.\n\n\n\"WHOEVER IS ASHAMED OF ME\"\n\n(Mk viii, 38)\n\nMatthew has a parallel of this saying, and Luke has doublets for it (Mt x,\n33; Lk ix, 26; xii, 9). The verse may be assigned to Q.\n\n\nABOUT OFFENSES\n\n(Mk ix, 42-48)\n\nMatthew here follows Mark rather closely, except that he adds \"Woe to the\nworld because of offenses,\" and conflates Mark's two sayings about the\nhand and the foot into one. Matthew has doublets for Mk ix, 43, 45-47, in\nMt v, 29-30, and xviii, 8-9. Luke has avoided the doublet, but has a\nparallel to Mark's verses in Lk xvii, 1-2. The section may be assigned to\nMark and Q.\n\n\nABOUT SALT\n\n(Mk ix, 49-50)\n\nThe little saying in vs. 49 is unduplicated in either of the other\nGospels. If any source be suggested for it, nothing more likely than Q\ncould be suggested. If the saying be assigned to Q, it will be the only Q\nsaying in Mark not taken over by either Matthew or Luke. Luke agrees in\nxiv, 34, with Mark as against Matthew (v, 13), and with Matthew against\nMark in [Greek: moranthe], but shows the influence of Mark again in\n[Greek: artythesetai]. Either Mark follows Q very loosely, perhaps from\nmemory, or Matthew and Luke have a different recension.\n\n\nABOUT DIVORCE\n\n(Mk x, 11-12)\n\nMatthew has doublets for this saying (Mt v, 32; xix, 9). In the latter\noccurrence of the saying in Matthew, the connection is the same as that of\nMark's. It is omitted in that instance by Luke, presumably because it is\npart of a controversy with the Pharisees. But doubt is thrown upon the\npresence of the saying in Q by the fact that it occurs twice in Mark also,\nand may have been taken from him by Matthew in both instances.\n\n\nTHE FIRST WHO SHALL BE LAST\n\n(Mk x, 31)\n\nThis saying is paralleled in Luke (xiii, 30) and has doublets in Matthew\n(xix, 30; xx, 16). It apparently stood in both Mark and Q.\n\n\nTRUE GREATNESS\n\n(Mk x, 43-44)\n\nThere are doublets for this saying in Mt xx, 26-27, and xxiii, 11, and in\nLk xxii, 26; ix, 48. It probably stood in both Mark and Q, but this again\ncannot be proved, since Mark also has the saying twice (ix, 35).\n\n\nABOUT FAITH\n\n(Mk xi, 23)\n\nThere is a parallel for this saying in Lk xvii, 6, and there are doublets\nfor it in Mt xvii, 20, and xxi, 21. It stood in Mark and Q.\n\n\nAGAINST THE PHARISEES\n\n(Mk xii, 38-40)\n\nThis section is listed by Mr. Streeter as from Q, because it \"looks like a\nreminiscence from a long denunciation in Q.\" This is probably correct, but\nthe doublets to establish it are lacking.\n\n\nTHE HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKING IN THE DISCIPLES\n\n(Mk xiii, 11)\n\nThis saying is paralleled in Mt x, 19, and has doublets in Lk xii, 11-12,\nand xxi, 14-15.\n\n\nOTHER MARCAN PASSAGES CONSIDERED, BUT REJECTED\n\nIn addition to the passages assigned to Q in the preceding investigation,\nseveral are suggested by Streeter and Wernle. Streeter suggests Mk xiii,\n15-16; but the doublets in Luke are apparently taken in both instances\nfrom Mark. Streeter thinks that xiii, 28-32, \"has a genuine sound\"; but\nthere is nothing more specific to prove its presence in Q. Streeter's\nsuggestion that Mk i, 2-3, is from Q seems unjustifiable. Vs. 3 is an Old\nTestament quotation which Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have in common. If\nit stood originally in Mark and is not to be regarded as a later addition,\nthere is no occasion for the assumption of Q. Vs. 2 could hardly have\nstood in its present place when Matthew and Luke used Mark. It occurs in\nanother connection in Matthew and Luke (Mt xi, 10; Lk vii, 27), and was\nprobably copied from there into its present place by a later hand.\n\nWernle's additions to the above Q material in Mark do not seem to be\njustified. Some of them, e.g., Mk xi, 14, rest upon making doublets (in\nthis case Mt xxi, 19, and vii, 7-8) where the wording is not close enough\nto warrant them. Others rest upon the general character of the sayings.\nThe latter is a tempting criterion, and in Matthew and Luke, who\ndemonstrably make such extensive use of Q, it is more justifiable and has\nbeen used to some extent in the preceding analyses. But in Mark, where Q\nis so sparingly and loosely used, it cannot be safely employed aside from\nother indications, especially the occurrence of doublets.\n\nThe writer believes that the matter listed in the above tabulation is\nabout all that can at present safely be assigned to Q in Mark. It yields\nus, as new Q material in Matthew, sixteen verses, and as new Q material in\nLuke, seventeen. This would bring the totals for Q material in Matthew and\nLuke up to two hundred and eighty-three in Matthew and to two hundred and\nfifty-five in Luke.[134] The number of verses in Mark which can be traced\nto Q are about fifty. All but sixteen of these verses in Matthew and all\nbut seventeen in Luke had already been assigned to Q. Only one stands in\nMark alone.\n\n TABLE VI\n\n CONTENTS FOR Q MATERIAL IN MARK\n\n -----------------------------------------------------------------------\n Sec.|Chap.| Verse | Subject |Source\n ----|-----|-------|---------------------------------------------|------\n 1 | i,| 7-8 |Messianic announcement of the Baptist | Q\n 2 | i,| 12-13 |The temptation | Q\n 3 | iii,| 22-29 |The Beelzebul controversy | Q\n 4 | iv,| 21 |The light and the bushel | Q\n 5 | iv,| 22 |Things hidden and revealed | Q\n 6 | iv,| 24 |With what measure (about judging) | Q\n 7 | iv,| 25 |Whoever has, to him shall be given | Q\n 8 | iv,| 30-32 |Parable of the Mustard Seed | Q\n 9 | vi,| 7-11 |Mission of the twelve, what to take, conduct |\n | | |by the way, if any place does not receive you| Q\n 10 |viii,| 12 |A sign refused | Q\n 11 |viii,| 34,38 |Conditions of discipleship | Q\n 12 | ix,| 42 |About offenses | Q\n 13 | ix,| 49-50 |Salt is good. If the salt has lost, etc. | Q\n 14 | x,| 11-12 |About divorce | Q\n 15 | x,| 31 |First last and last first | Q\n 16 | x,| 43-44 |Whoso would be great among you | Q\n 17 | xi,| 23 |About faith | Q\n 18 | xii,| 38-40 |Against Pharisaism | Q\n 19 |xiii,| 11 |Take no thot what ye shall say | Q\n -----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe above content being made out for the material common to Mark and Q,\nthe use of Q by Mark may be permitted to rest upon its general\nprobability, there being nothing to contradict it or to substantiate the\nopposite hypothesis. How closely Mark used Q, whether actually copying\ncertain passages from him, or merely recalling what he had read or heard\nread from Q, cannot be determined, since what stood in the text of Q used\nby Mark is only an inference from what stood in the recensions used by\nMatthew and Luke.\n\n\nDO THE VOCABULARY AND STYLE OF MARK AND Q, RESPECTIVELY, THROW ANY LIGHT\nUPON THEIR LITERARY RELATIONSHIP?\n\nThe inquiry might perhaps be carried a step farther by a comparison of the\nvocabularies of Mark and Q. Hawkins, between the first and second\neditions of his _Horae Synopticae_, made a second and more diligent search\nfor linguistic peculiarities in Q, and declares himself unable to find\nany. Harnack, on the contrary, believes he finds some such.\n\nSentences in Q, according to Harnack, are generally connected by [Greek:\nkai, de] being used but seldom. The same is true of Mark. But this only\nindicates the comparative nearness of both Mark and Q to the Semitic. The\nsame may be said of the preponderance of simple verbs in distinction from\ncompound in both Mark and Q. [Greek: Ean] is used twice as frequently as\n[Greek: ei]; Mark also appears to use the former thirty-six times and the\nlatter but fifteen. This fact seems to have more significance by reason of\nthe other, that Luke uses one word thirty-two and the other thirty-three\ntimes. Matthew, however, uses [Greek: ean] exactly twice as often as\n[Greek: ei]. When we remember that all we have of Q is contained in\nMatthew and Luke, and only a small portion of it in Mark, these facts do\nseem to indicate a preference for [Greek: ean] over [Greek: ei] as between\nMark and Q on the one side and Luke on the other, but between Mark and Q\non the one side and Matthew on the other no such contrast appears. Mark\nand Q are here no nearer to each other, or very little, than either of\nthem is to Matthew.\n\nThe particle [Greek: te] is never found in Q.[135] It occurs five times in\nMt and seven times in Lk, and but once in Mk. [Greek: Hos] in temporal\nclauses seems to be absent; it is also absent from Matthew, while Luke\nuses it nineteen times and Mark but once. Clauses with [Greek: ginomai],\nfrequent in Matthew and Luke, are absent from Q; they also occur in Mark;\nbut their absence from Q may be due simply to Q's lack of historical\nmatter. [Greek: Para] and [Greek: syn] are absent; the first is used about\nevenly by Mark and Matthew, and more frequently by Luke; the second, three\ntimes by Matthew, five times by Mark, and twenty-four times by Luke.\n\n\nCONCLUSION AS TO MARK'S DEPENDENCE UPON Q\n\nThese facts do not all point in the same direction. They seem sometimes to\nindicate a linguistic affinity between Q and Mark, but this affinity\nusually extends to Matthew also. What seems to be proved by them is that\nMark and Q and Matthew all stand nearer to the Semitic than does Luke. But\nthis is only the obverse of the statement that Luke is the best Grecist.\nIt throws no light upon the literary relation of Mark and Q. Such literary\nrelation, in fact, cannot in the strict sense be \"proved.\" It can only be\nrendered probable, tho perhaps extremely probable, by the unlikelihood\nthat Mark and Q should have fifty verses in common without any literary\nrelationship. Such relationship being assumed, the dependence is on the\nside of Mark.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHE ORIGINAL ORDER OF Q\n\n\nThe following tables are intended to throw light upon the probable\noriginal order of Q. They will also facilitate comparison of the Q\nmaterial in the two tables of contents given on pp. 222-25. The section\nnumbers at the left are those in the tables for Matthew and Luke\nrespectively on those pages. Table VII gives the sections in the order in\nwhich they come in Matthew, with the numbers of the corresponding sections\nas they occur in Luke; Table VIII, the sections as they come in Luke, with\nnumbers of corresponding sections in Matthew. Unduplicated sections are\nnot listed.\n\nSince Matthew shows everywhere a tendency to group his material into\ndiscourses, it is _a priori_ probable that the original order of the Q\nmaterial is to be sought in Luke and not in Matthew. Given this tendency\nto combine, reasons are obvious for Matthew's combining, in his Sermon on\nthe Mount, much matter that Luke has scattered thru his Gospel. But if the\nQ material originally stood in such continuous discourses, no motive can\nbe assigned for Luke's breaking up these discourses and scattering their\nmaterial thru so many chapters. The assumption that Matthew has combined,\nin his Sermon on the Mount, material which originally was separated as it\nstill is in Luke, is corroborated by an analysis of that Sermon, which\nshows it to be anything but a unity. Much of the material which Matthew\nhas combined into this Sermon has no duplicate in Luke. There is no means\nof telling where in Matthew's Q this unduplicated material stood. But the\nfact that the duplicated matter has been brot forward by Matthew from\nlater chapters in Luke would give the presumption that such of the\nunduplicated material as has no necessary unity where it stands also stood\nin QMt, not at the beginning where it now is, but later; and this is also\nwhat we should expect.\n\n TABLE VII\n\n ------------\n MT | LK\n ------|-----\n Sec. | Sec.\n ------------\n 1 = 1\n 2 = 2\n 3 = 3\n 4 = 4\n 7 = 5\n 11 = 6\n 12 = 73\n 13 = 20\n 14 = 75\n 17 = 61\n 20 = 76\n 22 = 8\n 23 = 8\n 26 = 39\n 27 = 78\n 29 = 53\n 30 = 46\n 31 = 73\n 32 = 51\n 33 = 9\n 34 = 12\n 36 = 40\n 37 = 7\n 36 = 64\n 40 = 13\n 41 = 15\n 42 = 16\n 44 = 17\n 45 = 66\n 46 = 25\n 47 = 27\n 48 = 23\n 50 = 23\n 52 = 29\n 53 = 30\n 54 = 24\n 54 = 31\n 55 = 32\n 55 = 28\n 56 = 50\n 57 = 11\n 58 = 48\n 58 = 21\n 59 = 59\n 60 = 70\n 60 = 84\n 61 = 34\n 62 = 18\n 63 = 19\n 63 = 74\n 64 = 33\n 65 = 36\n 68 = 41\n 68 = 49\n 69 = 14\n 70 = 43\n 71 = 45\n 72 = 44\n 73 = 42\n 74 = 22\n 75 = 37\n 76 = 62\n 77 = 63\n 82 = 10\n 83 = 79\n 84 = 77\n 86 = 89\n 86 = 38\n 91 = 47\n 92 = 47\n 93 = 67\n 94 = 81\n 95 = 86\n 96 = 82\n 97 = 92\n 98 = 55\n 99 = 56\n -----------\n\n\n TABLE VIII\n\n ------------\n LK | MT\n ------|-----\n Sec. | Sec.\n ------------\n 1 = 1\n 2 = 2\n 3 = 3\n 4 = 4\n 5 = 7\n 6 = 11\n 7a = 37\n 8 = 22\n 8 = 23\n 9 = 33\n 10 = 82\n 11 = 57\n 12 = 34\n 13 = 40\n 14 = 69\n 15 = 41\n 16 = 42\n 17 = 44\n 18 = 62\n 19 = 63\n 20 = 13\n 21 = 58\n 22 = 74\n 23 = 48\n 24 = 54\n 25 = 46\n 27 = 47\n 28 = 55\n 29 = 52\n 30 = 53\n 31 = 54\n 32 = 55\n 33 = 64\n 34 = 61\n 36 = 65\n 37 = 75\n 38 = 86\n 39 = 26\n 40 = 36\n 41 = 68\n 42 = 73\n 43 = 70\n 44 = 72\n 45 = 71\n 46 = 30\n 47 = 91\n 47 = 92\n 48 = 58\n 49 = 68\n 50 = 56\n 51 = 32\n 53 = 29\n 55 = 98\n 56 = 99\n 59 = 59\n 61 = 17\n 62 = 76\n 63 = 77\n 64 = 38\n 66 = 45\n 67 = 93\n 70 = 60\n 73 = 12\n 73a = 31\n 74 = 63\n 75 = 14\n 76 = 20\n 77 = 84\n 78 = 27\n 79 = 82\n 81 = 94\n 82 = 96\n 84 = 60\n 85 = 17\n 86 = 15\n 89 = 86\n -----------\n\nTaking the hint that Luke's order probably represents the original order\nof the Q material, we find this supposition confirmed by the present\narrangement. In spite of Matthew's transpositions, the sections in Luke\nand Matthew, as grouped in Table IX, still stand in the same _relative_\norder.\n\n TABLE IX\n\n Lk Mt\n\n 1 = 1 The preaching of the Baptist\n 2 = 2 The messianic announcement of the Baptist\n 3 = 3 The temptation\n 4 = 4 Blessed are the poor\n 5 = 7 Blessed are ye that hunger\n 6 = 11 Blessed are ye when men hate you\n 8 = 23 Love your enemies\n\n 13 = 40 Tree known by its fruits\n 15 = 41 Why call ye me \"Lord, Lord\"?\n 16 = 42 House on rock and sand (with and without foundation)\n 17 = 44 The centurion's servant healed\n\n 18 = 62 Question of John the Baptist, and Jesus' answer\n 19 = 63 Jesus' testimony to John\n\n 25 = 46 Two men who would follow Jesus\n 27 = 47 The harvest is great, the laborers are few\n\n 29 = 52 Instructions to disciples as to what to take on journey\n 30 = 53 Conduct on the way; greet the house\n 31 = 54 Whoever receives you, receives you not\n 32 = 55 More tolerable for Sodom\n\n 47 = 91 Woes upon the Pharisees\n 47 = 92 Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven (take away the key of knowledge)\n\n 55 = 98 The watching servant\n 56 = 99 The true and false servants\n\n 62 = 76 Parable of the Mustard Seed\n 63 = 77 Parable of the Yeast\n\n 81 = 94 The day of the Son of man\n 82 = 96 The days of Noah\n\nEach of these groups--one of seven sections, two of four, and six of two\nsections each--probably stood, within itself, in the same order as that in\nwhich we now find it in Matthew and Luke.\n\nThe sections grouped in Table X have suffered such slight transpositions\nas to make it probable that each of the groups constituted a continuous\npassage, probably in the order preserved by Luke.\n\n TABLE X\n\n Lk Mt\n 21 = 58 Things hidden and revealed\n 23 = 48 The mission of the twelve\n 24 = 54 Whoever shall not receive you\n 25 = 46 Two men who would follow Jesus\n 27 = 47 The harvest is great, the laborers are few\n 28 = 55 I send you forth as lambs among wolves\n 29 = 52 Instructions as to what to take on journey\n 30 = 53 Greet the house\n 31 = 54 Whoever receives you\n 32 = 55 More tolerable for Sodom\n 33 = 63 Woes upon Galilean cities\n 34 = 61 He that receiveth you receiveth me\n 36 = 65 Wise and prudent; all things are given unto me of my Father\n\n 41 = 68 The Beelzebul controversy\n 42 = 73 About backsliding, \"empty, swept and garnished\"\n 43 = 70 The sign of Jonah\n 44 = 72 Queen of the South\n 45 = 71 The men of Nineveh\n 49 = 68 Blasphemy against the Son of man\n\n 48 = 58 Fearless confession; be not afraid of them\n 50 = 56 Take no thot what ye shall answer\n\n 51 = 32 About care\n 53 = 29 About treasures, not on the earth\n\n 81 = 94 The day of the Son of man\n 82 = 96 The days of Noah\n 85 = 97 The one taken, the other left\n 86 = 95 Where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered\n\nThere is one other item, which I owe to Mr. Streeter,[136] that strongly\nsupports the assumption that Luke has preserved the Q material in its most\nnearly original form. That is, that Luke allows himself much less liberty\nin the rearrangement of Mark's order than does Matthew. The best single\ntestimony to his faithfulness to Mark's order is seen in the fact that\nwhere he makes his great omission from Mk (Mk vi, 45-viii, 26), beginning\nat that point his great interpolation (Lk ix, 51-xviii, 14), he does not,\nafter returning to Mark, go back and pick up any single item that he has\nomitted. Detached sayings, some brief, and some, like the Beelzebul\ncontroversy, of considerable length, which he places in a different\nconnection from that in which Mark gives them, can uniformly be shown to\nhave stood in Q as well as in Mark,[137] and Luke follows Q's order with\nQ's wording. In the earlier part of his narrative, Luke does permit\nhimself some little freedom in deviating from Mark's order; notably in the\nimprisonment of John the Baptist, the call of the first disciples, and the\nrejection at Nazareth (in each case, apparently, at the expense of some\nanachronism). Except for these instances his transpositions of Marcan\nmaterial are slight, and usually amount rather to its rearrangement within\na single section than to a genuine change of order in the structure. An\nexception to this rule is his passion narrative, where his use of Mark is\ngreatly influenced by his special source.\n\nQ was apparently a collection of sayings, without chronological framework\nor data of any sort. But to the sayings of Jesus there was prefixed a\nslight account of the preaching of John the Baptist. This will not seem\nstrange when it is remembered that Q was a Palestinian document, and that\nthe cult of John the Baptist long survived the origin of Christianity.\nWhat is not so easy to explain is Q's apparent inclusion of one narrative,\nthe story of the centurion's servant. It also contained an account of the\nsending out of the twelve, but apparently no reference to the passion. The\nabsence of narratives, or of any chronological hints, would make its\nrearrangement easy; perhaps it suffered some derangement at the hands of\nthose who added the sections peculiar to Matthew's and Luke's recensions\n(as it did at the hands of Matthew himself), and who are responsible for\nsome of the deviations between the two. As Mr. Streeter suggests, if Mark\nwere lost, we could not, from Matthew and Luke, be sure either of Mark's\ncontent or his order. No more can we of Q. About all that can be said is\nthat the strong probability is that Luke more nearly than Matthew\nreproduces that order.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS\n\n\nThe positions reached in this study may be gathered up in a few brief\nstatements:\n\n1. Matthew and Luke depend for the structure of their Gospels, and for\npractically all of their narrative material, upon Mark.\n\n2. In the order of Marcan material, Matthew and Luke have made such\nchanges as were desirable from the use to which they wished to put this\nmatter. Matthew has made fewer omissions, Luke fewer transpositions.\n\n3. The changes which Matthew and Luke have made in the substance or\nwording of the Marcan material, including their omissions from it, may be\naccounted for by a desire to produce a better literary form, to avoid\nstatements that offended the growing sentiment of the church, and to adapt\ntheir own narrative to their own public. Some changes must go unaccounted\nfor.\n\n4. The hypothesis of a more primitive form of Mark in the hands of Matthew\nand Luke is not demanded by the facts. Matthew and Luke used substantially\nour Mark.\n\n5. Matthew and Luke also used a document Q, whose content, within limits,\nis well agreed upon.\n\n6. Various facts, especially translation variants, require the assumption\nthat this Q was originally an Aramaic document, used by Matthew and Luke\nrespectively, in two Greek translations that went back to two different\nAramaic texts.[138]\n\n7. This furnishes the clue for the analysis of Q into QMt and QLk, and for\nthe assignment to these two recensions of Q of much material which has\nhitherto been assigned to unknown sources.\n\n8. Mark has some literary dependence upon Q; but the Q which he knew was\nan earlier form than those in the hands of Matthew and Luke.\n\n9. The original order of Q is best seen in the order of the Q material\npreserved in Luke.\n\n\n\n\nINDEXES\n\n\n\n\nI. PASSAGES CITED\n\n\nMARK:\n\ni, 7-8, p. 237.\n\ni, 9-11, pp. 37, 237-38.\n\ni, 12-13, p. 238.\n\ni, 16-20, 21-28, pp. 38, 95.\n\ni, 29-31, pp. 38.\n\ni, 32, p. 100.\n\ni, 32-34, p. 39.\n\ni, 35-38, pp. 39-40.\n\ni, 40-45, p. 41.\n\nii, 1-12, pp. 41-42.\n\nii, 9-10, p. 93.\n\nii, 13-22, p. 42.\n\nii, 23-28, p. 43.\n\nii, 25-26, p. 94.\n\niii, 1-19, pp. 44-45.\n\niii, 7-8, p. 101.\n\niii, 20-30, pp. 45, 72-73.\n\niii, 20-29, pp. 238-39.\n\niii, 31-iv, 12, p. 45.\n\niv, 1-33, p. 77.\n\niv, 13-20, p. 46.\n\niv, 21-25, p. 47.\n\niv, 24-25, p. 239.\n\niv, 30-32, pp. 47, 240.\n\niv, 35-41, pp. 47-48.\n\nv, 1-20, pp. 48-49.\n\nv. 21-43, pp. 49-50, 72.\n\nvi, 1-6, p. 51.\n\nvi, 6-13, pp. 51-52.\n\nvi, 7-11, p. 241.\n\nvi, 14-16, pp. 52-53.\n\nvi, 17-29, pp. 53-54.\n\nvi, 30-44, pp. 54-55.\n\nvi, 45-52, pp. 55-56.\n\nvi, 45-viii, 26, pp. 92-93.\n\nvi, 53-56, p. 56.\n\nvii, 1-23, pp. 56-57.\n\nvii, 24-30, p. 57.\n\nvii, 32-37, p. 74.\n\nviii, 1-21, p. 57.\n\nviii, 12, p. 241.\n\nviii, 22-26, p. 74.\n\nviii, 27-33, p. 58.\n\nviii, 34-35, pp. 241-42.\n\nviii, 34-ix, 1, pp. 58-59.\n\nviii, 38, p. 242.\n\nix, 2-13, 59.\n\nix, 11-13, p. 73.\n\nix, 14-32, pp. 60-61.\n\nix, 33-48, p. 61.\n\nix, 42-48, p. 242.\n\nix, 49-50, p. 243.\n\nx, 11-12, pp. 61, 243.\n\nx, 13-45, p. 62.\n\nx, 29, pp. 101-2.\n\nx, 31, p. 243.\n\nx, 43-44, p. 244.\n\nx, 46-52, p. 63.\n\nxi, 1-11, p. 63.\n\nxi, 12-14, p. 64.\n\nxi, 20-25, p. 64.\n\nxi, 23, p. 244.\n\nxii, 1-12, p. 65.\n\nxii, 3, pp. 102-3.\n\nxii, 18-27, p. 65.\n\nxii, 28-40, p. 66.\n\nxii, 38-40, p. 244.\n\nxiii, 9-20, p. 66.\n\nxiii, 11, p. 244.\n\nxiii, 24-32, p. 67.\n\nxiv, 1, p. 103.\n\nxiv, 3-9, p. 73.\n\nxiv, 12, pp. 104-5.\n\nxiv, 22-25, p. 68.\n\nxiv, 25, p. 73.\n\nxiv, 28, p. 73.\n\nxiv, 32-54, p. 68.\n\nxiv, 58, p. 73.\n\nxiv, 66-72, p. 69.\n\nxv, 21-32, p. 69.\n\nxv, 42, p. 105.\n\n\nMATTHEW:\n\niii, 7-10, p. 129.\n\niii, 11-12, p. 130.\n\niii, 13-17, p. 37.\n\niv, 3-11, pp. 130-31.\n\niv, 18-22, pp. 38, 95-96.\n\niv, 25, p. 101.\n\nv, 3, p. 131.\n\nv, 4-5, p. 167.\n\nv, 5-6, p. 132.\n\nv, 7-10, pp. 167-68.\n\nv, 11-13, pp. 132-33.\n\nv, 14, p. 169.\n\nv, 15, pp. 47, 133-34.\n\nv, 16, p. 169.\n\nv, 17, 19-24, 27-28, pp. 170-71.\n\nv, 18, p. 135.\n\nv, 25-26, p. 135.\n\nv, 29-30, p. 171.\n\nv, 31, pp. 171-72.\n\nv, 31-32, p. 61.\n\nv, 33-37, p. 172.\n\nv, 39-40, pp. 135-36.\n\nv, 41, p. 172.\n\nv, 43, p. 173.\n\nv, 44-48, pp. 135-36.\n\nvi, 1-4, pp. 173-74.\n\nvi, 5-8, p. 174.\n\nvi, 9-13, p. 136.\n\nvi, 16-18, p. 175.\n\nvi, 19-23, p. 137.\n\nvi. 24-33, p. 138.\n\nvii, 1-5, p. 139.\n\nvii, 6, pp. 175-76.\n\nvii, 7-11, pp. 139-40.\n\nvii, 12-14, p. 140.\n\nvii, 15, p. 176.\n\nvii, 16-18, p. 141.\n\nvii, 19-20, p. 177.\n\nvii, 21-23, pp. 141-42.\n\nvii, 24-27, p. 143.\n\nvii, 28, pp. 177-78.\n\nvii, 28-29, p. 38.\n\nviii, 1-4, p. 41.\n\nviii, 5-10, pp. 143-45.\n\nviii, 11-12, pp. 145-46.\n\nviii, 13, pp. 178-79.\n\nviii, 14-15, pp. 38-39.\n\nviii, 16, p. 100.\n\nviii, 16-17, p. 39.\n\nviii, 19-22, p. 146.\n\nix, 1-8, p. 41.\n\nix, 5-6, pp. 93-94.\n\nix, 9-13, p. 42.\n\nix, 13, p. 179.\n\nix, 14-17, p. 42.\n\nix, 18-26, pp. 49-50.\n\nix, 27-31, p. 179.\n\nix, 32-34, p. 180.\n\nix, 35, pp. 51-52.\n\nix, 37-38, p. 146.\n\nx, 2-4, pp. 44-45.\n\nx, 5-8, p. 180.\n\nx, 10-13, pp. 146-47.\n\nx, 15, p. 147.\n\nx, 16, p. 148.\n\nx, 16-25, pp. 180-81.\n\nx, 19-20, p. 148.\n\nx, 24-25, p. 148.\n\nx, 26-33, pp. 149-50.\n\nx, 34-36, p. 150.\n\nx, 37-39, pp. 150-51.\n\nx, 40, p. 151.\n\nx, 41-42, pp. 180-81.\n\nxi, 2-27, p. 152.\n\nxi, 14, p. 181.\n\nxi, 15, p. 182.\n\nxi, 20, p. 182.\n\nxi, 23-24, pp. 182-83.\n\nxi, 28-30, p. 183.\n\nxii, 1-8, p. 43.\n\nxii, 3-4, p. 94.\n\nxii, 5-7, p. 184.\n\nxii, 9-21, p. 44.\n\nxii, 17-21, p. 184.\n\nxii, 22-37, p. 45.\n\nxii, 27-28, p. 153.\n\nxii, 30, p. 153.\n\nxii, 34, p. 184.\n\nxii, 36-37, p. 185.\n\nxii, 38-42, p. 153.\n\nxii, 40, p. 185.\n\nxii, 43-45, p. 154.\n\nxiii, 16-33, p. 154.\n\nxiii, 18-23, p. 46.\n\nxiii, 24-30, p. 185.\n\nxiii, 44-52, pp. 186-87.\n\nxiii, 53-58, p. 51.\n\nxiv, 1-2, pp. 52-53.\n\nxiv, 3-12, pp. 53-54.\n\nxiv, 13-21, pp. 54-55.\n\nxiv, 22-33, pp. 55-56.\n\nxiv, 28-31, p. 187.\n\nxiv, 34-36, p. 56.\n\nxv, 1-20, p. 56.\n\nxv, 14, p. 155.\n\nxv, 21-28, p. 57.\n\nxv, 22-24, pp. 187-88.\n\nxv, 29-31, pp. 188-89.\n\nxv, 32-39, p. 57.\n\nxvi, 1-12, p. 57.\n\nxvi, 13-23, p. 58.\n\nxvi, 17-19, p. 189.\n\nxvi, 24-28, pp. 58-59.\n\nxvii, 1-8, p. 59.\n\nxvii, 6-7, p. 189.\n\nxvii, 9-13, p. 59.\n\nxvii, 14-23, p. 60.\n\nxviii, 1-5, p. 61.\n\nxviii, 4, pp. 189-90.\n\nxviii, 6-9, p. 61.\n\nxviii, 7, p. 156.\n\nxviii, 12-14, p. 156.\n\nxviii, 21-22, p. 157.\n\nxviii, 23-35, p. 190.\n\nxix, 10-12, p. 190.\n\nxix, 13-15, p. 62.\n\nxix, 16-30, p. 62.\n\nxix, 28, p. 157.\n\nxix, 29, p. 101.\n\nxx, 1-16, p. 190.\n\nxx, 17-28, p. 62.\n\nxx, 29-34, p. 63.\n\nxxi, 1-11, p. 63.\n\nxxi, 18-27, p. 64.\n\nxxi, 33-46, p. 65.\n\nxxi, 28-32, p. 191.\n\nxxi, 35, p. 102.\n\nxxii, 1-14, p. 191.\n\nxxii, 34-40, p. 66.\n\nxxii, 41-46, p. 66.\n\nxxiii, 2-3, p. 191.\n\nxxiii, 4, pp. 157-58.\n\nxxiii, 5, 8-10, p. 191.\n\nxxiii, 12-13, p. 158.\n\nxxiii, 15-22, p. 191.\n\nxxiii, 23-26, p. 159.\n\nxxiii, 29-31, p. 159.\n\nxxiii, 34-36, p. 160.\n\nxxiii, 37-39, p. 161.\n\nxxiv, 9-22, p. 66.\n\nxxiv, 26-28, p. 161.\n\nxxiv, 34-36, p. 67.\n\nxxiv, 37-39, pp. 161-62.\n\nxxiv, 40-41, p. 162.\n\nxxiv, 43-51, p. 162.\n\nxxv, 1-46, pp. 191-92.\n\nxxvi, 2, p. 103.\n\nxxvi, 17, p. 104.\n\nxxvi, 26-29, p. 68.\n\nxxvi, 36-58, p. 68.\n\nxxvi, 52-54, p. 192.\n\nxxvi, 67-68, pp. 104-5.\n\nxxvi, 69-75, p. 69.\n\nxxvii, 32-44, p. 69.\n\nxxvii, 57, p. 105.\n\n\nLUKE:\n\niii, 7-9, p. 129.\n\niii, 10-14, p. 193.\n\niii, 16-17, p. 130.\n\niii, 21-22, p. 37.\n\niv, 3-13, p. 130.\n\niv, 16-30, pp. 51, 194.\n\niv, 31-39, p. 38.\n\niv, 40, p. 100.\n\niv, 40-43, p. 39.\n\nv, 1-11, pp. 38, 40.\n\nv, 12-26, p. 41.\n\nv, 23-24, pp. 93-94.\n\nv, 27-39, p. 42.\n\nvi, 1-5, p. 43.\n\nvi, 3-4, p. 94.\n\nvi, 6-19, p. 44.\n\nvi, 17, p. 101.\n\nvi, 20, p. 131.\n\nvi, 21, p. 132.\n\nvi, 22-23, pp. 132-33.\n\nvi, 24-26, pp. 194-95.\n\nvi, 27-30, 32-36, p. 135.\n\nvi, 31, p. 140.\n\nvi, 37-38, p. 139.\n\nvi, 38, p. 47.\n\nvi, 39, p. 155.\n\nvi, 40, p. 148.\n\nvi, 43-44, p. 141.\n\nvi, 47-49, p. 143.\n\nvii, 1-9, pp. 143-45.\n\nvii, 18-35, p. 152.\n\nvii, 29-30, p. 195.\n\nvii, 36-50, p. 195.\n\nvii, 41-42, p. 139.\n\nviii, 4-10, p. 45.\n\nviii, 11-15, p. 46.\n\nviii, 16-18, p. 47.\n\nviii, 19-21, p. 45.\n\nviii, 22-25, p. 47.\n\nviii, 26-39, pp. 48-49.\n\nviii, 40-56, pp. 49-50.\n\nix, 1-6, pp. 51-52.\n\nix, 7-9, pp. 52-53.\n\nix, 10-17, pp. 54-55.\n\nix, 18-22, p. 58.\n\nix, 23-27, p. 58-59.\n\nix, 28-36, p. 59.\n\nix, 37-45, p. 60.\n\nix, 46-50, p. 61.\n\nix, 57-60, p. 146.\n\nix, 60-63, p. 196.\n\nx, 2, p. 146.\n\nx, 3, p. 148.\n\nx, 5-8, p. 147.\n\nx, 12, p. 147.\n\nx, 13-15, p. 152.\n\nx, 16, p. 151.\n\nx, 17-20, p. 196.\n\nx, 21-22, p. 152.\n\nx, 23-24, p. 154.\n\nx, 25-28, pp. 66, 197.\n\nx, 29-37, p. 197.\n\nx, 38-42, p. 197.\n\nxi, 2-4, pp. 136-37.\n\nxi, 5-8, p. 198.\n\nxi, 9-13, pp. 139-40.\n\nxi, 14-23, p. 45.\n\nxi, 19-20, p. 153.\n\nxi, 23, p. 153.\n\nxi, 24-26, p. 154.\n\nxi, 27-28, p. 198.\n\nxi, 29-32, p. 153.\n\nxi, 33, pp. 133-34.\n\nxi, 34-35, pp. 137-38.\n\nxi, 36, p. 198.\n\nxi, 39-42, p. 159.\n\nxi, 47-48, p. 159.\n\nxi, 49-51, p. 160.\n\nxii, 2-9, p. 149.\n\nxii, 11-12, p. 148.\n\nxii, 13-21, p. 198.\n\nxii, 22-31, p. 138.\n\nxii, 33-34, p. 137.\n\nxii, 35-38, p. 198.\n\nxii, 39-40, p. 162.\n\nxii, 42-46, p. 162.\n\nxii, 47-50, p. 199.\n\nxii, 51-53, p. 150.\n\nxii, 58-59, p. 135.\n\nxiii, 1-5, p. 199.\n\nxiii, 6-9, p. 200.\n\nxiii, 18-19, p. 47.\n\nxiii, 20-21, p. 154.\n\nxiii, 23-24, p. 140.\n\nxiii, 26-27, pp. 141-42.\n\nxiii, 28-29, pp. 145-46.\n\nxiii, 31-33, pp. 200-201.\n\nxiii, 34-35, p. 161.\n\nxiv, 1-6, p. 201.\n\nxiv, 7-11, pp. 201-2.\n\nxiv, 11, p. 158.\n\nxiv, 12-24, p. 202.\n\nxiv, 26-27, pp. 150-51.\n\nxiv, 28-35, p. 203.\n\nxiv, 34, p. 133.\n\nxv, 1-7, p. 203.\n\nxv, 4-7, p. 156.\n\nxv, 8-32, p. 203.\n\nxvi, 18, p. 61.\n\nxvi, 1-12, pp. 203-4.\n\nxvi, 14-15, p. 204.\n\nxvi, 17, p. 135.\n\nxvi, 19-31, p. 205.\n\nxvii, 1, p. 156.\n\nxvii, 1-2, p. 61.\n\nxvii, 4, p. 157.\n\nxvii, 6, p. 155.\n\nxvii, 7-19, p. 205.\n\nxvii, 9-13, p. 59.\n\nxvii, 20-21, pp. 205-6.\n\nxvii, 23-24, 26-27, p. 161.\n\nxvii, 26-27, p. 161.\n\nxvii, 33, pp. 150-51.\n\nxvii, 34-35, p. 162.\n\nxvii, 37, p. 161.\n\nxviii, 15-17, p. 62.\n\nxviii, 18-30, p. 62.\n\nxviii, 29, p. 101.\n\nxviii, 31-34, p. 62.\n\nxviii, 35-43, p. 63.\n\nxix, 28-38, p. 63.\n\nxx, 1-8, p. 64.\n\nxx, 9-19, p. 65.\n\nxx, 10, p. 102.\n\nxx, 27-40, p. 65.\n\nxx, 45-47, p. 66.\n\nxxi, 12-24, pp. 66-67.\n\nxxi, 32-33, p. 67.\n\nxxii, 1, pp. 103-4.\n\nxxii, 7, p. 104.\n\nxxii, 15-20, p. 68.\n\nxxii, 28-30, p. 157.\n\nxxii, 39-55, p. 68.\n\nxxii, 56-62, p. 69.\n\nxxiii, 26-43, p. 69.\n\nxxiii, 54, pp. 105-6.\n\n\n\n\nII. GENERAL INDEX\n\n\n Abbott, E. A., 90.\n\n Angels, twelve legions of, 192.\n\n Arrest of Jesus, 68.\n\n Assimilation, 91, 92, 242.\n\n Authority of Jesus questioned, 64-65.\n\n\n Bacon. B. W., 65, 108, 173, 234.\n\n Bartimeus, 63.\n\n Bartlet, J. V., 60, 108, 212.\n\n Beatitudes, 131-32.\n\n Beelzebul controversy, 238-39.\n\n Birt, 36.\n\n Blessing of the children, 62.\n\n Blind leaders, 155.\n\n Brotherhood of Jesus, 45.\n\n Burkitt, F. C., 109, 112, 206.\n\n Burton, 144, 217.\n\n\n Calling of the first disciples, 38.\n\n Canaanitish woman, 57.\n\n Care, 138.\n\n Centurion's son, 143-45, 178-79.\n\n Changes of Matthew and Luke in Marcan narratives, chap. iv.\n\n Changes of Matthew and Luke in Marcan order, Table I, 24-27.\n\n \"Come unto me,\" 183.\n\n Conflation, 191, 240.\n\n Crucifixion, 69.\n\n\n Danger of riches, 62.\n\n Dependence of Luke upon Matthew, 98, 99.\n\n Dependence of Matthew upon Luke impossible, 98.\n\n Detached sayings, 47.\n\n Disciples, instructions to, 146-51, 180-81.\n\n Disciples, mission of, 51-52.\n\n Disciples, return of, 54-55.\n\n Discipleship, demands of, 58.\n\n Distress, predictions of, 66-67.\n\n Doublets, 190, 239, 241-45.\n\n\n Elijah, 59.\n\n Entry into Jerusalem, 63-64.\n\n Epileptic boy, 60.\n\n Evil husbandmen, 65.\n\n\n Feeding of the five thousand, 54-55.\n\n Feeding of the four thousand, 57.\n\n Fig tree cursed, 64.\n\n\n Gadarene demoniac, 48, 49.\n\n Genealogies, 98.\n\n Gennesaret, 56.\n\n Gethsemane, 68.\n\n Golden Rule, 140.\n\n Goodspeed, E. J., 72.\n\n Great Commandment, 66, 197.\n\n Great Omission of Luke, 35, 92, 93.\n\n\n Harnack, Adolf, 37, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115.\n\n --, On content of Q, 108-19 _passim_, 126, 142, 165, 178, 191, 212, 234,\n 247.\n\n Hawkins, Sir John, VI, 9, 15, 16, 33, 58, 67, 70, 84, 85, 110, 111, 112,\n 114.\n\n -- on content of Q, 108-19 _passim_, 164, 165, 170, 191, 208, 211, 247.\n\n Healings in the evening, 39.\n\n Herod, judgment concerning Jesus, 52-53.\n\n Historic present in Mark, 85.\n\n Holtzmann, J. H., 214.\n\n Huck, Adolph, v.\n\n\n Infancy section:\n in Luke, 211;\n in Matthew, 208.\n\n\n Jairus' daughter, 49-50.\n\n Jerusalem, lament over, 161.\n\n Jerusalem narrative, 10.\n\n Jerusalem tradition, 199-200.\n\n John the Baptist:\n death of, 53;\n preaching of, 129;\n preaching of, in Luke, 193.\n\n Jonah, 153, 185.\n\n Judaistic features in Matthew, 167, 168, 170, 172, 176, 180, 188.\n\n Juelicher, Adolf, 73, 125, 194, 211.\n\n\n Kingdom of Heaven, eschatalogical meaning of, 166.\n\n\n Last Supper, 68.\n\n Leper healed, 41.\n\n Logia, 97.\n\n Loisy, A., 73, 183.\n\n Lord's Prayer, 136-37.\n\n Lost Sheep, parable of, 156.\n\n Luke's Great Interpolation, 8-9.\n\n Luke's Great Omission, 7, 8, 227-228.\n\n Luke:\n matter peculiar to, 207, 210-18;\n single tradition of, 206-7;\n source peculiar to, 217-18.\n\n\n Mark:\n his use of Q, 234-48;\n framework of, in Matthew and Luke, 3-13;\n words peculiar to, 85-87.\n\n Matthew, matter peculiar to, 207-10;\n not a source for Luke, Robinson Smith's argument on, 100-107;\n single tradition of, 206;\n tendency to condensation, 189;\n messianic proclamation of, 130.\n\n Montefiore, C. G., 183.\n\n Motives of Matthew and Luke, 70, 71.\n\n Mustard Seed, parable of, 47.\n\n\n Narrow gate, parable cf, 140.\n\n Nazareth, preaching in, 51.\n\n\n Offences, 61.\n\n Omission of Marcan material by both Matthew and Luke, 30, 31.\n\n Omissions of Luke, 32-36.\n\n Order, deviations in, chap. ii.\n\n Order of narratives of the Synoptics, chap. ii.\n\n Oxford Studies, vi.\n\n\n Parable of the Sower, 45;\n interpretation of, 46;\n of Treasure, Pearl, Fish-net, Converted Scribe, 186-87.\n\n Parables peculiar to Luke, 197, 198, 200, 202, 203, 205.\n\n Parables, purpose of, 45.\n\n Paralytic healed, 41.\n\n Parousia, 67, 180.\n\n Passion narrative, 12, 13.\n\n Perean source, 214-17.\n\n Peter:\n calling of, 40, 194;\n confession of messiahship, 58;\n denial of, 69.\n\n Peter's mother-in-law, 38.\n\n Petrine strand in Mark, 75-76, 83-84.\n\n Pharisaic accusation, 45.\n\n Pharisees, 66, 153, 158, 159, 204.\n\n Prediction of sufferings, 58, 60, 62.\n\n Primary and secondary elements in Mark:\n according to von Soden, 74-77;\n according to Wendling, 74-87.\n\n Primary and secondary traits, 187, 188;\n in Mark and Q, 235;\n in Luke, 200;\n priority of, 3-16.\n\n\n Q:\n existence and content of, 108-20;\n analysis of, by Wellhausen, Wernle, Weiss, Hawkins, and Harnack, 112;\n distribution of, in Matthew, 112-13;\n Mark, overlapping of, 114;\n general agreement as to nucleus in Matthew, 114-15;\n in Luke, content according to Wellhausen, Wernle, Weiss, Hawkins, and\n Harnack, 116-19;\n distribution of in Luke, 119;\n necessity for further extension of, 120;\n originally an Aramaic document, 123-25;\n translation variance, 124, 125;\n analysis into QMt and QLk, 126-65;\n in single tradition of Luke, 193-220;\n in single tradition of Matthew, 166-92;\n original order of, 249-54.\n\n QMt, QLk:\n meaning of the symbols, 127;\n advantages of the hypothesis, 219, 221-33.\n\n\n Resistance and non-resistance, 135-36.\n\n Retirement of Jesus, 39.\n\n Ropes, J. H., 181.\n\n Roerdam, T. S., 72.\n\n\n Sadducees, 65.\n\n Sanday, W., 89, 212-13, 219, 234.\n\n Sanders, H. A., 98.\n\n Schmeidel, Paul, 46, 67, 73, 135, 139, 170, 175, 203.\n\n Seats in the Kingdom, 62.\n\n Secondary traits in Q, QMt, and QLk, 230-33.\n\n Seeking and finding, 139.\n\n Sermon on the Mount, sayings from, 133-43, 167-78.\n\n Seventy, return of the, 196.\n\n Sign demanded, 57.\n\n Smith, Robinson, 100, 107 _passim_, 173.\n\n Soden, von, H. H., 74-84 _passim_.\n\n Special source of Luke, 197, 201, 202, 203;\n meaning of, 192.\n\n Stanton, V. H., 112, 171, 228.\n\n Storm on the lake, 47.\n\n Streeter, H. B., 114, 131, 180, 197, 198, 200, 202, 203, 204, 212, 234,\n 244, 253, 254.\n\n Strife:\n about rank, 61;\n among relatives, 150.\n\n Summary and conclusions, 255-56.\n\n Synagogue at Capernaum, 38.\n\n\n Tables:\n I, order of Marcan material in Matthew and Luke, 24-27;\n II, Q material in Matthew according to five scholars, 110, 111;\n III, Q material in Luke according to five scholars, 116-17;\n IV, Q material in Matthew, 222-23;\n V, Q material in Luke, 224-25;\n VI, Q material in Mark, 246;\n VII and VIII, on relative order of Q matter in Matthew and Luke, 250;\n IX, sections in Q material in their order in Matthew and Luke, 251;\n X, sections in Q material, slightly rearranged in order, 252.\n\n Temptation, 130;\n in Mark and Q, 238.\n\n Things that defile, 56-57.\n\n Transfiguration, 59.\n\n Translation variants, 240.\n\n Transposition:\n in Luke, 70;\n in Mark, 72-74.\n\n Tree and fruits, 141.\n\n Twelve:\n calling of the 44;\n mission of, in Mark and Q, 241.\n\n Two foundations, 143.\n\n\n Unknown exorcist, 32, 61.\n\n Ur-Marcus, 72, 88-93.\n\n\n Verbal resemblance illustrated, 93-96.\n\n Vocabulary in Mark and Q, 246-48.\n\n Votaw, C. W., 173.\n\n\n Widow's mite, 32.\n\n Walk thru the corn, 43.\n\n Walking on the sea, 55.\n\n Weiss, B., 108.\n\n Weiss, J., 46, 110, 111, 112.\n\n -- on content of Q, 108-10 _passim_, 134, 191, 194.\n\n Wellhausen, J., 37, 55, 73, 110, 111, 112, 115.\n\n -- on content of Q, 108-19 _passim_, 133, 150, 183, 191, 198, 234, 240.\n\n Wendling, E., 74-87, 228.\n\n Wernle, Paul, vi, 32, 37, 65, 110, 111, 115.\n\n -- on content of Q, 108-19 _passim_, 191, 198, 210, 234, 244, 245.\n\n Westcott and Hort, 69.\n\n Withered hand, 44.\n\n\n Yeast, a saying about, 57.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Mohr, Tuebingen, 1906, 3d ed. A fourth edition of this valuable book\nappeared in 1911, but without important changes.\n\n[2] Cf. Sanders, _Journal of Biblical Literature_, XXXII, 184 ff., for\nevidence that this did not stand in the original text of Luke.\n\n[3] This statement may be questioned, as Lk xiii, 18-19 may be considered\nparallel to Mk iv, 30-32. At all events Matthew has the passage with Mark.\nThe matter is complicated by the fact that the parable apparently stood in\nboth Mark and Q.\n\n[4] Tho Lk xiv, 34_a_ is apparently taken from Mk ix, 50_a_, as against Mt\nv, 13_a_.\n\n[5] For discussion of Luke's non-use of Mark thruout the Great\nInterpolation, see pp. 16-18; for an elaborate analysis of the sources of\nthe section, see Hawkins, _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, pp.\n29-59.\n\n[6] see Hawkins, _Horae Synopticae_, pp. 139-41, for other instances.\n\n[7] For an elaborate analysis of the sources of the material in the Great\nInterpolation, see Hawkins, _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, pp.\n29-59.\n\n[8] An apparent exception is Lk xiv, 34 = Mk ix, 50; no parallel in\nMatthew. Lk xvii, 2 = Mk ix, 42, and Lk x, 27 = Mk xii, 30 should perhaps\nbe added, but are not so clear.\n\n[9] Chapter and verse for each of these sections being given in the\ntabulated arrangement of this same material on pp. 24-27, only such\nreferences are given here as are necessary to help the reader to follow\nthe analysis at this point.\n\n[10] We do not include here the omission of single words or phrases, or\neven occasionally of an entire verse, where it is plain that this is in\nthe interest of some change or condensation.\n\n[11] See especially the parable of the Weed in the Field (Mt xiii, 24-30),\nthe Mustard Seed (Mk iv, 30-32; Mt xiii, 31-32; Lk xiii, 18-19), the Sower\n(Mt xiii, 1-9; Lk viii, 4-8).\n\n[12] Wernle, _Synoptische Frage_, p. 126.\n\n[13] Thruout this discussion I am greatly indebted to Wernle, as anyone\nmust be who has read his _Synoptische Frage_.\n\n[14] Wernle includes among these the defense of Jesus in Mk iii, 23-30,\npractically duplicated in Lk xi, 17-23. Why not a transposition, rather\nthan an omission? So considered here.\n\n[15] Wernle, _op. cit._, p. 5.\n\n[16] Yet not always. Cf. his two bands of teachers, his healing of ten\nlepers and of one, his two disputes about priority among the disciples,\nhis three predictions of the passion and two of the resurrection. But cf.\nhis omission of anointing at Bethany, the barren fig tree, the mocking by\nPilate's soldiers, because of their duplications of his material already\nused. See Hawkins, _op. cit._, 69.\n\n[17] Matthew takes no offense at this; for he even adds to it, \"I am not\nsent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.\"\n\n[18] Hawkins, _op. cit._, p. 71. It seems strange that Hawkins' discussion\nof the \"great omission\" contains no reference to Wernle's treatment of the\nsame subject.\n\n[19] Wernle, _op. cit._, p. 6.\n\n[20] On the size of ancient books, see Sanday, _Oxford Studies_, pp.\n25-26; cf. Birt, _Das antike Buchwesen_.\n\n[21] For complete and detailed discussion, see Wernle, Wellhausen,\nHarnack.\n\n[22] See pp. 95-96, where the account of the call of the first disciples\nis further discussed, and printed in heavy-faced type.\n\n[23] P. 30; see also pp. 95-96, where the account of the calling of the\nfirst disciples is printed in heavy-faced type and is further discussed.\n\n[24] This latter is not the usual word for \"bed,\" but means a _little_\nbed--_some_ sort of bed.\n\n[25] Agreement of Matthew and Luke in these two corrections is held to\nshow Urmarkus. The need of correction is obvious enough, and the\ncorrections are the natural ones to make. So also Sinaiticus in Mark, with\nother authorities.\n\n[26] Some MSS omit this reference in Mark.\n\n[27] P. 21.\n\n[28] See Lk iii, 21; ix, 18, 28, 29; xi, 1.\n\n[29] See pp. 153, 238-39.\n\n[30] _Das aelteste Evangelium_, p. 165.\n\n[31] For further discussion of this and the preceding section see pp.\n239-40.\n\n[32] P. 19.\n\n[33] Huck's _Synopse_, pp. 80 and 109, will show the verses belonging\nrespectively to the two sources.\n\n[34] It is argued later, pp. 234-48, that Mark also is dependent upon Q,\nbut since he has the Q material in much briefer and more fragmentary form\nthan Matthew and Luke, his use of Q does not preclude Matthew's and Luke's\npreservation of more primary features of the Q tradition.\n\n[35] Wellhausen, _Einleitung_, p. 59.\n\n[36] For further discussion see p. 241.\n\n[37] _Horae Synopticae_, p. 123.\n\n[38] A note on this passage by Professor H. A. Sanders says that this is\nMark's order in B D (k d c) only.\n\n[39] Cf. a similar omission of the address to the waves, p. 48.\n\n[40] See Bartlet, \"Sources of St. Luke's Gospel,\" _Oxford Studies_, p.\n321.\n\n[41] I am unable to account for Matthew's addition that Jesus touched the\nman's eyes.\n\n[42] See p. 244 for further discussion of the saying as in Mark and Q.\n\n[43] No reason can be given, so far as I know, for Luke's addition of his\nxx, 18. Some texts ascribe the same saying to Matthew also.\n\n[44] I think I owe this suggestion to Wernle, but do not find the passage\nin his _Synoptische Frage_.\n\n[45] Bacon explains this saying of Mark's to mean that Jahwe is not a god\nof the underworld, like Pluto (_Beginnings of Gospel Story_).\n\n[46] Luke (xvii, 34) wishes to suggest that the parousia may occur in the\n_night_.\n\n[47] _Horae Synopticae_, p. 120.\n\n[48] See his study, from which these statements are abridged, in _Oxford\nStudies in the Synoptic Problem_, pp. 76-77.\n\n[49] The fact that Matthew agrees much more closely with Mark, in those\nsections which are omitted by Luke, is a somewhat curious one, for which I\nhave seen no sufficient explanation offered. A possible explanation might\nbe that in these sections no opportunity was offered to later copyists to\nassimilate the texts of Matthew and Luke, and thus introduce further\nchanges from Mark. If the extent of such assimilation could be proved to\nbe great enough, this explanation would perhaps be sufficient.\n\n[50] See Goodspeed on \"The Original Conclusion of Mark's Gospel,\" in\n_American Journal of Theology_, Vol. IX (1905), pp. 484-90; also, Roerdam,\n_Hibbert Journal_, Vol. III, pp. 769-90, \"What Was the Lost End of the\nGospel of Mark?\"\n\n[51] See Wellhausen, _Einleitung_, p. 56; Loisy, _Gospel and Church_, p.\n29.\n\n[52] This study of von Soden's and Wendling's treatment of Mark appeared\nin the _Harvard Theological Review_ for April, 1913.\n\n[53] P. 23.\n\n[54] P. 24.\n\n[55] For reasons which he does not explain, he rearranges the sections.\n\n[56] Von Soden, _Die wichtigsten Fragen_, pp. 38, 39.\n\n[57] _Ibid._, pp. 39, 40.\n\n[58] And still more in his _Entstehung_, too elaborate to be here\nconsidered.\n\n[59] Cf. especially the words [Greek: mysterion, meta charas lambanein,\ndiogmos, epithymiai, karpophorein], and see Wendling, p. 35, n. 11.\n\n[60] Cf. ii, 20, also the work of the redactor.\n\n[61] Cf. especially v, 2 with i, 23; v, 6, 7, with i, 24; v, 8-13, with i,\n25; v, 13, with i, 26; v, 14-17, with i, 27, and see Wendling, p. 11.\n\n[62] In _Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliums_, p. 204, Wendling arranges\nthe verses from M1 in chaps. xiii and xiv as follows: xiii, 1-2, 33,\n28-29, 34-36; xiv, 1-2, 10-11, 3-7, 22-25, 43-46, 48-50, 65. Some minor\ndifferences in analysis, affecting words or clauses, are registered\n_ibid._, p. 237.\n\n[63] Hawkins, _Horae Synopticae_, pp. 12-13.\n\n[64] See Hawkins, pp. 144-48.\n\n[65] The seventy-eight does not include parables, where the present is not\nhistoric.\n\n[66] See Sanday's essay, in _Oxford Studies_, pp. 21-22.\n\n[67] Turner, _Theological Studies_, January, 1909, p. 175, quoted by\nSanday.\n\n[68] See Hawkins, _Oxford Studies_, pp. 64-66.\n\n[69] Both genealogies may easily be suspected of being later additions. If\nLuke's genealogy is a gloss there is no apparent reason why it should not\nhave been inserted in the appropriate place; cf. Sanders, _Journal of\nBiblical Literature_, XXX, 11.\n\n[70] E.g., the verses on Peter and the keys, or on Peter walking on the\nwater, or the conversation of Jesus with John the Baptist at the time of\nJesus' baptism.\n\n[71] In the _Hibbert Journal_, No. 39, April, 1912, pp. 615-25.\n\n[72] This passage has been already treated in a different connection on p.\n39.\n\n[73] Omitted in some manuscripts of Mark.\n\n[74] vii, 28; xi, 1; xiii, 53; xix, 1; xxvi, 1.\n\n[75] Hawkins, _Horae Synopticae_, p. 165.\n\n[76] Wernle, p. 110.\n\n[77] Luke uses it twenty-four times against Matthew's seven and Mark's\nfour.\n\n[78] P. 617.\n\n[79] Mk xiv, 54.\n\n[80] In xiv, 66.\n\n[81] P. 617.\n\n[82] Lk xxii, 54.\n\n[83] See his note, p. 618.\n\n[84] P. 621. This judgment upon Luke is in striking contrast to that\nexpressed by Mueller, _Zur Synopse_, p. 3: \"Wellhausen calls Luke a\n\"historian.\" This judgment rests on excellent grounds. We see this at once\nin the manner in which Luke has used the text-scaffolding of Mark.\nLogical, simple, and transparent considerations have moved him,\" etc.\nMueller's judgment is decidedly the better.\n\n[85] P. 625.\n\n[86] In his _Gospel History and Its Transmission_, and _Earliest Sources\nfor the Life of Jesus_.\n\n[87] E.g., Stanton: see his _Gospels as Historical Documents_, Part II;\nand Robinson: see his _Study of the Gospels_.\n\n[88] Cf. especially the prediction of sufferings connected with the\nconfession of Peter (Mt xvi, 13-23); the speech about Elijah, connected\nwith the transfiguration (Mt xvii, 9-13); the speech about true greatness,\nconnected with the request of the sons of Zebedee (Mt xx, 20-28).\n\n[89] _Oxford Studies_, p. xxii.\n\n[90] Hawkins' list comes from his _Horae Synopticae_. In his essay in\n_Oxford Studies_ he assigns a considerably larger content to Q.\n\n[91] _Einleitung_, pp. 16-18.\n\n[92] Effort will be made later to determine the extent of QMt and QLk by\nthemselves.\n\n[93] The writer began the following examination with the intention of\nassigning to Q only, and rejecting all passages not showing sufficient\nagreement to warrant such assignment. He found this task so difficult,\ninvolving the rejection of so many passages which did not apparently\nbelong to Q but which nevertheless showed unmistakable signs of literary\nrelation, that he adopted the theory (suggested but not worked out in the\nintroduction to Bacon's _Beginnings of Gospel Story_) of QMt and QLk.\n\n[94] See Wellhausen's _Einleitung_, p. 36, and pp. 124-25 of this book.\n\n[95] _Das aelteste Evangelium_, p. 175.\n\n[96] _Encyclopaedia Biblica_, col. 1864.\n\n[97] See also pp. 124-25.\n\n[98] See the treatment of this passage on p. 124.\n\n[99] See his _Sayings of Jesus_, pp. 30-31.\n\n[100] _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, p. 109.\n\n[101] _Sayings of Jesus_, p. 52.\n\n[102] _Oxford Studies_, p. 133.\n\n[103] _Encyclopedia Biblica_, Vol. II, col. 1864.\n\n[104] P. 78.\n\n[105] [Greek: Kryphaio] is in vs. 18 substituted for [Greek: krypto] used\nin 4 and 6.\n\n[106] _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, p. 149.\n\n[107] Pp. 40-42.\n\n[108] _Schriften des Neuen Testaments_, I, 324.\n\n[109] _The Synoptic Gospels_, I, 608.\n\n[110] Quoted by Montefiore, I, 610.\n\n[111] Sometimes counted as only seven, the similitude in vs. 52 not being\nreckoned as a parable.\n\n[112] So regarded, apparently, by J. Weiss in his _Schriften des Neuen\nTestaments_, I, 342.\n\n[113] _Oxford Studies_, p. 192.\n\n[114] _Oxford Studies_, p. 193.\n\n[115] _Encyclopedia Biblica_, col. 1864.\n\n[116] _Oxford Studies_, p. 201.\n\n[117] The healing of a dropsical man (Lk xiv, 1-6), tho a narrative\nsection, has been considered on p. 201, on account of the sayings in it.\n\n[118] Hawkins, _Horae Synopticae_, p. 9.\n\n[119] Unless this should be regarded as a gloss, which would not so well\naccount for its awkward position. See Sanders, _Journal of Biblical\nLiterature_, October, 1913.\n\n[120] _Oxford Studies_, Introductory Essay, pp. xx-xxi.\n\n[121] See pp. 8-9, 16-18.\n\n[122] Holtzmann's suggestion that Luke omitted the Mark section because it\nends with the second feeding of the multitude--implying the same sort of\nomission by mistake as is often made when two lines end with the same\nword--seems strangely insufficient.\n\n[123] Why does Luke have _two_ laments over Jerusalem, as well as two\nmissions of the disciples, especially considering his apparent avoidance\nof duplicates?\n\n[124] This last, quite inappropriate alike in the mouth of Jesus and as a\npart of his parable, becomes, in the mouth of Luke, a pathetic commentary\nupon the difficulty of preserving the Christian faith while waiting for\nthe long-delayed parousia.\n\n[125] The soliloquy in the parables of Jesus is introduced by Luke alone.\nThe dialogue, tho more frequent in Luke than in Matthew, is not restricted\nto him.\n\n[126] Sanday, _Oxford Studies_, pp. 25-26.\n\n[127] Pp. 129-206.\n\n[128] So Wendling. Stanton also says Mark's connection is better with Mk\nvi, 45-vii, 23, omitted.\n\n[129] It should be said that most of those who argue for Luke's omission\nof so much Q material assign these sixteen sections to some special source\nof Luke's.\n\n[130] See especially Matthew's \"Go not into any way of the gentiles,\"\nwhich might be assigned to Q, with obvious reasons for Luke's omission.\n\n[131] Pp. 222-25.\n\n[132] See analyses on pp. 230-33.\n\n[133] Pp. 222-35.\n\n[134] See the reckoning made without inclusion of Marcan Q on pp. 162,\n218.\n\n[135] Still according to Harnack.\n\n[136] _Oxford Studies_, p. 146.\n\n[137] See pp. 234-46 for material in Mark and Q.\n\n[138] A note by Professor Sanders says, quite correctly, that \"The general\nagreement in translation words requires that one of these translations\nshould have preceeded and influenced the other.\"\n\n\n\n\nTHE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n\n64-66 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK\n\n\nUniversity of Michigan Studies\n\n\nHUMANISTIC SERIES\n\nGeneral Editors: FRANCIS W. KELSEY and HENRY A. SANDERS\n\n\nSize, 22.7 x 15.2 cm. 8o. Bound in cloth\n\nVOL. I. ROMAN HISTORICAL SOURCES AND INSTITUTIONS. Edited by Professor\nHenry A. Sanders, University of Michigan. Pp. viii+402. $2.50 net.\n\n CONTENTS\n\n 1. THE MYTH ABOUT TARPEIA: Professor Henry A. Sanders.\n\n 2. THE MOVEMENTS OF THE CHORUS CHANTING THE CARMEN SAECULARE:\n Professor Walter Dennison, Swarthmore College.\n\n 3. STUDIES IN THE LIVES OF ROMAN EMPRESSES, JULIA MAMAEA: Professor\n Mary Gilmore Williams, Mt. Holyoke College.\n\n 4. THE ATTITUDE OF DIO CASSIUS TOWARD EPIGRAPHIC SOURCES: Professor\n Duane Reed Stuart, Princeton University.\n\n 5. THE LOST EPITOME OF LIVY: Professor Henry A. Sanders.\n\n 6. THE PRINCIPALES OF THE EARLY EMPIRE: Professor Joseph H. Drake,\n University of Michigan.\n\n 7. CENTURIONS AS SUBSTITUTE COMMANDERS OF AUXILIARY CORPS: Professor\n George H. Allen, University of Cincinnati.\n\n\nVOL. II. WORD-FORMATION IN PROVENCAL. By Professor Edward L. Adams,\nUniversity of Michigan. Pp. xvii+607. $4.00 net.\n\n\nVOL. III. LATIN PHILOLOGY. Edited by Professor Clarence Linton Meader,\nUniversity of Michigan. Pp. viii+290. $2.00 net.\n\n Parts Sold Separately in Paper Covers:\n\n Part I. THE USAGE OF IDEM, IPSE AND WORDS OF RELATED MEANING. By\n Clarence L. Meader. Pp. 1-112. $0.75.\n\n Part II. A STUDY IN LATIN ABSTRACT SUBSTANTIVES. By Professor Manson\n A. Stewart, Yankton College. Pp. 113-78. $0.40.\n\n Part III. THE USE OF THE ADJECTIVE AS A SUBSTANTIVE IN THE DE RERUM\n NATURA OF LUCRETIUS. By Dr. Frederick T. Swan. Pp. 179-214. $0.40.\n\n Part IV. AUTOBIOGRAPHIC ELEMENTS IN LATIN INSCRIPTIONS. By Professor\n Henry H. Armstrong, Drury College. Pp. 215-86. $0.40.\n\n\nVOL. IV. ROMAN HISTORY AND MYTHOLOGY. Edited by Professor Henry A.\nSanders. Pp. viii+427. $2.50 net.\n\n Parts Sold Separately in Paper Covers:\n\n Part I. STUDIES IN THE LIFE OF HELIOGABALUS. By Dr. Orma Fitch Butler,\n University of Michigan. Pp. 1-169. $1.25 net.\n\n Part II. THE MYTH OF HERCULES AT ROME. By Professor John G. Winter,\n University of Michigan. Pp. 171-273. $0.50 net.\n\n Part III. ROMAN LAW STUDIES IN LIVY. By Professor Alvin E. Evans,\n Washington State College. Pp. 275-354. $0.40 net.\n\n Part IV. REMINISCENCES OF ENNIUS IN SILIUS ITALICUS. By Dr. Loura B.\n Woodruff. Pp. 355-424. $0.40 net.\n\n\nVOL. V. SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. By Rev. Dr. Carl S. Patton, First\nCongregational Church, Columbus, Ohio. Pp. xiii+263. $1.30 net.\n\n\nSize, 28 x 19 cm. 4o.\n\nVOL. VI. ATHENIAN LEKYTHOI WITH OUTLINE DRAWING IN GLAZE VARNISH ON A\nWHITE GROUND. By Arthur Fairbanks, Director of the Museum of Fine Arts,\nBoston. With 15 plates, and 57 illustrations in the text. Pp. x+371. Bound\nin cloth. $4.00 net.\n\n\nVOL. VII. ATHENIAN LEKYTHOI WITH OUTLINE DRAWING IN DULL COLOR ON A WHITE\nGROUND, AND AN APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL LEKYTHOI WITH OUTLINE DRAWING IN GLAZE\nVARNISH ON A WHITE GROUND. By Arthur Fairbanks. With 41 plates. Pp. x+275.\nBound in cloth. $3.50 net.\n\n\nVOL. VIII. THE OLD TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS IN THE FREER COLLECTION. By\nProfessor Henry A. Sanders, University of Michigan.\n\n Part I. THE WASHINGTON MANUSCRIPT OF DEUTERONOMY AND JOSHUA. With 3\n folding plates of pages of the Manuscript in facsimile. Pp. vi+104.\n Paper covers. $1.00.\n\n Part II. THE WASHINGTON MANUSCRIPT OF THE PSALMS. (_In Press._)\n\n\nVOL. IX. THE NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS IN THE FREER COLLECTION. By\nProfessor Henry A. Sanders, University of Michigan.\n\n Part I. THE WASHINGTON MANUSCRIPT OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. With 5 plates.\n Pp. viii+247. Paper covers. $2.00.\n\n Part II. THE WASHINGTON FRAGMENTS OF THE EPISTLES OF PAUL. (_In\n Preparation._)\n\n\nVOL. X. THE COPTIC MANUSCRIPTS IN THE FREER COLLECTION. By Professor\nWilliam H. Worrell, Hartford Seminary Foundation. (_In Preparation._)\n\n\nVOL. XI. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE. (_In Press._)\n\n Part I. ROBERT OF CHESTER'S LATIN TRANSLATION OF THE ALGEBRA OF\n AL-KHOWARIZMI. With an Introduction, Critical Notes, and an English\n Version. By Professor Louis C. Karpinski, University of Michigan. With\n 4 plates showing pages of manuscripts in facsimile, and 25 diagrams in\n the text. (_In Press._)\n\n Part II. THE PRODROMUS OF NICHOLAS STENO'S LATIN DISSERTATION ON A\n SOLID BODY ENCLOSED BY NATURAL PROCESS WITHIN A SOLID. Translated into\n English by Professor John G. Winter, University of Michigan. With a\n Foreword by Professor William H. Hobbs. (_In Press._)\n\n\nVOL. XII. STUDIES IN EAST CHRISTIAN AND ROMAN ART.\n\n Part I. EAST CHRISTIAN PAINTINGS IN THE FREER COLLECTION. By Professor\n Charles R. Morey, Princeton University. With 13 plates (10 colored)\n and 34 illustrations in the text. Pp. xii+87. Bound in cloth. $2.50.\n\n Part II. A GOLD TREASURE OF THE LATE ROMAN PERIOD FROM EGYPT. By\n Professor Walter Dennison, Swarthmore College. (_In Press._)\n\n\nVOL. XIII. DOCUMENTS FROM THE CAIRO GENIZAH IN THE FREER COLLECTION. Text,\nwith Translation and an Introduction by Professor Richard Gottheil,\nColumbia University. (_In Preparation._)\n\n\nSCIENTIFIC SERIES\n\nSize 28 x 18.5 cm. 4o. Bound in cloth\n\nVOL. I. THE CIRCULATION AND SLEEP. By Professor John F. Shepard,\nUniversity of Michigan. Pp. x+83, with an Atlas of 83 plates, bound\nSeparately. Text and Atlas, $3.00 net.\n\nVOL. II. STUDIES ON DIVERGENT SERIES AND SUMMABILITY. By Professor Walter\nB. Ford, University of Michigan. (_In Preparation._)\n\n\nHUMANISTIC PAPERS\n\nSize, 22.7 x 15.2 cm. 8o. Bound in cloth\n\nLATIN AND GREEK IN AMERICAN EDUCATION, WITH SYMPOSIA ON THE VALUE OF\nHUMANISTIC STUDIES. Edited by Francis W. Kelsey. Pp. x+396. $1.50.\n\n CONTENTS\n\n THE PRESENT POSITION OF LATIN AND GREEK, THE VALUE OF LATIN AND GREEK\n AS EDUCATIONAL INSTRUMENTS, THE NATURE OF CULTURE STUDIES.\n\n SYMPOSIA ON THE VALUE OF HUMANISTIC, PARTICULARLY CLASSICAL, STUDIES\n AS A PREPARATION FOR THE STUDY OF MEDICINE, ENGINEERING, LAW, AND\n THEOLOGY.\n\n SYMPOSIA ON THE VALUE OF HUMANISTIC, PARTICULARLY CLASSICAL, STUDIES\n AS A TRAINING FOR MEN OF AFFAIRS; ON THE CLASSICS AND THE NEW\n EDUCATION; AND ON THE DOCTRINE OF FORMAL DISCIPLINE IN THE LIGHT OF\n CONTEMPORARY PSYCHOLOGY.\n\n\nHandbooks of Archaeology and Antiquities\n\nEdited by PERCY GARDNER, of the University of Oxford, and FRANCIS W.\nKELSEY, of the University of Michigan.\n\nThe Principles of Greek Art\n\n By PERCY GARDNER, Litt.D., Lincoln and Merton Professor of Classical\n Archaeology, University of Oxford.\n\n Makes clear the artistic and psychological principles underlying Greek\n art, especially sculpture, which is treated as a characteristic\n manifestation of the Greek spirit, a development parallel to that of\n Greek literature and religion. While there are many handbooks of Greek\n archaeology, this volume holds a unique place.\n\n _Illustrated, cloth, $2.25; postpaid, $2.46_\n\nGreek Architecture\n\n By ALLAN MARQUAND, Ph.D., L.H.D., Professor of Art and Archaeology in\n Princeton University.\n\n Professor Marquand, in this interesting and scholarly volume, passes\n from the materials of construction to the architectural forms and\n decorations of the buildings of Greece, and, lastly, to its monuments.\n Nearly four hundred illustrations assist the reader in a clear\n understanding of the subject.\n\n _Cloth, $2.25; postpaid, $2.45_\n\nGreek Sculpture\n\n By ERNEST A. GARDNER, M.A., Professor of Archaeology in University\n College, London.\n\n A comprehensive outline of our present knowledge of Greek sculpture,\n distinguishing the different schools and periods, and showing the\n development of each. This volume, fully illustrated, fills an\n important gap and is widely used as a textbook.\n\n _Cloth, $2.50; postpaid, $2.67_\n\nGreek Constitutional History\n\n By A. H. J. GREENIDGE, M.A., Late Lecturer in Hertford College and\n Brasenose College, Oxford.\n\n Most authors in writing of Greek History emphasize the structure of\n the constitutions; Mr. Greenidge lays particular stress upon the\n workings of these constitutions. With this purpose ever in view, he\n treats of the development of Greek public law, distinguishing the\n different types of states as they appear.\n\n _Cloth, $1.25; postpaid, $1.35_\n\nGreek and Roman Coins\n\n By G. F. HILL, M.A., of the Department of Coins and Medals in the\n British Museum.\n\n All the information needed by the beginner in numismatics, or for\n ordinary reference, is here presented. The condensation necessary to\n bring the material within the size of the present volume has in no way\n interfered with its clearness or readableness.\n\n _Cloth, $2.25; postpaid, $2.38_\n\nGreek Athletic Sports and Festivals\n\n By E. NORMAN GARDINER, M.A., Sometime Classical Exhibitor of Christ\n Church College, Oxford.\n\n With over two hundred illustrations from contemporary art, and bright\n descriptive text, this work proves of equal interest to the general\n reader and to the student of the past. Many of the problems with which\n it deals--the place of physical training, games, athletics, in daily\n and national life--will be found as real at the present time as they\n were in the far-off days of Greece.\n\n _Cloth, $2.50; postpaid, $2.66_\n\nAthens and Its Monuments\n\n By CHARLES HEALD WELLER, University of Iowa.\n\n This book embodies the results of many years of study and of direct\n observation during different periods of residence in Athens. It\n presents in concise and readable form a description of the ancient\n city in the light of the most recent investigations. It is profusely\n illustrated with half-tones and line engravings.\n\n _$4.00 net; postpaid, $4.25_\n\nThe Destruction of Ancient Rome\n\n By RODOLFO LANCIANI, D.C.L., Oxford; LL.D., Harvard; Professor of\n Ancient Topography in the University of Rome.\n\n Rome, the fate of her buildings and masterpieces of art, is the\n subject of this profusely illustrated volume. Professor Lanciani gives\n us vivid pictures of the Eternal City at the close of the different\n periods of history.\n\n _Cloth, $1.50; postpaid, $1.63_\n\nRoman Festivals\n\n By W. WARDE FOWLER, M.A., Fellow and Sub-Rector of Lincoln College,\n Oxford.\n\n This book covers in a concise form almost all phases of the public\n worship of the Roman state, as well as certain ceremonies which,\n strictly speaking, lay outside that public worship. It will be found\n very useful to students of Roman literature and history as well as to\n students of anthropology and the history of religion.\n\n _Cloth, $1.25; postpaid, $1.37_\n\nRoman Public Life\n\n By A. H. J. GREENIDGE, M.A., Late Lecturer in Hertford College and\n Brasenose College, Oxford.\n\n The growth of the Roman constitution and its working during the\n developed Republic and the Principate is the subject which Mr.\n Greenidge here set for himself. All important aspects of public life,\n municipal and provincial, are treated so as to reveal the political\n genius of the Romans in connection with the chief problems of\n administration.\n\n _Cloth, $2.50; postpaid, $2.63_\n\nMonuments of the Early Church\n\n By WALTER LOWRIE, M.A., Rector of St. Paul's Church, Rome.\n\n Nearly two hundred photographs and drawings of the most representative\n monumental remains of Christian antiquity, accompanied by detailed\n expositions, make this volume replete with interest for the general\n reader and at the same time useful as a handbook for the student of\n Christian archaeology in all its branches.\n\n _Cloth, $1.25; postpaid, $1.39_\n\nMonuments of Christian Rome\n\n By ARTHUR L. FROTHINGHAM, Ph.D., formerly Professor of Archaeology and\n Ancient History in Princeton University.\n\n \"The plan of the volume is simple and admirable. The first part\n comprises a historical sketch; the second, a classification of the\n monuments.\"--_The Outlook._\n\n Profusely illustrated.\n\n _Cloth, $2.25; postpaid, $2.43_\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nPassages in italics are indicated by _italics_.\n\nPassages in bold are indicated by =bold=.\n\nThe original text includes Greek and Hebrew characters. For this text\nversion these letters have been replaced with transliterations.","title":"Sources of the Synoptic Gospels","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":80789}