,the volumes of the ,university of ,michigan ,studies are published by authority of the ,executive ,board of the ,graduate ,department of the ,university of ,michigan4 ,a list of the volumes thus far published or arranged for is given at the end of this volume4 ,university of ,michigan ,studies ,,humanistic ,,series ,,volume ,v ,,sources ,,of ,,the ,,synoptic ,,gospels ,,the ,,macmillan ,,company ,,new ,,york ,,boston ,,chicago ,,atlanta ,,san ,,francisco ,,macmillan ,,co41 ,,limited ,,london ,,bombay ,,calcutta ,,melbourne ,,the ,,macmillan ,,co4 ,,of ,,canada1 ,,ltd4 ,,toronto ,,sources ,,of ,,the ,,synoptic ,,gospels ,,by ,,carl ,s4 ,,patton ,,first ,,congregational ,,church ,,columbus1 ,,ohio ,a ,,thesis ,,submitted ,,to ,,the ,,faculty ,,of ,,the ,,department ,,of ,,literature1 ,,science1 ,,and ,,the ,,arts ,,of ,,the ,,university ,,of ,,michigan1 ,,for ,,the ,,degree ,,of ,,doctor ,,of ,,philosophy ,new ,york ,,the ,,macmillan ,,company ,,london3 ,,macmillan ,,company1 ,,limited #aiae ,all ,rights ,reserved ,,copyright #aiae ,,by ,,carl ,s4 ,,patton ,printed ,august1 #aiae ,composed and ,printed ,by ,the ,university of ,chicago ,press ,chicago1 ,illinois1 ,u4,s4,a4 ,,preface ,the purpose of this study is twofold3 first1 to give some account of the investigations recently made in the ,synoptic ,problem1 and the present status of scholarly opinion concerning it2 secondly1 upon the basis of such established results1 to push the inquiry into certain items a step farther4 ,the first part of the work1 including pages #c-abj1 tho largely occupied with results reached by many different scholars1 and bringing the matter up to where the writer adds his own more personal contribution1 is yet not a mere survey of results attained4 ,the writer has expressed his own judgment freely thruout it1 as to the merits of arguments of others1 and as to the points involved in the discussion4 ,but his more personal contribution lies in the analysis of the groundwork ,q into the two recensions1 ,q ,mt and ,q ,lk4 ,the one book constantly in the writer's hands during the preparation of this study was ,a4 ,huck's ,synopse der drei ersten ,evangelien4#a ,without some such parallel edition of the ,greek ,gospels constantly open before him1 one can neither write nor read profitably upon the ,synoptic ,question4 ,the question of originality1 and of giving credit for arguments and suggestions derived from other students1 in a study of this sort1 is extremely difficult4 ,in the minute comparison of passages in one ,gospel with passages in another1 many of the differences and resemblances noted are part of the working material of most writers upon the ,synoptic ,problem2 when one has worked thru the analyses of other students1 has made their results his own1 and has also made his own observations upon the basis of them1 it becomes almost impossible for him to say what part of the total result is due to himself and for what part he is indebted to others4 ,the writer is more deeply indebted to ,paul ,wernle1 ,sir ,john ,hawkins1 and the authors of the ,oxford ,studies1 than to anyone else4 ,the latter book came out after this study had been completed but the results have been revised somewhat under its influence4 ,i have attempted to give credit in footnotes for suggestions received from many sources1 but many must have gone unnoticed4 ,i am under deep obligation to the kind friends who have encouraged and made possible the publication of this ,study1 particularly to ,mr4 ,william ,h4 ,murphy1 of ,detroit4 ,,carl ,s4 ,,patton ,,first ,,congregational ,,church ,,columbus1 ,,ohio ,august1 #aiad ,,contents ,,part ,i3 ,,generally ,,accepted ,,results ,,of ,,synoptic ,,study ,,chapter ,i3 ,,the ,,dependence ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,upon ,,mark ,,page ,,the ,,framework ,,of ,,mark ,,in ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke #c ,up to ,luke's ,great ,omission #c ,luke's ,great ,omission and ,beyond #g ,luke's ,great ,interpolation3 ,its ,content #h ,the ,jerusalem ,narrative #aj ,the ,story of the ,passion #ab ,,the ,,priority ,,of ,,mark #ac ,luke's ,great ,interpolation3 ,its ,non-,use of ,mark #af ,,chapter ,,ii3 ,,the ,,order ,,of ,,mark',s ,,gospel ,,compared ,,with ,,that ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,that ,,of ,,luke ,,order ,,of ,,mark ,,in ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke #ai ,table ,i3 ,showing ,changes ,made by ,matthew and ,luke in the ,order of ,marcan ,material #bd ,deductions from the ,table #bh ,,chapter ,,iii3 ,,the ,,omissions ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,in ,,the ,,marcan ,,narrative ,,omissions ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,in ,,mark #cj ,omissions ,made by ,both ,matthew and ,luke #cj ,omissions ,made by ,matthew in the ,marcan ,narrative #ca ,omissions ,made by ,luke in the ,marcan ,narrative #cb ,,chapter ,,iv3 ,,the ,,changes ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,in ,,the ,,narrative ,,of ,,mark ,,changes ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,in ,,mark #cg ,the ,baptism of ,jesus #cg ,the ,calling of the ,first ,disciples #ch ,jesus in the ,synagogue at ,capernaum #ch ,the ,healing of ,peter's ,mother-in-,law #ch ,the ,healing in the ,evening #ci ,the ,retirement of ,jesus #ci ,the ,calling of ,peter #dj ,the ,healing of the ,leper #da ,the ,healing of the ,paralytic #da ,the ,calling of ,levi 7,matthew7 #db ,the ,question about ,fasting #db ,the ,walk ,through the ,corn #dc ,the ,man with the ,withered ,hand #dd ,the ,crowd and the ,healings #dd ,the ,calling of the ,twelve #dd ,the ,pharisaic ,accusation and ,jesus' ,defense #de ,the ,true ,brotherhood of ,jesus2 the ,parable of the ,sower2 the ,purpose of the ,parables #de ,the ,interpretation of the ,parable of the ,sower #df ,a ,group of ,detached ,sayings #dg ,the ,parable of the ,mustard ,seed #dg ,the ,storm on the ,lake #dg ,the ,gadarene ,demoniac #dh ,the ,daughter of ,jairus and the ,woman with the ,issue of ,blood #di ,the ,initial ,preaching in ,nazareth #ea ,the ,sending out of the ,disciples #ea ,the ,judgment of ,herod concerning ,jesus #eb ,the ,death of the ,baptist #ec ,the ,return of the ,disciples and the ,feeding of the ,five ,thousand #ed ,the ,walking on the ,sea #ee ,the ,return to ,gennesaret #ef ,about the ,things ,that ,defile #ef ,the ,canaanitish ,woman #eg ,the ,feeding of the ,four ,thousand #eg ,the ,demand for a ,sign #eg ,the ,saying about ,yeast #eg ,the ,confession of ,peter1 and the ,first ,prediction of ,sufferings #eh ,the ,demands of ,discipleship #eh ,the ,transfiguration #ei ,the ,discussion about ,elijah #ei ,the ,healing of the ,epileptic ,boy #fj ,the ,second ,prediction of ,sufferings #fj ,the ,strife about ,rank #fa ,minor ,passages #fa ,,summary ,,of ,,matthew',s ,,and ,,luke',s ,,treatment ,,of ,,the ,,marcan ,,narrative #gj ,,chapter ,v3 ,,have ,,we ,,the ,,gospel ,,of ,,mark ,,in ,,its ,,original ,,form8 ,,have ,,we ,,mark ,,in ,,its ,,original ,,form8 #gb ,discussion of the ,analysis of ,mark by ,wendling and von ,soden #gd ,conclusions of von ,soden and ,wendling ,compared #hc ,matthew and ,luke ,used ,our ,mark as a ,source #hh ,the ,hypothesis of a ,primitive ,mark ,superfluous2 ,simpler ,explanations #hh ,some ,remarkable ,verbal ,resemblances #ic ,,chapter ,,vi3 ,,use ,,of ,a ,,common ,,document ,,by ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,use ,,of ,a ,,common ,,document ,,by ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke #ig ,a ,recent ,attempt to ,prove ,matthew a ,source for ,luke #ajj ,,chapter ,,vii3 ,,the ,,existence ,,and ,,content ,,of ,q ,,existence ,,and ,,content ,,of ,q #ajh ,deductions from the ,table #aji ,table ,,ii3 ,material from ,q in ,matthew #aaj ,deductions from ,table ,,iii #aae ,table ,,iii3 ,material in ,luke ,taken from ,q #aaf ,the ,necessity for a ,further ,extension of ,q #abj ,,part ,,ii3 ,,analysis ,,of ,q ,,into ,,qmt ,,and ,,qlk ,,chapter ,i3 ,,analysis ,,of ,q ,,analysis ,,of ,q #abc ,q ,originally an ,aramaic ,document1 ,used in ,greek ,translations by ,matthew and ,luke #abc ,the ,analysis of ,q into ,q,mt and ,q,lk #abf ,,chapter ,,ii3 ,q1 ,,qmt1 ,,and ,,qlk1 ,,in ,,the ,,double ,,tradition ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,q1 ,,qmt1 ,,and ,,qlk ,,in ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke #abi ,the ,preaching of ,john the ,baptist #abi ,the ,messianic ,proclamation of the ,baptist #acj ,the ,temptation #acj ,blessed ,are the ,poor #aca ,blessed ,are ,they ,that ,mourn #acb ,blessed ,are ,they ,that ,hunger #acb ,blessed ,are ,the ,persecuted #acb ,a ,saying about ,salt #acc ,a ,saying about ,light #acc ,a ,saying about the ,law #ace ,agree with ,thine ,adversary #ace ,about ,non-,resistance and ,love of ,enemies #ace ,the ,lord's ,prayer #acf ,a ,saying about ,treasures #acg ,a ,saying about the ,eye #acg ,about ,double ,service #ach ,about ,care #ach ,about ,judging #aci ,the ,beam and the ,mote #aci ,about ,seeking and ,finding #aci ,the ,golden ,rule #adj ,the ,narrow ,gate #adj ,the ,tree and ,its ,fruits #ada ,warning against ,self-,deception #ada ,the ,two ,houses #adc ,the ,centurion's ,son #adc ,many ,shall ,come from ,east and ,west #ade ,two ,men ,would ,follow ,jesus #adf ,the ,harvest ,is ,great #adf ,the ,laborer ,is ,worthy of ,his ,hire #adf ,greet the ,house #adg ,more ,tolerable for ,sodom #adg ,sheep among ,wolves #adh ,how to ,act under ,persecution #adh ,the ,disciple and ,his ,teacher #adh ,exhortation to ,fearless ,confession #adi ,strife among ,relatives #aej ,conditions of ,discipleship #aej ,he ,that ,receiveth ,you #aea ,the ,question of the ,baptist and ,jesus' ,answer #aeb ,the ,woe upon the ,galilean ,cities #aeb ,i ,thank ,thee1 ,o ,father #aeb ,jesus' ,defense against the ,pharisees #aec ,he ,that ,is ,not with ,me #aec ,jonah and the ,ninevites #aec ,a ,speech about ,backsliding #aed ,blessed ,are the ,eyes ,that ,see #aed ,the ,parable of the ,yeast #aed ,the ,blind ,leading the ,blind #aee ,a ,saying about ,faith #aee ,a ,saying about ,offenses #aef ,the ,stray ,sheep #aef ,about ,forgiveness #aeg ,rewards for ,discipleship #aeg ,against the ,pharisees #aeg ,whoso ,humbles ,himself #aeh ,against the ,pharisees #aeh ,a ,woe upon the ,scribes #aei ,i ,send unto ,you ,prophets #afj ,the ,lament over ,jerusalem #afa ,the ,day of the ,son of ,man #afa ,the ,body and the ,eagles #afa ,the ,days of ,noah #afa ,the ,one ,taken1 the ,other ,left #afb ,the ,watching ,servant #afb ,the ,true and ,false ,servants #afb ,results of the ,preceding ,investigation #afb ,,chapter ,,iii3 ,q ,,in ,,the ,,single ,,tradition ,,of ,,matthew 7,,qmt7 ,q ,,in ,,the ,,single ,,tradition ,,of ,,matthew #aff ,two ,beatitudes #afg ,four ,more ,beatitudes #afg ,ye ,are the ,light of the ,world #afi ,let ,your ,light ,shine #afi ,various ,sayings from the ,sermon on the ,mount #agj ,a ,saying about ,offenses #aga ,the ,commandment about ,divorce #aga ,about ,oaths #agb ,the ,second ,mile #agb ,another ,old ,testament ,commandment #agc ,about ,alms-,giving #agc ,about ,prayer #agd ,about ,fasting #age ,pearls before ,swine #age ,the ,false ,prophets #agf ,a ,saying about ,trees #agg ,by ,their ,fruits #agg ,an ,oft-,repeated ,formula #agg ,the ,conclusion of the ,story of the ,centurion's ,servant #agh ,i ,will ,have ,mercy and ,not ,sacrifice #agi ,the ,healing of ,two ,blind ,men #agi ,the ,healing of a ,dumb ,man #ahj ,instructions to the ,disciples #ahj ,further ,instructions to the ,disciples #ahj ,a ,saying about ,elijah #aha ,he ,that ,hath ,ears1 ,let ,him ,hear #ahb ,the ,occasion of ,pronouncing ,woes upon the ,galilean ,cities #ahb ,reason ,assigned for the ,pronunciation of the ,woes #ahb ,come unto ,me #ahc ,a ,saying about the ,law #ahd ,an ,old ,testament ,quotation #ahd ,generation of ,vipers #ahd ,a ,saying about the ,judgment #ahe ,an ,interpretation of the ,sign of ,jonah #ahe ,the ,weed in the ,field #ahe ,the ,parables of the ,treasure1 the ,pearl1 the ,fish-,net1 and the ,scribe ,instructed in the ,kingdom #ahf ,peter ,walking on the ,water #ahg ,to the ,lost ,sheep of the ,house of ,israel #ahg ,a ,summary of ,jesus' ,healing ,work #ahh ,the ,keys of the ,kingdom of ,heaven #ahi ,an ,insertion in the ,story of the ,transfiguration #ahi ,whosoever ,humbles ,himself as ,this ,little ,child #ahi ,the ,unforgiving ,servant #aij ,about ,eunuchs #aij ,the ,laborers in the ,vineyard #aij ,the ,two ,sons #aia ,the ,wedding ,feast #aia ,against the ,pharisees #aia ,the ,parables of the ,ten ,virgins1 the ,talents1 the ,judgment #aia ,twelve ,legions of ,angels #aib ,,chapter ,,iv3 ,q ,,in ,,the ,,single ,,tradition ,,of ,,luke 7,,qlk7 ,q ,,in ,,the ,,single ,,tradition ,,of ,,luke #aic ,the ,preaching of ,john the ,baptist #aic ,the ,initial ,preaching of ,jesus in ,nazareth #aid ,the ,call of ,peter #aid ,the ,woes #aid ,the ,reception of ,john's ,preaching #aie ,the ,sinner in ,simon's ,house #aie ,a ,would-,be ,follower of ,jesus #aif ,the ,return of the ,seventy #aif ,the ,great ,commandment #aig ,the ,good ,samaritan #aig ,mary and ,martha #aig ,the ,parable of the ,friend on a ,journey #aih ,the ,mother of ,jesus ,praised #aih ,if ,thine ,whole ,body ,is ,light #aih ,the ,parable of the ,foolish ,rich ,man #aih ,the ,exhortation to ,watchfulness #aih ,to ,whom ,much ,is ,given #aii ,i ,came to ,cast ,fire upon the ,earth #aii ,the ,galileans ,slain by ,herod #aii ,the ,parable of the ,fig-,tree #bjj ,go ,tell ,that ,fox #bjj ,the ,healing of the ,dropsical ,man #bja ,about ,taking the ,less ,honorable ,seats at the ,table #bja ,whom to ,invite to a ,feast #bjb ,the ,parable of the ,dinner and the ,invited ,guests #bjb ,conditions of ,discipleship #bjc ,the ,lost ,sheep #bjc ,the ,lost ,coin and the ,prodigal ,son #bjc ,the ,unjust ,steward #bjc ,a ,criticism of the ,pharisees #bjd ,the ,rich ,man and ,lazarus #bje ,unprofitable ,servants and the ,healing of the ,ten ,lepers #bje ,about the ,coming of the ,kingdom of ,god #bje ,matter ,peculiar to ,matthew or to ,luke #bjf ,matter ,peculiar to ,luke #baj ,did ,luke's ,great ,interpolation ,originally ,exist as a ,separate ,documentary ,source8 #bad ,other ,possible ,sources for ,material ,peculiar to ,luke #bag ,conclusions ,regarding ,q ,material in the ,single ,traditions of ,matthew and ,luke #bah ,,chapter ,v3 ,,review ,,of ,q ,,material ,,in ,,matthew1 ,,luke1 ,,and ,,mark ,,review ,,of ,q ,,in ,,matthew1 ,,luke1 ,,and ,,mark #bba ,considerations ,favoring ,analysis of ,q into ,q,mt and ,q,lk #bba ,table ,,iv3 ,contents of ,q ,material in ,matthew #bbb ,table ,v3 ,contents of ,q ,material in ,luke #bbd ,passages ,closely ,similar1 ,yet ,with ,divergences ,too ,great to ,be ,accounted for upon the ,hypothesis of an ,undifferentiated ,q #bbf ,with ,matthew's ,q before ,him1 ,luke ,would ,not ,have ,omitted ,so ,much of ,it #bbg ,the ,secondary ,traits ,are in ,q,mt and ,q,lk1 ,not in ,q #bcj ,,chapter ,,vi3 ,,did ,,mark ,,also ,,use ,q8 ,,did ,,mark ,,also ,,use ,q8 #bcd ,what ,material ,did ,mark ,take from ,q8 #bcf ,the ,messianic ,announcement of the ,baptist #bcg ,the ,baptism of ,jesus #bcg ,the ,temptation of ,jesus #bch ,the ,beelzebul ,controversy #bch ,five ,detached ,sayings #bci ,the ,parable of the ,mustard ,seed #bdj ,the ,sending ,out of the ,twelve #bda ,a ,sign ,refused #bda ,whosoever ,will ,follow ,me #bda ,whosoever ,is ,ashamed of ,me #bdb ,about ,offenses #bdb ,about ,salt #bdc ,about ,divorce #bdc ,the ,first ,who ,shall ,be ,last #bdc ,true ,greatness #bdd ,about ,faith #bdd ,against the ,pharisees #bdd ,the ,holy ,spirit ,speaking in the ,disciples #bdd ,other ,marcan ,passages ,considered1 ,but ,rejected #bdd ,table ,,vi3 ,contents of ,q ,material in ,mark #bdf ,do the ,vocabulary and ,style of ,mark and ,q1 ,respectively1 ,throw ,any ,light upon ,their ,literary ,relationship8 #bdf ,conclusions as to ,mark's ,dependence upon ,q #bdh ,,chapter ,,vii3 ,,the ,,original ,,order ,,of ,q ,,original ,,order ,,of ,q #bdi ,table ,,vii #bej ,table ,,viii #bej ,table ,,ix #bea ,table ,x #beb ,,chapter ,,viii3 ,,summary ,,and ,,conclusions ,,part ,i ,,accepted ,,results ,,of ,,synoptic ,,study ,,chapter ,i ,,the ,,dependence ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,upon ,,mark ,the one universally accepted result of modern study of the synoptic problem is the dependence of ,matthew and ,luke upon the ,gospel of ,mark4 ,tho it is no longer necessary to demonstrate this use of ,mark by ,matthew and ,luke1 the relation among the three ,gospels is not to be dismissed with a simple statement of this dependence4 ,the ,gospel of ,mark is the one document possessed by us in substantially the same form in which it was used by ,matthew and ,luke4 ,a consideration of how ,matthew and ,luke treated the sources which we no longer have before us will be influenced by the treatment which they accorded to this one source which we have4 ,our first work1 therefore1 is to observe1 with some thoroness1 the manner in which ,matthew and ,luke use the ,gospel of ,mark4 ,if any proof is still required that ,matthew and ,luke did employ this ,gospel1 it will appear in the discussion4 ,,framework ,,of ,,mark',s ,,gospel ,,in ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke--,,up ,,to ,,luke',s ,,great ,,omission ,matthew and ,luke begin with introductory matter of their own1 occupying the first two chapters of their ,gospels4 ,with the appearance of ,john the ,baptist their narrative begins to coincide with that of ,mark4 ,luke in a manner characteristic of his ,gospel attempts to supply historical details4 ,mark 7i1 #f7 gives a fuller description of the personal habits and appearance of the ,baptist2 the others omit this1 and pass to a description of his preaching 7,mt iii1 #g-aj2 ,lk iii1 #g-i74 ,luke adds a brief section 7iii1 #aj-ad7 on this subject derived from some source of his own4 ,after these insertions of non-,marcan material1 ,matthew and ,luke come back to the narrative of ,mark1 and recount 7,mk i1 #g-h2 ,mt iii1 #aa-ab2 ,lk iii1 #ae-ah7 the messianic prediction of the ,baptist1 the baptism of ,jesus 7,mk i1 #i-aa2 ,mt iii1 #ac-ag2 ,lk iii1 #ba-bb71 the temptation 7,mk i1 #ab-ac2 ,mt iv1 #a-aa2 ,lk iv1 #a-ac71 and the initial appearance of ,jesus in ,galilee 7,mk i1 #ad-ae2 ,mt iv1 #ab-ag2 ,lk iv1 #ad-ae74 ,between the messianic preaching of the ,baptist and the baptism of ,jesus1 ,luke has inserted a notice of the arrest and imprisonment of ,john1 and between the baptism and the temptation1 his table of the ancestors of ,jesus4#b ,the large amount of closely parallel matter in ,matthew and ,luke1 especially in their account of the ,baptist's preaching and their narrative of the temptation1 shows their use of a common non-,marcan source2 but the order of their narrative1 as well as its wording1 shows their use of ,mark also4 ,to his account of the initial appearance of ,jesus in ,galilee1 ,luke adds 7iv1 #af-cj7 an account of ,jesus' first preaching in ,nazareth4 ,matthew proceeds to tell with ,mark 7,mt iv1 #ah-bb2 ,mk i1 #af-bj7 of the calling of the first disciples4 ,luke postpones this1 having a more detailed and interesting account of the call of ,peter which he will introduce later 7,lk v1 #a-aa74 ,mark 7i1 #ba-bh7 then tells of ,jesus' preaching in a synagogue at ,capernaum4 ,this ,matthew omits1 but ,luke 7iv1 #ca-cg7 gives the story as ,mark has it4 ,matthew here inserts his ,sermon on the ,mount and the healing of the nobleman's daughter 7,mt v1 #a-viii1 #ac72 he then comes back to the narrative of ,mark1 and with ,luke tells 7,mk i1 #bi-ca2 ,mt viii1 #ad-ae2 ,lk iv1 #ch-ci7 of the healing of ,peter's mother-in-law4 ,the three evangelists then relate together 7,mk i1 #cb-cd2 ,mt viii1 #af-ag2 ,lk iv1 #dj-da71 the story of the healings at evening4 ,luke and ,mark add the story of ,jesus' retirement into a desert place 7,mk i1 #ce-ch2 ,lk iv1 #db-dc71 which ,matthew omits4 ,mark and ,luke then add a brief statement of a preaching tour thru ,galilee 7,mk i1 #ci2 ,lk iv1 #dd72 ,matthew has already utilized this statement1 somewhat enlarged1 as introductory to his ,sermon on the ,mount 7,mt iv1 #bc-be74 ,luke inserts 7,lk v1 #a-aa7 his account of the calling of ,peter1 postponed from its earlier position in ,mark4 ,the three then tell together the story of the healing of the leper and the paralytic1 the call of ,levi 7called ,matthew in ,matthew71 and the discussion about fasting 7,mk i1 #dj-;ii1 #bb2 ,mt viii1 #a-d2 ix1 #a-ag2 ,lk v1 #ab-ci74 ,matthew 7ix1 #ce-x1 #af7 inserts his account of the sending out of the twelve1 which ,mark and ,luke give later4 ,after this he comes back into agreement with the other two1 and all three relate the incident of ,jesus' walking thru the corn on the ,sabbath 7,mk ii1 #bc-bh2 ,mt xii1 #a-h2 ,lk vi1 #a-e71 the healing of the withered hand 7,mk iii1 #a-f2 ,mt xii1 #i-ad2 ,lk vi1 #f-aa71 and the healings in the crowd 7,mk iii1 #g-ab2 ,mt xii1 #ae-ba2 ,lk vi1 #ag-ai74 ,at this point ,luke has transposed two brief sections of ,mark1 because1 it is evident1 by so doing he secures a better introduction to his ,sermon on the ,level ,place1 which he now 7,lk vi1 #bj-di7 proceeds to give4 ,by placing the account of the calling of the twelve 7,mk iii1 #ac-ai2 ,lk vi1 #ab-af7 just before the account of the gathering of the throng 7,mk iii1 #g-ab2 ,lk vi1 #ag-ai7 he secures his audience for his ,sermon on the ,plain2 if the narrative had been given in reverse order1 as by ,mark1 the sermon might appear to have been addressed to the twelve alone4 ,after his ,sermon on the ,plain 7,lk vi1 #bj-di7 ,luke adds the story of the widow's son1 the anointing in ,simon's house1 and the ministering women 7vii1 #aa-ag1 #cf-ej2 viii1 #a-c71 not found in either ,mark or ,matthew1 after which the three take up the same story again in the accusation of the scribes and the speech about ,beelzebub1 tho ,luke's order is here not that of the other two 7,mk iii1 #bj-cj2 ,mt xii1 #bb-cg2 ,lk xi1 #ad-bc74 ,after the insertion of non-,marcan material by both ,matthew and ,luke1 both return to ,mark's narrative in the story of the family of ,jesus who had come to take him home 7,mk iii1 #ca-ce2 ,mt xii1 #df-ej2 ,lk viii1 #ai-ba71 the parable of the ,sower1 the speech about the purpose of the parables1 the interpretation of the parable of the ,sower1 and the group of detached sayings 7,mk iv1 #a-be2 ,mt xiii1 #a-bc2 ,lk viii1 #d-ah72 ,matthew1 however1 omits three out of the four sayings at this point1 because he has already incorporated them in his ,sermon on the ,mount4 ,then follows in ,mark alone 7,mk iv1 #bf-bi7 the parable of the ,seed that grew of itself1 the only section of ,marcan material thus far omitted by both ,matthew and ,luke4 ,then the parable of the ,seed-,corn1 which ,luke omits but ,matthew gives 7,mk iv1 #cj-cb2 ,mt xiii1 #ca-cb74c ,then come the storm on the lake1 the story of the ,gadarene demoniac1 the healing of ,jairus' daughter1 with the interpolation of the story of the woman with the hemorrhage 7,mk iv1 #ce-v1 #dc2 ,mt viii1 #bc-cd2 ix1 #ah-bf2 ,lk viii1 #bb-ef71 all in the same order4 ,then follows the rejection in ,nazareth 7,mk vi1 #a-f2 ,mt xiii1 #ec-eh72 ,matthew follows ,mark in it1 but ,luke omits it because he has related a similar incident in his fourth chapter4 ,luke then follows ,mark in relating the incident of the sending out of the twelve 7,mk vi1 #f-ac2 ,lk ix1 #a-f72 ,matthew has given it in an earlier location4 ,the judgment of ,herod concerning ,jesus is then given by all three 7,mk vi1 #ad-af2 ,mt xiv1 #a-b2 ,lk ix1 #g-i74 ,matthew gives with ,mark 7,mk vi1 #ag-bi2 ,mt xiv1 #c-ab7 the story of the ,baptist's death2 ,luke omits it1 having concluded his story of ,john in connection with his account of the baptism of ,jesus 7,lk iii1 #ai-bj74 ,then follow in all three the return of the disciples and the feeding of the five thousand 7,mk vi1 #cj-dd2 ,mt xiv1 #ac-ba2 ,lk ix1 #aj-ag74 ,thus far1 several items of ,mark's narrative have been omitted now by ,matthew and now by ,luke1 but only one fragment1 the parable of the ,seed ,growing of ,itself 7,mk iv1 #bf-bi71 by both ,matthew and ,luke4 ,,luke',s ,,great ,,omission1 ,,and ,,beyond ,with ,mk vi1 #de1 begins a section extending to ,mk viii1 #bf1 in which ,matthew follows ,mark closely1 both in wording and in order 7,mt xiv1 #bb-xvi1 #ab71 except that ,matthew omits ,mark's healing of the deaf stammerer 7,mk vii1 #ca-cg71 inserts 7,mt xv1 #bi-ca7 a summary of the healing narratives1 and omits the healing of the blind man 7,mk viii1 #bb-bf74 ,luke omits the entire section4 ,luke picks up the thread of ,mark's narrative again at ,mk viii1 #bg1 and he and ,matthew follow it thru the confession of ,peter 7,mk viii1 #bg-cc2 ,mt xvi1 #ac-bc2 ,lk ix1 #ah-bb71 the prediction of sufferings for the disciples 7,mk viii1 #cd-;ix1 #a2 ,mt xvi1 #bd-bh2 ,lk ix1 #bc-bg71 and the transfiguration 7,mk ix1 #b-h2 ,mt xvii1 #a-h2 ,lk ix1 #bh-cf74 ,luke omits the question of the scribes concerning ,elias1 but ,matthew follows ,mark in it 7,mk ix1 #i-ac2 ,mt xvii1 #i-ac74 ,after the omission of these five ,marcan verses ,luke again continues ,mark's narrative1 as does ,matthew1 and the three relate together the healing of the epileptic boy 7,mk ix1 #ad-bi2 ,mt xvii1 #ad-ba2 ,lk ix1 #cg-dc;a71 and the second prediction of sufferings 7,mk ix1 #cj-cb2 ,mt xvii1 #bb-bc2 ,lk ix1 #dc;b-#de74 ,matthew inserts from another source the passage about the temple-tax 7,mt xvii1 #bd-bg71 and the three continue together in the passage concerning the strife about precedence 7,mk ix1 #cc-cg2 ,mt xviii1 #a-e2 ,lk ix1 #df-dh74 ,matthew then drops out for a few verses1 but ,luke follows ,mark in the story of the unknown exorcist 7,mk ix1 #ch-da2 ,lk ix1 #di-ej74 ,luke omits ,mark's saying about offenses1 but ,matthew follows ,mark in it 7,mk ix1 #db-dh2 ,mt xviii1 #f-i74 ,both ,matthew and ,luke then forsake ,mark for the moment1 since they have both given his saying about salt 7,mk ix1 #di-ej7 in other connections1 their treatment of ,mark here being evidently influenced by their use of another source4#d ,matthew then inserts a few sections peculiar to his ,gospel 7,mt xviii1 #aj-ce71 a few verses of which 7,mt xviii1 #aj-ad2 ,lk xv1 #c-g2 ,mt xviii1 #ae2 ,lk xvii1 #c2 ,mt xviii1 #ba-bb2 ,lk xvii1 #d7 are somewhat loosely paralleled in ,luke4 ,,luke',s ,,great ,,interpolation3 ,,its ,,content ,beginning with the #east verse of his #ith chapter1 and extending thru the #adth verse of his #ahth chapter1 occurs ,luke's ,great ,interpolation1 his account of the journey thru ,samaria4 ,here occur in ,luke many of ,jesus' sayings which ,matthew has combined into his ,sermon on the ,mount2 notably the ,lord's ,prayer1 the speech about backsliding1 and the saying ,ask and ye shall receive4 ,here also is much material peculiar to ,luke2 notably ,jesus' visit to the home of ,mary and ,martha1 the blessing of the woman upon the mother of ,jesus1 the sending out and return of the seventy disciples1 the healing of the ten lepers1 and the parables of the ,good ,samaritan1 the ,friend ,asking for ,bread1 the ,foolish ,rich ,man1 the ,lost ,sheep1 the ,lost ,coin1 the ,prodigal ,son1 ,dives and ,lazarus1 the ,unjust ,judge1 and the ,publican and ,pharisee in the ,temple4 ,since the purpose here is merely to indicate the relation of the framework of the ,gospels of ,matthew and ,luke to that of ,mark1 the full content of this great interpolation of ,luke's does not need to be presented4 ,enough has been given to show how long and important a section it is4 ,thruout it ,luke appears to forsake ,mark1 tho there seem to be evidences that for some of the material contained in this section and also to be found in ,mark1 ,mark and ,luke have been drawing upon a common source4#e ,after forsaking ,mark for so long1 ,luke comes back to him1 and to ,matthew 7who has not made this deviation at the same place71 in the blessing of the children 7,mk x1 #ac-af2 ,mt xix1 #ac-ae2 ,lk xviii1 #ae-ag71 the danger of riches 7,mk x1 #ag-ca2 ,mt xix1 #af-cj2 ,lk xviii1 #ah-cj71 and the third prediction of sufferings 7,mk x1 #cb-cd2 ,mt xx1 #ag-ai2 ,lk xviii1 #ca-cd74 ,matthew has meantime inserted 7,mt xx1 #a-af7 his parable of the ,workers in the ,vineyard1 but has not allowed this insertion to influence his adherence to the ,marcan order4 ,luke then drops out of the triple tradition in the passage concerning the request of ,james and ,john for chief seats in the kingdom1 but ,matthew continues to follow ,mark 7,mk x1 #ce-de2 ,mt xx1 #bj-bh74 ,after this brief omission of ,luke's1 the three come together again in the story of the healing of ,bartimaeus 7,mk x1 #df-eb2 ,mt xx1 #bi-cd2 ,lk1 xviii1 #ce-dc74 ,luke inserts his story of ,zaccheus1 unknown to the other evangelists 7,lk xix1 #a-aj71 and his parable of the ,talents 7,lk xix1 #aa-bg71 more or less closely parallel to ,matthew's parable 7,mt xxv1 #ad-cj74 ,,the ,,jerusalem ,,narrative ,in their account of the happenings in ,jerusalem1 the three evangelists start out together in the story of the triumphal entry 7,mk xi1 #a-aa2 ,mt xxi1 #a-aa2 ,lk xix1 #bh-ch74 ,matthew and ,luke then insert some material unknown to ,mark 7,mt xxi1 #ad-ag2 ,lk xix1 #ci-dd74 ,matthew follows ,mark in the story of the cursing of the fig tree 7,mk xi1 #ab-ad2 ,mt xxi1 #ah-ai72 ,luke omits this1 perhaps considering it a variant of the parable of the ,barren ,fig ,tree given later by all three4 ,the three continue together in the account of the cleansing of the temple 7,mk xi1 #ae-ah2 ,mt xxi1 #ab-ac2 ,lk xix1 #de-dh71 and ,matthew gives with ,mark the speech of ,jesus concerning the withered fig tree 7,mk xi1 #bj-bf2 ,mt xxi1 #bj-bb72 ,luke1 having omitted the cursing of the fig tree1 omits also this speech concerning it4 ,the three then give together the ,pharisees' question about ,jesus' authority for the cleansing of the temple 7,mk xi1 #bg-cc2 ,mt xxi1 #bc-bg2 ,lk xx1 #a-h74 ,matthew adds his parable of the ,dissimilar ,sons 7,mt xxi1 #bh-cb71 and the three relate together the parable of the ,evil ,husbandmen 7,mk xii1 #a-ab2 ,mt xxi1 #cc-df2 ,lk xx1 #i-ai74 ,matthew next gives the parable of the ,wedding ,feast 7,mt xxii1 #a-ad7 which ,luke has given earlier1 in his ,great ,interpolation 7,lk xiv1 #af-bd74 ,matthew and ,luke follow ,mark again in the question about the tribute money 7,mk xii1 #ac-ag2 ,mt xxii1 #ae-bb2 ,lk xx1 #bj-bf7 and the question of the ,sadducees about marriage 7,mk xii1 #ah-bg2 ,mt xxii1 #bc-cc2 ,lk xx1 #bg-dj74 ,matthew continues to follow ,mark in the question about the great commandment 7,mk xii1 #bh-cd2 ,mt xxii1 #cd-dj72 ,luke has included this also in his ,great ,interpolation 7,lk x1 #be-bh72 both ,matthew and ,luke omit the complimentary remarks of the scribe to ,jesus given by ,mark 7,mk xii1 #cb-cd74 ,this omission does not hinder their following ,mark in his next sections1 the question of ,david's son1 and the speech against the ,pharisees 7,mk xii1 #ce-cg2 ,mt xxii1 #da-df2 ,lk xx1 #da-dd1 and ,mk xii1 #ch-dj2 ,mt xxiii1 #a-cf2 ,lk xx1 #de-dg74 ,matthew's largely expanded form of the latter of these two sections shows him to be here combining some other source with ,mark4 ,luke's discourse against the ,pharisees recorded in this place agrees closely with ,mark's1 but he has given in his eleventh chapter much of the non-,marcan material which ,matthew gives in this place 7,lk xi1 #ci-ej74 ,matthew then inserts the lament over ,jerusalem 7,mt xxiii1 #cg-ci7 which ,luke has given at an earlier and less appropriate point 7,lk xiii1 #cd-ce74 ,matthew deserts1 but ,luke follows1 ,mark in the story of the widow's mite 7,mk xii1 #da-dd2 ,lk xxi1 #a-d74 ,all three continue together in the prediction of the destruction of the temple 7,mk xiii1 #a-d2 ,mt xxiv1 #a-c2 ,lk xxi1 #e-g71 and in the signs of the parousia 7,mk xiii1 #e-i2 ,mt xxiv1 #d-h2 ,lk xxi1 #h-aa74 ,thruout the remainder of the ,little ,apocalypse ,matthew has an occasional expansion of ,marcan material1 and ,luke makes an occasional omission1 but it is obvious that ,matthew and ,luke are here1 in the main1 following ,mark closely 7,mk xiii2 ,mt xxiv2 ,lk xxi74 ,there follow in ,matthew several sections not duplicated in ,mark1 as the saying about the days of ,noah 7,mt xxiv1 #cg-da71 the parables of the ,watching ,servant 7,mt xxiv1 #db-dd71 the ,true and ,false ,servant 7,mt xxiv1 #de-ea71 the ,wise ,virgins 7,mt xxv1 #a-ac71 the ,talents 7,mt xxv1 #ad-cj71 and the parable of the ,judgment 7,mt xxv1 #ca-df74 ,luke has given to the ,little ,apocalypse an ending of his own 7,lk xxi1 #cd-cf72 the material which ,matthew has inserted continuously in his xxiv1 #cg-xxv1 #cj1 ,luke has scattered over his seventeenth1 twelfth1 and nineteenth chapters2 the ,matthean parable of the ,judgment is duplicated in neither ,mark nor ,luke4 ,luke adds a summary of the activity of ,jesus in ,jerusalem 7,lk xxi1 #cg-ch74 ,,the ,,story ,,of ,,the ,,passion ,here the three evangelists start out together with the machinations of the rulers 7,mk xiv1 #a-b2 ,mt xxvi1 #a-e2 ,lk xxii1 #a-b74 ,luke drops out the account of the anointing in ,bethany1 which ,mark and ,matthew relate 7,mk xiv1 #c-i2 ,mt xxvi1 #f-ac71 ,luke having related a similar event in an earlier chapter 7,lk vii1 #cf-ej74 ,the three then go on together in the story of the bargain of ,judas with the priests 7,mk xiv1 #aj-aa2 ,mt xxvi1 #ad-af2 ,lk xxii1 #c-f71 and the account of the preparation for the ,passover 7,mk xiv1 #ab-ag2 ,mt xxvi1 #ag-bj2 ,lk xxii1 #g-ad74 ,luke then brings forward ,mark's story of the institution of the ,lord's ,supper1 apparently feeling that it fits better here than as given by ,mark2 except for the transposition of ,luke's xxii1 #ba-bc 7 ,mk xiv1 #ah-ba2 ,mt xxvi1 #ba-be71 the three agree in their account of the prediction of the betrayal and the institution of the ,supper4 ,luke then adds a section of seven verses 7,lk xxii1 #bd-cj7 on the strife about rank in the coming kingdom1 which ,mark and ,matthew have given earlier 7,mk x1 #db-de2 ,mt xx1 #be-bh74 ,after this interruption of the common order the three go on with the prediction of the denial by ,peter 7,mk xiv1 #bf-ca2 ,mt xxvi1 #cj-ce2 ,lk xxii1 #ca-cd74 ,then come1 tho interrupted by here and there a slight addition peculiar to ,matthew or ,luke1 and with transpositions of verses or small sections more frequent than in other parts of the ,gospels1 the scene in ,gethsemane1 the arrest1 trial1 execution1 and burial of ,jesus1 and the story of the empty grave 7,mk xiv1 #cb-xvi1 #h2 ,mt xxvi1 #cf-xxviii1 #aj2 ,lk xxii1 #ci-xxiv1 #aa72 thus bringing us down to the mutilated end of ,mark's ,gospel4 ,matthew and ,luke have thus taken1 between them1 with trifling exceptions1 the entire ,gospel of ,mark4 ,the historical framework of the ,synoptic ,gospels goes back to ,mark4 ,,the ,,priority ,,of ,,mark ,we add here a brief statement of the theory that ,mark's ,gospel is an abstract of the ,gospels of ,matthew and ,luke4 ,tho this theory is no longer defended1 it may be worth while to summarize the more general considerations which have led to its abandonment4 #a4 ,it is impossible1 upon this theory1 to account for the omission by ,mark of so much of the material that stood before him in ,matthew and ,luke4 ,he has omitted most of the parables and sayings4 ,he has added no narrative4 ,he has therefore made an abstract in which much is omitted1 nothing is added1 and no improvement is introduced4 ,no reason can be assigned for the making of such a ,gospel by abstracting from the fuller and better ,gospels of ,matthew and ,luke4 ,the abstract not only adds nothing of its own1 but fails to preserve the distinctive character of either of its exemplars4 #b4 ,if ,mark had wished to make such an abstract1 it is impossible to explain why in practically every instance he follows1 as between ,matthew and ,luke1 the longer narrative1 while his own narrative is longer than either of those he copied4 ,in the story of the healing of the leper1 for example1 ,matthew 7viii1 #a-d7 has #fb words1 ,luke 7v1 #ab-af1 without his introduction7 has #hg1 and ,mark 7i1 #dj-de7 has #ig4 ,in the healing of the paralytic 7,mk ii1 #a-ab2 ,mt ix1 #a-h2 ,lk v1 #ag-bf7 ,matthew has #abe words1 ,luke #agb1 and ,mark #aij4 ,in the calling of ,levi 7,matthew1 in the ,gospel of ,matthew7 ,matthew has #ib words1 ,luke #ic1 and ,mark #aaj 7,mk ii1 #ac-ag2 ,mt ix1 #i-ac2 ,lk v1 #bg-cb74 ,in the parable of the ,sower 7,mk iv1 #a-i2 ,mt xiii1 #a-i2 ,lk viii1 #d-h7 ,matthew has #acd words1 ,luke #ij1 and ,mark #aea4 ,in the interpretation of that parable 7,mk iv1 #ac-bj2 ,mt xiii1 #ah-bc2 ,lk viii1 #aa-ae7 ,matthew has #abh words1 ,luke #aji1 and ,mark #adg4 ,many more such instances might be given4 ,in every case the additional words of ,mark contain no substantial addition to the narrative4 ,they are mere redundancies1 which ,matthew and ,luke1 each in his own way1 have eliminated4 #c4 ,mark contains a large number of otherwise unknown or unliterary words and phrases4 ,for example1 ,greek3 schizomenous1 i1 #aj2 ,greek3 en pneumati akathart1 i1 #bc2 ,greek3 krabattos1 ii1 #d1 and in five other places2 ,greek3 epiraptei1 ii1 #ba2 ,greek3 thygatrion1 v1 #bc2 vii1 #be2 ,greek3 eschats echei1 v1 #bc2 ,greek3 spekoulatr1 vi1 #bg2 ,greek3 symposia symposia1 vi1 #ci2 ,greek3 eisin tines hde tn hestkotn1 ix1 #a2 ,greek3 heis kata heis1 xiv1 #ai2 ,greek3 ekperisss1 xiv1 #ca4 ,such expressions might easily have been replaced by ,matthew and ,luke with the better expressions which they use instead of these2 they could hardly have been substituted by ,mark for those better expressions4 #d4 ,mark contains many broken or incomplete constructions2 as in iii1 #af2 iv1 #ca2 v1 #bc2 vi1 #h2 xi1 #cb2 xii1 #ch-dj2 xiii1 #aa1 #ad1 #af1 #ai2 xiv1 #di4 ,such constructions would be easily corrected by ,matthew and ,luke2 they would not easily be inserted into the narratives of ,matthew and ,luke by ,mark4 #e4 ,mark has many double or redundant expressions1 of which ,matthew has taken a part1 ,luke sometimes the same part1 sometimes another4 ,such instances may be found in ,mark's ,gospel at ii1 #bj1 #be2 iv1 #ci2 xi1 #b2 xii1 #ad2 the corresponding passages in ,matthew and ,luke will show their treatment of these redundancies4#f #f4 ,mark uses uniformly ,greek3 kai1 where ,matthew and ,luke have sometimes ,greek3 kai1 and sometimes ,greek3 de4 ,mark's use shows him to be nearer the ,hebrew or ,aramaic4 ,no explanation can be given for his substitution of this monotonous conjunction in the place of the two conjunctions used by ,matthew and ,luke4 ,the variation in ,matthew and ,luke of ,mark's one conjunction is entirely natural4 #g4 ,mark has many ,aramaic words1 which he translates into ,greek2 see especially iii1 #ag2 v1 #da2 vii1 #aa2 vii1 #cd4 ,it would be easy for these to be dropped out by writers making use of ,mark's material for ,hellenistic readers2 but very unnatural for ,mark to have inserted these ,aramaic words into the ,greek texts of ,matthew and ,luke4 #h4 ,mark's narrative thruout is more spirited and vivid than either ,matthew's or ,luke's4 ,it would be much easier for these graphic touches to be omitted for various reasons by ,matthew and ,luke1 even tho they found these before them in their ,gospel of ,mark1 than for ,mark to have added these touches in copying the narratives of ,matthew and ,luke4 ,one may mention especially the details about the appearance and dress of the ,baptist 7,mk i1 #f72 the four men carrying the litter 7ii1 #c72 the statement1 ,he looked around upon them with wrath1 being grieved at the hardness of their hearts 7,mk iii1 #e72 the names of persons1 and their relatives1 unknown to the other evangelists1 the description of the ,gadarene demoniac1 the additional details of the conversation between ,jesus and the parents of the epileptic boy 7ix1 #bj-bd71 and many similar items4 ,,luke',s ,,great ,,interpolation3 ,,its ,,non-,,use ,,of ,,mark ,thruout this ,great ,interpolation1 ,luke entirely forsakes ,mark4#g ,out of the two hundred and fifty-two verses of the interpolation1 there are about thirty-five which contain material also to be found in ,mark4 ,but thirteen of these thirty-five verses are doublets4 ,and of these doublets1 the member which appears in the interpolation seems never to agree in its setting with the verse in ,mark to which it is parallel1 whereas the verse which1 outside the interpolation1 constitutes the other member of the doublet does so agree4 ,in the case of five of these doublets1 the member standing outside the interpolation is also more closely similar to ,mark in wording than the half standing in the interpolation4 ,the thirteen verses containing the doublets therefore came apparently from some other source than ,mark4 ,nine other brief sayings in the interpolation have a parallel in ,mark1 and also in ,matthew4 ,but the similarity in each case is greater between the ,marcan and ,matthean than between the ,lucan and ,marcan forms1 and thus indicates that these ,lucan verses were not drawn from ,mark1 tho ,matthew's parallel verses apparently were4#h ,the placing of these nine verses in ,luke is unlike that in ,mark1 but their placing in ,matthew is exactly similar to ,mark's4 ,in twenty-two out of the thirty-five verses of the ,great ,interpolation that are paralleled in ,mark there are thus but three expressions1 at the most1 that can possibly be held to indicate that ,luke is here following ,mark4 ,two more such expressions are found in the remaining thirteen verses4 ,four of these contain the discussion about the ,great ,commandment1 paralleled in ,mk xii1 #bh-cd1 and ,mt xxii1 #cd-dj4 ,the connection is identical in ,matthew and ,mark1 but very different in ,luke4 ,the same is true of the introductory question of the scribe4 ,mark and ,matthew assign to the questioner the ,old ,testament quotation which ,luke assigns to ,jesus4 ,the commendation of the questioner1 common to ,mark and ,luke1 and the addition1 also common to them against ,matthew1 of ,greek3 ex hols ts ischyos sou 7en hol t ischyi sou7 would naturally point toward a dependence of ,luke upon ,mark1 but are not strong enough to counterbalance so much evidence in the opposite direction4 ,the next seven verses 7xi1 #ae1 #ag-bc7 contain the defense of ,jesus against the charge of having a devil4 ,mark and ,luke agree but slightly1 ,matthew and ,luke very closely4 ,matthew has #acf words1 ,luke #aci1 ,mark only #ih1 whereas the narratives which ,luke takes from ,mark are invariably abbreviated by ,luke4 ,matthew and ,luke have the same setting1 ,mark a different one4 ,matthew follows ,mark against ,luke in the little parable of the ,strong ,man ,armed2 ,luke has no parallel4 ,matthew has conflated two sources1 one of which was ,mark1 but ,luke has forsaken ,mark for the other source4 ,the remaining two verses1 the parable of the ,mustard ,seed 7,lk xiii1 #ah-ai2 ,mk iv1 #cj2 ,mt xiii1 #ca7 show the same features as those just considered4 ,we conclude that thruout his ,great ,interpolation1 ,luke1 while having some matter paralleled in ,mark1 was not following ,mark1 but some other source4 ,,chapter ,,ii ,,the ,,order ,,of ,,mark',s ,,gospel ,,compared ,,with ,,that ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,that ,,of ,,luke ,in the treatment of the framework of the ,synoptics1 something has been said of the way in which ,matthew and ,luke treat the order of the material which they have taken from ,mark4 ,the subject1 however1 calls for a more careful analysis4 ,at the opening of the #c;d chapters of ,matthew and ,luke1 these writers begin their use of ,marcan material4 ,thru the story of ,john the ,baptist1 the baptism and temptation of ,jesus1 and his first preaching in ,galilee1 ,matthew and ,luke follow ,mark's order1 with the trifling exception that ,luke has brot forward to his #c;d chapter the account of ,john's imprisonment1 which in ,mark is not given till his #fth chapter and in ,matthew till his #adth1 ,matthew's order here being the same as ,mark's4 ,luke's insertion of the genealogy of ,jesus between the baptism and the temptation of ,jesus does not constitute a deviation from the order1 but only an addition to the material1 of ,mark4 ,in ,luke's #dth chapter 7#af-cj7 he brings forward an incident which ,mark relates much later 7,mk vi1 #a-f71 the incident also being much worked over by ,luke4 ,matthew1 on the contrary1 follows ,mark in next relating the call of the first disciples2 ,luke continues his deviation in order by postponing this till later4#i ,luke then comes back to ,mark's order 7,mk i1 #ba-ch2 ,lk iv1 #ca-dc71 and follows it thru four sections3 the incident in the synagogue at ,capernaum1 the healing of ,peter's wife's mother1 the healings in the evening1 and the retirement of ,jesus4 ,of these four sections1 ,matthew omits the first1 presumably because he considers himself to have given1 in his ,sermon on the ,mount1 a much fuller account of the effect of ,jesus' preaching than is conveyed by the words of ,mark4 ,the second and third of the four sections ,matthew postpones till after his ,sermon on the ,mount4 ,the last one1 about the retirement of ,jesus1 he omits1 because he has no place for it1 since he has not recorded the preaching at ,capernaum and the incident attached to it1 out of which the retirement came4 ,luke then inserts 7v1 #a-aa7 his account of the calling of ,peter4 ,he then returns to ,mark's order 7,mk i1 #dj-de2 ,lk v1 #ab-af7 in the healing of the leper2 this incident ,matthew has postponed till after his ,sermon on the ,mount4 ,matthew again brings forward the account of the storm on the lake and the ,gadarene demoniac1 which ,mark does not relate till his #dth and #eth chapters4 ,but after these deviations he again coincides with ,mark and ,luke in the healing of the paralytic1 the calling of ,levi1 and the question about fasting4 ,matthew again forsakes ,mark's order by bringing forward the mission of the twelve to a place much earlier than it occupies in ,mark's narrative4 ,having done this he falls again into the ,marcan order1 which ,luke has been still following1 and relates in the same order with ,mark the walk thru the corn and the healing of the withered hand4 ,luke has thus far shown few deviations from ,mark's order1 ,matthew many4 ,these deviations of ,matthew's seem mostly to have been occasioned by his insertion of so much non-,marcan material in his ,sermon on the ,mount4 ,luke now makes a slight transposition2 he relates with ,mark the story of the healings and the crowd1 and the calling of the twelve1 but in the reverse order2 he has thus secured a better introduction to his ,sermon on the ,level ,place 7beginning ,lk vi1 #bj74 ,after the conclusion of that sermon1 and the inclusion of much non-,marcan material1 in ,luke2 and after the ,sermon on the ,mount in ,matthew1 and the insertion by him of much ,marcan material which in ,mark's ,gospel comes at later points1 ,matthew and ,luke come back to ,mark's order in the ,beelzebul controversy4 ,matthew continues with ,mark in the story of the family of ,jesus1 come to take him home1 the parable of the ,sower1 and the interpretation of that parable4 ,luke also follows ,mark's order thruout these three sections1 tho he has placed all three of them at an earlier point in his ,gospel1 and has transposed the first section4 ,beginning again with the storm on the lake and the ,gadarene demoniac1 ,matthew and ,luke follow ,mark's order thru two long sections4 ,matthew1 in copying ,mark's earlier narrative1 omitted his healing of the paralytic1 his call of ,levi 7,matthew71 and his report of the discussion about fasting1 where these occurred in ,mark's #b;d chapter4 ,he therefore inserts them here in his #ith chapter4 ,after the insertion of these ,matthew comes back to the order of ,mark in his story of the daughter of ,jairus4 ,luke1 having followed ,mark's order in the earlier narrative where ,matthew deviated from it1 follows it here uninterruptedly thru the three sections about the storm on the lake1 the ,gadarene demoniac1 and the daughter of ,jairus4 ,after omitting ,mk vi1 #a-f1 the story of the rejection at ,nazareth1 which ,luke has given in an expanded form much earlier1 ,luke again follows ,mark's narrative thru two sections on the sending out of the disciples and the judgment of ,herod concerning ,jesus4 ,he omits the death of the ,baptist1 perhaps under the impression that this will be inferred from his leaving him in prison in an earlier chapter1 but goes on with ,mark again in the account of the return of the disciples and the feeding of the five thousand4 ,matthew has come back to ,mark's order at ,mk vi1 #ad 7,mt xiv1 #a71 and follows it without deviation or interruption thru about seventy verses2 after which1 tho omitting several small sections of ,marcan material1 and inserting some non-,marcan matter1 he continues to follow the ,marcan order to ,mk ix1 #dh2 thus following ,mark's order1 in spite of additions and omissions1 thru more than three of ,mark's chapters1 without deviation4 ,luke has fallen out at ,mk vi1 #de1 and takes nothing from ,mark again till he reaches ,mark's viii1 #bg2 at which point1 without having made any insertion of his own peculiar material1 he again takes up ,mark's narrative1 and follows it from ,mk viii1 #bg1 to ,mk ix1 #h 7 ,lk ix1 #ah1 to ix1 #cf72 then making another omission of a few ,marcan verses1 he continues to follow ,mark up to ,mk ix1 #dj4 ,in spite of ,luke's omission of several brief ,marcan sections1 and of more than three ,marcan chapters at another point1 ,luke has thus not disturbed the ,marcan order from ,mk vi1 #f1 to ,mk ix1 #dj4 ,beginning with ,mk x1 #a1 ,matthew follows ,mark1 tho making an insertion of #af verses1 up to ,mk xi1 #aa1 at which point he transposes a few verses4 ,luke has come in at ,mk x1 #ac1 and has followed up to ,mk x1 #cd1 at which point he makes an omission of ten ,marcan verses4 ,going on with ,mark at ,mk x1 #df1 he continues to follow him 7tho inserting his story of ,zaccheus and his parable of the talents7 to ,mk xiii1 #i1 omitting1 however1 ,mark's story of the cursing of the fig tree and the speech of ,jesus attached to this incident in ,mark's ,gospel4 ,after the transposition of a few ,marcan verses in ,mt xxi1 #ab-ac1 ,matthew also continues ,mark's order1 beginning with ,mk xi1 #bj1 down to ,mk xiii1 #i4 ,from ,mk xiii1 #i1 to xiii1 #cb1 both ,matthew and ,luke follow ,mark's order4 ,at ,mk xiii1 #cc-cg1 they come upon a section which ,matthew postpones and which ,luke has previously inserted4 ,after the insertion of some non-,marcan matter common to ,matthew and ,luke1 and of some matter peculiar to each1 both ,matthew and ,luke go on with the ,marcan material1 beginning where they left off at ,mk xiv1 #a4 ,luke omits ,mk xiv1 #c-i1 because of a duplicate or variant of the passage which he has inserted in his #gth chapter2 except for this omission 7which does not affect ,matthew71 the three proceed in the same order down to ,mk xiv1 #ag1 where ,luke again transposes a few verses1 but ,matthew follows without deviation4 ,from here on to the end of ,mark's ,gospel1 ,matthew follows practically without deviation1 tho adding much matter of his own4 ,luke makes a transposition of the story of ,peter's denial1 and of one or two other items2 except for which he also follows ,mark's order substantially as he finds it4 ,this statement of the relative order of ,marcan material in the three ,synoptic ,gospels has been made in a way to facilitate comparison in the large1 and give a general idea of how faithfully ,matthew and ,luke have followed the order of ,mark4 ,for purposes of studying the matter in more detail1 ,table ,i is appended4 ,the sections are given and numbered as they occur in ,mark1 and also as they occur in ,matthew and ,luke4 ,,table ,i ,,showing ,,changes ,,made ,,by ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,in ,,the ,,order ,,of ,,marcan ,,material ,,chapter ,,and ,,verse ,,sec4 ,,nos4 ,,subject-,,matter ,,of ---------------------------------------- ------- ,,section ,mk ,lk ,mt ,mk,lk,mt ---------------------------------------- --------------------------- ,john the ,baptist i1 #a-f iii1 #a-f iii1 #a-f #a #a #a ,his messianic announcement i1 #g-h iii1 #ae-ah iii1 #aa-ab #b #b #b ,baptism of ,jesus i1 #i-aa iii1 #ba-bb iii1 #ac-ag #c #c #c ,temptation of ,jesus i1 #ab-ac iv1 #a-ac iv1 #a-aa #d #d #d ,appearance in ,galilee i1 #ad-ae iv1 #ad-ae iv1 #ab-ag #e #e #e ,calling first disciples i1 #af-bj v1 #a-aa iv1 #ah-bb #fab #f ,in the synagogue i1 #ba-bh iv1 #ca-cg vii1 #bh-bi #g #gaa ,peter's wife's mother i1 #bi-ca iv1 #ch-ci viii1 #ad-ae #h #hac ,healings in the evening i1 #cb-cd iv1 #dj-da viii1 #af-ag #i #iad ,retirement of ,jesus i1 #ce-ch iv1 #db-dc 444444444 #ajaj44 ,preaching tour in ,galilee i1 #ci iv1 #dd iv1 #bc-be #aaaa #g ,healing of leper i1 #dj-de v1 #ab-af viii1 #a-d #abacab ,healing of paralytic ii1 #a-ab v1 #ag-bf ix1 #a-h #acadag ,calling of ,levi ii1 #ac-ag v1 #bg-cb ix1 #i-ac #adaeah ,question of fasting ii1 #ah-bb v1 #cc-ci ix1 #ad-ag #aeafai ,walk thru the corn ii1 #bc-bh vi1 #a-e xii1 #a-h #afagbe ,the withered hand iii1 #a-f vi1 #f-aa xii1 #i-ad #agahbf ,crowd and healings iii1 #g-ab vi1 #ag-ai xii1 #ae-ba #ahbjbg ,calling of the twelve iii1 #ac-ai vi1 #ab-af x1 #b-d #aiaibb ,the pharisaic accusation iii1 #bj-bb xi1 #ad-af xii1 #bb-bd #bjdcbh ,jesus' defense iii1 #bc-cj xi1 #ag-bc xii1 #be-cg #baddbi ,jesus' true kindred iii1 #ca-ceviii1 #ai-ba xii1 #df-ej #bbbhcj ,parable of the ,sower iv1 #a-i viii1 #d-h xiii1 #a-i #bcbcca ,purpose of parables iv1 #aj-abviii1 #i-aj xiii1 #aj-ae #bdbdcb ,interpretation of ,sower iv1 #ac-bjviii1 #aa-ae xiii1 #ah-bc #bebecc ,saying about a light iv1 #ba viii1 #af v1 #ae #bfbf #i ,hidden and revealed iv1 #bb viii1 #ag x1 #bf #bgbgbd ,ears to hear iv1 #bc viii1 #h2 xi1 #ae2 #bhcjbg xiv1 #ce xiii1 #i ,the measure iv1 #bd vi1 #ch vii1 #b #bibaaj ,whoever has iv1 #be vi1 #ch xiii1 #ab #cjbbcb ,seed ,growing of ,itself iv1 #bf-bi 4444444444 4444444444 #ca4444 ,mustard ,seed iv1 #cj-cbxiii1 #ah-ai xiii1 #ca-cb #cb44cd ,speaking in parables iv1 #cc-cd 4444444444 xiii1 #cd-ce #cc44ce ,storm on the lake iv1 #ce-daviii1 #bb-be viii1 #bc-bg #cdbiae ,gadarene demoniac v1 #a-bjviii1 #bf-ci viii1 #bh-cd #cecjaf ,daughter of ,jairus1 and v1 #ba-dcviii1 #dj-ef ix1 #ah-bf #cfcabj woman with issue of blood ,rejection in ,nazareth vi1 #a-f iv1 #af-cj xiii1 #ec-eh #cg #fcf ,sending out disciples vi1 #f-ac ix1 #a-f ix1 #ce2 #chcbba x1 #i-aa #bc ,judgment of ,herod on ,jesus vi1 #ad-af ix1 #g-i xiv1 #a-b #cibccg ,death of the ,baptist vi1 #ag-bi 4444444444 xiv1 #c-ab #dj44ch ,return of disciples and vi1 #cj-dd ix1 #aj-ag xiv1 #ac-ba #dacdci feeding of five thousand ,walking on the water vi1 #de-eb 4444444444 xiv1 #bb-cc #db44dj ,return to ,gennesaret vi1 #ec-ef 4444444444 xiv1 #cd-cf #dc44da ,about hand-washing vii1 #a-bc 4444444444 xv1 #a-bj #dd44db ,the ,canaanitish woman vii1 #bd-cj 4444444444 xv1 #ba-bh #de44dc ,healing of deaf stammerer vii1 #ca-cg 4444444444 4444444444 #df4444 ,feeding of four thousandviii1 #a-aj 4444444444 xv1 #cb-ci #dg44dd ,demand for a sign viii1 #aa-ac xi1 #bi2 xvi1 #a-d #dhdede xii1 #ed-ef #dg ,saying about yeast viii1 #ad-ba xii1 #a xvi1 #e-ab #didfdf ,the blind man of ,bethsaida viii1 #bb-bf 4444444444 4444444444 #ej4444 ,confession of ,peter viii1 #bg-cc ix1 #ah-bb xvi1 #ac-bc #eacedg ,warnings of persecutionsviii1 #cd- ix1 #bc-bg xvi1 #bd-bh #ebcfdh ix1 #a ,the transfiguration ix1 #b-h ix1 #bh-cf xvii1 #a-h #eccgdi ,question about ,elias ix1 #i-ac 4444444444 xvii1 #i-ac #ed44ej ,the epileptic boy ix1 #ad-bi ix1 #cg-dc;a xvii1 #ad-ba #eechea ,prediction of sufferings ix1 #cj-cb ix1 #dc;b-#de xvii1 #bb-bc #efcieb ,strife about rank ix1 #cc-cg ix1 #df-dh xviii1 #a-e #egdjec ,the unknown exorcist ix1 #ch-da ix1 #di-ej 4444444444 #ehda44 ,about offenses ix1 #db-dhxvii1 #a-b xviii1 #f-i #eidied ,about salt ix1 #di-ej xiv1 #cd-ce v1 #ac #fjdh #h ,marriage and divorce x1 #a-ab 4444444444 xix1 #a-ab #fa44ee ,blessing the children x1 #ac-afxviii1 #ae-ag xix1 #ac-ae #fbejef ,danger of riches x1 #ag-caxviii1 #ah-cj xix1 #af-cj #fceaeg ,prediction of woes x1 #cb-cdxviii1 #ca-cd xx1 #ag-ai #fdebeh ,the request for seats x1 #ce-de 4444444444 xx1 #bj-b #fe44ei ,healing of ,bartimaeus x1 #df-ebxviii1 #ce-dc xx1 #bi-cd #ffecfj ,entry into ,jerusalem xi1 #a-aa xix1 #bh-ch xxi1 #a-aa #fgedfa ,cursing of the fig tree xi1 #ab-ad 4444444444 xxi1 #ah-ai #fh44fc ,cleansing of the temple xi1 #ae-ai xix1 #de-dh xxi1 #ab-ac #fieefb ,about the fig tree xi1 #bj-bf 4444444444 xxi1 #bj-bb #gj44fd ,question about authority xi1 #bg-cc xx1 #a-h xxi1 #bc-bg #gaeffe ,parable of the ,vineyard xii1 #a-ab xx1 #i-ai xxi1 #cc-df #gbegff ,question of ,pharisees xii1 #ac-ag xx1 #bj-bf xxii1 #ae-bb #gcehfg ,question of ,saducees xii1 #ah-bg xx1 #bg-dj xxii1 #bc-cc #gdeifh ,the great commandment xii1 #bh-cd x1 #be-bh xxii1 #cd-dj #gedbfi ,the ,son of ,david xii1 #ce-cg xx1 #da-dd xxii1 #da-df #gffjgj ,against the ,pharisees xii1 #ch-dj xx1 #de-dg xxiii1 #a-cf #ggfaga ,prediction about temple xiii1 #a-d xxi1 #e-g xxiv1 #a-c #ghfbgb ,signs of the parousia xiii1 #e-i;a xxi1 #h-aa xxiv1 #d-h #gifcgc ,warnings of troubles xiii1 #i;b-#ac xxi1 #ab-ai xxiv1 #i-ad2 #hjfdgd x1 #ag-ba #ba ,anguish in ,judaea xiii1 #ad-bj xxi1 #bj-bd xxiv1 #ae-bb #hafege ,the crisis xiii1 #ba-bc 4444444444 xxiv1 #bc-be #hb44gf ,the parousia xiii1 #bd-bg xxi1 #be-bh xxiv1 #bi-ca #hcffgg ,parable of ,fig ,tree xiii1 #bh-bi xxi1 #bi-ca xxiv1 #cb-cc #hdfggh ,the when of the parousia xiii1 #cj-cb xxi1 #cb-cc xxiv1 #cd-cf #hefhgi ,conclusion of speech xiii1 #cc-cg xxi1 #cd-cf 4444444444 #hffi44 ,the plot against ,jesus xiv1 #a-b xxii1 #a-b xxvi1 #a-e #hggjhj ,anointing at ,bethany xiv1 #c-i 4444444444 xxvi1 #f-ac #hh44ha ,treachery of ,judas xiv1 #aj-aa xxii1 #c-f xxvi1 #ad-af #higahb ,preparation for ,passover xiv1 #ab-ag xxii1 #g-ad xxvi1 #ag-bj #ijgbhc ,prediction of betrayal xiv1 #ah-ba xxii1 #ba-bc xxvi1 #ba-be #iagdhd ,institution of ,supper xiv1 #bb-be xxii1 #ae-bj xxvi1 #bf-bi #ibgche ,prediction of ,peter's fall xiv1 #bf-ca xxii1 #ca-cd xxvi1 #cj-ce #icgehf ,in ,gethsemane xiv1 #cb-db xxii1 #ci-df xxvi1 #cf-df #idgfhg ,the arrest xiv1 #dc-ed xxii1 #dg-ee xxvi1 #dg-eh #iegghh ,trial before ,sanhedrim xiv1 #ee-fe xxii1 #fc-ga xxvi1 #ei-fh #ifgihi ,denial of ,peter xiv1 #ff-gb xxii1 #ef-fb xxvi1 #fi-ge #igghij ,delivery to ,pilate xv1 #a xxiii1 #a xxvii1 #a-b #ihhjia ,examination before ,pilate xv1 #b-e xxiii1 #b-e xxvii1 #aa-ad #iihaib ,the condemnation of ,jesus xv1 #f-aexxiii1 #ah-be xxvii1 #ae-bfajjhbic ,the mocking of ,jesus xv1 #af-bj 4444444444 xxvii1 #bg-caaja44id ,the death journey xv1 #ba xxiii1 #bf-cb xxvii1 #cb #ajbhcie ,the crucifixion xv1 #bb-cbxxiii1 #cc-dc xxvii1 #cc-ddajchdif ,the death of ,jesus xv1 #cc-daxxiii1 #dd-di xxvii1 #de-efajdheig ,the burial xv1 #db-dgxxiii1 #ej-ef xxvii1 #eg-faajehfih ,the empty grave xvi1 #a-h xxiv1 #a-abxxviii1 #a-ajajfhgii ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ,a comparison of the number in the ,table which a given section bears respectively in ,matthew and ,mark or ,luke and ,mark will show the number and extent of the changes which ,matthew and ,luke have permitted themselves in their disposition of ,marcan material4 ,,deductions ,,from ,,the ,,table ,an examination of the preceding table will show how generally both ,matthew and ,luke have followed the order of ,mark4 ,of the #hg ,marcan sections retained by ,luke1 only #aa sections 7,nos4 #f1 #ab1 #ba1 #bb1 #bc1 #db-dg7 are seriously misplaced4 ,from sec4 #ce to the end1 the order is particularly well preserved1 the only changes being in the placing of #di before #dh1 and #gd before #gc4 ,luke's displacements are usually made in the interest of a better historical or literary sequence2 some of them may also be occasioned by his large omissions of ,marcan material and his large insertions of peculiar matter4 ,matthew has made rather a larger number of changes in the order of his ,marcan material2 due perhaps to his habit of combining his ,marcan and his other matter1 and to his wish to present most of his sayings-material in one block 7chaps4 v-vii74 ,his notable transpositions occur near the beginning of his ,gospel1 just before or after the insertion of his ,sermon on the ,mount1 and in that section 7the sending out of the twelve7 where he has made his most obvious conflation of ,marcan and other matter4 ,from sec4 #cg to the end1 however1 changes in order are extremely few4 ,the insertion of #h between #ed and #ee may be only an apparent dislocation1 since the saying about salt may here not have been derived from ,mark but from ,q4 ,the placing of the cleansing of the temple before the cursing of the fig tree 7secs4 #fb1 #fc7 may be due to his wish to bring the cursing of the fig tree into immediate connection with the remarks to which it gave rise2 the transposition is an improvement4 ,from here on to the end the sections occur precisely as in ,mark1 except that #ba is inserted between #gd and #ge2 apparently owing to the influence of ,q4 ,the table will also show that ,matthew and ,luke practically never concur in forsaking the order of ,mark4 ,it also warrants the assertion often made of late years that ,matthew is more faithful to the content of ,mark1 permitting himself fewer omissions1 but ,luke is more faithful to his order4 ,,chapter ,,iii ,,the ,,omissions ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,in ,,the ,,marcan ,,narrative#aj ,,omissions ,,made ,,by ,,both ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,the omission of the stories of the healing of the deaf-and-dumb man and the blind man 7,mk vii1 #ca-cg2 viii1 #bb-bf71 is sufficiently accounted for by the character of those accounts4 ,the crassness of the means used and the apparent difficulty of the cures offended the growing sense of the dignity of ,jesus4 ,the exceedingly patronizing answer of the scribe to ,jesus in ,mk xii1 #cb-cd is probably omitted by ,matthew and ,luke for the same reason4 ,the parable of the ,seed ,growing of ,itself 7,mk iv1 #bf-bi7 may have been omitted because it so closely duplicated other material in both ,matthew and ,luke2#aa it has been suggested also that it might have a discouraging effect1 or at least not a stimulating one1 upon the missionary activities of the early church4 ,the first visit of ,jesus to the temple 7,mk xi1 #aa7 is mentioned by ,mark in three words only4 ,no incident is connected with it1 but ,jesus is said to have looked about and1 as it was late1 to have gone back to ,bethany4 ,the incident may have dropped out because unsupported by any events or sayings2 or the three words ,greek3 eis to hieron may have crept into the text of ,mark after its use by ,matthew and ,luke 7the sense is equally good without them74 ,the mention of the man in the linen garment 7,mk xiv1 #ea7 and the names of ,alexander and ,rufus 7,mk xv1 #ba7 may have been omitted because neither ,matthew nor ,luke nor their readers would be acquainted with these persons4 ,,omissions ,,made ,,by ,,matthew ,,in ,,the ,,marcan ,,narrative ,matthew omits the account of the preaching of ,jesus in the synagogue at ,capernaum 7,mk i1 #ba-bh7 because he wished to give a much more detailed account of ,jesus' preaching1 in his ,sermon on the ,mount4 ,this explanation becomes a practical certainty when we observe that the statement which ,mark and ,luke make concerning the effect of the sermon in the synagogue1 ,they were astonished at his doctrine1 for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes1 is used by ,matthew to describe the effect of the ,sermon on the ,mount4 ,matthew's omission of the flight of ,jesus 7,mk i1 #ce-ch7 is probably due to its failure to fit into his story1 as this has been changed on account of the insertion of the ,sermon on the ,mount4 ,the retirement takes place from ,capernaum1 as a result of the enthusiasm aroused by ,jesus' preaching there4 ,matthew does not represent ,jesus as preaching in ,capernaum4 ,he brings ,jesus to ,capernaum in chaps4 #h and #i1 not however to preach1 but to work miracles4 ,jesus closes this series of healings with the statement 7,mt ix1 #cg-ch71 ,the harvest is great but the laborers are few4 ,pray ye therefore the lord of the harvest that he send forth laborers into his vineyard4 ,the retirement does not follow naturally upon this series of healings1 much less upon these words1 and so is omitted4 ,the omission of the story of the unknown exorcist 7,mk ix1 #ch-da71 as ,wernle remarks1#ab is not so easy to explain4 ,it may be observed1 however1 that by its omission ,matthew secures a better connection between the two sayings of ,jesus which are thus brought into succession3 ,he that receiveth one such little one in my name receiveth me1 and but he that causeth one of these little ones that believe in me to stumble1 it is better for him1 etc4 7,mt xviii1 #e1 #f74 ,the story of the widow's mite 7,mk xii1 #da-dd7 ,matthew may have omitted because he lacks the connection for it which is supplied in the ,gospel of ,mark4 ,mark makes ,jesus speak of the ,pharisees who devour widow's houses1 and immediately after this introduces the incident of the widow's self-sacrifice4 ,matthew has omitted the incident because he has not the proper occasion for it4#ac ,matthew's other omissions have been accounted for under the omissions common to him with ,luke4 ,the sum total of them is very small and in general they are easily accounted for4 ,,omissions ,,made ,,by ,,luke ,,in ,,the ,,marcan ,,narrative#ad ,luke omits the circumstantial account of the death of the ,baptist 7,mk vi1 #ag-bi72 he has long ago inserted the account of his imprisonment 7,lk iii1 #ai-bj71 wishing to finish with ,john before beginning with ,jesus4 ,but the circumstantial account did not fit in that place4#ae ,the longest omission of continuous ,marcan material is made by ,luke in omitting the whole of ,mk vi1 #de to viii1 #bf4 ,this long omission immediately precedes the long insertion of special ,lucan material1 indicating a possible difficulty in combining the two sources at this point4 ,quite without this1 however1 there are more or less obvious reasons for ,luke's omission of every section in this long passage4 ,he avoids#af the repetition of the same story1 and may have regarded ,mark's feeding of the four thousand 7,mk viii1 #a-aj7 as a repetition of the feeding of the five thousand which ,luke has already copied from him4 ,the demand for a sign is a doublet in ,matthew2 ,luke has taken it once with ,matthew from ,q and therefore does not care to take it with him here again from ,mark 7,mk viii1 #aa-ac74 ,the dispute about things that defile 7,mk vii1 #a-bc7 had no significance for a gentile writer or his gentile readers4 ,as early as his #dth chapter1 ,luke has represented ,jesus as turning from the ,jews1 who had rejected him1 to the gentiles2 he cannot therefore use ,mark's story of the ,canaanitish woman1 7,mk vii1 #bd-cj71 with its apparently narrow national outlook3 ,it is not meet to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs4#ag ,the crossing of the lake to ,gennesaret has in ,mark 7vi1 #ec-ef7 no particular incident connected with it1 merely the statement that many people came to ,jesus and were healed4 ,it may have been omitted by ,luke because he has a duplicate in viii1 #bb-be4 ,the omission of this item was no particular loss to ,luke's account2 but with its omission the incident of the walking on the water also fell out4 ,the latter may have been omitted also because of its implied aspersion upon the disciples4 ,luke may have been the more ready to drop this1 as his interest in the miracles of ,jesus is confined more largely to the healings1 the miracles peculiar to ,luke being entirely of this kind4 ,luke omitted the discussion of ,jesus with the ,pharisees about ,elias 7,mk ix1 #i-ac7 because it had no interest for his gentile readers4 ,the omission of the saying about offenses 7,mk ix1 #db-dh7 is accounted for by ,luke's having a parallel for the first part of it in another connection2 the last part1 about cutting off the hand or the foot1 may have seemed to him1 with his ,greek taste1 too harsh a saying to be attributed to ,jesus4 ,luke omitted the journey thru ,judaea 7,mk x1 #a7 7or ,perea7 because in its place he has given a long account 7,lk ix1 #ea-xviii1 #ad7 7again his great interpolation7 of the journey thru ,samaria4 ,the terminus of both journeys and their place in the story are the same4 ,the question about marriage and divorce 7,mk x1 #b-ab7 is again connected with a ,pharisaic dispute2 ,luke has also given his own briefer version of the same item 7xvi1 #ah72 for either or both of these reasons he omits it here4 ,the request of ,james and ,john for chief seats in the kingdom 7,mk x1 #ce-de7 ,luke omits because it reflects upon the motives of those disciples2 ,matthew perceives the same objection to it1 but1 more faithful to his sources he gets over the difficulty by attributing the request to the mother1 instead of to the disciples4 ,mark's discussion about the disciples' failure to bring bread 7,mk viii1 #ad-ba7 ,luke may have omitted because of its implication of carelessness on the part of the disciples4 ,luke also uniformly avoids any implication of lack of knowledge on the part of ,jesus1 and this incident includes one such4#ah ,the question about the great commandment 7,mk xii1 #bh-cd7 ,luke may have omitted because it also is connected with a dispute with a scribe4 ,or if ,luke's passage 7x1 #be-bh7 be considered a parallel to it1 this is enough to account for its omission here4 ,on this latter supposition1 ,luke has used the saying as an introduction to his story of the ,good ,samaritan4 ,the cursing of the fig tree 7,mk xi1 #ab-ad7 ,luke apparently regarded as a misunderstanding of the parable of the ,fig ,tree1 which he gives4 ,whether so or not1 it is of the same kind as the other miracles which ,luke omits1 in that it is not a miracle of healing4 ,the anointing in ,bethany 7,mk xiv1 #c-i7 has a parallel in the anointing 7both in the house of ,simon7 by the sinful woman1 which ,luke has related in his #gth chapter 7vss4 #cf-ej74 ,the second session of the sanhedrim he has combined with the first4#ai ,concerning the great omission of ,luke 7,mk vi1 #de-viii1 #bf71 it should be added that his ,gospel is now considerably longer than ,mark's and even than ,matthew's4 ,he had much material of his own to incorporate4 ,rolls of papyrus were of an average length1 and not capable of indefinite extension4 ,luke could not include all ,mark's material without omitting much that he has derived elsewhere4 ,if it was necessary or convenient for him to make an omission amounting in length to the matter he has passed over in ,mark1 it was much easier and simpler for him to omit an entire section of that length1 than to go here and there thru ,mark to make his necessary total of eliminations4 ,this consideration1 with the character of the material omitted1 sufficiently accounts for the great omission4#bj ,,chapter ,,iv ,,the ,,changes ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,in ,,the ,,narrative ,,of ,,mark#ba ,,the ,,baptism ,,of ,,jesus 7,mk i1 #i-aa2 ,mt iii1 #ac-ag2 ,lk iii1 #ba-bb7 ,matthew adds to ,mark's account the conversation in which ,john objects to baptizing ,jesus1 and ,jesus quiets his scruples 7,mt iii1 #ad-ae74 ,this reflects the later time1 when the superiority of ,jesus to ,john had been historically demonstrated1 and when the baptism might have given offense by seeming to imply a need of forgiveness4 ,the item approaches the point of view of the similar addition in the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,matthew1 who has added this item here1 is the only evangelist who says that ,john's baptism was ,greek3 eis metanoian 7iii1 #aa74 ,matthew's added conversation appears1 still more elaborated1 in the ,gospel of the ,hebrews4 ,luke 7iii1 #ba7 adds that ,jesus was praying during his baptism1 which may be an accommodation to the custom of the early church4 ,mark says the voice from the sky was addressed to ,jesus2 ,matthew represents it as addressed to the crowd1 perhaps to give more public honor to ,jesus4 ,the ,gospel of the ,ebionites adds to ,mark's in thee ,i am well pleased1 the quotation from the ,psalms1 this day have ,i begotten thee2 and certain ,,mss contain the same words in the text of ,luke1 omitting in thee ,i am well pleased4 ,these variations show the freedom of the early tradition1 but its unanimity in the idea that the baptism was ,jesus' messianic consecration4 ,matthew and ,luke replace ,mark's ,greek3 schizomenous1 a word not elsewhere found1 with a word common in such connections4 ,,the ,,calling ,,of ,,the ,,first ,,disciples 7,mk i1 #af-bj2 ,mt iv1 #ah-bb2 ,lk v1 #a-aa7 ,luke postpones this account1 and in connection with it gives the story of the miraculous draft of fishes1 unknown to ,mark and ,matthew4 ,the reason is not apparent1 especially since the transposition involves ,luke in some anachronisms4 ,matthew follows ,mark's account closely1#bb retaining even the parenthetical and appended explanation in vs4 #af4 ,he omits ,mark's words1 with the hired men1 perhaps because of his general tendency toward condensation1 perhaps because the departure of ,james and ,john from their father is rendered less critical by ,mark's mention of the hired men4 ,,jesus ,,in ,,the ,,synagogue ,,at ,,capernaum 7,mk i1 #ba-bh2 ,mt vii1 #bh-bi2 ,lk iv1 #ca-cg7 ,luke omits and not as the scribes1 because his readers would not understand the allusion4 ,he replaces ,mark's awkward phrase ,greek3 en pneumati akathart by the good ,greek phrase ,greek3 echn pneuma daimoniou akathartou4 ,he omits ,mark's mention of ,galilee at the end of his account1 because he has inserted it at the beginning4 ,matthew's omission of the whole story may be controlled by his unwillingness1 elsewhere manifested1 to represent the demons as recognizing ,jesus as the ,messiah4 ,,the ,,healing ,,of ,,peter',s ,,mother-,,in-,,law 7,mk i1 #bi-ca2 ,mt viii1 #ad-ae2 ,lk iv1 #ch-ci7 ,mark calls ,peter by the name of ,simon1 as is uniform with him up to the time ,jesus gives him the name of ,peter at his calling of the twelve4 ,matthew calls him ,peter1 by which name he knows him from the beginning4 ,luke's displacement of the call of ,peter involves him in the anachronism of having the healing take place in his house before he becomes a disciple4 ,,the ,,healings ,,in ,,the ,,evening 7,mk i1 #cb-cd2 ,mt viii1 #af-ag2 ,lk iv1 #dj-da7 ,mark says ,in the evening when the sun was set4 ,matthew has reduced the redundancy of this expression by saying merely ,when it was evening4 ,luke has caught the point of ,mark's expression1 namely1 that the ,sabbath was over1 and so has reduced the pleonasm by saying only ,the sun having set4 ,mark says they brot all the sick to ,jesus and he healed many4 ,matthew improves this by saying they brot many and he healed all4 ,luke goes a step farther and says they brot all1 and he healed every one4 ,no explanation is necessary for these changes except the natural desire to avoid the implication that there were some whom ,jesus did not heal1 and to make the statement of his cures as positive and inclusive as possible4 ,matthew mentions only the possessed1 ,mark puts the sick and the possessed in the same class1 ,luke gives a separate paragraph to each4 ,both ,matthew and ,luke avoid ,mark's irregular and unusual form ,greek3 phien4 ,,the ,,retirement ,,of ,,jesus 7,mk i1 #ce-ch2 ,lk iv1 #db-dc7 ,matthew omits1 for reasons already given4#bc ,luke avoids ,mark's strange word1 ,greek3 kmopoleis4 ,where ,mark says ,simon and those with him1 ,luke says the crowd1 because in ,luke's story ,simon is not yet a disciple4 ,,the ,,calling ,,of ,,peter 7,lk v1 #a-aa7 ,luke here displays his freedom in working over the story of ,mark4 ,he builds upon ,mk i1 #ai1 yet instead of saying that the fishermen were mending their nets in their boats1 he says they had gone out of their boats and were washing their nets4 ,he has apparently read ,mk iv1 #a1 also1 and builds upon this the statement about ,jesus' going into the boat to get away from the crowd 7which statement he later omits when he comes to it in ,mark's parable of the ,sower74 7,there is a reminiscence here also of ,mk iii1 #i47 ,after the draft of fishes1 when he comes to the words of ,jesus to ,peter1 he picks up again a fragment of ,mark's account1 tho still with an addition and with a deviation in the wording2 ,mark says ,greek3 deute opis mou1 kai pois hymas genesthai haleeis anthrpn2 ,luke says ,greek3 m phobou2 apo tou nyn anthrpous es zgrn4 ,luke's closing statement1 ,they left all and followed him is substantially1 tho not quite in wording1 the same as ,mark's4 ,no example could be more striking1 of ,luke's freedom in his treatment of ,mark4 ,he exercises this freedom1 however1 in the narratives rather than in the words of ,jesus2 when he comes to these latter1 even in the midst of a narrative which he has largely created out of mere fragments of ,mark1 he follows ,mark comparatively closely4 ,in not many narratives does ,luke go to quite such lengths in his re-working as in this story and the account of the rejection 7initial preaching7 at ,nazareth4 ,but this is typical of him1 as compared with ,matthew's treatment of the same source4 ,,the ,,healing ,,of ,,the ,,leper 7,mk i1 #dj-de2 ,mt viii1 #a-d2 ,lk v1 #ab-af7 ,matthew and ,luke both omit ,mark's ,greek3 embrimsamenos1 for which they have in this case double ground2 it is an unusual word1 and it implies that ,jesus was angry4 ,luke avoids ,mark's statement that the man directly disobeyed ,jesus' command not to tell of his cleansing4 ,,the ,,healing ,,of ,,the ,,paralytic 7,mk ii1 #a-ab2 ,mt ix1 #a-h2 ,lk v1 #ag-bf7 ,both ,matthew and ,luke have supplied their own introductions4 ,both substitute ,greek3 eipen for ,mark's ,greek3 legei 7,mk ix1 #e7 7a correction which ,luke invariably makes74 ,both use substitutes for ,mark's ,greek3 krabatton4 ,luke avoids ,jesus' address to the man as ,greek3 teknon4 ,in the words of ,jesus to his critics and to the paralytic1 both follow ,mark with general fidelity1 and tho ,mark's vss4 #e;b-#aj appear to interrupt the story1 both follow him in their inclusion of these verses4 ,luke's change of ,mark's vs4 #g is a fine example of his ability to make an improvement in the sense with the least possible change in the wording4 ,mark reads1 ,greek3 ti houtos houts lalei8 blasphmei2 ,luke changes to ,greek3 tis estin hos lalei blasphmias8 ,the latter fits much better into the question1 ,who has power to forgive sins except ,god8 ,mark has made ,jesus1 in his dispute with his critics1 say ,which is easier1 to say1 444 or to say1 rise1 take up thy bed and walk8 ,matthew and ,luke make him leave out the clause take up thy bed1 reserving this for ,jesus' actual address to the man a little later1 whereas ,mark uses it in both places4 ,luke heightens the effect of his story by saying ,he took up that upon which he had been carried1 instead of he took up his bed4 ,this may be a heightening of the contrast1 or perhaps a hint that he did not know exactly what ,mark's ,greek3 krabatton was1 tho he has elsewhere replaced it by ,greek3 klinidion4#bd ,,the ,,calling ,,of ,,levi 7,,matthew7 7,mk ii1 #ac-ag2 ,mt ix1 #i-ac2 ,lk v1 #bg-cb7 ,matthew and ,luke both correct ,mark's unusual if not ungrammatical use of ,greek3 hoti in the sense of why4 ,mark says ,why does he eat with publicans and sinners8 ,matthew improves by reading1 ,why does your master eat1 etc4 ,luke improves still more by directing the question to the disciples in such manner as to include ,jesus1 ,why do ye eat1 etc4 ,,the ,,question ,,about ,,fasting 7,mk ii1 #ah-bb2 ,mt ix1 #ad-ag2 ,lk v1 #cc-ci7 ,matthew and ,luke avoid ,mark's verb ,greek3 epiraptei1 a word found nowhere but in this verse of ,mark's 7ix1 #ba74 ,at the end they avoid ,mark's clumsy expression1 ,the wine and the bottles will be destroyed1 and say1 ,the wine will be spilled and the bottles destroyed4#be ,they both omit the last part of ,mark's vs4 #ai1 an obvious pleonasm and possibly a later insertion4 ,luke's addition in his vs4 #ci does not fit well1 but is bracketed by ,westcott and ,hort and is probably an insertion4 ,more difficult 7and so far as ,i see impossible7 to explain is ,luke's suggestion that the patch to be put on the old garment is cut out of a new one--an unusual procedure1 certainly4 ,he may possibly have been misled into this statement by his desire to heighten the contrast between old and new4 ,,the ,,walk ,,thru ,,the ,,corn 7,mk ii1 #bc-bh2 ,mt xii1 #a-h2 ,lk vi1 #a-e7 ,matthew and ,luke avoid ,mark's expression ,greek3 hodon poiein1 which sounds as if ,mark meant to say that ,jesus made a new path thru the corn4 ,they add1 what ,mark forgets to say1 that he and his disciples ate the grain4 ,luke adds that they rubbed it in their hands4 ,they are led to these corrections by the fact that the justification of ,jesus by the example of ,david has to do1 not with making a road thru the grain1 but with eating on the ,sabbath and1 perhaps1 eating something which it would not ordinarily have been proper for him to eat4 ,matthew and ,luke omit ,mark's colorless and unnecessary when he had need1 and his historically difficult reference to ,abiathar4#bf ,all three have the clause1 and to those that were with him1 but each in a different place4 ,luke improves the order of the clauses in ,mark's #bfth verse4 ,matthew adds to the words of ,jesus the reference to the priests profaning the temple and yet being guiltless4 ,the addition is suggested by ,david's eating the shewbread1 but does not fit the case so closely1 since ,jesus was not defending himself against the charge of profaning a holy place4 ,both ,matthew and ,luke omit ,mark's saying that ,the ,sabbath was made for man1 not man for the ,sabbath4 ,sir ,john ,hawkins suggests that the saying may have been offensive to ,jewish ears4 ,this may account for ,matthew's omission of it2 and ,luke may have omitted it because he and his readers had not much interest in discussions about the ,sabbath4 ,but it is perhaps still more likely that the sentence is a later addition to ,mark4 ,,the ,,man ,,with ,,the ,,withered ,,hand 7,mk iii1 #a-f2 ,mt xii1 #i-ad2 ,lk vi1 #f-aa7 ,luke changes ,mark's ,greek3 sabbasin to ,greek3 sabbat1 perhaps because he is not acquainted with the ,hebrew 7,aramaic7 usage of the plural of this word in the sense of the singular4 ,both ,matthew and ,luke avoid the direct statement of ,mark in his #eth verse that ,jesus was angry4 ,,the ,,crowd ,,and ,,the ,,healings 7,mk iii1 #g-ab2 ,mt xii1 #ae-ba2 ,lk vi1 #ag-ai7 ,matthew's treatment of ,mark is influenced by the fact that just before his ,sermon on the ,mount he has1 in iv1 #be1 given a somewhat similar statement4 ,luke's transposition has been noticed4#bg ,,the ,,calling ,,of ,,the ,,twelve 7,mk iii1 #ac-ai2 ,mt x1 #b-d2 ,lk vi1 #ab-af7 ,characteristic of ,luke is his ,he was continuing all night in prayer4#bh ,the addition by ,matthew and ,luke of the words ,greek3 ho adelphos autou 7ton adelphon autou7 is held by some to indicate their use of a ,marcan text different from ours4 ,the order of the names is not the same in any two of the three lists4 ,both ,matthew and ,mark avoid an anacoluthon of ,mark in his vs4 #af1 and omit the appellative ,boanerges1 with its translation4 ,matthew and ,luke follow ,mark in naming ,matthew1 tho in their account of his call in ,mt ix1 #ac1 and ,lk v1 #bg1 ,luke follows ,mark in calling him ,levi4 ,luke changes ,mark's ,simon the ,canaanite to ,simon the ,zealot4 ,matthew alone gives the name of ,lebbaeus1 ,mark alone says ,thaddeus1 ,luke alone names ,judas the son of ,james4 ,no simple explanation suggests itself as covering all these deviations4 ,matthew or ,luke or both may have been influenced by a similar list of names in ,q or some other non-,marcan source2 but that both of them are here following ,mark is rendered practically certain by their addition of the appended parenthetical statement concerning ,judas1 with which all three accounts close4 ,,the ,,pharisaic ,,accusation ,,and ,,jesus' ,,defense 7,mk iii1 #bj-cj2 ,mt xii1 #bb-cg2 ,lk xi1 #ad-bc7 ,the discussion of this section is complicated by the presence of the section in both ,mark and ,q1 and is therefore postponed to a later time4#bi ,,the ,,true ,,brotherhood ,,of ,,jesus2 ,,the ,,parable ,,of ,,the ,,sower2 ,,the ,,purpose ,,of ,,the ,,parables 7,mk iii1 #ca-;iv1 #ab2 ,mt xii1 #df-xiii1 #ae2 ,lk viii1 #d-aj1 #ai-ba7 ,luke has done more than ,matthew to turn ,mark's narrative into good ,greek1 tho ,matthew has also improved it4 ,the agreement of ,matthew and ,luke in the addition of ,greek3 auton in ,mt xiii1 #d1 and ,lk viii1 #e1 where it does not occur in their exemplar 7,mk iv1 #d71 is sometimes held to indicate a text of ,mark containing this word4 ,the hypothesis of assimilation seems simpler2 or in this case even accidental agreement would not be strange4 ,the insertion of ,greek3 palin in ,mk iv1 #a1 not in ,matthew and ,luke1 has been suggested by ,weiss to be the work of an editor who saw the confused character of the geographical references since ,mk iii1 #g4cj ,,the ,,interpretation ,,of ,,the ,,parable ,,of ,,the ,,sower 7,mk iv1 #ac-bj2 ,mt xiii1 #ah-bc2 ,lk viii1 #aa-ae7 ,matthew changes ,mark's ,greek3 ,satanas to ,greek3 ho ponros4 ,the latter is used by ,matthew in this sense five times1 and not at all by ,mark and ,luke4 ,the change may therefore be regarded as stylistic4 ,luke's addition of lest they should believe and be saved sounds like a ,christian addition1 and may be explained by the development of the ,christian doctrine4 ,mark's loose and unliterary addition of and the desires for the rest of the things1 after the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches1 ,luke very naturally corrects into the cares and wealth and pleasures of life4 ,in iv1 #ai1 ,mark uses the participle ,greek3 eisporeuomenai in a somewhat inexact manner3 ,the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for the rest of the things1 coming in1 choke the word4 ,luke's change may be accounted for by his desire to improve the style2 which he does without discarding ,mark's misplaced participle4 ,for he says1 ,and by the cares 444 as they i4e41 the people who have heard the word proceed1 they are choked and rendered unfruitful4 ,probably ,schmiedel's statement1 in his article in the ,encyclopedia ,biblica1 that this instance alone would prove literary relation between ,mark and ,luke is too strong2 especially considering the fact that ,luke's participle is not precisely the same as ,mark's2 but the deviation is certainly an interesting one4 ,in the earlier part of the passage ,matthew and ,luke both omit ,mark's reference to the dulness of the disciples4 ,the omission is due to their customary deference to the feeling of a later time4 ,a ,,group ,,of ,,detached ,,sayings 7,mk iv1 #ba-be2 ,mt v1 #ae2 x1 #bf2 vii1 #b2 xiii1 #ab2 ,lk viii1 #af-ah2 vi1 #ch7 ,the divergences in wording1 the fact that the verses found together in ,mark are separated in both ,matthew and ,luke1 and the additional fact of doublets in ,matthew or ,luke for all but one of ,mark's verses1 indicate beyond a doubt that these verses stood in both ,mark and ,q4 ,,the ,,parable ,,of ,,the ,,mustard ,,seed 7,mk iv1 #cj-cb2 ,mt xiii1 #ca-cb2 ,lk xiii1 #ah-ai7 ,this section also stood in both ,mark and ,q4 ,luke is perhaps independent of ,mark here1 preferring to follow ,q4 ,matthew seems1 as often1 to try to combine the two sources1 showing some resemblances to ,mark as against ,luke1 and others to ,luke as against ,mark4 ,the passage is narrative only in ,mark1 parable only in ,luke1 and a combination of narrative and parable in ,matthew4 ,the anacoluthon in ,mk iv1 #ca1 is avoided by ,matthew and ,luke4#ca ,,the ,,storm ,,on ,,the ,,lake 7,mk iv1 #ce-da2 ,mt viii1 #bc-bg2 ,lk viii1 #bb-be7 ,matthew and ,luke omit the statement that other boats accompanied the one in which ,jesus sailed4 ,perhaps1 as ,hawkins suggests1 they wondered how these weathered the storm4 ,or1 since the point of narrating the story has to do only with the boat in which ,jesus sailed1 they may simply have seen no advantage in relating the circumstance of the other boats4 ,matthew substitutes the comparatively common word1 tho ,i believe not common in exactly this connection1 ,greek3 seismos1 for ,mark's rare word ,greek3 lailaps4 ,matthew and ,luke omit the statement that ,jesus was asleep on the cushion2 it has been suggested that they may have considered the use of the cushion as an effeminacy unworthy of ,jesus2 or more probably they have omitted it as of no consequence4 ,they both omit the direct address of ,jesus to the sea1 as they often omit his words of address to the demons4 ,they do not wish to represent the disciples as distrustful2 so while ,mark says ,master1 dost thou not care that we perish8 ,matthew says ,save1 ,lord2 we perish1 and ,luke simply ,master1 we perish4 ,,the ,,gadarene ,,demoniac 7,mk v1 #a-bj2 ,mt viii1 #bh-cd2 ,lk viii1 #bf-ci7 ,the name of the locality is different in each account4 ,some texts1 however1 make ,matthew agree with ,mark2 others make him agree with ,luke2 while still other texts do the same for ,luke with reference to ,mark and ,matthew4 ,the exact location1 or the proper name for it1 may have been in dispute4 ,matthew shortens ,mark's narrative1 as almost invariably4 ,luke shows himself to be no mere copyist2 in view of ,mark's statement that after the demoniac's cure they found him clothed1 he supplies in his original description of the demoniac the statement which ,mark does not have1 that the man wore no clothes4 ,matthew and ,luke again omit ,jesus' command to the demon to come out of the man4 ,luke includes ,jesus' question1 ,what is thy name8 ,but to make it plain that this question is addressed to the man and not to the demon1 he changes ,mark's statement1 for we are many1 into his own editorial explanation1 for many demons had entered into him4 ,matthew and ,luke are involved in a slight difficulty by their abbreviation of ,mark4 ,for while ,mark makes those who have seen the cure of the demoniac tell their neighbors about him and about the swine1 ,matthew and ,luke omit this latter item4 ,it therefore appears from ,matthew and ,luke that the ,gadarenes requested ,jesus to depart from their coasts lest their demoniacs should be cured2 in ,mark they asked him to depart because they did not wish their property destroyed4 ,luke's change of ,mark's ,greek3 ho kyrios 7,mk's vs4 #ai7 into ,greek3 ho theos1 is not easily explained if ,luke understood ,mark to refer to ,jesus by his ,greek3 ho kyrios4 ,as the latter word1 however1 is ambiguous1 and as ,mark seems to use it more often than the other evangelists with reference to ,god1 ,luke may have so understood his narrative here4 ,but as the man went and told1 not what ,god1 but what ,jesus1 had done for him1 ,luke can hardly have so misunderstood ,mark2 and ,luke's change may be due to his feeling that ,jesus did not call himself ,greek3 kyrios4 ,this indeed seems to be the only place where ,mark puts this self-designation into the mouth of ,jesus4 ,matthew and ,luke seem consistently to avoid it4 ,,the ,,daughter ,,of ,,jairus ,,and ,,the ,,woman ,,with ,,the ,,issue ,,of ,,blood 7,mk v1 #ba-dc2 ,mt ix1 #ah-bf2 ,lk viii1 #dj-ef7 ,this curious insertion of one miracle within another might be held to be enough in itself to prove the literary dependence of the three synoptists4 ,luke's change of ,mark's vs4 #bc is explained by the anacoluthon in ,mark4 ,matthew and ,luke naturally avoid ,mark's ,greek3 thygatrion4 ,their substitution of the tassel of his garment for his garment is unusual1 since it seems to indicate their closer definition of the kind of cloak worn by ,jesus4 ,the change may serve to heighten the appearance of reverence in the woman4 ,luke substitutes ,greek3 parachrma for ,mark's ,greek3 euthys2 the latter is ,mark's uniform word for immediately1 used by him forty-one times against ,matthew's eighteen and ,luke's seven2 the former is ,luke's favorite word1 being used ten times by him1 twice by ,matthew1 and never by ,mark4 ,matthew and ,luke omit the question of the disciples to ,jesus1 ,sayest thou1 ,who touched me8 as possibly implying lack of respect upon their part4 ,they also omit ,mark's parenthetical statement that ,john was the brother of ,james2 this had been mentioned often enough already4 ,luke's abbreviation of ,mark involves him in the difficulty of saying that ,jesus allowed nobody to go into the house with him1 except the three disciples and the parents of the child1 whereas ,mark expressly says that he allowed only those to go with him into the death chamber4 ,matthew1 not mentioning the death chamber1 has a reminiscence of it in his participle ,greek3 eiselthn1 coming as it does after the ,greek3 elthn eis tn oikian of his previous verse4 ,in this story also ,luke has read ,mark thru carefully2 and finding that ,mark inserts she was twelve years old after the statement that she arose and walked1 prefers to put this into the more appropriate place as part of the introductory narrative2 he is thus enabled at the same time to make the connection in the latter part of the story much better by saying that as soon as the girl sat up ,jesus commanded her parents to give her something to eat2 a command which in ,mark follows only after several other items4 ,luke thus makes the giving of food to the girl a part of the means used for her recovery4 ,,the ,,initial ,,preaching ,,in ,,nazareth 7,mk vi1 #a-f2 ,mt xiii1 #ec-eh2 ,lk iv1 #af-cj7 ,luke's working over of the account in ,mk vi1 #a-f1 has already been considered4#cb ,he has preferred to put it at the beginning of ,jesus' ministry1 as a sort of introductory rsum of the reception which ,jesus received at the hands of the ,jews1 and his consequent turning to the gentiles4 ,the anachronism involved is seen in the fact that ,jesus says1 ,ye will say to me1 444 what we have heard done in ,capernaum do also here in thine own town2 whereas1 in ,luke's own account the wonders in ,capernaum have not yet occurred4 ,the words1 ,no prophet is accepted in his own country1 do not fit so well here as where ,mark has them 7vi1 #d7 following upon the question1 ,is not this the carpenter1 444 and are not his sisters here with us8 and where ,mark adds to the word country the words and among his own kinsmen and in his own house4 ,luke does not add that ,jesus was not able to do many wonders there1 partly because he is speaking of his preaching only1 but still more because he always avoids such statements about the inability or limitation of ,jesus4 ,,the ,,sending ,,out ,,of ,,the ,,disciples 7,mk vi1 #f-ac2 ,mt ix1 #ce2 x1 #a1 #i-aa2 ,lk ix1 #a-f7 ,luke has a second sending out of disciples in his #ajth chapter4 ,considering his usual avoidance of duplicates1 it seems probable that he took one of these accounts from ,mark and one from ,q1 and that the account therefore stood in both ,q and ,mark4 ,the account in ,luke's chap4 #aj is closely akin to one part of ,matthew's parallel section1 and his account in his #ith chapter is more closely akin to other verses of ,matthew's account4 ,these latter verses of ,matthew agree more closely with ,mark's account than do his other verses4 ,it seems clear therefore that ,matthew has combined the account of the sending out of the disciples which he found in ,q with that which he found in ,mark4 ,this combination of material from his two sources is characteristic of him1 as the careful separation of it is characteristic of ,luke4#cc ,comparing here the passages of ,matthew and ,luke which were apparently taken from ,mark1 ,luke and ,matthew correct the anacoluthon of ,mark's vss4 #h and #i4 ,matthew and ,mark mention the healing but once2 ,luke three times4 ,mark says the disciples are to take nothing1 except a staff2 ,luke and ,matthew say they are to take nothing1 not even a staff4 ,mark seems to contemplate a mission chiefly to houses1 not so much to cities1 tho his word ,greek3 topos may indicate the latter4 ,the substitution by ,matthew and ,luke of ,greek3 koniortos for ,mark's ,greek3 choun1 as well as other minor and verbal deviations1 may easily be accounted for by their acquaintance with the account in ,q4 ,harnack suggests that ,mark's permission of the staff1 which is denied in ,matthew and ,luke1 may indicate a relaxation of the rule1 arising in actual practice4 ,if so1 ,matthew and ,luke1 because they here follow ,q1 may represent a more original form of the saying4#cd ,,the ,,judgment ,,of ,,herod ,,concerning ,,jesus 7,mk vi1 #ad-af2 ,mt xiv1 #a-b2 ,lk ix1 #g-i7 ,matthew and ,luke correct ,mark's ,herod the king into ,herod the tetrarch1 tho ,matthew a few verses later falls back into the error which he has corrected4 ,mark says that ,herod himself surmised that ,jesus was ,john the ,baptist risen from the dead 7tho some texts read ,greek3 elegon for ,greek3 elegen in vs4 #ad74 ,matthew follows ,mark in this by saying distinctly that ,herod said to those about him1 it is ,john1 etc4 ,luke says ,herod had heard of the things ,jesus did1 and was perplexed because it was said that ,john was risen4 ,luke may here have been following one text of ,mark and ,matthew another text4 ,the fact that with ,greek3 elegen in ,mark's vs4 #ad1 his vs4 #af is a mere repetition of this verse 7,matthew omits the parallel to ,mark's vs4 #af71 may indicate either that ,greek3 elegon is the original reading of vs4 #ad1 or that ,luke1 finding ,greek3 elegen there1 corrected it into his own statement which upon the face of it is much better4 ,luke does not represent ,herod as personally making any such statement about ,john1 but says merely that when ,herod heard of the deeds of ,jesus and of the explanation that was popularly given for them1 he desired to see ,jesus4 ,,the ,,death ,,of ,,the ,,baptist 7,mk vi1 #ag-bi2 ,mt xiv1 #c-ab7 ,luke has omitted this because he has long ago finished with the ,baptist 7in iii1 #ai-bj74 ,the passage seems to be parenthetical in ,mark1 to explain ,herod's statement that he has killed ,john the ,baptist4 ,mark says ,herod did not wish to kill ,john1 because he regarded him as a just and holy man4 ,matthew says ,herod wished to kill ,john1 but feared the people1 because they considered ,john a prophet4 ,matthew's difference here may be due to a different tradition which he considered superior to ,mark's1 or it may be due simply to the abbreviation he has made in ,mark's narrative4 ,mark's account contains the somewhat improbable feature of the daughter of ,herodias dancing before the drunken tetrarch and his companions2 which ,matthew omits4 ,the ,latin word ,greek3 spekoulatr in ,mark 7vi1 #bg7 is dropped in ,matthew4 ,,the ,,return ,,of ,,the ,,disciples ,,and ,,the ,,feeding ,,of ,,the ,,five ,,thousand 7,mk vi1 #cj-dd2 ,mt xiv1 #ac-ba2 ,lk ix1 #aj-ag7 ,matthew assigns as the reason for ,jesus' departure in the boat the news of what had happened to ,john the ,baptist4 ,mark1 treating this latter as purely parenthetical1 says ,jesus and his disciples went away to escape the crowds4 ,luke1 not having related the death of the ,baptist1 assigns still a different reason for ,jesus' withdrawal1 saying that the apostles had returned1 and ,jesus went aside with them1 apparently to hear their report4 ,luke says they retired to ,bethsaida1 where it seems out of place that the feeding of the five thousand should occur2 this latter event being more appropriately located by ,mark and ,matthew in a desert place4 ,mark and ,matthew both say the crowds went on foot2 ,mark says they preceded ,jesus1 ,matthew and ,luke1 that they followed him when they knew of his departure4 ,the deviations are easily accounted for by the desire of ,matthew and ,luke to improve the story of ,mark4 ,luke's mention of ,bethsaida is accounted for by his desire to supply exact details wherever possible2 perhaps also by the fact that the second feeding1 which he omits1 was related to have occurred in that place4 ,luke is apparently unaffected1 in his placing of the five thousand in ,bethsaida1 by the fact that he represents ,jesus as saying1 ,we are here in a desert place4 ,he may also have been misled in his location of the miracle by the mention1 in ,mark vi1 #de 7which ,luke omits71 of the departure of ,jesus and his disciples for ,bethsaida4 ,luke transposes ,mark's statement of the numbers fed1 to an earlier and presumably better position4 ,matthew adds1 as in the feeding of the four thousand1 that the numbers given were exclusive of women and children2 apparently from his desire1 or the desire of the tradition lying back of him1 to heighten the impressiveness of the miracle4 ,mark's ,hebraism1 ,greek3 symposia symposia1 is omitted by both ,matthew and ,luke4 ,,the ,,walking ,,on ,,the ,,sea 7,mk vi1 #de-eb2 ,mt xiv1 #bb-cc7 ,mark's narrative seems to imply 7vs4 #df7 that ,jesus meant to walk past them4 ,matthew implies1 on the contrary1 that ,jesus was coming to their help4 ,matthew spiritualizes the account by adding the experiment of ,peter3 ,peter can do it so long as he has faith4#ce ,it has been observed that in this narrative1 as in others which ,matthew takes from ,mark but which ,luke omits1 the verbal agreement is considerably closer than in the sections which ,matthew and ,luke both copy4 ,schmiedel has suggested that this points to a common document occasionally employed by ,matthew and ,mark but not by ,luke4 ,the hypothesis of a later assimilation of ,matthew and ,luke seems simpler4 ,at all events1 the very close agreement of ,matthew and ,mark in this narrative1 up to the point where ,matthew inserts the experiment of ,peter1 may possibly indicate that this latter is later than the body of ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,whether so or not1 its presence is easily accounted for by ,matthew's ecclesiastical point of view1 the primacy of ,peter being asserted by him in one other notable passage which occurs in ,matthew alone4 ,probably ,matthew has drawn these special passages about ,peter from a source of his own1 and1 according to his custom1 has here combined one of them with a narrative of ,mark's4 ,,the ,,return ,,to ,,gennesaret 7,mk vi1 #ec-ef2 ,mt xiv1 #cd-cf7 ,this section is omitted by ,luke4 ,there are no sayings in it4 ,matthew's customary abbreviation is shown in his #dd words against ,mark's #gb2 but there is much close verbal correspondence in spite of this4 ,,about ,,the ,,things ,,that ,,defile 7,mk vii1 #a-bc2 ,mt xv1 #a-bj7 ,mark has an editorial comment about the scrupulosity of the ,jews4 ,it may be a later addition in his narrative1 at least this may be the case with the words ,greek3 kai pantes hoi ,ioudaioi1 which make it apply to the whole people and not simply to the ,pharisees2 or it may have seemed to ,matthew to be somewhat exaggerated and have been omitted by him on that account4 ,its omission improves the connection in ,matthew's narrative1 and might be sufficiently accounted for by ,matthew's tendency to omit superfluous or negligible portions of ,mark's stories4 ,in his vs4 #aa 7,matthew has transposed several verses7 ,mark has the ,aramaic word ,greek3 korban1 omitted by ,matthew4 ,in ,mark's vs4 #ai occurs the phrase ,greek3 katharizn panta ta brmata4 ,the construction is loose1 the nearest verb with which the participle can be connected being the ,greek3 legei of the first part of the preceding verse4 ,this alone might have induced ,matthew to omit it2 still more1 the implication1 that ,jesus had in this saying abolished the distinction between clean and unclean4 ,nor is it surprising that ,matthew should omit1 among ,mark's list of the things that come out of a man's heart and defile him1 his mention of the evil eye4 ,,the ,,canaanitish ,,woman 7,mk vii1 #bd-cj2 ,mt xv1 #ba-bh7 ,matthew omits ,mark's statement that ,jesus was not able to be hid4 ,it may have seemed to him an unworthy limitation of the power of ,jesus4 ,mark also recounts a clever answer of the woman1 ,the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs2 and ,jesus1 for the cleverness of her reply1 as he says1 grants her wish4 ,it is not strange that ,matthew replaces this by ,jesus' words1 ,great is thy faith4 ,,the ,,feeding ,,of ,,the ,,four ,,thousand 7,mk viii1 #a-aj2 ,mt xv1 #cb-ci7 ,matthew follows ,mark closely4 ,he seems in vss4 #cg and #ch to be quoting from his own account of the previous feeding4 ,this item brings out a tendency of ,matthew to repeat in one place phrases which he has used in another4 ,,the ,,demand ,,for ,a ,,sign 7,mk viii1 #aa-ac2 ,mt xii1 #ch-ci2 ,mt xvi1 #a-d2 ,lk xi1 #bi2 xii1 #ed-ef7 ,doublets in both ,matthew and ,luke indicate the presence of this section in both ,mark and ,q4#cf ,,the ,,saying ,,about ,,yeast 7,mk viii1 #ad-ba2 ,mt xvi1 #e-ab7 ,matthew omits the rebuke to the disciples in ,mark 7viii1 #ag1 #ah74 ,he apparently manufactures a saying of ,jesus in his vs4 #aa1 in order to introduce therewith his own editorial statement of vs4 #ab4 ,,the ,,confession ,,of ,,peter ,,and ,,the ,,first ,,prediction ,,of ,,sufferings 7,mk viii1 #bg-cc2 ,mt xvi1 #ac-bc2 ,lk ix1 #ah-bb7 ,matthew spoils the question of ,jesus by obtruding his own estimate of him in the words ,the son of man in vs4 #ac4 ,upon ,peter's answer1 he adds ,jesus' words of commendation1 and makes ,jesus reciprocate by telling ,peter who he 7,peter7 is1 and that the church shall be founded upon him4 ,the addition may be later than ,matthew4 ,if not1 it betrays the ecclesiastical interest1 and especially the interest in the primacy of ,peter1 which comes out elsewhere in ,matthew4 ,matthew and ,luke correct ,mark's statement1 after three days he shall rise again1 to on the third day1 so making the prediction agree more accurately with the facts1 and giving a ,greek method of reckoning instead of the ,hebrew4 ,it is not surprising that ,luke omits the rebuke to ,peter2 ,matthew's inclusion of it seems strange4 ,both omit ,mark's statement that ,jesus spoke the word openly1 because1 as ,hawkins suggests1#cg if this meant that he spoke to the crowd1 it is contradicted by ,mark's vs4 #cd2 if it meant that he told them clearly about the resurrection1 it would seem strange that the disciples did not understand4 ,,the ,,demands ,,of ,,discipleship 7,mk viii1 #cd-;ix1 #a2 ,mt xvi1 #bd-bh2 ,lk ix1 #bc-bg7 ,mark's redundant expression ,greek3 opis akolouthein is corrected by each of the others1 in a different way4 ,the phrase ,greek3 kai tou euangeliou in ,mark's vs4 #ce sounds like a later addition2 it would hardly have been omitted by ,matthew and ,luke if it had stood in their source4 ,matthew makes ,jesus say that the son of man is about to come2 ,mark and ,luke say when the son of man comes2 ,matthew betrays his own attitude1 or the attitude of his time1 to the long-expected parousia4 ,mark's extremely awkward order of words1 ,greek3 tines hde tn hestkotn1#ch each of the other evangelists corrects in his own way4 ,,the ,,transfiguration 7,mk ix1 #b-h2 ,mt xvii1 #a-h2 ,lk ix1 #bh-cf7 ,mark says he was changed in form 7,greek3 metamorphth71 which ,luke improves to the appearance of his countenance was different 7,greek3 to eidos tou prospou autou heteron74 ,both ,matthew and ,luke change ,mark's ,elias and ,moses to the chronological order4 ,luke adds that these spoke of the approaching entry of ,jesus into ,jerusalem1 and adduces1 as an excuse for the disciples' not understanding1 or for ,peter's apparently foolish remark1 that they were heavy with sleep4 ,matthew and ,luke change ,mark's ,aramaic ,greek3 rhabbei into ,greek words1 ,luke using the ,greek3 epistata which is peculiar to him4 ,,the ,,discussion ,,about ,,elijah 7,mk ix1 #i-ac2 ,mt xvii1 #i-ac7 ,mark says ,elias has come 7in the person of ,john the ,baptist71 and they have done whatever they would with him1 as it was written of him4 ,matthew understands1 rightly1 that this last is a reference to the ,old ,testament1 and not knowing where or what had there been written of the ,baptist1 omits it4 ,perhaps the statement is a later addition to ,mark4 ,,the ,,healing ,,of ,,the ,,epileptic ,,boy 7,mk ix1 #ad-bi2 ,mt xvii1 #ad-ba2 ,lk ix1 #cg-dc;a7 ,mark says that when the crowd saw ,jesus they were amazed4 ,this might seem to be a parallel to the amazement of the ,israelites on seeing ,moses' countenance when he came down from the mount4 ,but ,matthew and ,luke have omitted it4 ,they also omit ,jesus' direct address to the demon1#ci and ,jesus' statement1 ,this kind cometh not out except with prayer4 ,this may reflect the custom in ecclesiastical exorcisms1 and may have been added by a later hand1 or omitted by ,matthew and ,luke because as matter of fact ,jesus had not prayed and therefore the saying did not fit the case4 ,,the ,,second ,,prediction ,,of ,,sufferings 7,mk ix1 #cj-cb2 ,mt xvii1 #bb-bc2 ,lk ix1 #dc;b-#de7 ,in the second prediction of sufferings ,matthew and ,luke both avoid ,mark's ,greek3 ouk thelen hina tis gnoi 7,mk ix1 #cj74 ,it seems to be a part of ,mark's ,geheimnis-,theorie2 but since ,matthew and ,luke both include some of ,mark's other references to this theory1 this fact is not a sufficient explanation of its omission1 which may perhaps be attributed to the growing reverence for ,jesus4 ,luke's vs4 #dd;a1 ,greek3 thesthe hymeis eis ta ta hymn tous logous toutous1 is without parallel in ,mark 7or ,matthew74 ,luke has also omitted a part of ,mark's prediction1 and they shall kill him1 which he would hardly have done if he were here following ,mark1 or if the clause had stood in his copy of ,mark4 ,these facts may be taken to indicate that ,luke is here following another source4 ,the words quoted from vs4 #dd;a would be very unlikely to be added by ,luke himself4#dj ,matthew seems to follow ,mark1 making his customary abbreviation and changing ,mark's after three days to on the third day4 ,in another instance already noticed both ,matthew and ,luke make the same change in ,mark's statement4 ,luke may here be following ,q4 ,but the absence of any agreements between him and ,matthew as against ,mark would rather indicate his use of a peculiar source4 ,there are no doublets to substantiate the supposition of the use of ,q4 ,,the ,,strife ,,about ,,rank 7,mk ix1 #cc-cg2 ,mt xviii1 #a-e2 ,lk ix1 #df-dh7 ,the section on the strife about rank probably stood in both ,mark and ,q1 but the resemblances are too general for one to draw definite conclusions as to the exact source relationship4 ,,minor ,,passages ,it will be sufficient if we look with less detail thru a few more passages of the triple tradition1 to note the changes made by ,matthew and ,luke in the text of ,mark4 ,in the case of the unknown exorcist 7,mk ix1 #ch-da2 ,lk ix1 #di-ej7 ,luke says he followed not with us instead of he followed not us2 the assumption of authority upon the part of ,john is thereby lessened4 ,in the saying about offenses 7,mk ix1 #db-dh2 ,mt xviii1 #f-i2 ,lk xvii1 #a-b7 ,matthew has combined ,mark's saying about the hand and his separate saying about the foot1 into one4 ,the saying stood in ,mark and ,q4 ,in the discussion about marriage and divorce 7,mk x1 #aa-ab2 ,mt v1 #ca-cb2 ,lk xvi1 #ah2 xix1 #i7 ,matthew has rearranged the order of ,mark1 and has added except for adultery1 as he has done in another place2 he has omitted ,mark's reference to the woman divorcing her husband1 as this would mean nothing to his ,palestinian readers4 ,in the blessing of the children 7,mk x1 #ac-af2 ,mt xix1 #ac-ae2 ,lk xviii1 #ae-ag7 ,matthew and ,luke omit ,mark's statement that ,jesus was angry4 ,in the saying concerning the danger of riches 7,mk x1 #ag-ca2 ,mt xix1 #af-cj2 ,lk xviii1 #ah-cj7 ,mark makes ,jesus say1 ,why callest thou me good8 ,matthew changes this to ,why askest thou me concerning that which is good8 tho his following words1 ,there is ,one who is good1 betray the fact that he had ,mark's reading before him4 ,matthew shows his ,jewish affinities by making ,jesus say that the questioner may enter into life1 by keeping the commandments4 ,both ,matthew and ,luke omit one commandment which ,mark quotes1 because it is not found in the ,decalogue4 ,matthew changes ,mark's order of the commandments to agree with the ,old ,testament4 ,matthew1 having called the questioner a youth1 omits from his reply to ,jesus the words1 from my youth up4 ,both omit ,mark's vs4 #bd1 which is practically a duplicate of the previous verse4 ,luke1 having included the idea of sisters in his word for family1 omits sisters1 but1 with his characteristic interest in women1 adds wife4 ,in the third prediction of sufferings 7,mk x1 #cb-cd2 ,mt xx1 #ag-ai2 ,lk xviii1 #ca-cd7 the agreement between ,mark and ,matthew is very close throughout4 ,the only agreement of ,matthew and ,luke against ,mark is in their substitution of ,greek3 eipen for ,greek3 legei4 ,both ,matthew and ,luke change ,mark's after three days to on the third day4 ,three words in ,mark's vs4 #cd are reproduced in ,luke alone2 ,greek3 anastsetai1 apoktenousin1 emptysousin4 ,matthew has added ,greek3 kai staursai4 ,in the request for seats in the kingdom 7,mk x1 #ce-de2 ,mt xx1 #bj-bh7 ,mark makes ,james and ,john ask ,jesus directly2 ,luke omits the incident2 ,matthew puts the burden of the ambitious request upon the mother instead of upon the sons2 tho he betrays the fact that he is remaking ,mark1 by making ,jesus direct his reply to the men4 ,in the healing of ,bartimaeus 7,mk x1 #df-eb2 ,mt xx1 #bi-cd2 ,lk xviii1 #ce-dc7 ,mark says the son of ,timaeus1 perhaps in explanation of the ,aramaic name4 ,matthew specifies two men instead of one1 giving no names2 it has been suggested that he may have been misled by ,mark's ,bartimaeus and the son of ,timaeus1 tho the ,jewish affinity of ,matthew's ,gospel makes this unlikely4 ,since the son of ,timaeus did not serve to identify the man to their readers1 ,matthew and ,luke omit the phrase4 ,mark's graphic statement that the man threw off his cloak and ran to ,jesus was unsuited to the dignity of the ,later ,gospels4 ,matthew and ,luke again substitute the ,greek ,greek3 kyrie for ,mark's ,greek3 rhabbouni4 ,they omit his ,greek3 hypage1 which seems out of place4#da ,in the preparation for the entry into ,jerusalem 7,mk xi1 #a-aa2 ,mt xxi1 #a-aa2 ,lk xix1 #bh-ch7 ,mark represents ,jesus as telling the disciples who go after the colt1 to explain that ,jesus has need of him and that he will return him soon4 ,luke omits the latter item2 ,matthew changes it to mean that when the disciples have explained to the owner that ,jesus needs the animal1 the owner will quickly send it to ,jesus4 ,the growing reverence for ,jesus easily explains the change and the omission4 ,matthew undoubtedly represents ,jesus as riding into ,jerusalem upon two beasts1 the ass and her foal2 the strange phenomenon is explained by his attempt to harmonize the event with an ,old ,testament prophecy4 ,the prophecy1 however1 for that matter1 had only one beast in mind4 ,mark says ,bethany 7in some texts ,bethany and ,bethphage71 ,matthew ,bethphage1 and ,luke ,bethany and ,bethphage2 the two names in ,luke1 and in certain texts of ,mark1 are probably to be explained as the harmonizing effort of some copyist4 ,in the cursing of the fig tree 7,mk xi1 #ab-ad2 ,mt xxi1 #ah-ai71 the statement of ,mark1 ,for it was not the time for figs1 may have been omitted by ,matthew because seeming to imply an unreasonable expectation on the part of ,jesus4 ,or it may be a later addition to ,mark4 ,matthew says that the disciples noticed immediately that the tree had withered1 whereas ,mark says they observed this the next day4 ,matthew's change may have been in the interest of heightening the miracle4 ,upon his observation here he has hung his statement about the wonder of the disciples in his vs4 #bj4 ,luke omits this miracle2 probably because he considers the parable of the ,fig ,tree which he gives in xxi1 #bi-ca 7taking it from ,mk xiii1 #bh-bi ,mt xxiv1 #cb-cc7 a variant of1 or an improvement upon1 the same story4 ,the speech about the withered fig tree 7,mk xi1 #bj-be2 ,mt xxi1 #bj-bb7 ,luke omits because he has omitted the miracle upon which it depends4 ,the saying about faith apparently stood in both ,mark and ,q1 since ,matthew has a doublet upon it4 ,this may have been an additional reason for ,luke's omission of it here1 since he has incorporated it in his xvii1 #f4db ,in the question about authority 7,mk xi1 #bg-cc2 ,mt xxi1 #bc-bg2 ,lk xx1 #a-h7 the intervention of the fig tree story in ,mark 7and ,matthew7 obscures the point of the question about ,jesus' authority1 which was directed toward his action in cleansing the temple4 ,there is very close agreement among the three in the question of ,jesus to his questioners 7,mk xi1 #cj2 ,mt xxi1 #be2 ,lk xx1 #d71 tho both ,matthew and ,luke avoid ,mark's anacoluthon at the beginning of the following verse4 ,in the parable of the ,evil ,husbandmen 7,mk xii1 #a-ab2 ,mt xxi1 #cc-df2 ,lk xx1 #i-ai7 ,mark says1 ,they took him and killed him and cast him out2 ,matthew and ,luke say1 ,they cast him outside the vineyard and killed him1 presumably influenced in this correction by the fact of ,jesus' crucifixion outside the city4#dc ,matthew puts into the mouth of the questioners one saying which ,mark ascribes to ,jesus2 the questioners are thus convicted by their own testimony4 ,in the question of the ,sadducees about the resurrection 7,mk xii1 #ah-bg2 ,mt xxii1 #bc-cc2 ,lk xx1 #bg-dj7 ,mark says1 quite correctly1 ,the ,sadducees1 who 7as is well known7 say there is no resurrection2#dd ,matthew not so happily represents them as making this statement to ,jesus2 ,luke corrects still further1 being apparently unacquainted with the tenets of the ,sadducees as a class1 and so says1 ,certain of the ,sadducees came1 denying that there is any resurrection4 ,it is one of the instances1 perhaps comparatively few1 where ,mark would better have been left as he was4 ,to make the contrast between this world and the next stronger ,luke adds in his vs4 #cd1 the sons of this world marry and are given in marriage4 ,he also attempts to explain the apparently incomplete statement1 ,god is not of the dead but of the living1 by adding for all live to him4#de ,in the question about the great commandment 7,mk xii1 #bh-cd2 ,mt xxii1 #cd-dj2 ,lk x1 #be-bh71 ,matthew's addition1 ,upon these two commandments hang all the law1 and the prophets1 is perhaps an old ,christian formula1 which seems to fit remarkably well in this place4 ,in the question about ,david's son 7,mk xii1 #ce-cg2 ,mt xxii1 #da-df2 ,lk xx1 #da-dd71 ,luke corrects ,mark's statement1 ,david said in the ,holy ,spirit1 with ,david says in the book of ,psalms2 ,mark is nearer to ,jesus1 ,luke writes for the convenience of his readers who might wish to look up the reference4 ,in the speech against the ,pharisees 7,mk xii1 #ch-dj2 ,mt xxiii1 #a-g2 ,lk xx1 #de-dg71 ,mark's ,beware of the ,pharisees1 who love to walk about in robes1 and greetings in the market is not positively ungrammatical1 since the infinitive and the noun may both be the object of the verb4 ,but it is a loose construction2 ,luke corrects it by the insertion of a second verb governing the noun4 ,in the predictions of distress 7,mk xiii1 #i-ac2 ,mt xxiv1 #i-ad2 ,lk xxi1 #ab-ai71 ,mark's ,greek3 promerimnate1 a word not found elsewhere in the ,new ,testament or ,septuagint1 is avoided by ,matthew and ,luke4 ,matthew's passage 7xxiv1 #aj-ab7 about the false prophets who shall deceive many1 and the love of many growing cold1 whether attributed to the evangelist1 or to the tradition lying just behind him1 reflects the conditions of his times4 ,in the saying about the distress in ,judaea 7,mk xiii1 #ad-bj2 ,mt xxiv1 #ae-bb2 ,lk xxi1 #bj-bd71 ,mark's construction of a neuter noun with a masculine participle1 a construction according to the sense 7,greek3 bdelygma 444 hestkota71 his unusual construction of ,greek3 eis ton agron meaning in the field1 and his equally strange combination of words ,greek3 esontai gar hai hmerai ekeinai thlipsis1 hoia ou gegonen toiaut1 are all replaced by ,matthew and ,luke4 ,luke omits ,greek3 ho anaginskn noeit1 because it is not applicable to his readers4 ,he adds until the times of the nations are fulfilled1 apparently upon ,paul's hypothesis that the end could not come till the gospel had first been preached to all the nations 7,rom xi1 #aa1 #ae1 #ca74 ,this is ,luke's substitute for the explanation which ,matthew has copied from ,mark1 that the ,lord has shortened the days for the sake of the ,christians4 ,in the speech about the parousia 7,mk xiii1 #bd-bg2 ,mt xxiv1 #bi-ca2 ,lk xxi1 #be-bh71 ,matthew has added ,greek3 euthes4 ,this is ,mark's favorite adverb1 and its addition by ,matthew where it is lacking in ,mark is hard to understand4 ,perhaps1 as ,bacon says1 ,matthew the ,palestinian wishes to encourage the hope of the speedy coming of ,jesus1 while ,mark the ,roman wishes to discourage it2 but the reasons for this are not perfectly clear4 ,schmiedel considers the omission of the ,greek3 euthes in ,mark as a sign of his secondary character at this point4 ,in the passage about the time of the parousia 7,mk xiii1 #cj-cb2 ,mt xxiv1 #cd-cf2 ,lk xxi1 #cb-cc71 ,luke omits ,mark's statement that the son does not know the time2 because he always avoids any implication of a limitation in the knowledge of ,jesus4#df ,in the preparation for the ,passover 7,mk xiv1 #ab-ag2 ,mt xxvi1 #ag-bj2 ,lk xxii1 #g-ad71 ,luke omits the my in the question which ,jesus tells the disciples to ask1 ,where is my chamber where ,i shall1 etc42 perhaps1 as ,hawkins#dg suggests1 because it may have seemed to him a somewhat harshly expressed claim4 ,in the institution of the ,last ,supper 7,mk xiv1 #bb-be2 ,mt xxvi1 #bf-bi2 ,lk xxii1 #ae-bj71 ,luke adds 7xxii1 #ai-bj7 words which seem to be taken from ,paul's account in ,i ,cor xi1 #be4 ,westcott and ,hort regard them as interpolated from that epistle4 ,matthew adds1 in his vs4 #bh1 as he has added in his account of the purpose of ,john's baptism1 for the remission of sins4 ,in the account of ,jesus in ,gethsemane 7,mk xiv1 #cb-db2 ,mt xxvi1 #cf-df2 ,lk xxii1 #ci-df71 ,luke's vss4 #dc-dd are lacking in many manuscripts1 and are probably a later addition4 ,luke and ,matthew1 probably from the growth of the tradition1 and from the wish not to omit anything from this solemn scene1 represent ,jesus as addressing ,judas1 but do not agree in the words ascribed to him4 ,in the account of the arrest 7,mk xiv1 #dc-ed2 ,mt xxvi1 #dg-eh2 ,lk xxii1 #dg-ee7 ,mark has the words but that the scriptures might be fulfilled1 without attaching the that to anything4 ,matthew fills out his incomplete sentence by writing1 ,all this happened that the scriptures1 etc4 ,luke omits the flight of the disciples1 because the appearances of the risen ,jesus which he recounts take place in ,jerusalem4 ,both ,matthew and ,luke omit the reference to the young man in the linen garment1 either because they did not understand it1 or knew it would have no meaning for their readers1 or both4 ,mark says the crowd who came to arrest ,jesus came from the chief priests2 ,luke has apparently overlooked the preposition1 and so represents the chief priests themselves as taking part in the arrest4 ,to ,mark's mocking ,prophesy6 addressed to the blindfolded ,jesus by the soldiers1 ,luke and ,matthew add the words1 clearly explanatory1 ,who is he that struck thee8 ,in the denial of ,peter 7,mk xiv1 #ff-gb2 ,mt xxvi1 #fi-ge2 ,lk xxii1 #ef-fb71 ,matthew and ,luke omit two obscure and strange words of ,mark1 ,greek3 proaulion in vs4 #fh and ,greek3 epibaln in vs4 #gb4 ,in the treatment of ,jesus by ,pilate1 ,luke adds the charge that ,jesus had stirred up the people not to pay tribute to ,caesar2 it is probably a reflection of the anarchistic charges made against ,christians in ,luke's time4 ,matthew's addition of ,pilate's hand-washing is probably due to his desire1 or the desire of the tradition back of him1 to relieve the ,roman authorities of responsibility for the death of ,jesus4 ,in the story of the journey to the crucifixion 7,mk xv1 #ba2 ,mt xxvii1 #cb2 ,lk xxiii1 #bf-cb71 the omission of the names of ,rufus and ,alexander is probably due 7as already said7 to the fact that these men were unknown to ,matthew and ,luke and their readers1 and added no weight to the testimony of ,simon their father4 ,luke's extremely vivid touch of ,jesus' address to the ,daughters of ,jerusalem can be explained only as a part of his special material for this portion of the life of ,jesus4 ,in the story of the crucifixion 7,mk xv1 #bb-cb2 ,mt xxvii1 #cc-dd2 ,lk xxiii1 #cc-dc71 ,luke's words1 ,father forgive them1 for they know not what they do1 are omitted in many manuscripts1 are bracketed by ,westcott and ,hort1 and are probably a later addition4 ,matthew corrects ,mark1 who says a man came with a sponge1 saying1 ,let him be1 etc42 ,matthew makes the crowd address the ,let him be to the man with the sponge4 ,luke apparently differs much more than ,matthew1 from ,mark1 in his story of the crucifixion1 and the events that led up to and followed it4 ,this can be explained by his possession of special sources for these last days of ,jesus1 and his desire to use material from these sources with his ,marcan matter4 ,transpositions are especially frequent4 ,in his xxii1 #ah1 e4g41 ,luke makes a transposition of ,mk xiv1 #be4 ,this may be taken as typical of his procedure throughout these sections4 ,mark gives the reference to the approaching betrayal before the institution of the ,supper2 ,luke1 after that institution4 ,mark places the prediction of the denial of ,peter after ,peter has left the room2 ,luke1 before his leaving4 ,similar transpositions are made in the story of the rending of the veil4 ,in all1 ,luke makes some twelve or thirteen such transpositions in ,mark's passion narrative4 ,matthew follows ,mark closely1 both in matter and in wording4 ,comparing ,luke's use of ,mark in the other parts of his ,gospel with his use of him in these last sections1 ,hawkins#dh finds that the verbal correspondence with the ,marcan source is about twice as great in the ,lucan account of the ministry as in the ,lucan account of the passion4 ,the amount of actually new material in ,luke's passion section is about three times as great as the amount of new material which ,luke introduces into any other correspondingly large section of ,marcan narrative4 ,,summary ,,on ,,matthew',s ,,and ,,luke',s ,,treatment ,,of ,,the ,,marcan ,,narrative ,the manner in which ,matthew and ,luke have treated the ,gospel of ,mark has been brought out in the concrete and detailed examples that have been considered4 ,no single motive1 especially no one so-called tendency of either writer explains all his modifications of his ,marcan source4 ,both ,matthew and ,luke omitted what seemed to them superfluous1 as well as whatever appeared to them to conflict with the higher veneration for ,jesus which had developed in their times4 ,luke especially omitted what would have no significance or interest for his ,greek readers--disputes with the ,pharisees1 questions of ,jewish law1 and other ,judaistic features4 ,both ,matthew and ,luke treated the actual words of ,jesus1 as recorded in ,mark1 with great respect4 ,but the narrative1 and in a less degree the parables1 they felt free to work over as they would4 ,matthew shows much greater fidelity to his source than ,luke4 ,but both of them reconstructed sentences or whole stories1 changed bad constructions into good ones1 added what material they would1 ,matthew combining this with his ,marcan material while ,luke kept it for the most part distinct4 ,not every change which they made suggests its explanation to us1 and we cannot be certain that in most of them we have the actual motive operating in the mind of the evangelist4 ,but the method of their procedure1 the kind of motives that influenced them1 the degree of freedom which they took in the re-working of their material from ,mark1 and their habits with reference to the relation of this ,marcan material to the other matter which they wished to combine with it1 have been sufficiently established4#di ,,chapter ,v ,,have ,,we ,,the ,,gospel ,,of ,,mark ,,in ,,its ,,original ,,form8 ,the number of instances in which ,matthew and ,luke agree in their changes of ,mark has given rise to the theory that ,matthew and ,luke did not use our ,mark but an earlier form4 ,a certain number of such agreements might be passed over as merely accidental4 ,a certain number more might be assigned to assimilation4 ,but if the agreements of ,matthew and ,luke in their corrections of ,mark are so numerous and so striking as to be quite beyond accounting for in these ways1 the assumption would be justified that ,matthew and ,luke used1 not our copy of ,mark1 but one in which the text ran as it now does in those passages where ,matthew and ,luke agree against ,mark4 ,there are some indications that we do not have the ,gospel of ,mark in its original form4 ,the conclusion is lacking4 ,this however throws no light on an ,ur-,marcus1 since the conclusion was lacking in the ,mark used by ,matthew and ,luke4#ej ,there are many signs of apparent transposition in our ,mark4 ,the insertion of one miracle into the midst of another1 as in the case of ,jairus' daughter and the woman with the issue of blood 7v1 #ba-dc71 might be held to be such a transposition4 ,the incident of the ,beelzebul dispute 7iii1 #bj-cj7 is inserted between the coming of the family of ,jesus 7iii1 #ba7 to take him home with them1 and ,jesus' statement 7iii1 #ca-ce71 which is the sequel of their coming1 about his true brotherhood4 ,the speech about the cursing of the fig tree 7xi1 #bj-bf7 intervenes between the cleansing of the temple 7xi1 #ae-ai7 and the demand of the scribes 7xi1 #bg-cc7 as to the authority by which ,jesus has done so unwonted a thing4 ,after this question about authority1 and before ,jesus' reply to it1 or before the description of the discomfiture of the scribes at the reply1 seriously interrupting the connection1 comes the parable of the ,wicked ,husbandmen4#ea ,after the story of the transfiguration the prediction of ,jesus' sufferings comes in between the ,scribes' question about ,elijah and ,jesus' answer to that question 7,mk ix1 #aa-ac74 ,loisy thinks ,mk xiv1 #bh1 out of place4 ,it certainly disturbs the connection4 ,jlicher considers ,mk xiv1 #be1 to be later and less original than its parallel in ,mt xxvi1 #bi4 ,the saying in xiv1 #i1 about the name of the woman being known wherever the story of ,jesus is told has been suggested as the remark of some preacher or commentator propos of the occurrence1 and not a saying of ,jesus4 ,wellhausen has even suggested that the whole story in xiv1 #c-i1 may be a later addition4 ,the saying1 ,ye shall say to this mountain 7xi1 #bc7 should probably be placed in ,galilee1 presumably at ,capernaum1 where with a wave of his hand ,jesus could point to both mountain and sea--not in ,jerusalem where ,mark gives it4 ,schmiedel considers ,mk xiv1 #eh1 secondary4 ,it has been argued1 or almost assumed1 that the second feeding of the multitude could not have been written by the same hand that described the first1 nor the events narrated in the first thirty-four verses of chap4 iv have been written in their present order4 ,if one is at liberty to subtract what he will from the ,gospel of ,mark1 and to rearrange its parts somewhat1 he can undoubtedly make a much more readable and better arranged ,gospel of it than it now is4 ,,discussion ,,of ,,the ,,analysis ,,of ,,mark ,,by ,,wendling ,,and ,,von ,,soden ,two attempts have recently been made to resolve our ,gospel of ,mark into its constituent elements1 which are sufficiently successful to be noticed here4 ,the first is that of von ,soden1 in his ,die wichtigsten ,fragen im ,leben ,jesu1 and the second ,wendling's ,ur-,marcus4#eb ,von ,soden#ec begins by distinguishing two strands of narrative1 easily separable from each other by matter and style4 ,the great differences between these two strands betray two different authors4 ,as the clearest instance of the earlier strand1 he takes ,mk ii1 #a-;iii1 #f1 which he contrasts with iv1 #ce-v1 #dc4 ,in the first1 all the interest is centered in the words of ,jesus2 in the second1 in the events themselves4 ,let one compare the story of the ,gadarene demoniac with its twenty verses and the debate about fasting with its five verses1 and estimate the weight of the religious value of the thots expressed in the two sections4 ,von ,soden next separates ,mk vii1 #cb-cg1 and viii1 #bb-bf 7the healing of the deaf man and the blind man71 as quite distinct in character from such stories as those in ii1 #a-ab1 and iii1 #a-f4 ,in the former1 the miracle of healing is itself the subject of the representation2 in the latter1 the miracle is merely a part of the story1 whose real subject is ,jesus' forgiveness of sins and his violation of the ,sabbath laws4 ,in this way von ,soden picks out his ,kernstcke4 ,to these ,kernstcke certainly belong the group of narratives in i1 #ba-ci2 ii1 #a-;iii1 #f2 xii1 #ac-dd2 iii1 #bj-ce2 vi1 #a-f2 iv1 #a-h2 iv1 #bf-cb2 and x1 #ac-ca2 perhaps also vii1 #bd-cj2 vi1 #ad-af2 i1 #d-aa4 ,to these narratives which go back to ,peter may also belong the brief notices concerning the stages of growth of the apostolic circle1 in i1 #af-bj2 iii1 #ac-ai2 vi1 #g-ac2 viii1 #bg-;ix1 #a2 and ix1 #cc-dj4ed ,to these passages von ,soden adds xiii1 #a-f1 #bh-cg4 ,he says that at the basis of the story of the days in ,jerusalem1 xi1 #a-xii1 #ab1 and the passion narrative in chaps4 xiv and xv1 lie narratives of a similar style2 but these latter he does not include in his ,kernstcke4 ,von ,soden then prints the passages which he thus refers to ,peter 7or the ,petrine tradition71 undisturbed by all that our ,gospel of ,mark has interwoven with them4#ee ,the result presents the ,petrine nucleus of the ,gospel as follows3 ,john the ,baptist and the ,baptism of ,jesus2 a ,sabbath in ,capernaum2 the offense of the ,jews at ,jesus' forgiving of sins1 his association with sinners1 his breaking of the ,sabbath1 and the fact that his disciples do not fast2 how the ,jews attempt to take him2 how ,jesus meets the general misunderstanding2 parables about the kingdom of ,god2 the question as to who shall enter that kingdom2 the development of the apostolic circle2 glimpses into the future4 ,this makes 7with the readjustment in the order of some of the sections7 a remarkably straightforward and connected narrative4 ,von ,soden's remarks concerning it are well worth quoting3 ,these narratives are without any embellishment or secondary interest4 ,they are plastic and concrete in every feature4 ,the local coloring is strikingly fresh and yet in no way artificial4 ,no edificatory remarks are inserted1 no reflections1 only deeds and striking sayings4 ,no story requires its secret meaning to be explained by symbol or allegory4 ,in no one of them does one feel any occasion to inquire for the meaning1 which lies clear upon the surface4 ,situations and words are too original to have been invented4 ,everything breathes the odor of ,palestine4 ,there is no reminiscence of ,old ,testament stories4 ,miracles appear only here and there1 and incidentally4444 ,the christological or soteriological question never constitutes the motive of a story4 ,not once is there any expression from the language of the schools1 especially from that of ,paul4 ,words and sentences are reminiscent of the ,aramaic4 ,the figure of ,jesus itself bears in every reference a human outline4 ,he is stirred and astonished1 he is angry and trembles1 he needs recuperation and feels himself forsaken of ,god1 he will not have the thotless1 conventional designation good addressed to him1 and confesses that he does not know when all which he sees to be approaching shall be fulfilled4 ,his mother and his sisters fear that he may be out of his mind4 ,this and much else is told with the greatest navet4 ,so ,jesus lived2 so he expressed himself2 thus they received him2 thus the apostolic circle was formed and developed--this is what the writer intends to tell4#ef ,these sections of ,mark certainly have a very primary character2 so far as their contents is concerned1 they may well go back to the ,petrine tradition4 ,with these sections von ,soden contrasts the remaining parts of the ,gospel1 in which he finds not only much interruption of the primary narrative1 but much interpretation1 much allegorizing1 much absence of actual situations1 much reminiscence of ,old ,testament stories1 much influence from ,paul1 and many reflections of the experiences of individual ,christians and the ,christian church4#eg ,no one can work thru this analysis of von ,soden's without feeling that it is easy to distinguish between primary and secondary elements in the ,gospel of ,mark1 and that von ,soden has at least pointed out many of the junctures between these two4 ,the attempt of ,wendling in his ,ur-,marcus#eh is still more thorogoing4 ,the basis of his discussion is ,mark's #dth chapter1 where he considers the two strands most easily separated4 ,to the original belong iv1 #a-i1 and vss4 #bf-cc4 ,vss4 #aj-be are later2 they have been inserted mechanically1 yet so as to respect the older text2 they have no organic connection with the rest of the chapter1 and even contradict its situation4 ,jesus is teaching from a boat 7and other boats are with his72 then suddenly1 in vss4 #aj-be1 he is alone with his disciples who ask him the meaning of the parable of the ,sower4 ,he gives his explanation1 and again without any indication of change of situation he is in the boat surrounded by the other boats1 with the people still on the shore1 and the storm comes up and is stilled4 ,this little insertion 7iv1 #aj-be7 also contains theories of the writer1 quite contradictory to those of the writer of other parts of the ,gospel4 ,in other places1 ,jesus speaks to all the people in parables as they were able to hear him2 he stretches out his hand over the multitude of his disciples and says1 ,these are my mother and my sisters2 he is the teacher of the crowd1 who understand him better than his own family2 there is nothing in his parables that needs explaining4 ,but in this insertion 7iv1 #aj-be7 the theory of the writer is that the parables are mysteries1 enigmas1 which not only need to be explained 7by the allegorical method71 but which are spoken for the express purpose of preventing the people from understanding4 ,without the key which ,jesus gives1 even the disciples do not understand them4 ,the section is also marked by ,pauline influences4#ei ,two clews are thus given1 aside from interruptions in the narrative1 by which the work of a second writer may be detected4 ,he has the ,geheimnis-,theorie of the parables1 and he has in thot and vocabulary reminiscences of the ,pauline school4 ,applying these tests to another section which seems to interrupt the narrative where it stands1 ,wendling adds a second insertion--iii1 #bb-cj4 ,this is the section about the dispute with the ,pharisees1 which comes in inaptly between the introduction 7iii1 #bj1 #ba7 and the continuation 7iii1 #ca7 of the story of ,jesus' family who have come to take him home4 ,it seems to have been inserted in this place because the ,pharisees also said he hath a devil4 ,by repeating in vs4 #cj the ,greek3 elegon hoti which he found in vs4 #ba1 the redactor preserves for the continuation of the original story precisely the same connection it would have had without his interpolation2 and by the use of the same words in vs4 #bb he connects the interpolation with the opening narrative4 ,his hand is seen in the superfluous repetition of words1 especially of the subject1 as in iii1 #bd1 #be4fj ,to these two insertions should be added a third1 iii1 #f-ai4 ,the motives for it seem to be copied from narratives in other chapters4 ,it consists 7in part7 of generalization and interpretation1 both marks of the redactor's work4 ,it also contains his ,geheimnis-,theorie4 ,to these should be added i1 #cd;b 7he suffered not the demons to speak1 because they knew him71 because of the presence in it of this same theory4 ,nor does i1 #de1 fit where it is2 the connection without it is good2 it also contains the favorite theory of the redactor that the more ,jesus told people not to proclaim him1 the more they did so1 and the more he tried to seclude himself the more they found him4 ,to these again1 on somewhat other grounds and not so securely1 should be added the little groups of loosely strung logia which are found in vi1 #g-aa2 viii1 #cd-;ix1 #a2 ix1 #dj-ej2 x1 #db-de2 xi1 #bc-be2 xii1 #ch-dj2 xiii1 #i-ac4 ,the ground for asserting these to be additions is that these logia are not closely connected in the passages in which they occur1 and that they share this characteristic with the similar group of disconnected sayings in the first and best attested interpolation1 iv1 #ba-be4 ,in i1 #a-c1 #ad;b1 #ae1 the word ,greek3 euangelion arouses a natural suspicion4 ,the same word also occurs in four other places 7viii1 #ce2 x1 #bi2 xiii1 #aj2 xiv1 #i71 all of which are in passages which are suspicious upon other grounds2 consequently with the three instances in chap4 i1 they are ascribed to the redactor4 ,with the exception of the interpolation in iv1 #aj-be1 the section i1 #af-;iv1 #cc1 appears to be a unit1 and belongs to the oldest stratum4 ,but with iv1 #ce1 says ,wendling1 begins a new section1 easily distinguished from that just mentioned4 ,it copies the motives and the characteristics of other sections4#fa ,the writer is to be distinguished1 however1 not merely from the writer of the earliest stratum1 but from the author of the insertions already identified4 ,none of the criteria of the latter's manner appear in the section beginning at iv1 #ce4 ,it shows no trace of ,pauline conceptions1 has none of ,jesus' prohibitions to the demons1 its ,heimlichkeit is of a different sort1 and goes back to ,old ,testament exemplars4 ,and since the insertion in iv1 #aj-be1 presupposes the story of the storm on the lake in iv1 #ce-v1 #dc1 this latter is older than the former4 ,the writer of this section 7iv1 #ce-v1 #dc7 therefore stood between the writer of the original strand1 and the evangelist or redactor4 ,the last writer 7,wendling calls him ,ev7 worked over the combined work of his two predecessors4 ,to the author who is intermediate between the first writer and the ,evangelist1 ,wendling assigns twenty-nine different sections1 some of considerable length and some of only a verse or part of a verse4 ,they are as follows3 i1 #d-ad;a2 iv1 #ce-v1 #db2 v1 #dc;b2 vi1 #ad1 #ag-cj1 #ce-dd2 ix1 #b-h1 #ad-bg2 x1 #df-xi1 #aj2 xiv1 #ab-bj1 #bf-ce;a1 #cf-cg1 #ci-da;a1 #db1 #dg1 #ea-ef1 #fj-fb;a1 #fc1 #fd1 #ff-gb2 xv1 #af-bj1 #bc1 #bd;b1 #be1 #bi-cj1 #cc1 #cd;b-#cf1 #ch1 #dj-dc1 #df-xvi1 #g;a1 #h--;about two hundred verses or parts of verses in all4 ,the contributions of the author of the ,gospel are more extensive than those of his predecessor4 ,they comprise i1 #a-c1 #ad;b-#ae1 #cd;b1 #ci;b1 #de2 ii1 #ae;b-#af;a1 #ah;a1 #ai;b-#bj2 iii1 #f-ai1 #bb-cj2 iv1 #aj-be1 #cj-cb1 #cd2 v1 #dc;a2 vi1 #a-ac1 #ae1 #af1 #cj-ca1 #de-viii1 #bf1 #cj;b-#cc;a1 #cc;c-#ce1 #ch-;ix1 #a1 #i-ac1 #bh-ej2 x1 #b-ab1 #bd1 #bf-cj1 #cb;b-#cd1 #ch-dj1 #de2 xi1 #aa-ad1 #ah-be1 #bg;a2 xii1 #ad;b1 #cb-cd;a1 #ch-dd2 xiii1 #c-bg1 #cj-cb1 #cg2 xiv1 #h1 #i1 #ba1 #ce;b1 #ch1 #da;b1 #eg-ei1 #fb;b2 xv1 #ci1 #dd1 #de2 xvi1 #g;b1 in all about two hundred and seventy verses or parts of verses4 ,this leaves to the original writer the following sections3 i1 #af-cd;a1 #ce-ci;a1 #dj-dd2 ii1 #a-ae;a1 #af;b-#ag1 #ah;b1 #ai;a1 #ba-;iii1 #e1 #bj1 #ba1 #ca-;iv1 #i1 #bf-bi1 #cc2 vi1 #cb-cd2 viii1 #bg-cj;a1 #cc;b1 #cf1 #cg2 x1 #a1 #ac-bc1 #be1 #ca-cb;a1 #ce-cg1 #da-dd2 xi1 #ae-ag1 #bg;b-xii1 #ad;a1 #ad;c-#ca1 #cd;b-#cg2 xiii1 #a-b1 #bh-bi1 #cc-cf2 xiv1 #a-g1 #aj1 #aa1 #bb-be1 #dc-df1 #dh-ej1 #fe2 xv1 #a-ae1 #ba1 #bb1 #bd;a1 #bf-bg1 #ca-cb1 #cd;a1 #cg1 in all about two hundred and twelve verses or parts of verses4#fb ,wendling calls the writers of these three strands ,m#a1 ,m#b1 and ,ev4 ,printing the text of ,m#a and ,m#b without rearrangement1 but with the omission of all matter assigned to ,ev1 he finds them to make a continuous story1 well connected and without breaks4 ,whether ,m#a alone makes such a story1 he is in doubt2 and therefore as to whether ,m#b found ,m#a as a connected discourse1 or himself first assembled the sections of it in connection with his own additions1 the same doubt exists4 ,the passion-story of ,m#a by itself seems to be a connected account2 it may therefore be assumed that so much of ,m#a was found by ,m#b as a whole and in its present order4 ,further1 since the work of ,ev in the passion-story is so slight1 it is to be assumed that the combination of ,m#a and ,m#b in this story was more carefully done than in many other parts1 and also that for this part of the gospel history ,ev possessed very few traditions which had not already been embodied in ,m#a ,m#b4 ,this would agree with the natural assumption that the earliest part of the gospel tradition to be carefully treasured would be that relating to ,jesus' death1 and that it was only later that the attempt was made to preserve with equal care the story of his whole public career4 ,when one remembers the fine-spun analyses of the historical books of the ,old ,testament1 which1 long ridiculed for their elaborateness1 have finally been accepted by most scholars1 one hesitates on this account alone to pronounce an adverse judgment upon ,wendling's theory4 ,yet his analysis certainly seems over-elaborate4 ,it is a great advantage to be able to distinguish the more obvious work of the redactor from the earlier document upon which he worked4 ,all students will feel this with reference to chap4 iv1 and the advantage in chap4 iii is perhaps only less great4 ,still more welcome is the assignment of vi1 #de-viii1 #bg1 to the redactor4 ,the great stumbling-block of this section is its feeding of the four thousand1 so obviously copied from the feeding of the five thousand4 ,that one and the same author should have written both these accounts has seemed strange to many readers4 ,but this duplication is as easily disposed of upon von ,soden's theory as upon ,wendling's4 ,von ,soden's analysis into two strata 7without the assumption of two writers7 is much simpler than ,wendling's analysis into three1 with three writers4 ,wendling's theory is more secure where it goes with von ,soden's1 and less convincing where it goes beyond it4 ,some distinction has in any case to be made between the final writer of the ,gospel and the earliest tradition upon which he worked2 and ,wendling has indicated the criteria which such a distinction must employ4 ,von ,soden's division of the ,marcan material into a ,petrine and a later source amounts to the same thing4 ,the two critics do not differ greatly about the passages they regard as secondary4 ,von ,soden's ,petrine narrative does not differ greatly from ,wendling's ,m#a ,m#b4 ,but the line of demarkation between ,m#a and ,m#b1 and ,wendling's reasons for drawing this1 are not as self-evident as the line which ,wendling and von ,soden agree in drawing between the earlier document1 or source1 and the work of the ,evangelist4 ,,conclusions ,,of ,,von ,,soden ,,and ,,wendling ,,compared ,a tabulation of the results discloses the following agreements and disagreements between von ,soden's ,petrine narrative and ,wendling's ,m#a,m#b4 ,von ,soden i1 #d-aa1 #af-bj1 #ba-ci ii1 #a-bh ,wendling i1 #d-ad;a1 #af-cd;a1 #ce-ci;a1 #dj-dd ii1 #a-ae;a1 #af;b-#ag1 #ah;b1 #ai;b ,von ,soden iii1 #a-f1 #ac-ai1 #ba-ce iv1 #a-i1 #ba-cb ,wendling #ba-bh iii1 #a-e1 #bj1ba1 #ca-ce iv1 #a-i1 #bf-bi1 #cc1 #ce-da ,von ,soden vi1 #f-af viii1 #bg-ch ,wendling v1 #a-db1 #dc;b vi1 #ad1 #ag-cj1 #cc-dd viii1 #bg-cj;a1 #cc;b1 #cf1 #cg ,von ,soden ix1 #a #cb-dj x1 #ac-de ,wendling ix1 #b-h1 #ad-bg x1 #a1 #ac-bc1 #be1 #ca1 #cb;a1 #ce-cg1 #da-eb1 xi1 #a-aj ,von ,soden xii1 #ac-dd xiii1 #a-f ,wendling #ae-ag1 #bg;b-#cc xii1 #a-ad;a1 #ad;c-#ca1 #cd;b-#cg xiii1 #a-b1 #bh-bi ,von ,soden #bh-cg ,wendling #cc-cf xiv1 #a-g1 #aj-bj1 #bb-ce;a1 #cf-cg1 #ci-da;a1 #db-ef1 #fj-fb;a ,von ,soden ,wendling #fc-gb xv1 #a-ch1 #dj-db1 #df-dg xvi1 #a-g;a1 #h ,the comparison shows ,wendling's analysis to be much more complex than von ,soden's4 ,this results from his separation of his groundwork into two strands4 ,it also shows that ,wendling assigns considerably more to ,m#a and ,m#b than von ,soden to his ,petrine source4 ,this ,wendling can afford to do1 since he supposes two documents instead of one4 ,the matter assigned by von ,soden to the ,petrine source is in part assigned by ,wendling to ,m#a and in part to ,m#b4 ,e4g41 i1 #d-aa1 is assigned by von ,soden to the ,petrine source1 and by ,wendling to ,m#b2 but i1 #af-ci1 is assigned to the ,petrine source1 and 7with the exception of two parts of verses7 to ,m#a4 ,the passage ii1 #a-bh1 is assigned by von ,soden to the ,petrine source1 by ,wendling to ,m#a 7again with exception of a few parts of verses74 ,of the one hundred and seventy-seven verses assigned by von ,soden to his ,petrine source1 up to and including xiii1 #cg 7after which he so assigns nothing71 ,wendling assigns about one hundred and twenty-four to his ,m#a1 and only ten to ,m#b4 ,tho he assigns some verses to ,m#a which von ,soden does not give to the ,petrine source1 and omits some 7assigning them to the redactor7 which von ,soden does so assign1 up to xiii1 #cg1 the ,m#a of ,wendling agrees very closely with the ,petrine source of von ,soden4 ,the material assigned to ,m#a and ,m#b after xiii1 #cg1 is about equally divided between them4 ,wendling makes no claims for the ,petrine origin of his ,m#a or ,m#b1 but after these are subtracted from the whole ,gospel there is a smaller amount left for the work of his redactor than remains after the ,petrine source is subtracted4 ,since ,wendling distinguishes between two sources and the work of the redactor1 and von ,soden only between the ,petrine tradition and other matter1 this result also is what would be expected4 ,the relatively great agreement of the results of these two investigations seems to prove that it is possible to distinguish an earlier and a later tradition in the ,gospel4 ,beyond this1 the difference between von ,soden and ,wendling is that the former makes no assertions concerning the identity of the final editor with the writer who recorded the ,petrine tradition1 while the latter asserts that the redactor is quite another person than the writer of either ,m#a or ,m#b4 ,is this latter position of ,wendling's susceptible of proof or disproof8 ,perhaps the simplest criterion1 and the one to be most safely applied1 is that of vocabulary4 ,sir ,john ,hawkins compiled a list#fc of forty-one words which he regards as characteristic of ,mark4 ,do these words occur indiscriminately in ,m#a1 ,m#b1 and ,ev1 or are they confined some of them to ,m#a1 and some to ,m#b1 and some to ,ev8 ,or is there sufficient difference in the frequency with which these words occur in the three strata to justify the assumption of three different authors1 and especially that ,ev was distinct from the writers of the two documents8 ,if not1 the division between earlier and later material in ,mark may still stand1 but it may have been one and the same writer who put the whole ,gospel together out of these earlier and later materials4 ,characteristic of ,mark#fd is the historic present4 ,hawkins finds one hundred and fifty-one examples of this use in ,mark against seventy-eight in ,matthew 7twenty-one of these taken from ,mark71#fe and four in ,luke4 ,of these one hundred and fifty-one historic presents in ,mark1 forty-nine occur in passages assigned by ,wendling to ,m#a1 sixty-nine in ,m#b1 and thirty-three in ,ev4 ,of the peculiarly ,marcan words1 some prove nothing in this connection4 ,greek3 ,euangelion is used only by ,ev 7seven times72 but since ,wendling uses the presence of this word as a criterion of ,ev's work in six out of the seven passages where it occurs1 this adds nothing to the proof4 ,greek3 ,alalos is used once by ,m#a1 twice by ,m#b1 and not by ,ev4 ,but since ,ev adds no story of a dumb man1 he has no occasion to use the word4 7,he does add a story of a stammering man1 where he uses the word1 ,greek3 mogilalos47 ,greek3 ,klasma1 used once by ,m#b and three times by ,ev1 signifies little2 since the three uses in ,ev occur in the same passage1 and this passage is a copy of the passage in ,m#b 7the feeding of the multitudes74 ,greek3 ,stachys occurs three times1 all in ,m#a1 but this also signifies nothing1 since no passage in which it could occur is assigned to ,m#b or ,ev4 ,greek3 ,ekporeuomai is used twice each by ,m#a and ,m#b1 and seven times by ,ev2 but since five of these seven occurrences are in the same passage1 they cannot establish any particular fondness for this word on the part of ,ev as against the other two4 ,greek3 ,eisporeuomai looks a little more favorable for ,wendling's hypothesis1 since it is used once by ,m#a1 twice by ,m#b1 and five times1 in separated passages1 by ,ev4 ,greek3 ,akathartos1 found three times in ,m#a1 four in ,m#b1 and three in ,ev2 ,greek3 apo makrothen1 three times in ,m#b and twice in ,ev2 ,greek3 didach1 used three times by ,m#b and twice by the redactor1 and ,greek3 pher1 five times used by ,m#a1 eight times by ,m#b1 and twice by ,ev1 do nothing toward establishing a distinct vocabulary for any one of the three4 ,only two words1 ,greek3 diastellomai1 used four times by the redactor in four different chapters1 and not by ,m#a or ,m#b2 and ,greek3 ekthamboumai1 used only by ,m#b1 four times in three different chapters1 point in the direction of distinct vocabularies4 ,but the absence of the third of these words can certainly1 and of the second probably1 be accounted for by the subject-matter4 ,there is here practically no evidence of distinct vocabularies4 ,even if there were1 it would be fully offset by the use of words having no necessary connection with any particular subject-matter1 and therefore equally likely to occur in any part of the ,gospel4 ,five such words are the adverbs ,greek3 euthys1 ,greek3 palin1 ,greek3 polla1 ,greek3 ouketi1 and ,greek3 oup4 ,of these1 the first 7,mark's most characteristic word7 is used seventeen times by ,m#a1 fifteen by ,m#b1 and ten by ,ev4 ,considering the relative amounts of narrative matter ascribed to the three1 this usage seems to indicate an equal fondness for this word among them4 ,the second 7,greek3 palin7 is used ten times by ,m#a1 eight times by ,m#b1 and nine times by ,ev2 the third 7,greek3 polla7 is used adverbially three times by ,m#a1 six times by ,m#b1 and three times by ,ev2 the fourth 7,greek3 ouketi71 twice by ,m#a1 twice by ,m#b1 three times by ,ev2 the fifth 7,greek3 oup71 once by ,m#a and four times by ,ev4 ,characteristic of ,mark also is his use of the imperfects ,greek3 elegen and ,greek3 elegon4 ,they are found fourteen times in ,m#a1 fifteen times in ,m#b1 and twenty-one times in the passages ascribed to ,ev4 ,of the forty-one verses listed on p4 #bdf as standing in both ,mark and ,q1 thirty-four are in passages assigned by ,wendling to ,ev4 ,this would seem to tell in ,wendling's favor1 since the last writer who had a hand in the making of the ,gospel of ,mark would naturally be the one most likely to make use of ,q4 ,three verses1 however1 occur in passages assigned to ,m#a1 and four in ,m#b4 ,this would indicate that all three writers1 besides having the same favorite words1 were acquainted with and made some use of ,q4 ,the item of the relation of the various writers to ,q1 however1 has little or no significance2 since it is the sections having the greatest amount of logian matter and the least narrative1 that are assigned to ,ev4 ,the cumulative effect of these considerations is very much to the discredit of ,wendling's assumption of three different writers for our ,gospel of ,mark4 ,it cannot1 to be sure1 disprove that assumption2 but it at least shows a lack of proof where proof would be most easily found and most convincing4 ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,used ,,our ,,mark ,,as ,a ,,source ,even if ,wendling's analysis had been capable of substantiation on linguistic grounds1 his division of our ,gospel of ,mark into three strands from three different authors would not help us toward an ,ur-,marcus lying behind our ,gospels of ,matthew and ,luke4 ,for ,matthew or ,luke or both of them follow ,mark in all the transpositions1 dislocations1 and other misarrangements of his ,gospel4 ,whether these features stood in the original ,mark or not1 they evidently stood in the ,mark used by ,matthew and ,luke4 ,matthew and ,luke also used a ,mark which contained the story of ,jesus in the same order given by our present ,mark4 ,tho both of them deviate from this order for assignable reasons1 one or the other of them is found following it all the time4 ,if these deviations go back to an ,ur-,marcus1 there must have been one ,ur-,marcus in the hands of ,matthew and another in the hands of ,luke4 ,,the ,,hypothesis ,,of ,a ,,primitive ,,mark ,,superfluous2 ,,simpler ,,explanations ,can the verbal agreements of ,matthew and ,luke as against ,mark1 or their deviations from him without apparent reason1 be explained upon any simpler hypothesis than that of ,ur-,marcus8 ,it appears to the writer that they can4 ,a certain number 7tho no one can say exactly what proportion of the whole7 of the agreements of ,matthew and ,luke against ,mark may be allowed to be accidental4 ,many of them1 like the substitution of ,greek3 eipen for ,greek3 legei1 or of an occasional ,greek3 de for ,mark's invariable and monotonous ,greek3 kai or the substitution of a common for an uncommon word 7like ,greek3 klin for ,greek3 krabattos7 require no explanation4 ,agreements of ,matthew and ,luke in their omissions from the ,marcan narrative do not stand upon the same plane with the agreements in substitutions1 and may all be accounted for on the ground of accident1 or by the same desire on the part of both writers to be more concise1 or to avoid anything derogatory to ,jesus or the apostles2 or by some other similar motive at work separately in the minds of the two later evangelists4 ,it is only the agreements in corrections and substitutions that require accounting for4 ,i believe these can be explained chiefly on two grounds3 #a4 ,it is not necessary to assume that ,matthew and ,luke both worked upon the same identical copy of our ,mark4 ,if they used two copies1 these two would not be expected to agree absolutely with each other in the wording of every passage4 ,this would account for some of the slight deviations in the wording of either ,matthew or ,luke where the other agrees with our present ,mark4 ,these two copies that ,matthew and ,luke used may neither of them have been the original 7since in both of them the conclusion at least was gone72 or at least not the original in its original form4 ,one of them may have been a copy of the original1 and the other a copy of this copy4 ,or they may both1 as ,sanday argues1 have belonged to a type later1 and not earlier1 than our present ,mark4 ,this would account for the agreements1 and for such deviations as have not already been accounted for1 or cannot be accounted for1 by the known literary peculiarities of ,matthew and ,luke4 ,since the text of ,mark that has come down to us is more corrupt than that of either ,matthew or ,luke1 various words in which ,matthew and ,luke now agree against ,mark may have stood in the text which both of them used1 and may later have dropped out1 before the copy was made to which our present texts go back4 ,or the two copies of ,mark1 assumed above1 may both have been made from the original copy which ,mark made with his own hand4 ,upon this supposition even1 they would not always agree1 and so deviations in ,matthew and ,luke from ,mark1 and occasional agreements in such deviations1 would be explained4 ,or these agreements may be explained1 as is obvious in many instances1 by the working of similar motives in the minds of ,matthew and ,luke1 even assuming them to have made their extracts from one and the same copy1 or from two practically identical copies1 of ,mark4 ,dr4 ,e4 ,a4 ,abbott1 in his ,corrections of ,mark 7,london1 #aija7 gives an exhaustive list of the deviations from ,mark in which ,matthew and ,luke agree4 ,many of these are such as to suggest that ,matthew and ,luke used not an ,ur-,marcus1 but a text of ,mark later than the one that has come down to us4 ,e4g41 in twelve instances ,matthew and ,luke agree in supplying the subject or object which our ,mark omits4 ,in fifteen1 they agree in correcting abrupt constructions1 supplying a connecting word4 ,in thirteen 7exclusive of ,greek3 legei7 they agree in correcting ,mark's historic present4 ,in twelve they agree in replacing ,mark's relative clause or his subjunctive by a participle4 ,in twenty-three they agree in substituting ,greek3 eipen for ,greek3 legei4 ,in thirty they agree in the use of ,greek3 de for ,greek3 kai4 ,it is not impossible that ,matthew and ,luke1 independently bent on improving ,mark's style1 have accidentally agreed in making these same improvements in the same places 7especially since there are other improvements of the same sort in which they do not agree74 ,but it is a much simpler and more adequate hypothesis1 that they both used a text of ,mark in which these corrections had already been made4 ,yet even of this text they probably did not use the same identical copy4 ,and as the copy used by one or both of them may have been two or three removes from the text from which it started1 many changes may have crept into the copy used by one of them1 not contained in the copy used by the other4 ,this would account alike for the agreements in deviations from our present ,mark1 and for the fact that these corrections are not all of them found in both ,matthew and ,luke4 ,this last item is further accounted for by the freedom of ,matthew and ,luke in making their own corrections in the copy that lay before them4#ff ,allowance should also be made for the fact that we cannot be sure that we have yet recovered the true text of either ,matthew or ,luke4#fg #b4 ,the agreements of ,matthew and ,luke against ,mark can further be accounted for by the hypothesis of assimilation4 ,matthew made certain changes of his own in the wording of ,mark2 ,luke apparently made many more4 ,the various texts still extant show many efforts of copyists to bring the deviations of ,matthew and ,luke in small verbal items into an agreement4 ,if this same process went on during the period covered by our earliest manuscripts1 it is probable that it went on to a much greater extent at an earlier date1 before our ,gospels had acquired the sacredness which they later came to possess4 ,a fine illustration of this process and its results is to be seen in the ,matthean and ,lucan versions of the ,lord's ,prayer1 in which the probably original ,let thy ,holy ,spirit come upon us and purify us1 of ,luke1 has been assimilated to ,thy kingdom come1 and in many manuscripts also to ,thy will be done as in heaven so upon earth1 of ,matthew4 ,the extent of this sort of assimilation can never be determined2 but it seems quite sufficient to account for agreements of ,matthew and ,luke against ,mark not easily accounted for on other grounds4 ,a more general reason against the assumption of an ,ur-,marcus in the hands of ,matthew and ,luke is the comparatively small number and importance of their agreements against ,mark1 as compared with the very large number of the deviations in which they do not agree1 and as compared also with the vastly greater number of instances in which both ,matthew and ,luke follow ,mark faithfully4 ,in other words1 if ,ur-,marcus differed from our ,mark only in those words and phrases in which ,matthew and ,luke agree against our ,mark1 then ,ur-,marcus was at the most not a different ,mark from ours1 but only a different copy or text of our ,mark4 ,the assumption of an ,ur-,marcus was a natural one for the explanation of the phenomena in question2 but it is a cumbersome hypothesis1 and insecure2 further study seems to discredit it4 ,matthew and ,luke used our ,mark1 not another4 ,it has often been suggested that the ,marcan material covered by the great omission of ,luke 7,mk vi1 #de-viii1 #bf7 was absent from the copy of ,mark used by ,luke1 tho present in that used by ,matthew4 ,reasons for ,luke's omission of this long ,marcan section have been given1 and seem sufficient without the assumption of its absence from ,luke's copy of ,mark4 ,but the theory of its absence has also important items directly against it4 ,the section has the general ,marcan characteristics4 ,mark has one hundred and forty-one historic presents2 eighteen of them are in this section4 ,he uses ,greek3 euthys thirty-four times1 five in this section2 ,greek3 palin twenty-six times1 five in this section4 ,he is partial to the imperfects ,greek3 elegen and ,greek3 elegon1 which he uses fifty times 7against ,matthew's twenty-three and ,luke's nine71 six times in this section4 ,the same habit of duplicate expression which occurs in other parts of his ,gospel appears here4 ,greek3 ho estin in the sense of i4e41 peculiar to ,mark among the evangelists1 appears here twice 7four times elsewhere in the ,gospel74 ,seven out of the nine sections begin with ,greek3 kai4 ,the section seems to be too homogeneous with the rest of the book to be from a different hand4#fh ,the foregoing considerations seem to render the hypothesis of ,ur-,marcus superfluous4 ,the phenomena for which it was designed to account are more easily and naturally explained by other suppositions4 ,,some ,,remarkable ,,verbal ,,resemblances ,in the preceding pages sufficient consideration has been given not only to the fact1 but to the manner1 of the use of ,mark by ,matthew and ,luke4 ,visual illustration1 by the printing of a few passages in different kinds of type may serve to enforce some of the more general facts already brot out4 ,the words 7or parts of words7 common to the three ,synoptics1 in the following passages1 will be printed in heavy-faced type4 ,mt ix1 #e-f3 ,greek3 ti gar estin ,mk ii1 #i-aj;a3 ,greek3 ti estin eukopteron1 eipein3 eukopteron1 eipein aphientai t paralytik3 aphientai sou hai hamartiai1 sou hai hamartiai1 eipein3 egeire kai eipein3 egeire kai aron ton krabbaton peripatei8 hina de eidte sou kai hypage8 hina de eidte hoti exousian hoti exousian echei ho hyios tou anthrpou echei ho hyios tou anthrpou epi ts gs aphienai epi ts gs aphienai hamartias1 tote legei hamartias1 legei t paralytik t paralytik3 soi leg1 egertheis aron sou egeire aron ton tn klinn kai hypage krabbaton sou kai hypage eis ton oikon sou4 eis ton oikon sou4 ,lk v1 #bc-bd3 ,greek3 ti estin eukopteron1 eipein3 aphentai soi hai hamartiai sou eipein3 egeire kai peripatei8 hina de eidte hoti ho hyios tou anthrpou exousian echei epi ts gs aphienai hamartias1 eipen t paralelymen3 soi leg1 egeire kai aras to klinidion sou poreuou eis ton oikon sou4 ,here the evangelists differ each from the other in the words ascribed to ,jesus1 but when they come to the parenthetic explanation injected into the midst of the sentence1 ,greek3 hina de eidte1 etc41 they agree exactly1 not only in the wording1 but in the awkward placing of the clause4 ,the three accounts agree in the first five lines1 except for the presence of ,greek3 gar in ,matthew1 the insertion of ,greek3 t paralytik in ,mark1 and a slightly different form of the verb ,greek3 aphimi in ,luke4 ,in the fourth line ,luke also inserts ,greek3 soi1 after which come seven consecutive agreeing words 7tho with slight rearrangement in order by ,luke74 ,mark then has a clause of six words which ,matthew and ,luke omit4 ,the latter agree in substituting ,greek3 peripatei for ,greek3 hypage1 and two 7different7 words from the same root for ,mark's ,greek3 krabbaton4 ,luke has preserved the ,greek3 soi leg which ,matthew has dropped4 ,mt xii1 #c-d3 ,greek3 ouk ,mk ii1 #be-bf3 ,greek3 oudepote anegnte ti epoisen anegnte ti epoisen ,daueid1 hote epeinasen ,daueid hote chreian eschen kai kai epeinasen autos kai hoi met' autou8 hoi met' autou8 ps eislthen eis ton ps eislthen eis ton oikon tou theou oikon tou theou epi ,abiathar archieres kai tous artous ts kai tous artous ts protheses protheses ephagon1 ho ouk exon n ephagen1 hous ouk exestin aut phagein oude tois phagein ei m met' autou1 ei m tous hiereis1 kai edken tois hiereusin monois8 kai tois syn aut ousin8 ,lk vi1 #c-d3 ,greek3 oude touto anegnte ho epoisen ,daueid hopote epeinasen autos kai hoi met' autou ontes8 hs eislthen eis ton oikon tou theou kai tous artous ts protheses elaben kai ephagen1 kai edken kai tois met' autou1 hous ouk exestin phagein ei m monous tous hiereis8 ,few brief passages in the triple tradition will better repay study than this4 ,note that the three introduce their question with three different particles4 ,matthew and ,luke omit the apparently superfluous words of ,mark1 ,greek3 chreian eschen1 but ,luke retains the ,greek3 autos of ,mark which ,matthew has dropped4 ,luke adds ,greek3 ontes1 perhaps in deference to ,mark's ,greek3 ousin1 used in a similar phrase but different connection4 ,he substitutes ,greek3 hs for the ,greek3 ps of ,mark and ,matthew4 ,mark and ,luke both have the statement that ,david gave the bread to those that were with him1 ,luke adding that he took it4 ,all three have in conclusion the phrase to those with him1 but each has inserted it in a different place4 ,matthew follows ,mark more closely than does ,luke1 the latter transposing one or two clauses4 ,both ,matthew and ,luke have omitted the reference to ,abiathar1 either because they 7or ,luke at least7 had no interest in it1 or for its historical difficulty4 ,in spite of these changes there is a most remarkable verbal agreement thruout4 ,except for ,mark's superfluous had need1 and his reference to ,abiathar1 nothing can be found in either account that is not duplicated1 practically word for word and almost letter for letter1 in one or both of the others4 ,mt iv1 #ah-bb3 ,greek3 ,peripatn de para tn thalassan ts ,galilaias eiden dyo adelphous1 ,simna ton legomenon ,petron kai ,andrean ton adelphon autou ballontas amphiblstron eis tn thalassan2 san gar haleeis4 ,kai legei autois3 deute opis mou1 kai pois hymas haleeis anthrpn4 hoi de euthes aphentes ta diktya kolouthsan aut4 ,kai probas ekeithen eiden allous dyo adelphous1 ,iakbon ton tou ,zebedaiou kai ,iannn ton adelphon autou1 en t ploi meta ,zebedaiou tou patros autn katartizontas ta diktya autn2 kai ekalesen autous4 hoi de 7euthes7 aphentes to ploion kai 7ton patera autn7 kolouthsan aut4 ,mk i1 #af-bj3 ,greek3 ,kai paragn para tn thalassan ts ,galilaias eiden ,simna kai ,andrean ton adelphon ,simnos amphiballontas en t thalass2 san gar haleeis4 kai eipen autois3 deute opis mou1 kai pois hymas genesthai haleeis anthrpn4 kai euthus aphentes ta diktya kolouthsan aut4 ,kai probas oligon eiden ,iakbon ton tou ,zebedaiou kai ,iannn ton adelphon autou1 kai autous en t ploi katartizontas ta diktya4 kai 7euthys7 ekalesen autous2 kai aphentes 7ton patera autn7 ,zebedaion en t ploi meta tn misthtn aplthon opis autou4 ,this passage contains the striking addition of the parenthetical explanation ,greek3 san gar haleeis4 ,that this should occur in a narrative portion1 and not in a saying of ,jesus1 is the more significant4 ,for the rest1 the saying ascribed to ,jesus runs word for word 7tho its brevity in this case robs this fact of any very remarkable significance72 in the narrative portion ,matthew mentions that ,simon was called ,peter 7a remark which ,mark saves till he comes to the formal naming of the twelve71 and in the conclusion he says they left the boat and their father1 while ,mark says they left their father in the boat1 adding1 with the hired men4 ,mark says ,jesus called the two immediately4 ,matthew says they left immediately4 ,,chapter ,,vi ,,use ,,of ,a ,,common ,,document ,,by ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,the document used by ,matthew and ,luke as the source of their common non-,marcan material was for some time generally identified with the ,logia which ,papias says ,matthew1 the disciple of the ,lord1 wrote in ,hebrew1 undoubtedly meaning ,aramaic4 ,until some sufficient justification for this identification has been given1 it seems better to refer to the common non-,marcan source of ,matthew and ,luke under the more colorless symbol ,q4 ,the common non-,marcan tradition of ,matthew and ,luke consists almost exclusively of logian material4 ,it contains a few parables1 brief1 and dealing usually with the kingdom of heaven1 and one or two sections 7such as that concerning the centurion from ,capernaum1 and the ,temptation7 which may quite properly be regarded as narrative1 but which also contain large logian content and may have been introduced for the sake of the sayings4 ,the proof that the source of the common non-,marcan material of ,matthew and ,luke was a document and not an oral tradition lies in the extent and character of the agreements between the two ,gospels2 it cannot be summarized in a paragraph1 but comes out only in a detailed examination of the double tradition such as is undertaken in the following pages4 ,before the theory of a common documentary source for the non-,marcan material in ,matthew and ,luke can be accepted1 it must defend itself against two apparently simpler hypotheses1 viz41 that ,matthew copied from ,luke or ,luke from ,matthew4 ,did ,matthew copy from ,luke8 ,his genealogical tree does not agree with ,luke's4#fi ,he betrays in his story of the birth at ,bethlehem no knowledge of the fact that ,joseph's home was originally at ,nazareth4 ,this latter place he first mentions in ii1 #bc1 as the place to which ,joseph went upon his return from ,egypt4 ,matthew has a greater interest in ,john the ,baptist than has ,luke1 as is indicated by his fuller treatment of the fact and circumstances of his death1 contrasted with ,luke's leaving him in prison undisposed of4 ,yet ,matthew does not employ the material concerning the preaching of ,john1 which ,luke has embodied in his iii1 #aj-ad4 ,matthew makes a specialty of the sayings of ,jesus1 yet omits many that ,luke contains4 ,in short1 the reason for denying that ,matthew copied from ,luke is the impossibility1 upon that hypothesis1 of explaining the omissions of ,lucan material from ,matthew's ,gospel1 and the very great divergences between the two ,gospels where such divergences would not be expected with either one using the other as an exemplar4 ,the same argument which refutes ,matthew's use of ,luke refutes ,luke's use of ,matthew4 ,but it may be added1 that upon either of these hypotheses it becomes impossible to explain the changes which appear to have been made by both ,matthew and ,luke in the material common to them1 both in its wording and its order4 ,if ,matthew copied from ,luke1 he would naturally have followed his order1 which he does not do4 ,or1 deviating from that order for obvious reasons1 he would naturally return to it when those reasons no longer prevailed1 which he does not do4 ,or if ,luke copied from ,matthew1 he could hardly have inserted a genealogical tree which is at variance with ,matthew's1 in the unnatural place where it now is1 as against the natural place in which he found it in ,matthew4 ,nor could he1 when he had the ,sermon on the ,mount before him in the form in which ,matthew gives it1 break it up into little pieces and scatter it up and down thruout his ,gospel4 ,moreover1 in the sayings common to ,matthew and ,luke it is now one and now the other who preserves what we must consider the most original reading2 as when ,matthew says1 ,cleanse first the inside of the cup1 and ,luke in place of this says1 ,give alms of that which is within4 ,but again it is not ,matthew but ,luke who gives the more original form of a saying2 as when ,luke says ,blessed are ye poor1 and ,matthew says1 ,blessed are the poor in spirit4 ,the phenomena of peculiar words1 ninety-five characteristic of ,matthew and one hundred and fifty-one characteristic of ,luke1 is also impossible of explanation upon the theory that either writer copied from the other4 ,if either one were copying from the other1 they would certainly agree against ,mark in some really important matter1 and not merely in an occasional word or phrase4 ,if ,luke were copying from ,matthew1 he would certainly have incorporated some one of those numerous additions which ,matthew makes to the narratives of ,mark4#gj ,in addition to any of the more general considerations which have suggested the possible use of ,matthew by ,luke1 a recent writer has evolved an ingenious and somewhat elaborate proof for this use1 which it may be well to consider in some detail4 ,a ,,recent ,,attempt ,,to ,,prove ,,matthew ,a ,,source ,,for ,,luke ,mr4 ,robinson ,smith#ga attempts to dispose both of ,ur-,marcus and ,q by maintaining that ,luke copied from ,matthew4 ,his argument rests upon the deviations which ,matthew and ,luke make1 respectively1 in their common abbreviations of certain of ,mark's narratives4 ,where a choice from two or more ,marcan expressions has been made1 the first choice falls to ,matthew and the second to ,luke4 ,as examples of these first choices by ,matthew and second choices by ,luke1 ,mr4 ,smith instances 7with the parallel passages in ,matthew and ,luke7 ,mk i1 #cb2 iii1 #g1 #h2 x1 #bi1 #cc1 #cd2 xii1 #c2 xiv1 #a1 #ab1 #fe2 xv1 #db4 ,the argument seems to be that ,luke having both ,mark and ,matthew before him1 and seeing that in each of these instances ,matthew has chosen a certain part of ,mark's phrase and rejected the rest1 himself avoids using that part of the phrase which ,matthew has chosen1 restricting himself to the part which ,matthew has left unused4 ,we will take up first the particular instances1 and see whether other1 perhaps simpler1 reasons suggest themselves for these deviations2 after that we will consider the general argument4 ,mk i1 #cb 7,mt viii1 #af2 ,lk iv1 #dj73 ,mark's phrase runs ,greek3 ,opsias de genomens1 hote edy ho hlios4 ,of this phrase1 ,matthew takes the first three words as they stand4 ,luke appropriates the remainder1 changing into ,greek3 ,dynontos de tou hliou4 ,mark's phrase is here redundant1 and ,matthew and ,luke 7as usual7 both reduce the redundancy4 ,but ,matthew has omitted the point of ,mark's phrase1 since in ,matthew's account the events described did not happen on the ,sabbath4 ,luke has retained the essential part of the phrase4#gb ,mk iii1 #g1 #h 7,mt iv1 #be2 ,lk vi1 #ag73 ,mark gives in order and by name six districts from which the multitudes came4 ,matthew mentions all save the last1 ,tyre and ,sidon4 ,luke omits the first1 fourth1 and fifth1 but does mention the last1 ,tyre and ,sidon4 ,the changes in these lists seem to be more various than ,mr4 ,smith suggests4 ,matthew adds ,decapolis and omits ,idumaea4#gc ,the thing hard to account for in ,luke's list is his omission of ,galilee1 not his inclusion of ,tyre and ,sidon4 ,these latter regions would interest him especially1 with his universalistic tendency2 we should hardly have been surprised to find him adding them if he had not found them in ,mark4 ,a simple explanation of the changes made by both ,matthew and ,luke may perhaps be seen in ,matthew's ,judaistic tendency1 which led him to omit ,tyre and ,sidon1 and in ,luke's universalistic tendency which made him include them4 ,to make ,mr4 ,smith's argument hold in this case1 ,luke should certainly have come much closer than he does1 to preserving the parts which ,matthew rejects1 and rejecting the parts which he retains4 ,it appears that ,luke has no great knowledge of nor interest in ,palestinian geography1 but ,tyre and ,sidon suited his purpose4 ,mk x1 #bi 7,mt xix1 #bi2 ,lk xviii1 #bi73 ,mark here has ,greek3 heneken emou kai heneken tou euangeliou4 ,matthew has ,greek3 heneka tou emou onomatos1 and ,luke ,greek3 heineken ts basileias tou theou4 ,but ,matthew's my name's sake is not the same as ,mark's my sake1 and seems to bespeak ,matthew's later date of writing4 ,luke's for the sake of the kingdom of ,god has a more primitive sound than the latter part of ,mark's phrase4 ,it probably represents the original words of ,jesus which ,matthew has everywhere changed into the kingdom of heaven4 ,since all the passages in ,mark where the word ,greek3 euangelion occurs are on independent grounds suspected of being later additions1 it seems probable that the reading of ,mark which ,matthew and ,luke had before them here was merely ,greek3 heneken emou1 that both ,matthew and ,luke changed this phrase as they would1 and that the ,greek3 heneken tou euangeliou of ,mark is later than either ,matthew or ,luke4 ,at all events1 it does not seem to be true in this instance that ,matthew takes the first part of ,mark's phrase and ,luke the last4 ,mk xii1 #c 7,mt xxi1 #ce2 ,lk xx1 #aj73 ,matthew's account here is quite different from ,mark's 7which is followed much more closely by ,luke74 ,according to ,mark1 only one servant was sent1 whom the vineyard-keepers caught and beat and sent away empty4 ,according to ,matthew several servants were sent2 the vineyard-keepers caught them1 beat one1 killed one1 and stoned another4 ,this form of the story indicates the times of persecution in which it was worked over by ,matthew--when more than one man had suffered more than one kind of indignity4 ,luke sticks close to the story of ,mark1 and merely omits the ,greek3 labontes which ,matthew retains4 ,perhaps ,luke had reflected that the servant had to be caught if he was to be beaten1 and so regarded the item as superfluous4 ,it does happen to come before the items that ,luke retains1 but there is no reason to suppose ,luke would have had any greater antipathy to omitting it if it had stood last or if ,matthew had also omitted it4 ,it is not only hard to detect any influence of ,matthew upon ,luke here1 but much harder to see1 if ,luke were copying ,matthew1 why he should not have preferred his several servants to ,mark's one4 ,later in the same story1 ,luke again omits ,mark's ,greek3 labontes where ,matthew retains it 7,mk xii1 #h71 tho here both ,matthew and ,luke change the order of the incidents in the verse1 probably to make them conform more exactly to the experience of ,jesus4 ,the omission of the participle by ,luke and its inclusion by ,matthew is most simply explained by ,luke's greater interest in stylistic improvement4 ,the instance seems to be barren for ,mr4 ,smith's purpose4 ,mk xiv1 #a 7,mt xxvi1 #b2 ,lk xxii1 #a73 ,matthew's account is here very different from ,mark's4 ,he introduces it with the words1 ,and it came to pass when he had ended these sayings4 ,this is a formula which ,matthew uses five times1#gd and which is found in ,matthew alone4 ,since the construction ,greek3 egeneto followed by a finite verb is found in these five passages alone in ,matthew1 the formula appears to have stood 7once1 at least1 if not in all five instances7 in ,q4#ge ,it also seems to be used by ,matthew to mark his transition from one of his sources to the other4#gf ,the remark which ,mark here makes about the approach of the passover1 ,matthew puts into the mouth of ,jesus as a part of the speech which ,mark does not have4 ,luke follows ,mark in making the statement a part of his narrative and in omitting the speech which ,matthew gives4 ,these facts would seem to indicate that ,matthew is here following ,q1 while ,luke follows ,mark4 ,luke's looser statement 7omitting the ,greek3 meta dyo hmeras1 and substituting his own favorite ,greek3 ngizen1#gg and adding his ,greek3 h legomen pascha7 would seem to go back to his desire not to trouble his ,greek reader with too exact details1 and yet to supply him with a little information about the ,jewish feast4 ,here again1 as in the last instance1 it seems especially strange to suggest ,matthew as a source of ,luke where he shows such an absence of any influence from him4 ,mk xiv1 #ab 7,mt xxvi1 #ag2 ,lk xxii1 #g73 ,here1 says ,mr4 ,smith1 ,matthew gives the first and second parts of ,mark's phrase1 ,luke the second and third parts4 ,the fact seems to be that ,matthew here1 with his usual habit of condensing ,mark's narrative1 omits 7what his ,jewish readers would know without his stating it7 the statement that on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread they killed the passover4 ,luke changes this from a particular to a general statement1 so 7as above7 conveying to his ,greek reader some information about the custom of the occasion 7,greek3 edei thyesthai to pascha74 ,luke here shows the influence of ,mark and not of ,matthew2 since he follows ,mark 7,mk xiv1 #ac2 ,lk xxii1 #aj7 in including eleven words which he copies very closely and which ,matthew omits4 ,he also agrees with ,mark in the ascription of supernatural knowledge to ,jesus upon this occasion1 whereas ,matthew's narrative does not carry this implication4 ,mk xiv1 #fe 7,mt xxvi1 #fg1 #fh2 ,lk xxii1 #fc1 #fd73 ,mr4 ,smith finds the influence of ,matthew upon ,luke in this passage1 in the fact that while ,mark says that they spat upon ,jesus1 blindfolded him and smote him1 ,matthew records the first and third of these actions1 ,luke the second and third4#gh ,why ,luke omits the spitting1 may not be easy 7or necessary7 to say4 ,but that ,luke here shows the reverse of any influence from ,matthew is indicated in the fact that whereas ,matthew follows ,mark in relating1 first the examination of ,jesus1 then the mockery1 and third the denials of ,peter1 ,luke rearranges the ,marcan narrative to make it run1 first the denials1 second the mockery1 and third the examination4 ,he has received his suggestion for this rearrangement from the fact that ,mark1 just before he begins the story of the mockery1 has mentioned that ,peter was outside the hall1 warming himself by the fire4#gi ,it has seemed 7quite naturally7 to ,luke that this is the place where the story of the denials should be related1 tho ,mark inserts the story of the mockery before he goes on#hj with the denials4 ,in a passage where ,luke has so thoroughly rearranged ,mark it seems unnecessary to account for his omission of one word1 especially by such a remote theory as that of ,mr4 ,smith2 and in a passage1 too1 where his rearrangement of ,marcan material contradicts ,matthew's slavish following of it4 ,mk xv1 #db 7,mt xxvii1 #eg2 ,lk xxiii1 #ed73 ,where ,mark says1 ',when the even was come because it was the preparation1 that is the day before the ,sabbath1' ,matthew says1 ',when even was come1' and ,luke 'the rest4'#ha ,but ,luke does not quite say the rest4 ,he says1#hb ,it was the day of preparation1 and the ,sabbath was dawning4 ,and this he says1 not in the same connection1 nor with the same purpose1 as ,mark 7and ,matthew74 ,mark and ,matthew use their statement about the evening having come as an introduction to their story about the request of ,joseph of ,arimathea4 ,luke tells his story of ,joseph without any such introduction1 and mentions the time only after he has finished that story1 apparently with reference to the story of the women which follows1 rather than to that of ,joseph which precedes4 ,the argument of the last paragraph will apply here4 ,it will not be necessary to go with equal care thru the five other instances in which ,mr4 ,smith detects in a similar way the influence of ,matthew upon ,luke4#hc ,he admits two1 or three1 or at the most four1 cases of ,marcan expressions of which 7without explanation7 it might appear that ,luke uses the first part and ,matthew the last4 ,his willingness to push his theory to the extreme may be inferred from his general estimate of the character of ,luke as a writer3 ,he blurs1 obliterates1 blunders1 fabricates1 falsifies1 flattens out1 mutilates1 murders4#hd ,the secondary interest of the writer would also seem to have influenced his work somewhat too strongly4 ,that interest is indicated in the following statements3 ,if ,acts was written in ,a4,d4 #fb1 444 and ,luke was written before ,acts1 then ,matthew1 slipping in between ,mark and ,luke must throw ,mark still further back4444 ,we thus would come very close to the resurrection1 perhaps to within fifteen years1 and the possibility of legendary and controversial elements having entered into the gospel story would accordingly be reduced to a minimum4444 ,with our understanding of ,lucan derivations from ,matthew1 as well as from ,mark1 the ghost of a chance of existence belonging to postulated common sources1 such as an earlier or a later ,mark and a ,q is frightened away1 and we are left with the ,gospels ,mark1 ,matthew1 ,luke1 written in that order1 etc4#he ,passing from the details of ,mr4 ,smith's statement to the general argument upon which they rest1 the present writer can see no cogency in that argument4 ,even if the use of ,matthew by ,luke were not contradicted by so many characteristics of both those ,gospels1 the writer cannot see how the choice by ,luke of the second part of a phrase of which ,matthew has taken the first part should prove the use of ,matthew by ,luke4 ,why should not ,luke feel free to take precisely that part of a ,marcan phrase which ,matthew has taken--if he wanted it8 ,why should his finding it in ,matthew make him feel that he was not at liberty to use it8 ,why1 indeed1 if ,luke was copying ,matthew1 should he not have followed him in his quotation of a certain part of a ,marcan phrase1 instead of putting himself every time to the trouble of going back to his ,mark to pick out that part of the phrase which ,matthew had left8 ,it does not quite appear why the facts cited by ,mr4 ,smith 7so far as analysis of the passages from which they are cited leaves any of them standing7 might not just as well be turned against his theory as for it4 ,,chapter ,,vii ,,the ,,existence ,,and ,,content ,,of ,q ,coming back to the theory that ,matthew and ,luke used a common document for their sayings-material1 we have next to determine what the content of that document was4 ,a reasonable degree of unanimity prevails among scholars as to this content1 or at least as to a considerable part of it4 ,where students differ is as to the sayings which are not very closely parallel in the two ,gospels1 or as to sayings that are contained in only one of the two4 ,as to the sayings which are practically identical in the two1 or which show such very marked literary agreements as to put different sources out of the question1 there is no dispute4 ,there appears to be a disposition on the part of some scholars to extend ,q indefinitely4 ,in his essay in the ,oxford ,studies1 ,mr4 ,bartlet seems to use the symbol to cover the general apostolic tradition 7it is not always apparent whether he means written or not74 ,among ,german scholars1 ,b4 ,weiss shows the same disposition4 ,among ,american scholars1 ,mr4 ,b4 ,w4 ,bacon suggests that ,q might originally have contained much more and other material than can now be identified for it2 as the narrative parts of it1 being taken up by ,mark1 and copied from him by ,matthew and ,luke1 would fail to leave in these latter ,gospels any traces of themselves4 ,this is quite true4 ,but if ,q1 in addition to nearly all the logian material in ,matthew and ,luke originally contained all the narrative matter of ,mark1 ,q was not only a complete ,gospel1 but quite as complete a ,gospel as that of ,matthew or ,luke2 perhaps more so1 since ,matthew and ,luke may each have omitted something from ,q2 and no motive remains for the writing of these later ,gospels4 ,mr4 ,burkitt#hf has maintained that ,q very probably contained some references to the passion2 but this position has not commended itself to many1 if to any1 other students4 ,q was a collection of sayings4 ,that the content of it1 within limits1 can be made out with some degree of unanimity is indicated by the following tables4 ,the first represents the content of ,q in ,matthew1 as given by the five scholars whose names head the five columns1 with additional statements in the following columns1 concerning the amount of agreement or divergence4 ,the second table does the same thing for the ,q matter assigned to the ,gospel of ,luke by the same five investigators4 ,,deductions ,,from ,,the ,,table ,in ,table ,,ii the verses are indicated as they stand in ,matthew without their parallels in ,luke 7which would add nothing for our purpose here71 and without indicating the rearrangement of order which most if not all of these scholars attempt at various places4 ,the purpose here is simply to present the content of ,q as made out by these different men4 ,besides showing what each one of them assigns to ,q1 ,i have 7in the column headed ,all ,five7 tried to show the verses which all these scholars agree in so assigning2 and in the next column the verses assigned to ,q by three or more out of the five4 ,in the last two columns ,i have indicated the total number of verses out of each chapter1 assigned to ,q by all five1 and by three or more1 respectively4 ,no attempt was made to select men whose work would have special tendency toward agreement2 undoubtedly two investigators#hg might be substituted for ,wellhausen and ,wernle1 whose work would make the total agreement much greater than it is in the present table4 ,,table ,,ii ,,material ,,from ,q ,,in ,,matthew ,chap4 ,harnack ,wellhausen ,hawkins ,j4 ,weiss ---------------------------------------- ----------------------- iii #e1 #g-ab #a-ab #g-aj1 #ab #g-aj iv #a-aa #a-aa #c-aa #a-aa v #a-d1 #f1 #aa1 #a-ab1 #a-d1 #f1 #aa-ab1 #a;b-#f1 #aj1 #ac1 #ab1 #ci-dj1 #ch-dh #ah1 #be-bf1 #ae1 #ah1 #bj-dh #db1 #dd-dh1 #ci-dj1 #db1 #ae1 #be-bf1 #dd-dh #ac1 #ah1 #cb vi #i-ac1 #bb-bc1 #ai-cd #i-ac1 #bj-bd1 #a-i7871 #aj-ae1 #ai-ba1 #be-cc1 #be-cc #ai-cc #bd vii #ab1 #a-e1 #af-ai1 #a-f1 #g-aa1a-b1 #c-e1 #g-ad1a-e1 #g-ac1 #bd-bg1 #bh1 #ae-bg #ba-bg #ag-bb;a1 #g-aa1 #ac-ad #bd-bh viii #e-aj1 #ac1 #ai-bb1e-ac #e-aj1 #aa1 #ab1 #e-ac1 #ai-bb #h1 #aa-ab #ai-bb ix #cg-ch #cg-ch #cg-ch x #bd1 #be1 #g1 #aj1 #e-ae #g1 #h;a1 #aj1 #g-h;a1 #aj1 #aa;a1 #af;a1 #ab1 #aa-ac1 #ab-ad1 #ac1 #aj;b1 #ae-af;a1 #ae-af;a1 #ae1 #dj1 #bf-cc1 #bd-be;a1 #ag-bb1 #cd-cf1 #bf-ch1 #dj #bd-be;a1 #cg1 #ch1 #ci #bf;a-#dj xi #b-ac1 #af-ai1 #a-ai1 #b-c1 #d-ac1 #c-i1 #aa1 #af-ai1 #ba-bc1 #be-bg #bj-cj #af-ai1 #ba-bg #ba-bg xii #cc1 #bb-bc1 #be1 #bb-db #bb-bc1 #bg-bh1 #aa1 #bc-bd1 #bg-bh1 #cj1 #cj1 #cc-ce1 #bg-bh1 #cc1 #dc-de1 #ch1 #ci1 #ce1 #ch1 #ci1 #ch-ci1 #da1 #da-de #da-de;b #db1 #cb xiii #af1 #ag1 #ca-cc #af1 #ag1 #cc #af1 #ag1 #ca-cc787 xv #ad #ad xvii #bj;b #bj xviii #ab1 #ac1 #g1 #ae1 #g1 #ab-ad1 #ae1 #g1 #ab-ac1 #ae1 #bb #ba1 #bb #ba-bb xix #bh #bh xxi #cb;ab xxii #a-ad #a-aj xxiii #d1 #ac1 #bc1 #be1 #ac-ci #d1 #ab-ad1 #bc1 #d1 #f-g1 #ac-ae1 #bg1 #bi1 #cj-cb1 #be-bg1 #bi-ca1 #bc;ab1 #cd-cf #cd-ci #be1 #bg1 #bi-ca1 #cd-ci xxiv #bf-bh1 #cg-da #a-ea #bg-bh1 #cg-da1 #bf-bh1 #cg-da #dc-ea;a #db-dd7871 #de-ea xxv #bi #ad-cj #a-ac787 ---------------------------------------- ------------------ ,total #aij #bef #aid #bdh ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ,wernle ,all ,five ,three or ,more ,total #e,total #c ---------------------------------------- --------------------- #g-ab #g-aj #g-ab #d #f #c-aj #c-aj #a-aa #h #aa #c-dh #c1 #d1 #f1 #ci-dj1 #a-d1 #f1 #aa1 #aa #bc #db1 #dd-dh #ab1 #ah1 #be-bf1 #ch1 #dj-dh1 #ac1 #cb #i-ac1 #ai-cd #bj-cc #i-ac1 #bj-cc #ad #ai #a-f1 #g-aa #a-b1 #c-e1 #g-aa #a-e1 #g1 #aa-ac1 #aj #ba #ag-ai1 #ba1 #bb1 #bd-bg #e-ac1 #ai-bb #e-ac #e-ac1 #ai-bb #f #aj #cg-ch #cg-ch #b #e-af1 #bc-be1 #g1 #aj1 #ab1 #ac1 #g1 #aj1 #ab1 #ac1 #e #bb #dj-db1 #bf-ci #ae #ae1 #af1 #bd-dj #cc1 #bj-bg1 #b-ai #c-i1 #aa1 #af-ai1 #b-ac1 #af-bg #ah #bd #ba-bc1 #be-bg #bb-cg1 #eh-ei1 #bb1 #bc1 #bg1 #bb-be1 #bg1 #h #af #ch-de #bh1 #ch1 #ci1 #bh1 #cj1 #cb1 #da1 #db #ce1 #ch1 #ci1 #da-de #af1 #ag1 #ca-cc #af-ag1 #ca-cc #e #g1 #ab-bb #g1 #ab1 #ac1 #ae1 #f #ba1 #bb #a-ad #a-aj #aj #a-ci #ac1 #bc1 #be1 #ac-ae1 #bc1 #aj #ag #bg1 #bi-ca1 #be-bg1 #bi-cb1 #cd-cf #cd-ci #bf-bh1 #cg-ea #bg-bh1 #cg-da #bf-bh1 #cg-ea #g #ae #ad-cj #bi #a ---------------------------------------- --------------------- #cjb #aja #bjh #aja #bjh ---------------------------------------- -------------------------- ,the analysis of ,wellhausen is the least elaborate of the five1 and that of ,wernle is almost as simple4 ,the other three show more disposition to select out the verse or part of the verse which1 occuring in the midst of ,q material1 should nevertheless be assigned to some other source4 ,weiss adds a question mark to several of his sections1 but these have been included in the table4 ,all the students say that not the same certainty attaches to all the sections which they have included4 ,sir ,john ,hawkins1 especially1 says he does not consider his work a reconstruction of ,q1 which1 with ,mr4 ,burkitt1 he considers a task beyond the data at our command4 ,according to these five scholars1 ,q has furnished a source for ,matthew in eleven chapters4 ,according to three out of the five1 ,q is found in sixteen chapters4 ,harnack and ,hawkins agree in finding one verse each in chaps4 xv1 xvii1 and xix4 ,weiss alone finds two-thirds of a verse in xxi4 ,among the five1 they find ,q in twenty chapters4 ,the only chapters in which ,q is not found by any of them are i1 ii1 xiv1 xvi1 xx1 xxvi1 xxvii1 and xxviii4 ,the most conspicuous absences of ,q from ,matthew are in his first two chapters1 in his chapters dealing with the ,passion 7chaps4 xxvi-xxvii71 and in his story of the empty grave and the resurrection appearances 7chap4 xxviii74 ,concerning the absence of ,q from chaps4 xiv1 xvi1 and xx1 and its practically negligible presence in chaps4 xv1 xvii1 xix1 and xxi1 it will be observed that these chapters do not deal exclusively with narrative material4 ,their content is1 in brief1 the death of the ,baptist1 the return of the disciples1 the feeding of the five thousand1 the walking on the sea1 the dispute about hand-washing1 the ,canaanitish woman1 the feeding of the four thousand1 the demand of the ,pharisees for a sign1 the confession of ,peter1 the demands for discipleship1 the transfiguration1 the healing of the epileptic boy1 the prediction of ,jesus' sufferings1 the temple-tax1 the strife about rank1 the strange exorcist1 the speech about offenses and about the rescue of the lost1 the rules for reconciliation with a brother and for forgiveness1 the parable of the ,evil ,steward1 the dispute about marriage and divorce1 the blessing of the children1 the danger of riches1 the parable of the ,laborers in the ,vineyard1 the second prediction of sufferings1 the demand of the sons of ,zebedee1 the healing of ,bartimaeus1 the entry into ,jerusalem1 the offense of the scribes and priests1 the cursing of the fig tree1 the purification of the temple1 the parables of the ,dissimilar ,sons and the ,evil ,vineyard-,keepers4 ,so far as the narrative material in these chapters is concerned1 it is derived from ,mark4 ,of the discourse material1 some is connected with the narrative in ,mark1 and taken1 like the narrative1 from him4#hh ,other passages of discourse material1 like the demands of discipleship 7,mt xvi1 #bd-bh71 not closely connected with ,marcan narrative1 yet apparently taken from ,mark1 contain verses elsewhere duplicated in ,matthew4 ,for these verses1 some of which ,luke takes from ,mark1 he has duplicates elsewhere4 ,since these duplicates in both ,matthew and ,luke are elsewhere closely connected with ,q material1 and are in their other connections apparently uninfluenced by ,mark1 it appears that in these chapters1 where ,matthew forsakes ,q1 he has nevertheless embodied certain material from ,mark which originally stood alike in ,mark and ,q4 ,other instances of this kind occur in ,mt xviii1 #a-e1 the strife about rank2 in xviii1 #f-i1 about offenses2 and in xx1 #bd-bh1 about true greatness4 ,these verses represent passages in which1 according to ,sanday's statement1#hi ,mark and ,q overlapped2 or1 according to other students 7notably ,mr4 ,streeter in the same volume71 ,mark also copied from ,q4 ,as we are here interested1 not in the relation of ,mark to ,q1 but only in the content of the latter as it is found in ,matthew1 we may go back to our statement that ,matthew has combined his material from ,q in his chaps4 iii-viii and x-xii1 and practically 7if not quite7 forsaken him in chaps4 xiii-xxii4 ,going back once more to ,table ,,ii1 the largest content ascribed to ,q is given by ,wernle3 three hundred and two verses 7including a few parts of verses74 ,the next largest are from ,weiss and ,wellhausen1 two hundred and forty-eight and two hundred and fifty-six verses respectively4 ,harnack and ,hawkins assign only one hundred and ninety and one hundred and ninety-four4#ij ,but the facts that out of the largest content ascribed by any one of the five students 7three hundred and two by ,wernle71 two hundred and eight of the same verses are likewise assigned by two others1 and that out of the smallest content 7one hundred and ninety by ,harnack71 one hundred and one are likewise assigned by all five1 show that as to the nucleus of ,q1 including more than half of it according to ,harnack and one-third of it according to ,wernle1 there is practically no dispute4 ,table ,,iii will show the results of the work of the same five scholars as to the ,q material in ,luke4 ,,deductions ,,from ,,table ,,iii ,table ,,iii1 containing the content ascribed to ,q as it is found in ,luke1 by the same five scholars mentioned above1 discloses some interesting results when compared with ,table ,,ii 7pp4 #aaj-aa74 ,as was the case with ,q in ,matthew1 the smallest total is assigned by ,harnack4 ,that he finds one hundred and ninety verses 7including a few parts of verses7 in both ,matthew and ,luke indicates that he has limited his ,q pretty closely to the duplicate matter in both ,gospels4 ,hawkins' results are very close in this respect to ,harnack's 7one hundred and ninety-four ,q verses in ,matthew and one hundred and ninety-two in ,luke71 and indicate the same basis of computation4 ,wellhausen finds ,q in two hundred and fifty-six verses of ,matthew1 and in only two hundred and ten of ,luke4 ,both tables show that ,wellhausen's analysis of ,q is much less elaborate than that of any of the other students4 ,since the number of ,q verses which he finds in both ,matthew and ,luke is considerably larger than that which ,harnack and ,hawkins find1 the disparity between his ,q matter in ,matthew and in ,luke may be accounted for by his willingness to go farther beyond the duplicate material in those two ,gospels for his ,q4 ,his two hundred and ten ,q verses ascribed to ,luke are not greatly in excess of the number ascribed by ,harnack and ,hawkins to both ,luke and ,matthew4 ,he gives to ,luke twenty more ,q verses1 and to ,matthew sixty-six more1 than ,harnack4 ,of these sixty-six1 he may consider thirty to be duplicates in ,matthew and ,luke 7since what constitutes derivation from a common source must always be matter of opinion74 ,the other thirty-six verses he assigns to ,q in ,matthew1 tho lacking duplicates in ,luke1 on the ground of their general characteristics4 ,the habits of ,matthew and ,luke1 respectively1 in their treatment of ,mark1 render it practically certain that ,matthew would feel less at liberty to omit ,q material than ,luke4 ,wernle's assignments 7three hundred and two ,q verses to ,matthew and two hundred and fifty-five to ,luke7 may be explained in the same way4 ,,table ,,iii ,,material ,,in ,,luke ,,taken ,,from ,q ,chapter ,harnack ,wellhausen ,hawkins ,j4 ,weiss ---------------------------------------- -------------------- iii #g-i1 #af-ag #a-g #g-i1 #ag #g-i1 #ag-ah iv #a-ac #a-ae #c-ac #a-ac vi #ag1 #bj-bc1 #bj-bc1 #ag1 #bj-bc #dg-di #bg-cc1 #bg-di #bg-di #ce;b-#dd1 #df-di vii #a-aj1 #ah-bh1 #a-aj1 #a-c1 #f-i1 #ah-ai1a-c1 #g-aj1 #ca-ce #ah-ce #bb-bh1 #ah-bf1 #ca-ce #bh-ce ix #b1 #eg-fj #eg-fj #eg-fj x #b-g;b1 #i1 #a-bd #b-f1 #g;b-#i1 #b-c1 #ac-ad1 #af1 #ba-bb1 #ab-af1 #af1 #ba-bg #bc;b1 #bd #ba-bd xi #b-d1 #i-ad1 #i-cb1 #b-d1 #i-ad1 #b-d1 #i-aa1 #af-ag1 #ai- #cg-eb #af1 #ai-bj1 #ae-af1 #bd- #bj1 #bc-bf1 #bc-bf1 #bi-cb1 #bf1 #bi-ca1 #bi-ce1 #ci1 #cd-ce1 #cc-ce1 #db1 #dd1 #ci1 #da1 #db1 #ci-eb #df-eb #dd1 #df-ea xii #b-aj1 #bb-ca1 #bb-df #b-i1 #bb-ca1 #b-h1 #aj-ab1 #cc-cd1 #ci- #cc;b-#cd1 #bb-ca1 #cc- #dj1 #db-df1 #ci1 #dj1 #db-df1 #cd1 #ci-df1 #ea1 #ec1 #ea-ec1 #ea-eb #eh-ei #eh1 #ei xiii #ah-ba1 #bd1 #cd-ce #bj-ba1 #bc-bi1 #ah-ba1 #bc-be1 #bh-bi1 #cd1 #cd-ce #bh-cj1 #ce #cd-ce xiv #aa1 #bf-bg1 #af-bd #aa1 #bf-bg #aa1 #af-bc1 #cd-ce #bf-bg1 #cd1 #ce xv #d-g #d1 #e1 #g #c-e xvi #ac1 #af-ah #ac1 #af-ag #ac1 #af-ah xvii #a1 #c-d1 #f1 #bj-ce #a1 #c1 #d1 #f1 #bd1 #a-b1 #e-f1 #bc1 #bc-bd1 #bf1 #bf1 #bg1 #cd1 #bd1 #bf1 #bg1 #bg1 #cb1 #cd1 #ce1 #cg #ca1 #cc;b-#d #ce1 #cg xviii #ac1 #ae1 #af xix #bf #aa-bg xxii #bh1 #cj #bh1 #cj #bb-be ---------------------------------------- -------------------- ,total #aij #baj #aib #agd ---------------------------------------- ------------------------- ,wernle ,all ,five ,three or ,no4 in,no4 in ,more ,five ,three ---------------------------------------- -------------- #g-i1 #af-ag #g #g-i1 #ag #a #d #c-ab #c-ab #a-ac #f #ac #bj-di #dg-di #bj-bc1 #bg-di #c #bg #b-aj1 #ah-ce #a-c1 #f-i1 #ah1 #a-aj1 #ah1 #bh1 #ai #bf #ai1 #bb-bf1 #ca-ce #ca-ce #eg-fb #eg-fj #d #a-af1 #ba-bd #b-c1 #af1 #ba-bd #b-i1 #ab-af #g #ac #b-d1 #i-bf1 #i-aa1 #af1 #ai1 #bj1 #bc-bf1 #ai #ci #bi-cf1 #bd-bf1 #bi-ca1 #bi-ce1 #ci-eb #ci1 #db1 #ci-eb1 #b-d1 #dd1 #df-ea #i-ag #b-ab1 #bb-cd1 #bb-ca1 #cc-cd1 #b-aj1 #bb-ca1 #ai #cd #ci-df1 #ea- #ci-dj1 #cc-cd1 #ci- #ec1 #eh-ei #db-df #df1 #ea-ec1 #eh-ei #ah-ba1 #bh-cj1cd-ce #ah-ba1 #bd1 #b #i #cd-ce #bh1 #bi1 #cd1 #ce #af-bd1 #bf-bg #af-bc1 #bf-bg #aj #c-aj #d-g #d #ac1 #af-ag #ac1 #af-ag #c #a-d1 #bc-cg #bd1 #bf1 #bg1 #cd #a1 #c1 #d1 #f1 #d #ad #bc1 #bd1 #bf1 #bg1 #ca-ce1 #cg #ab-bg #bf #a ---------------------------------------- -------------- #bee #hj #bja #hj #bja ---------------------------------------- ------------------- ,somewhat more difficult to understand is ,weiss's assignment of two hundred and forty-eight ,q verses to ,matthew against only one hundred and seventy-four to ,luke4 ,he has here in common sixteen fewer verses than ,harnack and ,hawkins assign in common to ,matthew and ,luke from ,q4 ,but he also assigns to ,matthew seventy-four ,q verses not paralleled in the ,q material which he assigns to ,luke4 ,the difference goes back again to the difference of opinion as to the degree of literary similarity which must be taken to indicate a common source2 as also to ,weiss's interest in the special source 7,s7 of ,luke4 ,if we deduct from ,weiss's ,q in ,matthew the twenty-eight verses after which he places an interrogation mark1 this will leave him with only forty-six ,q verses in ,matthew unduplicated in ,luke4 ,this is only ten more than ,wellhausen has4 ,all five scholars find ,q material in nine of ,luke's chapters 7against eleven of ,matthew's74 ,three find it in fourteen chapters4 ,chaps4 iii and iv in ,matthew correspond with the same chapters in ,luke4 ,harnack finds in ,matthew's two chapters seventeen ,q verses1 and in ,luke's two chapters1 eighteen4 ,hawkins finds fourteen in ,matthew's two1 and fifteen in ,luke's4 ,matthew's chaps4 v-viii 7,sermon on the ,mount7 contain according to ,harnack sixty-six ,q verses1 according to ,hawkins sixty-eight4 ,to these three chapters of ,matthew1 chap4 vi of ,luke forms a partial parallel4 ,it contains1 according to ,harnack1 twenty-six1 and according to ,hawkins twenty-eight ,q verses1 parallel to that number of ,matthew's sixty-six4 ,of the remaining forty ,q verses in ,matthew 7chaps4 v-viii71 ,luke has in other connections1 in chaps4 xi1 xii1 xiii1 xiv1 and xvi1 thirty-four parallel ,q verses4 ,all but six of the verses assigned by ,hawkins and ,harnack to ,q in the ,sermon on the ,mount are therefore paralleled by ,q material in ,luke4 ,but of this ,q material in ,luke more than half is scattered about in different chapters1 in marked contrast to its concentration in ,matthew4 ,this is perhaps the best single illustration of the fact1 often mentioned1 that ,luke blends his ,q material with material from other sources1 while ,matthew inserts it in blocks4 ,it does not appear upon the surface why the same five investigators should not reach results concerning ,q in ,luke with the same consensus as concerning ,q in ,matthew4 ,it is perhaps explained by the fact that ,luke's blending of his material from different sources and his freer treatment of it render ,q less identifiable with him4 ,if1 however1 ,wernle1 ,wellhausen1 and ,weiss be disregarded1 and attention be paid only to the lists of ,hawkins and ,harnack1 these latter lists will be found to agree as closely in their identification of ,q material in ,luke as in ,matthew4 ,this merely shows that we are on firm ground in the identification of ,q1 so long as we restrict ourselves closely to the duplicate passages in ,matthew and ,luke1 and require a reasonably strict agreement before admitting a common source4 ,it is when we leave this duplicate material1 to extend the limits of ,q beyond it1 that the uncertainties begin4 ,,the ,,necessity ,,for ,a ,,further ,,extension ,,of ,q ,yet the presence in both ,matthew and ,luke1 especially in the former1 of much sayings-material which is not only imbedded in ,q matter1 but has all the characteristics of ,q2 the presence of translation variants2 the natural assumption that even if ,matthew and ,luke had before them the same identical copy of ,q1 they would not agree entirely in the amount of material they would respectively quote from it2 and the desire to assign as much as seems reasonable to this source before positing another1 all lead us to the task of a further determination of the content of ,q4 ,this further determination issues in an analysis of ,q into ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,part ,,ii ,,analysis ,,of ,q ,,into ,,qmt ,,and ,,qlk ,,chapter ,i ,,the ,,analysis ,,of ,q ,q ,,originally ,,an ,,aramaic ,,document1 ,,used ,,in ,,greek ,,translations ,,by ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,the starting-point of a further determination of the content of ,q is the fact that ,matthew and ,luke seem to have taken their duplicate matter from a ,greek document1 but that this ,greek document was a translation from the ,aramaic4 ,if ,matthew and ,luke had been independently translating from an ,aramaic document1 they could not have hit so generally upon the same order of words1 especially where many other arrangements would have done as well 7and occasionally better71 nor would they have agreed in the translation of an ,aramaic word by the same unusual ,greek word1 as notably in the ,greek3 epiousion of the ,lord's ,prayer4 ,the ,q they used was a ,greek document4 ,but ,jesus spoke ,aramaic1 not ,greek2 and if ,q is ,palestinian1 and as early as #fj-fe or #gj1 it would be strange for it to have been written in any language except that which ,jesus spoke4 ,mark had an ,aramaic tradition2 and tho he probably wrote in ,greek he preserved many ,aramaic words and expressions2 ,q as found in ,matthew and ,luke has no ,aramaic words2 this seems to be explicable only upon the supposition that though the original of it was in ,aramaic1 ,matthew and ,luke knew it only in its ,greek form4 ,the hypothesis of an ,aramaic original for ,q is rendered practically certain by some of the variations that occur between ,matthew's and ,luke's versions of it4 ,the clearest illustration of this is found in the speech against the ,pharisees4 ,matthew reads1 ,greek3 katharison prton to entos tou potriou4 ,luke reads1 ,greek3 pln ta enonta dote elemosynn4 ,one of these ,greek clauses would be as difficult to derive from the other1 or both of them from the same ,greek original1 as would be the ,english translation of the words4 ,the meaning of ,luke's is far from clear4 ,in an ,aramaic original1 however1 ,matthew's verb might have read ,hebrew1 while ,luke's might have read ,hebrew4 ,a mere stroke of the pen1 if the saying originally stood in ,aramaic1 explains a variation which cannot be explained at all if the saying was originally in ,greek4 ,this statement1 however1 will apply only if the ,aramaic was written and not merely spoken2 for the two letters so alike in appearance are not particularly similar in sound4 ,tho the above is the simplest and clearest instance1 others of the same sort are not wanting4 ,in ,matthew's ,sermon on the ,mount ,jesus says1 ,so persecuted they the prophets which were before you2 while in the corresponding passage in ,luke's ,sermon on the ,plain he says1 ,in the same manner their fathers treated the prophets4 ,matthew's phrase 7v4 #ab71 ,greek3 tous pro hymn1 and ,luke's 7vi1 #bc71 ,greek3 hoi pateres autn1 are equivalents1 respectively1 of the ,hebrew or ,aramaic phrases for your ancestors and their ancestors4 ,but whereas the two ,greek phrases look nothing alike and could not be mistaken for one another1 the difference in the ,aramaic again reduces itself to the difference in one letter between the endings ,hebrew and ,hebrew4 ,for ,matthew's saying 7x1 #ab71 ,greek3 aspasasthe autn 7tn oikian7 ,luke reads 7x1 #e71 ,greek3 legete3 eirn t oik tout4 ,here ,luke preserves the wording of the ,aramaic greeting1 ,peace be unto you1 while ,matthew says1 ,greet the house4 ,the form which ,luke gives of the greeting is that which is used in ,yiddish at the present time--,hebrew1 ,peace to you1 equivalent to our good morning4 ,that this is what underlay the tradition in ,matthew is indicated by the fact that he goes on to say1 ,if the house is worthy1 your peace shall abide upon it2 but if it is unworthy1 your peace shall return to you4 ,the very peculiar ,greek used by both ,matthew and ,luke in the saying about excommunication 7,greek3 eiposin pan ponron kath' hymn in ,mt v1 #aa1 and ,greek3 ekbalsin to onoma hymn hs ponron in ,lk vi1 #bb7 seems to go back to the one ,aramaic phrase for giving one a bad name4 ,in the speech against the ,pharisees ,matthew 7xxiii1 #be7 says1 ,ye cleanse the outside of the cup and dish but inwardly they the cup and platter are full of greed and baseness4 ,luke makes much better sense by reading 7xi1 #ci71 ,ye cleanse the outside of cup and platter1 but inwardly ye are full of greed1 etc4 ,if it be assumed that the present tense of the verb to cleanse was represented in ,aramaic by the participle 7which would be the usual construction71 and that the second person pronoun stood with it in the first clause but was not repeated in the second 7as would also be natural in the ,aramaic71 ,matthew's change of the verb in the second clause1 from the second person to the third1 and his consequent use of cup and dish as the subject of it1 are easily explained2 since the participle carries in itself no distinction between second and third person1 and the plural form would fit equally the ye and the they4 ,instances such as these 7,i owe them all to ,wellhausen7#ia seem to prove conclusively 7,jlicher says beyond a doubt7 that1 not merely an ,aramaic oral tradition1 but an ,aramaic document lies behind the ,greek ,q used by ,matthew and ,luke4 ,,methods ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,in ,,their ,,use ,,of ,q ,upon the hypothesis that ,matthew and ,luke used essentially the same text of ,q1 an elaborate treatment of their respective use of that document is called for to show which of them1 in instances where they differ1 is to be charged with the alterations1 and to assign the reasons for those alterations4 ,two scholars1 ,harnack in his ,sayings of ,jesus and ,wernle in his ,synoptische ,frage1 have made such an analysis1 with the thoroness characteristic of them4 ,the writer has studied these analyses carefully1 and upon the basis of them and of such study of the texts as they suggested1 made his own analysis4 ,but upon the hypothesis of ,q as originally an ,aramaic document1 used by ,matthew and ,luke in ,greek translations going back to different ,aramaic texts1 such an analysis becomes superfluous1 because superseded by the analysis of ,q into the two recensions1 ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,the ,,analysis ,,of ,q ,,into ,,qmt ,,and ,,qlk ,if ,q was originally an ,aramaic document1 used by ,matthew and ,luke in ,greek translations going back to different copies of the ,aramaic original1 it is fair to assume that these two translations would have had different histories4 ,q would always be growing1 by the aid of oral tradition2 and if ,q was written before ,mark1 there was ample time1 say twenty-five years at least1 before it was used by ,matthew and ,luke1 for the two recensions1 circulating in different communities and perhaps originally shaped to suit the needs of different readers1 to acquire many dissimilar features4 ,not only would the same saying in many instances become changed to meet the varying need1 or to adapt itself to what was considered a better tradition1 but many things would be included in either recension which were not included in the other4 ,matthew will thus have had a recension of ,q which we may designate by the sign ,q,mt1 and ,luke one which we may call ,q,lk4 ,the following pages represent an attempt to determine the content of ,q1 as that is represented in both ,matthew and ,luke4#ib ,of the sections of ,matthew and ,luke examined1 some are marked ,q,mt1 some ,q,lk1 and some merely ,q4 ,by this it is not meant that ,matthew and ,luke each had a document ,q1 and besides this a document ,q,mt or ,q,lk1 and that they took now from one and now from the other4 ,but where the wording of ,matthew and ,luke is identical1 or so closely similar that the variations can be easily explained as changes made by ,matthew or ,luke1 the material is assigned simply to ,q4 ,but where the variations are too great1 much greater for example than any changes that have been made by ,matthew and ,luke or by either one of them where they are taking their logian material from ,mark1 the material is assigned to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,reasons for the assignment to ,q,mt or to ,q,lk instead of to simple ,q are given in each case seeming to require them4 ,the sum of all passages assigned to any form of ,q will constitute the total content of ,q1 so far as it is contained in both ,matthew and ,luke4 ,this total content will be somewhat larger than the content that could be assigned to ,q without the hypothesis of ,q,mt and ,q,lk1 since by this hypothesis many sections will be sufficiently alike to be assigned to ,q 7,q,mt and ,q,lk7 which otherwise would have to be ascribed to different sources4#ic ,,chapter ,,ii ,q1 ,,qmt1 ,,and ,,qlk ,,in ,,the ,,double ,,tradition ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,,the ,,preaching ,,of ,,john ,,the ,,baptist 7,mt iii1 #g;b-#aj2 ,lk iii1 #g;b-#i7 ,this section is universally ascribed to ,q4 ,in ,matthew's ,gospel it contains sixty-three words2 in ,luke's sixty-four4 ,these are identical in the two ,gospels1 except for ,luke's addition of ,greek3 kai at the beginning of his #ith verse1 his plural 7,greek3 karpous7 where ,matthew has the singular1 and his substitution of ,greek3 arxsthe for ,matthew's ,greek3 doxte4 ,the parallelism begins in the middle of the #gth verse of each ,gospel2 the first part of the verse in each case evidently being supplied by the evangelist4 ,matthew says ,john's remark was addressed to the ,pharisees and ,sadducees4 ,with his customary indifference to class distinctions among the ,jews1 ,luke represents the words as being addressed to all those who came for baptism4 ,they do not seem appropriate to candidates for baptism1 whether ,pharisees1 ,sadducees1 or others4 ,luke uses some form of the verb ,greek3 arch with the infinitive ,greek3 legein eight times as against ,matthew's twice4 ,as it seems here to have no advantage over ,greek3 doke it might be safe to suppose that the substitution was made unintentionally1 and from the influence of the recollection of similar usage in other parts of ,luke's ,gospel4 ,the first half of vs4 #g in each ,gospel should be assigned to the evangelists2 the remainder of the section to ,q4 ,,the ,,messianic ,,proclamation ,,of ,,the ,,baptist 7,mt iii1 #aa-ab2 ,lk iii1 #af-ag7 ,matthew's vs4 #aa and ,luke's vs4 #af are closely parallel to ,mark i1 #g-h4 ,but they are still more closely parallel with each other1 and contain common deviations from ,mark which cannot be explained upon the supposition that they are taken from the latter4 ,the wording in the two ,gospels1 for twenty-six consecutive words1 is identical1 except for ,luke's omission of ,greek3 kai in his vs4 #ag1 and his consequent change of verbs from the finite to the infinitive mood4 ,this section is universally assigned to ,q4 ,,the ,,temptation 7,mt iv1 #c-aa2 ,lk iv1 #c-ac7 ,the whole story of the temptation as told by ,matthew and ,luke includes the two verses of each ,gospel which immediately precede the section here specified4 ,these verses are not included here because they seem to the writer to be taken by ,matthew and ,luke from ,mark and not from ,q4 ,the common avoidance by ,matthew and ,luke of ,mark's statement that ,jesus was with the wild beasts1 and their common substitution of ,greek3 diabolos for ,mark's ,greek3 satanas1 would point toward their exclusive use of ,q and their avoidance of ,mark in these verses4 ,on the other hand1 ,matthew and ,luke use very different phraseology to express their common idea of the hunger of ,jesus 7,luke saying ,greek3 ouk ephagen ouden en tais hmerais ekeinais1 kai syntelestheisn autn epeinasen1 while ,matthew says ,greek3 kai nsteusas hmeras tesserakonta kai tesserakonta nyktas1 hysteron epeinasen74 ,matthew agrees with ,mark in six consecutive words 7except for the transposition of two of them7 where ,luke has a wording of his own4 ,whereas ,mark says that ,jesus was tempted forty days1 saying nothing about his hunger1 ,matthew says he fasted for forty days and was tempted at the expiration of this time1 and ,luke that he fasted forty days and was tempted during that time4 ,the best explanation for these divergences and similarities is that ,matthew and ,luke take these verses from ,mark but correct him freely under the influence of ,q4 ,q also of course contained these verses1 and they will be assigned to him when we come to consider the ,q material in ,mark4 ,in the rest of the temptation narrative1 where ,mark has no parallel1 there is great verbal similarity4 ,the enlargement of the ,old ,testament quotation may perhaps be ascribed to ,matthew4 ,the transposition of ,matthew's second temptation to the third place in ,luke seems to spoil the climax in the narrative2 ,mr4 ,streeter 7,oxford ,studies1 p4 #aeb7 argues that ,luke would not have spoiled so good an arrangement if he had found it in his source4 ,if this argument were allowed1 the section would have to be assigned to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,the writer does not feel that the divergences are great enough to necessitate this1 and so assigns it to ,q4 ,,blessed ,,are ,,the ,,poor 7,mt v1 #c2 ,lk vi1 #bj;b7 ,matthew's beatitude is in the third person1 ,luke's in the second4 ,matthew adds in spirit4 ,if the beatitude stood alone1 the changes in it are not too great to be attributed to ,matthew1 and the in spirit is what might be expected4 ,but taking it in close connection with much material that could not have stood alike in ,matthew's source and in ,luke's it is better to assign it to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,blessed ,,are ,,they ,,that ,,mourn 7,mt v1 #e2 ,lk vi1 #ba;b7 ,the wording is not at all similar1 ,greek3 makarioi being the only word in common4 ,yet the two beatitudes sound like two versions of the same one4 ,greek3 klai is a ,lucan word1 used eleven times by ,luke in his ,gospel1 against twice by ,matthew and three times by ,mark4 ,greek3 gela is used twice in ,luke's ,gospel1 and not elsewhere in the ,new ,testament4 ,both of these occurrences are in ,luke's ,sermon on the ,level ,place4 ,these facts1 with the context1 indicate a source in ,luke's hands partly like1 and partly unlike1 the source in ,matthew's4 ,the verse is therefore assigned to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,blessed ,,are ,,they ,,that ,,hunger 7,mt v1 #f2 ,lk vi1 #ba;a7 ,matthew's version is again in the third person and ,luke's in the second4 ,luke understands the hunger to be literal4 ,matthew spiritualizes by adding ,greek3 tn dikaiosynn4 ,luke adds ,greek3 nyn1 to point the contrast between his beatitude and the corresponding woe1 which ,matthew does not have4 ,in spite of these differences1 out of ten words in ,matthew's form and six in ,luke's1 five words are identical 7except for a deviation in personal ending74 ,except for the context the verse might be assigned simply to ,q2 but it is better ascribed to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,blessed ,,are ,,the ,,persecuted 7,mt v1 #aa-ab2 ,lk vi1 #bb-bc7 ,the verbal similarity is close only in a few places2 notably in the ,greek3 ho misthos hymn polys en tois ouranois 7t ouran74 ,out of thirty-five words in ,matthew and fifty-one in ,luke1 only twelve are identical4 ,two considerations prevent the assignment of these verses to two totally different sources4 ,the first is their contiguity to so much ,q material4 ,the second is the presence in them of two translation variants4#id ,the second of these two verses1 at least1 therefore goes back to two different recensions or translations of one original ,aramaic document--,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,a ,,saying ,,about ,,salt 7,mt v1 #ac2 ,lk xiv1 #cd7 ,this saying evidently stood in both ,mark and ,q4 ,luke follows ,mark in ,greek3 kalon oun to hala and ,q in the rest of his saying4 ,matthew's form of the saying1 which makes it addressed to the disciples1 ,ye are the salt of the earth1 involves a much greater change than ,matthew ever permits himself when he transcribes the words of ,jesus which he finds in ,mark4 ,luke1 on the other hand1 could scarcely have found the saying in his source with this application to the disciples1 and have changed it to its much less pointed and personal form in his own ,gospel4 ,the only conclusion possible from a comparison of ,matthew and ,luke here is that this saying lay in different forms in their sources4 ,but since it occurs in the midst of so much ,q material1 it is better to assign it to different recensions of ,q than to some other unknown source4 ,a ,,saying ,,about ,,light 7,mt v1 #ae2 ,lk xi1 #cc7 ,this is another saying that stood in both ,mark and ,q4 ,mark has the saying in ,mk iv1 #ba4 ,his form of it is the apparently less natural one1 ,does the lamp come in order that it may be put under a bushel8 etc4 ,weiss suggests#ie that it has been given this form to make it refer to the coming of ,jesus as the light of the world4 ,neither ,matthew nor ,luke has copied this feature of ,mark's saying4 ,by his context ,matthew makes the saying refer1 like the saying about salt1 directly to the disciples4 ,luke has the saying twice3 in xi1 #cc and viii1 #af4 ,in both cases his context would indicate that he took the saying to refer to the teaching of ,jesus4 ,matthew says the light is to give light to all that are in the house4 ,luke does not mention the house1 but implies it in his statement that those who are entering in see the light1 this form being found in both his reports of the saying4 ,mark says under the bushel or under the bed2 ,matthew1 under the bushel2 ,luke once1 in a dish or under the bed1 and a second time1 in a cellar or under the bushel4 ,luke's fondness for the same ending in his two uses of the saying can be explained only by the supposition that it so stood in one of his sources4 ,the same idea in the conclusion of the saying as it appears in ,matthew and ,luke1 and their common avoidance of the opening formula which is peculiar to ,mark1 would indicate that ,matthew and ,luke practically forsake ,mark in this saying1 and follow their other source4 ,luke1 having a doublet for the saying1 may be assumed to have taken it once from ,mark and once from his other source2 but he is evidently much more influenced by his other source than he is by ,mark4 ,the non-,marcan source in which the saying was found by ,matthew and ,luke was evidently an allied1 but not an identical1 one2 the saying is therefore assigned to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,a ,,saying ,,about ,,the ,,law 7,mt v1 #ah2 ,lk xvi1 #ag7 ,there are twenty-seven words in ,matthew's form of this saying2 fifteen in ,luke's4 ,only nine words show any correspondence4 ,matthew's until all be fulfilled is held by ,schmiedel#if to be a gloss1 added1 not by the final editor of ,matthew1 who did not care for ,jewish legalism1 but by an earlier editor4 ,harnack maintains that it goes back to ,jesus1 and does not necessarily mean that the law shall ultimately pass away4 ,in his essay in the ,oxford ,studies ,hawkins maintains that the section can be made very probable for ,q4 ,considering the wide divergences1 the writer would add that this probability can be established only upon the hypothesis of two recensions of ,q2 upon that hypothesis it would be granted by everyone4 ,,agree ,,with ,,thine ,,adversary 7,mt v1 #be-bf2 ,lk xii1 #eh-ei7 ,luke prefaces this saying with one peculiar to his ,gospel3 ,why do ye not1 of yourselves1 judge what is right8 ,the close connection of this saying with the passage here under consideration1 and the verbal resemblances and divergences of the sections in ,matthew and ,luke--twenty-five identical words out of a total of forty-three in ,matthew and forty-nine in ,luke--warrant their assignment to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,about ,,non-,,resistance ,,and ,,love ,,of ,,enemies 7,mt v1 #ci1 #dj1 #db1 #dd-dh2 ,lk vi1 #bg-cj1 #cb1 #cf7 ,it is possible to choose out of these verses here and there a few words which1 if they stood alone1 would be naturally assigned simply to ,q4 ,by regarding only the words which very closely correspond1 this is accomplished1 but with the result that the other words1 standing in the same context and in closest connection1 must be assigned to totally different sources1 or ascribed to the invention or alteration of one of the evangelists4 ,the verbal similarity thruout the section is sometimes close1 sometimes remote4 ,transpositions are frequent4 ,where ,matthew has the simile of the rain and sun1 ,luke has the comparatively weak words good to the unthankful and evil4 ,this is a substitution that ,luke certainly would never have made for the strong words of ,matthew if these had stood in his source4 ,the author assigns the section to the two recensions1 ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,the ,,lord',s ,,prayer 7,mt vi1 #i-ac2 ,lk xi1 #b-d7 ,this is one of the sections that point most clearly to different recensions of ,q in the hands of ,matthew and ,luke4 ,it is improbable that any collection of the sayings of ,jesus should have lacked this prayer4 ,it is equally improbable that ,luke could have had it before him in the more elaborated form of ,matthew1 and have abridged it to suit himself4 ,matthew's more elaborate form1 on the other hand1 does not sound like the deliberate alteration of any one author1 but like the accumulated liturgical usage of the ,christian community4 ,luke's introduction to the prayer is certainly not his own invention1 and is so appropriate that it is hard to believe that ,matthew found it in connection with the prayer in his source and deliberately omitted it4 ,luke's form seems decidedly more primary4 ,the use in both ,gospels of the strange word ,greek3 epiousion seems to carry the two traditions back to one original2 but the variations are certainly greater than can be accounted for by the literary habits of ,matthew and ,luke1 working upon the same original4 ,in other words1 that original had passed thru a different history before it reached our two evangelists4 ,the section is assigned to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,a ,,saying ,,about ,,treasures 7,mt vi1 #ai-ba2 ,lk xii1 #cc-cd7 ,the verbal similarity is not close4 ,except for the proximity of other ,q material1 the section might be assigned to two entirely different sources4 ,there is1 especially1 a quite different turn given to the saying in ,luke1 from that which it has in ,matthew1 by the introduction of the words ,sell your goods and give alms4 ,in spite of ,luke's interest in alms-giving1 as disclosed in the ,book of ,acts1 it is hard to credit him with such a re-wording of his text without some help from his source4 ,but the last twelve words in the section are identical in the two ,gospels1 except that ,luke uses the plural form of the pronoun where ,matthew uses the singular4 ,largely on account of these last twelve words the section is assigned to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,a ,,saying ,,about ,,the ,,eye 7,mt vi1 #bb-bc2 ,lk xi1 #cd-ce7 ,of forty-four words in ,matthew and forty in ,luke1 thirty-two are identical4 ,the divergences in the use of conjunctions 7,greek3 hotan for ,greek3 ean1 e4g47 and the improvement by condensation of the last sentence are such changes as might be easily ascribed to ,luke4 ,the section may1 with reasonable assurance1 be assigned merely to ,q4 ,,about ,,double ,,service 7,mt vi1 #bd2 ,lk xvi1 #ac7 ,there are twenty-seven words in this saying according to ,matthew1 twenty-eight according to ,luke4 ,luke appears to have been the innovator2 his addition of ,greek3 oikets improves the sentence in a way often accomplished by him4 ,with the exception of the presence of this word in ,luke and its absence in ,matthew the saying is identical in the two ,gospels4 ,it is therefore assigned simply to ,q4 ,,about ,,care 7,mt vi1 #be-cc2 ,lk xii1 #bb-ca7 ,considering the length of this passage1 the verbal similarity is remarkably close4 ,out of one hundred and sixty words in ,luke and one hundred and sixty-six in ,matthew1 about one hundred and fifteen are identical4 ,beginning in the middle of ,luke's vs4 #bb1 and at the first of ,matthew's vs4 #be1 there are twenty-six words in ,luke which are identical with the same number of words arranged in identical order1 in ,matthew2 except that ,luke has omitted 7or ,matthew has supplied7 three words1 without affecting the meaning of the passage4 ,beginning with ,matthew's vs4 #cb and ,luke's vs4 #cj1 there are again twenty-one identical words out of twenty-four in ,luke and thirty-one in ,matthew4 ,matthew may here easily be credited with the addition of the words which constitute the difference2 for his ,greek3 ho ouranios and his ,greek3 kai tn dikaiosynn are characteristic of him3 the former expression being used by him seven times and not at all by the other evangelists2 the latter1 seven times by ,matthew1 once by ,luke1 and not at all by ,mark4 ,his addition of ,greek3 prton in his vs4 #cc has a decidedly secondary sound4 ,the passage may therefore be assigned simply to ,q4 ,,about ,,judging 7,mt vii1 #a-b2 ,lk vi1 #cg-ch7 ,between the beginning and the end of this saying1 both of which are alike in the two ,gospels1 ,luke has an amplification of some length4 ,it is highly improbable that this amplification is the work of ,luke1 who is much more inclined to condense than to enlarge4 ,the ,q context in both ,gospels1 and the almost exact agreement of the saying1 except for the enlargement in ,luke1 warrant the assignment to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,the ,,beam ,,and ,,the ,,mote 7,mt vii1 #c-e2 ,lk vii1 #da-db7 ,the verbal agreement is very close4 ,out of sixty-four words in ,matthew and sixty-nine in ,luke fifty-six are identical1 except for deviation in mode or number4 ,the greater condensation seems characteristic of ,matthew4 ,the changes do not seem too great to be ascribed to the two evangelists working on the same source1 ,q4 ,,about ,,seeking ,,and ,,finding 7,mt vii1 #g-aa2 ,lk xi1 #i-ac7 ,the agreement is close1 except where ,luke in his vs4 #ab adds the item of the egg and the scorpion which has no parallel in ,matthew4 ,in spite of the addition of this verse in ,luke1 out of eighty words in his version and seventy-three in ,matthew's sixty-two are still identical4 ,luke's substitution of holy spirit for ,matthew's indefinite good things is characterized by ,schmiedel as a deliberate divergence4 ,the same phrase would hardly describe the addition of vs4 #ab4 ,according to the principle here followed1 it might seem natural to assign this verse1 and so the whole context1 to ,luke's recension of ,q4 ,but in the whole section1 aside from this verse1 there are so few deviations1 and these so easily accounted for on the part either of ,matthew or ,luke1 that the writer inclines to assign the section simply to ,q4 ,luke's vs4 #ab would then be regarded as a gloss1 or an addition of ,luke from some source of his own1 perhaps oral4 ,between this disposal of the matter and the assignment of the entire section to ,q,mt and ,q,lk there is not much to choose4 ,,the ,,golden ,,rule 7,mt vii1 #ab2 ,lk vi1 #ca7 ,the last clause of ,matthew may be his own addition1 or perhaps a formula common among the ,christians4 ,it may have been a gloss1 or may have been found by ,matthew in his recension of ,q4 ,at all events1 it is not like ,matthew to have added it himself2 his tendency toward condensation is too well known4 ,except for this addition the section is sufficiently alike in the two ,gospels to admit its assignment simply to ,q4 ,,the ,,narrow ,,gate 7,mt vii1 #ac-ad2 ,lk xiii1 #bc-bd7 ,with much resemblance in meaning there is here very little similarity in wording4 ,luke's saying is much briefer1 and is introduced by a question addressed to ,jesus4 ,it sounds almost like an abstract of the saying as it stands in ,matthew--if only a precedent could be shown for ,luke's making such an abstract4 ,one can hardly speak with any assurance2 but considering the difference of setting1 the fact that in ,luke the verses we are here considering are part of a considerably longer speech1 and the slight verbal resemblances1 it may be best to assign ,matthew's version to ,q1 and ,luke's to some source of his own1 whether oral or written4 ,if assignment to ,q,mt and ,q,lk is not impossible1 it is certainly difficult4 ,,the ,,tree ,,and ,,its ,,fruits 7,mt vii1 #af-ah2 ,lk vi1 #dc-dd7 ,for this saying ,matthew has a doublet in xii1 #cc-ce4 ,mt vii1 #bj1 is also an exact reproduction of vii1 #af1 with the particle ,greek3 arage prefixed4 ,if ,matthew found this saying in two of his sources1 it is impossible to say what the second of these was1 for it apparently was not ,mark4 ,in ,matthew's second report of the same saying he has used the words generation of vipers1 which he has in iii1 #g1 ascribed to ,john the ,baptist4 ,the fact that both speeches in which the phrase occurs have to do with trees1 and the fact of the repetition1 not only of the saying twice in ,matthew1 but of the same sentence twice in one report1 may perhaps indicate that ,matthew found the saying only in his version of ,q1 and is himself responsible for the repetition4 ,or the saying may have been recorded twice in ,matthew's version of ,q1 with the variations shown in ,matthew's two citations of it4 ,upon either hypothesis the form of ,mt xii1 #ce1 is much nearer to ,lk vi1 #de1 than is ,mt vii1 #ai-bj1 or vss4 #af-ah4 ,the writer assigns the section to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,warning ,,against ,,self-,,deception 7,mt vii1 #ba-bc2 ,lk vi1 #df2 xiii1 #bf-bg7 ,of the first of these three verses in each ,gospel1 ,harnack says it is perhaps not derived from ,q4 ,but the verse stands in substantially the same context in both ,gospels--in the ,sermon on the ,mount in ,matthew and the ,sermon on the ,level ,place in ,luke4 ,in spite of the difference introduced thruout the verse by ,matthew's having it in the third person and ,luke's giving it in the second1 a reminiscence of the same source may be found in the fact that ,greek3 kyrie is used by ,matthew in the vocative1 where a more strict construction would require the accusative4 ,the last two verses of the section ,matthew has combined with the first1 whereas in ,luke the context for them is quite different4 ,thru all three verses ,luke seems to have the more primary form4 ,not only the second person of the verbs1 and the direct address of ,jesus to the crowd1 but the words1 we have eaten and drunk in thy presence and thou hast taught in our streets have an original sound1 whereas ,matthew's form1 ,many shall say to me in that day1 ,lord1 we have preached in thy name and in thy name have cast out demons1 would seem rather to come from a time when many men had been preaching in the name of ,jesus4 ,harnack says that the two sayings are quite independent1 but that there is a common source in the background4 ,this common source in the background might be the undifferentiated ,q1 and the immediate sources might be the two recensions of that document4 ,the general character of the sayings1 and the context1 would encourage such an assignment4 ,since here as in many other places the version of ,matthew seems to indicate adaptation to a later time1 but since the ,gospel of ,matthew cannot be shown to be later than the ,gospel of ,luke1 it seems fair to attribute the divergence between the two evangelists here to the different history thru which their two versions of their common source had passed before coming into their hands4 ,the writer therefore assigns the section to ,q,mt and ,q,lk1 tho not without admission that it might be as well to assign the section in one ,gospel to ,q and in the other to some entirely other source4 ,,the ,,two ,,houses 7,mt vii1 #bd-bg2 ,lk vi1 #dg-di7 ,comparison of these sections shows a much slighter verbal agreement between them than might have been expected from their general agreement in idea4 ,even in idea the agreement is not extremely close4 ,matthew's two houses are built1 respectively1 upon the rock and the sand2 ,luke's are built1 respectively1 with and without a foundation1 irrespective of the soil4 ,if ,matthew's version be here regarded as the more primary1 as is warranted by the fact of its greater simplicity 7,matthew seems here also to be nearer to the ,aramaic1 as indicated by his recurrent use of ,greek3 kai at the beginning of a sentence71 the reinterpretation and consequent re-wording shown in ,luke's version are altogether too great to be ascribed to the hand of ,luke himself1 working upon a source identical with ,matthew's version4 ,let anyone compare ,luke's treatment of the sayings of ,jesus in ,mark with the treatment of this saying1 which would be required upon the hypothesis of an identical source before him and ,matthew1 and he will feel that that hypothesis cannot be maintained4 ,and yet1 in addition to the general similarity in the sections1 there is one other thing that argues strongly for their inclusion in some form of ,q1 viz41 their position1 as conclusions1 respectively1 to the ,sermon on the ,mount1 and the ,sermon on the ,plain4 ,the writer therefore ascribes them to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,the ,,centurion',s ,,son 7,mt viii1 #e-aj2 ,lk vii1 #a-i7 ,this is the one narrative section almost universally assigned to ,q4 ,but in the first part of the story there is wide divergence4 ,matthew says the centurion himself came to ,jesus4 ,luke not only says he did not come1 but explains why he sent messengers instead of coming himself4 ,burton alleges that ,matthew's omission of the item of the messengers is characteristic of him1 with his tendency to condensation4 ,but that the messengers were not in the original story1 but were added by ,luke 7or his source7 and not omitted by ,matthew1 is plain from the fact that the conversation1 even in ,luke1 is based upon the supposition that the centurion had made his request in person4 ,in ,luke's vss4 #c-f1 which contain the account of the sending of the messengers1 there are at least five ,lucan words 7,greek3 entimos1 paragenomenoi1 spoudais1 makran1 apechontos74 ,these occur in the portion of the story unparalleled in ,matthew4 ,but there are also three such ,lucan words in the two following verses1 where the story of ,luke runs quite closely parallel to that of ,matthew 7,greek3 dio1 xisa1 tassomenos74 ,the changing of a detail1 even an important detail1 in the narrative part of such a section1 especially when contrasted with general faithfulness to the source in that part containing the words of ,jesus1 would be characteristic of ,luke4 ,the humility and faith of the centurion are much enhanced by the change4 ,yet1 as ,jlicher remarks1 ,luke probably did not invent this item of his story2 he may have imported it from an oral tradition1 following ,q in the remainder of the story4 ,even the presence of the ,lucan words would not prove the ,lucan invention of the sending of the messengers1 since these words may have come from ,luke's special source for this item and not from himself1 tho this latter supposition would tell against the assumption that this special source was an oral one4 ,of these ,lucan words1 ,greek3 entimos is used a second time by ,luke 7xiv1 #h7 in a passage not paralleled in ,matthew2 it is not used by him in ,acts4 ,greek3 ,paragenomenoi is used once by ,mark1 three times by ,matthew1 eight times by ,luke in his ,gospel1 and twenty times in the ,book of ,acts4 ,greek3 ,spoudais is found here only in the ,gospels1 and not in ,acts4 ,greek3 ,makran is used once by ,matthew1 once by ,mark1 twice by ,luke in his ,gospel1 and three times in ,acts4 ,greek3 ,apechontes 7in the intransitive sense7 occurs twice in ,matthew1 once in ,mark1 three times in ,luke's ,gospel1 and not in ,acts4 ,greek3 ,dio occurs once in ,mark1 once in ,matthew1 twice in ,luke's ,gospel1 and eight times in ,acts4 ,greek3 ,axio is found in ,luke only among the ,gospels1 and twice in ,acts4 ,greek3 ,tass is found in some texts of ,matthew in this passage1 but has probably been assimilated from ,luke4 ,it is found in one other passage in ,matthew1 in this passage in ,luke1 not in ,mark1 and five times in ,acts4 ,these facts cannot be said to throw much light on whether ,luke is here to be charged with the verses in which these words occur1 or whether they may have stood in his source4 ,but considering the extremely close agreement between ,luke's vss4 #g;b-#i and ,matthew's vss4 #h;b-#aj 7note especially the ,greek3 eipe log1 unparalleled elsewhere71 the best conclusion may be that the story stood in ,q1 much as it now stands in ,matthew1 and that ,luke1 perhaps having heard this other version of the story1 has himself altered the narrative part of it4 ,,many ,,shall ,,come ,,from ,,east ,,and ,,west 7,mt viii1 #aa-ab2 ,lk xiii1 #bh-bi7 ,in ,matthew these words are interpolated into the story of the centurion's son2 in ,luke they occur as part of an eschatological speech4 ,they seem better in place with ,luke than with ,matthew4 ,the sentence ,there shall be weeping1 etc41 is transposed by one evangelist or the other2 as it is used in five other places by ,matthew1 and as he has probably imported into the story of the centurion the verses in which it occurs1 it is probable that the transposition is due to him4 ,there is sufficient divergence in wording between ,matthew and ,luke to warrant the assignment of the verses to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,two ,,men ,,who ,,would ,,follow ,,jesus 7,mt viii1 #ai-bb2 ,lk ix1 #eg-fj7 ,to these two sayings ,matthew and ,luke supply respectively their own introductions4 ,in the first saying1 after the introduction1 thirty-one consecutive words are identical1 except for ,luke's substitution of ,greek3 eipen for the original ,greek3 legei which still appears in ,matthew4 ,in the second saying1 after the introduction1 the verbal resemblance is close1 tho not so close as in the first saying4 ,the second half of ,luke's vs4 #fj has a late sound1 and may be attributed either to ,luke or his copy of ,q4 ,but the resemblance thruout is close enough to warrant the assignment of the section simply to ,q4 ,,the ,,harvest ,,is ,,great 7,mt ix1 #cg-ch2 ,lk x1 #b7 ,this saying occurs in ,matthew's sending out of the twelve and in ,luke's sending out of the seventy4 ,twenty-one consecutive words are identical except for the transposition of two words4 ,it is assigned to ,q4 ,,the ,,laborer ,,is ,,worthy ,,of ,,his ,,hire 7,mt x1 #aj;c2 ,lk x1 #g;b7 ,mark and ,q both contained accounts of the sending out of the disciples4 ,this is one of the fragments preserved from ,q by ,matthew and ,luke1 but not found in ,mark4 ,it is identical except for the substitution of ,greek3 misthou for ,greek3 trophs4 ,the change may be attributed to ,luke or his recension of ,q2 in this case the change is so slight as to be easily chargeable to ,luke2 it may bespeak a time later than that indicated by ,matthew's form--a time when the traveling preachers received not only their food but some slight wage4 ,it stood in ,q4 ,,greet ,,the ,,house 7,mt x1 #aa-ac2 ,lk x1 #e-h7 ,this is one of the best illustrations of the advantages of the hypothesis of the two recensions of ,q4 ,matthew says greet the house4 ,luke preserves the ,aramaic form of that greeting1 which was ,peace to this house4 ,but that this1 and not ,matthew's indefinite form1 was what stood in the original ,q is shown by the fact that ,matthew adds1 ,if the house is worthy1 let your peace come upon it2 but if it is unworthy1 let your peace return to you4#ig ,luke has here the phrase son of peace1 similar to the phrases elsewhere found in his ,gospel1 sons of light1 sons of consolation1 sons of this generation1 sons of the resurrection4 ,these phrases have an ,aramaic sound which we should expect to encounter in almost any of the ,gospels sooner than in ,luke's4 ,he certainly never would have invented them4 ,the translation variants stamp the section as belonging to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,more ,,tolerable ,,for ,,sodom 7,mt x1 #ae2 ,lk x1 #ab7 ,the variations are slight4 ,greek3 ,amn might be taken to indicate ,q,mt1 but it might also easily have been omitted by ,luke because of its ,aramaic tone4 ,the section may be safely ascribed to ,q4 ,,sheep ,,among ,,wolves 7,mt x1 #af;a2 ,lk x1 #c7 ,luke substitutes ,greek3 arnas for ,matthew's ,greek3 probata1 thus heightening the contrast4 ,it may be assigned to ,q4 ,,how ,,to ,,act ,,under ,,persecution 7,mt x1 #ai-bj2 ,lk xii1 #aa-ab7 ,although there is general similarity in idea1 there is very little verbal resemblance here1 perhaps not enough to warrant assignment to any common source1 even in differing recensions4 ,yet the proximity of other ,q material in both ,gospels and the general character of the verses will perhaps make assignment to ,q,mt and ,q,lk more reasonable than any other4 ,,the ,,disciple ,,and ,,his ,,teacher 7,mt x1 #bd-be2 ,lk vi1 #dj7 ,the agreement here is close for a part of the saying2 but ,matthew adds a clause about the servant and his lord1 and a reference to the ,beelzebul controversy4 ,whether attributed to ,luke or his source1 his addition of ,greek3 katrtismenos may indicate the feeling that the statement as to the equality of the disciple and his teacher required some qualification4 ,this would be more strongly felt1 however1 if ,luke had preserved the word ,greek3 kyrios1 which would refer more unmistakably to ,jesus4 ,in ,luke this section occurs in the ,sermon on the ,plain2 since ,matthew has put much material in his corresponding ,sermon on the ,mount which is not in ,luke's ,sermon on the ,plain1 even when he has had to bring this from many other connections1 it is strange that he has left out of that sermon this saying1 which stands in the corresponding discourse in ,luke4 ,this is one of the phenomena difficult of explanation upon the simple hypothesis of ,q2 since upon that hypothesis ,matthew should have found this saying in the same connection as that in which ,luke found it1 and why1 so finding it1 he not only took pains to add so much to it1 but to transpose it upon the opposite principle to that which he has followed in the transposition of most other ,q material1 is not easy to explain4 ,on these grounds the saying is ascribed to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,exhortation ,,to ,,fearless ,,confession 7,mt x1 #bf-cc2 ,lk xii1 #b-i7 ,the agreements and variations in this section are precisely such as to indicate an ultimate common source1 but immediate different sources4 ,in ,matthew's vs4 #bg and ,luke's vs4 #c1 with many of the same words retained1 the meaning is directly reversed4 ,on the other hand1 ,greek3 phobeisthe 7phobthte7 with ,greek3 apo is found here only in the ,new ,testament1 and not at all in the ,septuagint4 ,unless this be ascribed to assimilation1 it is a coincidence too marked to be explained except by the supposition of an ultimate common source4 ,the same thing is to be said of the phrase ,greek3 homologsei en in ,matthew's vs4 #cb and ,luke's vs4 #h4 ,yet in the midst of the section there is a passage of twenty or twenty-five words in which there is practically no verbal coincidence1 tho the idea is the same4 ,luke substitutes have not anything else that they can do1 for ,matthew's phrase can not kill the soul2 it has been suggested that this latter was not congenial to ,luke's ,greek method of thot4 ,where ,matthew mentions the price of sparrows as two for a farthing1 ,luke specifies it as five for two farthings4 ,the section contains no narrative matter4 ,a comparison of the deviations between ,matthew and ,luke here1 with their agreements with each other in sections where they are taking over the discourse material of ,jesus from ,mark1 will show that these deviations are decidedly too great to be ascribed to the agency of either ,matthew or ,luke4 ,the passage is therefore assigned to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,strife ,,among ,,relatives 7,mt x1 #cd-cf2 ,lk xii1 #ea-ec7 ,luke's version seems more elaborated and less original than ,matthew's4 ,luke certainly would not have substituted the comparatively colorless word ,greek3 diamerismon for ,greek3 machairan if this latter had stood in his source4 ,without the hypothesis of the two recensions this section would have to be assigned to totally different1 perhaps oral1 sources4 ,greek3 diameriz is used once by ,mark1 and ,matthew and ,luke have both copied it from him in that connection4 ,neither ,matthew nor ,mark uses the word again2 ,luke uses it in five other places in his ,gospel1 including the section now under consideration4 ,as he uses it but twice in ,acts1 it seems more likely to have been found in his source than to have been here inserted by him4 ,this would tell strongly against the supposition that ,matthew and ,luke are here working over an identical source2 in other words1 it would remove this section from simple undifferentiated ,q4 ,only the general character of the material1 its close resemblance in meaning in the two ,gospels1 and its proximity in each ,gospel to other ,q material1 can justify its assignment to ,q,mt and ,q,lk--and then1 even1 with uncertainty4 ,,conditions ,,of ,,discipleship 7,mt x1 #cg-ci2 ,lk xiv1 #bf-bg2 xvii1 #cc7 ,luke's statement is much stronger1 and so presumably older1 than ,matthew's4 ,wellhausen says ,matthew has been refined out of ,luke4 ,in ,matthew1 the two sayings about taking up the cross1 and about finding and losing one's life1 follow each other2 in ,luke1 at this place1 they are separated by more than three chapters4 ,but both ,matthew and ,luke give both of these sayings a second time1 and the second time the two sayings are continuous in both1 as they also are in ,mark1 from whom they are taken4 ,the facts seem therefore to have been that ,matthew and ,luke each took both of these sayings from two sources2 that in ,mark the two sayings occurred together2 that in ,luke's recension of ,q 7at least71 they were separated2 that they were probably separated in ,matthew's ,q also1 but he has combined them according to his habit1 helped here by the recollection of the continuity of the two sayings in ,mark4 ,the substitution of who seeks to find his soul for the simpler form who finds his soul might easily be ascribed to ,luke2 it is in the interest of logicality4 ,but it is quite unlike ,luke to have added from oral tradition1 or to have inserted from any other written source1 so much matter of his own as is found in his vs4 #bf4 ,the section is therefore assigned to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,he ,,that ,,receiveth ,,you 7,mt x1 #dj2 ,lk x1 #af7 ,luke has a doublet for this saying in ,lk ix1 #dh1 where the form is slightly more like ,matthew's than at this point2 but ix1 #dh1 appears to be taken from ,mark1 with reminiscence of ,q4 ,the saying is also given twice in the ,fourth ,gospel1 and with the saying just considered constitutes the total of sayings occurring in all four ,gospels4 ,luke has taken the saying once from ,mark and once from ,q4 ,considering ,matthew's partiality to doublets1 the fact that he has the saying only once might be taken to indicate its absence from his recension of ,q4 ,the saying may therefore be assigned to ,q,lk4 ,,the ,,question ,,of ,,the ,,baptist ,,and ,,jesus' ,,answer 7,mt xi1 #b-ai2 ,lk vii1 #ah-ce7 ,with the exception of the introduction in ,luke1 this long section may safely be assigned to ,q4 ,the preceding narrative in ,matthew has supplied a warrant for the statement of ,jesus about his healings2 ,luke1 not having led up to the conversation by a similar narrative1 inserts the statement here that in that hour he healed many sick1 etc4 ,after the introductions1 the verbal resemblance is extremely close1 considering the length of the section4 ,of one hundred and ninety-nine words in ,matthew and two hundred and three in ,luke1 about one hundred and sixty-eight are identical4 ,,the ,,woe ,,upon ,,the ,,galilean ,,cities 7,mt xi1 #bj-bd2 ,lk x1 #ac-ae7 ,this section is practically identical in both ,gospels1 except for ,matthew's vs4 #bd and the last half of vs4 #bc1 which have no parallel in ,luke4 ,they are an elaboration upon the words that precede them1 and may be ascribed to ,matthew or an editor4 ,the section may be assigned to ,q4 ,i ,,thank ,,thee1 ,o ,,father 7,mt xi1 #be-bg2 ,lk x1 #ba-bb7 ,the introduction1 again1 has been supplied by each evangelist1 tho it is not impossible that the introduction given in ,matthew may have been taken from ,q4 ,after the introductions1 twenty-nine consecutive words are identical4 ,again1 after ,luke's insertion of a few transitional words1 the saying1 ,all things are given to me of my ,father1 runs almost1 tho not quite1 word for word in the two ,gospels4 ,the connecting words in ,luke would seem to indicate that these two sayings were not consecutive in ,q4 ,it is not necessary to have recourse to the recensions here4 ,,jesus' ,,defense ,,against ,,the ,,pharisees 7,mt xii1 #bg-bh2 ,lk xi1 #ai-bj7 ,these verses occur in the midst of a narrative which ,matthew and ,luke have taken from ,mark4 ,mark has no parallel for these verses1 and the resemblance in ,matthew and ,luke is very close2 the saying is in fact identical except for ,luke's use of ,greek3 daktyl for ,matthew's ,greek3 pneumati4 ,the fact that in the succeeding verses ,matthew follows ,mark practically word for word1 while ,luke has a version entirely his own1 may perhaps indicate that the narrative stood in both ,mark and ,q1 ,matthew having followed ,mark thruout1 except for the verses here considered1 and ,luke having followed chiefly ,q1 with an occasional deference to ,mark4 ,it may safely be assigned to ,q4 ,,he ,,that ,,is ,,not ,,with ,,me 7,mt xii1 #cj2 ,lk xi1 #bc7 ,a statement the exact reverse of this occurs in ,mk ix1 #dj1 in a different context4 ,the words here are identical in the two ,gospels1 the order also being the same4 ,it stood in ,q4 ,,jonah ,,and ,,the ,,ninevites 7,mt xii1 #ch-db2 ,lk xi1 #bi-cb7 ,each evangelist has supplied his own introduction4 ,matthew's vs4 #dj is probably an interpolation1 or at least a late addition4 ,beginning with ,matthew's vs4 #da and ,luke's vs4 #cb 7the order of ,luke's verses has been reversed1 perhaps by error of a scribe1 since no motive appears for the change71 there are fifty-three words in ,matthew1 fifty-five in ,luke1 and fifty-three of them are identical4 ,the verses are therefore universally assigned to ,q4 ,a ,,speech ,,about ,,backsliding 7,mt xii1 #dc-de2 ,lk xi1 #bd-bf7 ,the correspondence here also is very close2 out of sixty-two words in ,matthew and fifty-five in ,luke1 fifty-four are identical4 ,matthew's surplus of eight words is accounted for by the addition of a clause not found in ,luke1 and probably a later addition in ,matthew2 it does not disturb the practical identity thruout the rest of the saying4 ,it evidently stood in ,q4 ,,blessed ,,are ,,the ,,eyes ,,that ,,see 7,mt xiii1 #af-ag2 ,lk x1 #bc-bd7 ,luke has supplied his own introduction4 ,matthew has1 as parallel to the eyes that see1 the ears that hear4 ,this may be a later addition in ,matthew2 or ,luke1 not caring so much for the ,aramaic parallelism as ,matthew does1 may have omitted it4 ,luke has kings where ,matthew has righteous men2 ,greek3 dikaios is a favorite word with ,matthew2 on the other hand1 ,luke's use of kings may indicate an apologetic intention upon ,luke's part4 ,the saying may be assigned to ,q1 and the variations charged jointly to ,matthew and ,luke4 ,,the ,,parable ,,of ,,the ,,yeast 7,mt xiii1 #cc2 ,lk xiii1 #bj-ba7 ,the introductions in the two ,gospels are slightly different4 ,after these1 fourteen consecutive words are alike1 the only deviation being ,matthew's use 7as always7 of ,greek3 tn ourann where ,luke has ,greek3 tou theou4 ,the parable stood in ,q4 ,,the ,,blind ,,leading ,,the ,,blind 7,mt xv1 #ad2 ,lk vi1 #ci7 ,this is another instance of a saying which occurs in ,luke's ,sermon on the ,plain but outside of ,matthew's ,sermon on the ,mount4 ,matthew has apparently inserted it in the midst of a discourse against the ,pharisees1 the rest of which he has taken from ,mark4 ,the sayings in ,matthew and ,luke are not identical4 ,if the saying stood in ,q1 and ,matthew removed it from its ,lucan connection to its present position in his ,gospel1 this was certainly a very unusual procedure with him4 ,the saying is given as a parable in ,luke1 and has the brevity of the parables that were given in ,q1 tho not their usual reference to the kingdom of ,god4 ,it is hard to think of ,matthew1 with his fondness for these brief parables1 deliberately omitting to call the saying by this name when it was so called in his source4 ,on the whole1 however1 it seems best to assign the saying to ,q1 and to charge ,matthew with its displacement4 ,a ,,saying ,,about ,,faith 7,mt xvii1 #bj2 ,lk xvii1 #f7 ,the parallel here is not close4 ,but ,matthew has a doublet in xxi1 #ba1 and ,mark a similar saying in xi1 #bb4 ,the saying seems therefore to have been in both ,mark and ,q1 and was taken by ,matthew from both sources and by ,luke from one4 ,the connection of the saying in ,luke indicates that he took it from ,q2 yet his saying is not the same as ,matthew's1 in that he substitutes a sycamore tree for ,matthew's mountain1 thus greatly weakening the comparison4 ,the two sayings certainly cannot have been derived by ,matthew and ,luke from an identical source4 ,it is only on the ground of their general logian character that they can be assigned to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,a ,,saying ,,about ,,offenses 7,mt xviii1 #g2 ,lk xvii1 #a7 ,the comparison here is complicated by the fact that this saying apparently stood in both ,mark and ,q4 ,it is closely1 but in reverse order by the two later evangelists1 connected with a saying taken from ,mark4 ,it may be assigned to ,q4 ,,the ,,stray ,,sheep 7,mt xviii1 #ab-ad2 ,lk xv1 #d-g7 ,there seems here to be little or no literary relationship4 ,the two passages appear to be rather different versions of the same parable1 which have come down thru different channels4 ,if it be assumed that ,matthew's version is from ,q1 there is not enough literary agreement between it and ,luke's to prove the latter to be from any recension of that document4 ,considering the larger content of ,matthew's recension1 and his apparently greater unwillingness to make omissions from it1 it might be safe to assign this to ,q,mt1 but to leave ,luke's source for his version unspecified4 ,at the same time it is well to remember that the parables stand apparently half-way between the narratives and the sayings1 as regards the willingness of the evangelists to deviate from the wording found before them4 ,if enough may be allowed for this difference between parables and sayings1 the divergence between the two ,gospels in this section might not be considered too great to be accounted for by the known habits of ,matthew and ,luke1 working on different recensions of an original ,q2 and so the passage might be assigned to ,q,mt and ,q,lk--but certainly not with any confidence4 ,,about ,,forgiveness 7,mt xviii1 #ba-bb2 ,lk xvii1 #d7 ,these might be considered merely as variants of the same original saying4 ,if the reference to ,peter be taken1 like some of the other references to him in ,matthew1 to be later than the saying itself1 the insertion of this reference in ,matthew1 whether by ,matthew or his source1 may have changed the form of the saying from its original as preserved in ,luke4 ,but the very slight verbal agreement makes any specification of a common literary source hazardous4 ,,rewards ,,for ,,discipleship 7,mt xix1 #bh2 ,lk xxii1 #bh-cj7 ,the first part of this section varies greatly between ,matthew and ,luke2 with strong similarity in idea1 there is practically no verbal agreement4 ,the last ten words are almost identical4 ,matthew inserts the section into a speech the rest of which is taken from ,mark4 ,luke takes the same speech from ,mark1 without making this insertion4 ,the verses occur with him in quite another context4 ,his vs4 #cj;a is more primary than anything in ,matthew's version4 ,the first part of the section contains too little agreement to have been worked out of an identical source2 the last part agrees so closely as to indicate an ultimate common source4 ,we therefore assign the section to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,against ,,the ,,pharisees 7,mt xxiii1 #d2 ,lk xi1 #df7 ,the agreement is slight1 but somewhat significant4 ,greek3 phortion is used only thrice in the ,new ,testament outside of this passage4 ,this is the chief linguistic warrant for assigning the passage to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,,whoso ,,humbles ,,himself 7,mt xxiii1 #ab2 ,lk xiv1 #aa7 ,this proverbial saying is used by ,luke in this instance as the conclusion of a speech about taking the chief seats at a feast4 ,he also uses it in xviii1 #ad1 as the conclusion to his parable of the ,publican and the ,pharisee in the temple4 ,matthew also uses it in two very different contexts2 here as part of a speech against the ,pharisees1 and in xviii1 #d1 with reference to a child as type of true greatness4 ,considering these various usages1 the brevity of the saying1 and its apparently proverbial character1 it can scarcely be assigned to any form of ,q1 tho it certainly cannot be proved not to have been in that document4 ,,against ,,the ,,pharisees 7,mt xxiii1 #ac2 ,lk xi1 #eb7 ,it is possible to regard these rather as variants of the same saying than as workings over of the same source4 ,even in the divergences1 however1 some striking resemblances are to be noted4 ,matthew says ,greek3 kleiete tn basileian2 ,luke says ,greek3 rate tn kleida4 ,these words seem to betray a common literary source in the background4 ,the idea conveyed by the two phrases is the same4 ,matthew says1 ,ye shut up the kingdom of heaven before men2 ,luke says1 ,ye take away the key of knowledge 7of salvation1 probably1 as in ,lk i1 #gg74 ,the last part of the saying is still more unmistakably based upon an ultimate common source4 ,yet1 as ,i have so often argued with reference to other and similar sections1 to ascribe to either ,matthew or ,luke1 working upon an identical source1 the amount of re-working here involved1 credits them with a degree of freedom in the treatment of ,jesus' sayings which finds no parallel in their treatment of such sayings as they take them from the ,gospel of ,mark4 ,we therefore assign the section to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,but such assignment cannot be insisted upon4 ,,against ,,the ,,pharisees 7,mt xxiii1 #bc-bf2 ,lk xi1 #ci-db7 ,there is thruout this section a varying degree of verbal agreement4 ,the sections are very differently placed1 ,matthew putting them among the ,jerusalem sayings1 ,luke early in the ministry4 ,what is conclusive evidence for some form of ,q1 indeed for the two recensions1 is the translation variant in vss4 #bf and #da4ih ,the section is thus not merely assigned1 but we may say is demonstrated to belong1 to ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,a ,,woe ,,upon ,,the ,,scribes 7,mt xxiii1 #bi-ca2 ,lk xi1 #dg-dh7 ,there is so little verbal agreement here as to raise the question whether we have not merely two different traditions of the same saying4 ,what inclines us to cling to the assignment to ,q,mt and ,q,lk is the fact that these words are preceded and followed in both ,gospels by passages which have much more close verbal agreement with each other than is found in this section4 ,the verses are assigned to ,q by all five of the investigators quoted at the beginning of this chapter4 ,but anyone who will compare the slight verbal agreement thruout these verses with the verbal identity shown in other passages assigned to ,q will wonder why these scholars have not availed themselves of the hypothesis of the two recensions4 ,for upon the basis of their treatment of other passages1 both from ,q and from ,mark1 the divergences in this passage are altogether too great to be assigned directly to ,matthew or ,luke4 ,i ,,send ,,unto ,,you ,,prophets 7,mt xxiii1 #cd-cf2 ,lk xi1 #di-ea7 ,the assignment of this section to simple ,q1 and the ascription of all divergences to one or the other of the evangelists1 would be easier if it could be shown that either evangelist shows a uniform tendency in the divergences4 ,but such is not the case4 ,luke seems more primary1 and nearer to the source1 when he quotes the words of the passage from ,the ,wisdom of ,god2 for no evangelist1 finding the words ascribed to ,jesus in his source1 would take them away from him and ascribe them to anyone else4 ,but ,matthew1 or his source1 may merely have interpreted the words ,the ,wisdom of ,god to refer to ,jesus4 ,luke is later than ,matthew1 where he substitutes apostles for ,matthew's scribes2 but ,matthew is secondary to ,luke where he has ,greek3 staursete1 in apparent reminiscence of the death of ,jesus4 ,he is also secondary in his vs4 #cd1 which seems to reflect the persecutions of the ,christians4 ,but ,luke again is secondary in omitting ,matthew's mistaken identification of ,zachariah as the son of ,barachiah4 ,the use of verbs in the second person in ,luke and in the third person in ,matthew is accounted for by the quotation in the one ,gospel and the direct address in the other4 ,greek3 epi ts gs and ,greek3 apo katabols kosmou may be translation variants4 ,careful comparison of the verbal similarities indicates unmistakably a common literary source lying in the background2 but a source much worked over before reaching ,matthew and ,luke4 ,,the ,,lament ,,over ,,jerusalem 7,mt xxiii1 #cg-ci2 ,lk xiii1 #cd-ce7 ,tho placed so differently by ,matthew and ,luke1 this section has the greatest verbal agreement4 ,out of fifty-six words in ,matthew and fifty-three in ,luke1 fifty are identical4 ,luke omits the repetition of one verb1 omits desolate and substitutes two particles of his own for four of ,matthew's4 ,harnack's explanation of ,luke's omission of desolate#ii on the ground that the meaning is the same without it does not seem conclusive4 ,it is better to assume that it was added by ,matthew in deference to ,jer xxii1 #e4 ,the wording of the section shows so little deviation between the two ,gospels that it may be assigned simply to ,q4 ,,the ,,day ,,of ,,the ,,son ,,of ,,man 7,mt xxiv1 #bf-bg2 ,lk xvii1 #bc-bd7 ,there is slight verbal resemblance here1 but enough to indicate unmistakably a literary relationship4 ,q,mt and ,q,lk are much more likely than simple ,q4 ,,the ,,body ,,and ,,the ,,eagles 7,mt xxiv1 #bh2 ,lk xvii1 #cg7 ,in ,matthew1 but not in ,luke1 these words form the conclusion to the words just considered4 ,the substitution of ,greek3 sma for ,greek3 ptma sounds like an oral variation2 but it may be ,luke's way of avoiding a word which he nowhere uses4 ,the wording is otherwise so close as to warrant assignment to simple ,q4 ,,the ,,days ,,of ,,noah 7,mt xxiv1 #cg-ci2 ,lk xvii1 #bf-bg7 ,luke1 or his recension of ,q1 says here1 as elsewhere1 the days of the ,son of man1 where ,matthew says the parousia of the ,son of man4 ,the reason for this deviation is not obvious1 unless the variation was in the source4 ,we therefore assign the passage to the two recensions4 ,,the ,,one ,,taken1 ,,the ,,other ,,left 7,mt xxiv1 #dj-da2 ,lk xvii1 #cd-ce7 ,in ,matthew1 but not in ,luke1 these words are immediately connected with those just discussed4 ,luke1 or his source1 wishes to indicate that the parousia may be in the night1 and so adds the words ,greek3 nykti and ,greek3 klins4 ,but the arrangement of the verses is in the same order in both ,gospels1 and there is strong similarity1 especially in vss4 #da and #ce4 ,we consider assignment to ,q,mt and ,q,lk to account most nearly for all the facts4 ,,the ,,watching ,,servant 7,mt xxiv1 #dc-dd2 ,lk xii1 #ci-dj7 ,the verbal coincidence here is great4 ,the last fourteen words are exactly alike in both ,gospels1 even to their order4 ,it should be assigned to simple ,q4 ,,the ,,true ,,and ,,false ,,servant 7,mt xxiv1 #de-ea2 ,lk xii1 #db-df7 ,the connection of these sections with the one just considered is the same in both ,gospels4 ,the verbal agreement is equally striking4 ,out of one hundred and ten words in ,matthew and one hundred and two in ,luke1 eighty-two are identical2 twenty-six of these occur consecutively and with no deviation in order4 ,the section may be assigned to ,q4 ,,results ,,of ,,the ,,preceding ,,investigation ,this investigation yields about one hundred and ninety ,q verses 7in some instances only parts of verses7 in ,matthew1 paralleled by about one hundred and eighty ,q verses in ,luke4 ,the difference in the number of verses has no significance1 being due chiefly to the verses not being similarly divided in the two ,gospels4 ,of this total1 ninety-eight in ,matthew and ninety-four in ,luke are ascribed simply to ,q4 ,this does not mean1 as has been said before1 that ,matthew and ,luke both had a document ,q1 and in addition ,matthew had a document ,q,mt and ,luke another document ,q,lk2 but merely that ,matthew and ,luke had two recensions of ,q1 each of which had passed thru a history of its own1 and had become in many ways differentiated from the other2 and that in certain parts of each recension such differentiation had not occurred1 so that these sections of the two recensions may still be referred to under the symbol ,q4 ,of the two recensions1 therefore1 so far as these reappear in parallels in ,matthew and ,luke1 about half in each differs so widely from the same half in the other that it is altogether unreasonable to attribute the difference to either or both of the evangelists4 ,if it be asked1 why we should attempt to attribute to any form of ,q this material which is too seriously dissimilar to have been drawn directly by the evangelists from an identical source--why we do not simply assign this to totally separate sources1 and restrict ,q to the sections which are practically identical in the two ,gospels--the answer is3 this material in the two gospels seems to betray not merely an oral but a literary affinity2 it is of the same general character as that which is assigned directly to ,q2 and almost without exception1 in one gospel or the other or in both1 it is inextricably mingled with this4 ,thruout this discussion the distinction between narrative material and sayings-material1 and the difference in treatment accorded to these two kinds of material by ,matthew and ,luke1 must be constantly borne in mind4 ,the amount of literary divergence that may be fairly assigned to the initiative of ,matthew or ,luke in their use of a document of sayings is hard to define4 ,but ,sir ,john ,hawkins is surely wrong when he says#ajj that ,matthew and ,luke need not be expected to adhere more closely to ,q than they do to ,mark4 ,for in the sayings of ,jesus which they find in ,mark1 ,matthew and ,luke do generally adhere very closely4 ,it is in the narrative portions of ,mark that they permit themselves liberties4 ,but there is little or no narrative in ,q2 the only certain instance of narrative being that of the healing of the centurion's son2 and in this instance it is significant that the deviations between ,matthew and ,luke are in the narrative and not in the logian portions4 ,speaking of each document as a whole1 it should be clear that ,q would be followed with very much greater fidelity than ,mark by both ,matthew and ,luke4 ,now the translation variants are proof positive of two ,greek translations of the original ,aramaic ,q1 these two translations having been made from two texts of the original which betray some divergences or corruptions4 ,tho these two ,greek translations were thus made from two ,aramaic copies1 nevertheless in about half of the matter which ,matthew and ,luke agree in taking from these translations no substantial differences had crept in2 but half1 also1 shows deviations too great to be ascribed to ,matthew and ,luke4 ,if all the matter common to ,matthew and ,luke were identical1 or nearly so1 no need would arise for ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,if it were all as dissimilar as half of it is1 no place would be left for ,q of any sort4 ,the distinction between ,matthew's and ,luke's recensions of ,q best accounts alike for the agreements and the divergences4 ,in the preceding examination the number of ,q 7including ,q,mt and ,q,lk7 verses ascribed to ,matthew and ,luke respectively is substantially the same as the number ascribed to them by ,harnack and ,hawkins in ,tables ,,ii and ,,iii 7pp4 #aaj-aa and #aaf-ag74 ,this agreement merely indicates that ,harnack and ,hawkins have confined their ,q material pretty closely to the sections which show the greatest verbal agreement4 ,the difference between the position reached in these pages and that reached by ,harnack and ,hawkins is that the present writer feels that those two scholars cannot be justified in ascribing such wide divergences to the literary activity of the evangelists themselves1 and that they have hampered themselves by not taking advantage of the fact of the recensions1 as guaranteed to us by the translation variants4 ,,chapter ,,iii ,q ,,in ,,the ,,single ,,tradition ,,of ,,matthew 7,,qmt7 ,thus far1 examination has been made of only such material as is somewhat closely duplicated in ,matthew and ,luke4 ,examination will now be made of the sayings that are found in ,matthew1 unduplicated in ,luke1 to see whether any of these may also be assigned1 with any great probability1 to ,q4 ,in this unduplicated material no data are at hand for distinguishing ,q,mt from simple ,q2 but since ,q,mt is the symbol for the copy of ,q used by ,matthew1 that symbol will be employed here instead of ,q4 ,the criteria for distinguishing ,q material in ,matthew unduplicated by ,luke are the general character of the material1 chiefly its eschatological use of the phrase the kingdom of heaven1 its ,jewish coloring1 its antipathy to the ,pharisees1 the absence of indications of ,matthean invention1 and the proximity to and connection with other material heretofore attributed to ,q or ,q,mt4 ,this last item is not so important in ,matthew1 on account of his habit of transposing his ,q material2 yet within limits it is a valuable criterion4 ,examination will be made of all passages in which there is reason to suspect the possible presence of ,q material4 ,this having been done in the case of the ,gospel of ,matthew1 a similar examination will be made of the ,gospel of ,luke4 ,the results of these two examinations will give us data for the comparison of ,q as used by ,matthew and ,q as used by ,luke4 ,we shall then be able to say whether the differences between what we have called ,q,mt and what we have called ,q,lk are too great for the assumption that they are different recensions of the same ground-document4 ,matter already assigned to ,q 7or ,q,mt or ,q,lk7 will not be examined again4 ,as the sayings reported in each ,gospel are examined1 in cases where the material is rejected from ,q,mt or ,q,lk1 suggestions will be made as to possible or probable sources4 ,,two ,,beatitudes 7,mt v1 #d-e7 ,many manuscripts invert the order of these beatitudes4 ,vs4 #d;a is a quotation from ,ps xxxvii1 #aa4 ,vs4 #e sounds like a reminiscence of ,ps cxxvi1 #e1 and ,isa lxi1 #b4 ,the tendency to apply prophecy to ,jesus is especially strong in ,matthew2 but whether this should be charged to him or his source remains to be determined4 ,the ,hebrew of the ,hebrew1 or the ,greek3 echrisen of the ,greek1 of ,isa lxi1 #a1 would forcibly suggest such application in this case4 ,of the ,judaistic and the universalistic tendencies found side by side in ,matthew it is probable that the ,judaistic are earlier1 and therefore that they belonged in the source2 the universalistic1 naturally assumed to be later1 will be more easily attributed to ,matthew4 ,aside from this it is hardly to be assumed that ,matthew invented any beatitudes on his own account4 ,from both these considerations it is reasonable to conclude that these two beatitudes were added to ,q before it reached ,matthew4 ,,four ,,more ,,beatitudes 7,mt v1 #g-aj7 ,for vs4 #g there is no close ,old ,testament exemplar1 tho ,joel ii1 #ac1 has been suggested4 ,the suggestion is the more plausible since the same verse would also have served as an indirect source of the next beatitude in vs4 #h4 ,there is no reason for crediting ,matthew with the manufacture of either of these beatitudes4 ,vs4 #h may be reminiscent of ,ps xxiv1 #d2 li1 #aj2 lxxiii1 #a1 as well as of the verse in ,joel4 ,they shall see ,god is probably used here in an eschatological sense4 ,an expression combining the ideas and in part the wording of vss4 #h and #i is found in ,heb xii1 #ad3 ,greek3 ,eirnn dikete 444 hou chris oudeis opsetai ton kyrion4 ,if this is not a reminiscence of these beatitudes in ,matthew1 it at least embodies a similar tradition4 ,the ,greek3 dikaiosyns of vs4 #aj is peculiar to ,matthew among the ,gospels4 ,from its ,judaistic coloring it is to be ascribed to ,matthew's ,q rather than to the evangelist himself4 ,if ,i ,peter iii1 #ad1 be allowed to be a direct reference to this beatitude1 this will heighten the probability that all these beatitudes were added to ,q before its use by ,matthew4 ,it is not impossible that ,matthew found in ,q only the beatitudes now standing in ,luke1 and that he added these others 7also making correction in those now duplicated in ,luke71 not inventing these himself1 but possibly taking them from an oral tradition1 or from a separate written source4 ,but this theory seems to the writer to be much more complicated and less probable than the one here advocated4 ,it is quite out of the question that ,luke should have found these six beatitudes in his ,q and should have omitted them4 ,yet the beatitudes common to ,matthew and ,luke are by all scholars attributed to ,q4 ,harnack is undoubtedly correct in saying1 ,the beatitudes certainly circulated in various recensions from the beginning4#aja ,the process of alteration and accretion would begin long before the days of ,matthew4 ,,ye ,,are ,,the ,,light ,,of ,,the ,,world 7,mt v1 #ad7 ,in the ,johannine tradition this saying has become ,i am the light of the world4 ,like the saying1 ,ye are the salt of the earth 7in ,mt v1 #ac71 it emphasizes1 as against ,luke's version1 the direct address of the beatitudes and the conjoined sayings to the disciples4 ,it probably stood in ,matthew's ,q4 ,,let ,,your ,,light ,,shine 7,mt v1 #af7 ,the intervening vs4 #ae is found in ,luke4 ,with that verse omitted1 the connection between vss4 #ad and #af is improved4 ,i ,peter ii1 #ab1 is a reminiscence1 or almost a direct quotation1 of vs4 #af4 ,of vss4 #ac;a1 #ad1 and #af it should be observed that1 while they are unduplicated in ,luke1 they change the character of all the words in their context from the character which those words have1 so far as they are duplicated1 in ,luke2 for they make of them no longer general remarks1 but words of extremely earnest exhortation addressed directly to the disciples4 ,it is extremely unlikely that ,matthew should have found the sayings in ,q as mere general remarks1 and should himself have given them this character of pointed exhortation by inserting the words1 ,ye are the salt of the earth1 ,ye are the light of the world1 etc4 ,but it is equally improbable that ,luke should have found these pointed words in his recension of ,q1 and should by their omission have degraded the sayings to the rank of mere general observations4 ,the best way to save these sayings for ,q is by the hypothesis of the recensions4 ,,various ,,sayings ,,from ,,the ,,sermon ,,on ,,the ,,mount 7,mt v1 #ag1 #ai-bd1 #bg-bh7 ,concerning the section v1 #ag-dh1 ,hawkins says1 ,i would place this section by itself as one which we may regard as more likely to have formed part of ,q than any other which is to be found in a single ,gospel4#ajb ,yet it is to be noted that in the section of which ,hawkins makes this statement there are eleven verses 7vss4 #ah1 #be1 #bf1 #cb1 #ci1 #dj1 #db1 #dd-dg7 which are not found in a single ,gospel1 but which have very close parallels in ,luke1 and would on this latter consideration be assigned to ,q4 ,this fact heightens the probability that the unduplicated verses should also be assigned to some form of that document4 ,only those verses are considered here which have no parallel in ,luke4 ,thruout these verses there is a strong ,judaistic coloring4 ,they may be compared in this respect with such other ,new ,testament passages as ,rom iii1 #ca2 x1 #d2 ,jas ii1 #aj2 ,,ii ,pet ii1 #ad4 ,the words1 till heaven and earth pass away at the beginning of vs4 #ah do not quite agree with the words until all things be fulfilled at the end of the verse2 the latter words have been suggested by ,schmiedel as being a gloss4 ,if1 with the two verses that follow them1 they be not such a gloss1 they are1 says ,schmiedel1#ajc not from the final editor1 who does not care for ,jewish legalism1 but from some earlier editor4 ,in other words1 universally attributed as the section is to ,q1 these words were not in ,luke's version of that document1 and it is inconceivable that ,matthew should have added them4 ,they are part of the accretion that took place in ,matthew's recension of ,q before it reached ,matthew4 ,harnack1 however1 maintains that there is no inconsistency in attributing the words to ,jesus himself4 ,vs4 #bj illustrates the unchronological placing of the sayings1 since it implies that the break with the pharisees has already occurred4 ,in vss4 #ba and #bb is the word ,greek3 enochos1 occurring four times2 ,matthew uses it in one other passage where he has taken it from ,mark1 who uses it twice2 but ,luke consistently avoids it1 both in his ,gospel and in ,acts4 ,unchronological in their setting are also the words in vss4 #bc-bd2 they were evidently spoken in ,jerusalem1 not in ,galilee4 ,they would not have been added from an oral tradition1 much less invented1 in times as late as those of the final editor of the ,gospel4 ,a ,,saying ,,about ,,offenses 7,mt v1 #bi-cj7 ,for this saying there is a doublet in ,mt xviii1 #h-i1 taken from ,mk ix1 #dc-dh4 ,mark may in this passage also have been following ,q4 ,that this saying should have been absent from ,luke's recension of ,q1 while present in that of both ,matthew and ,mark1 and that it should also1 as ,dr4 ,stanton maintains1 have been absent from ,luke's copy of ,mark1 seems rather too much of a coincidence4 ,but the saying is like several others which ,luke omits because of their strong tincture of asceticism1 or because the instructions in them might be understood in too literal a way4 ,whether it was or was not in ,luke's recension of ,q1 its character and connection seem to indicate its presence in ,matthew's recension of that document4 ,,the ,,commandment ,,about ,,divorce 7,mt v1 #ca7 ,like vss4 #ba1 #bg1 #cc1 #ch1 and #dc of this same chapter1 this verse quotes an ,old ,testament commandment1 as introductory to the teaching of ,jesus upon the subject of that command4 ,since much of the teaching of ,jesus upon these items is duplicated in ,luke1 but this quotation of the ,old ,testament commandment is omitted by him each time1 the quotation will be ascribed either to ,matthew or his source4 ,the fact that it is his source1 and not the final editor 7who for convenience is all along here called ,matthew71 who is responsible for the ,judaistic coloring of the ,gospel1 the universalistic tendency being attributed to ,matthew1 inclines us to assign all these verses in quotation of the commandments to ,q,mt4 ,,about ,,oaths 7,mt v1 #cc-cg7 ,this passage has also a strong ,judaistic coloring4 ,it is reminiscent of ,ps xlviii1 #c4 ,most students assign it simply to ,q4 ,if it stood in ,luke's recension of that document1 the same non-,jewish bias which is observable in many of his omissions of ,marcan material would account for his omission of the saying4 ,it is neither possible nor necessary to prove that these verses were not in ,luke's recension4 ,but considering their character and their context1 it is much more likely that ,matthew took them from his recension of ,q than from any other source known to us4 ,,the ,,second ,,mile 7,mt v1 #da7 ,this sounds like a secondary accretion4 ,it adds little or nothing to the force of the injunction1 and rather interrupts the connection between vss4 #dj and #db4 ,it may have been added by ,matthew from some source of his own2 but more probably stood in ,matthew's ,q4 ,,another ,,old ,,testament ,,commandment 7,mt v1 #dc7 ,in this verse and the five others which quote the commandments1 the word ,greek3 errheth occurs2 it is not used by ,mark or ,luke1 and by ,matthew is used only in these verses4 ,so far as this may be said to throw any light upon the origin of these verses1 it would indicate their presence in ,matthew's recension of ,q1 rather than their invention or addition by ,matthew4 ,,about ,,alms-,,giving 7,mt vi1 #a-d7 ,dr4 ,robinson1 in his ,study of the ,gospels1#ajd maintains1 quite correctly1 that ,matthew's chap4 vi breaks the connection in his ,sermon on the ,mount4 ,if it is omitted1 the connection is not only better1 but is the same as that of ,luke's in his ,sermon on the ,plain4 ,he also considers that ,mt vi1 #g-ae1 breaks the connection between the verses that immediately precede and immediately follow them4 ,he therefore concludes that ,mt vi1 #a-e1 #af-ah1 at one time had a separate existence of its own4 ,this is not impossible4 ,the disarrangement by the insertion of chap4 vi is indeed obvious4 ,bacon1 in his ,sermon on the ,mount1 and ,votaw1 in his article under the same title in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 bring out the same composite character of the ,sermon as ,matthew has it4 ,but much of this material which ,matthew has inserted in his ,sermon on the ,mount is duplicated word for word in other connections in ,luke1 and so is uniformly accredited to ,q4 ,this creates a presumption that the rest of this interpolated material1 especially where it is obviously homogeneous in character with the ,q material generally1 was taken by ,matthew from his recension of ,q4 ,it is not contended that none of this material which ,matthew has here inserted and which is nowhere duplicated in ,luke was in ,luke's recension2 it is only contended that since ,matthew's recension and ,luke's recension are demonstrated to have been different from each other in certain passages1 it is fair to press the argument from this difference to its reasonable limit1 and assume that much if not most of this logian matter peculiar to ,matthew stood before him in his source4 ,in the case of the verses now before us1 however1 it seems extremely improbable that ,luke with his interest in alms-giving 7see ,lk xi1 #da2 xii1 #cc7 should have found them in his source and have omitted them4 ,,about ,,prayer 7,mt vi1 #e-h7 ,this sounds like a midrash on the ,lord's ,prayer4 ,there are several ,matthean words in the passage4 ,greek3 ,misthos is used ten times by ,matthew as against once by ,mark and thrice in ,luke's ,gospel4 ,greek3 ,battaloge is found here only in the ,new ,testament1 and not in the ,septuagint4 ,greek3 ,polylogia is found here only in the ,new ,testament4 ,greek3 ,eisakou is an infrequent word in the ,new ,testament1 being used only in this passage1 in ,luke's chap4 i1 once in ,acts1 and twice in the ,epistles4 ,greek3 ,apodidmi is used eighteen times by ,matthew2 seven of these uses are found in the section xviii1 #be-cd1 and three in the unduplicated verses vi1 #d1 #f1 #ah4 ,it is used once by ,mark and eight times by ,luke in his ,gospel4 ,these facts are hardly enough to establish any verdict as to the origin of the section now in question1 tho they would rather look toward ,matthew's derivation of it1 with its corresponding sections vi1 #a-d1 and vi1 #af-ah1 from some written source4 ,such being the case1 ,matthew's recension of ,q will certainly fit the requirements better than any other known document4 ,,about ,,fasting 7,mt vi1 #af-ah7 ,if the ,lord's ,prayer1 which ,luke gives in another and better connection1 be omitted from ,matthew's chap4 vi1 we shall have here three consecutive sections which have very striking literary resemblances2 they are the sections on alms-giving1 on prayer1 and on fasting4 ,that these should have found no echo in the ,gospel of ,luke1 if they stood in his source1 is strange2 especially considering his peculiar interest in alms-giving and prayer4 ,as to the literary affinities among these three sections1 the use of ,greek3 misthos1 four times1 has been noted4 ,the phrase ,greek3 apechousin ton misthon autn occurs three times2 the longer phrase ,greek3 en t krypt1 kai ho patr sou ho blepn en t krypt apodsei soi1 three times4#aje ,quite without these recurrences of the same formulae1 the form and sentiment of the three sections are so markedly the same as to suggest that they were originally consecutive1 and that they have been taken from one written source4 ,no more probable source can be suggested than ,q,mt4 ,,pearls ,,before ,,swine 7,mt vii1 #f7 ,schmiedel has suggested that this fragment may indicate a time when the eucharist had been so long celebrated as materially to influence the general tradition of the doctrines of ,jesus4 ,a passage somewhat similar in tone is that occurring in the story of the ,canaanitish woman3 it is not proper to take the bread of the children and give it to the dogs4 ,matthew takes this story from ,mark2 but1 significantly1 he has omitted one sentence of ,mark's which tones down the ,jewish particularism of the passage1 let the children first be fed4 ,he also inserts in that story the sentence1 not in ,mark1 ,i am not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of ,israel1 which corresponds somewhat closely with this statement concerning the command of ,jesus to his disciples1 also peculiar to ,matthew1 ,into the way of the nations do not go1 and into a city of the ,samaritans do not enter2 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of ,israel4 ,it is only fair to admit that these instances1 in which ,matthew heightens1 once by insertion and once by omission1 the ,jewish coloring in a story taken from ,mark1 tell against the theory generally advocated by the writer1 that the ,judaistic features of ,matthew's ,gospel are referable to his source1 and the universalistic features to ,matthew himself4 ,but1 on the other hand1 this vs4 #f has no discernible connection in its present context1 and no reason suggests itself for ,matthew's insertion of it1 except his desire to retain what was in his source4 ,this source may have been a special one1 perhaps even an oral one2 but considering the ,judaistic character of so many sayings attributed to ,matthew's ,q1 that recension would also fit this saying4 ,,the ,,false ,,prophets 7,mt vii1 #ae7 ,the mention of the false prophets1 as a class to be avoided1 has a late sound4 ,it is not found elsewhere in the ,gospels except in the little apocalypse and in ,luke vi1 #bf4 ,it is not necessarily as late as ,matthew1 and may fairly be assigned to his recension of ,q4 ,a ,,saying ,,about ,,trees 7,mt vii1 #ai7 ,in an earlier place this saying is attributed by both ,matthew and ,luke to ,john the ,baptist4 ,in that earlier connection it evidently was taken from ,q4 ,it probably did not occur twice in that document1 but was inserted here by ,matthew from memory1 being suggested naturally by the context4 ,it offers no new ,q material4 ,,by ,,their ,,fruits 7,mt vii1 #bj7 ,this verse is a repetition1 with the particle ,greek3 arage prefixed1 of vs4 #af4 ,vs4 #ah is also a repetition in the form of a declarative sentence of what is said in vs4 #ag in the form of a question4 ,the whole speech is considerably longer than the corresponding speech in ,lk vi1 #dc-dd4 ,these repetitions and duplications suggest a good deal of re-working2 but not the sort of re-working that would be done by ,matthew1 whose tendency is to condense instead of to expand4 ,vs4 #bj may be a gloss1 tho ,i am not aware of any manuscript authority against it4 ,there is no new ,q material here4 ,,an ,,oft-,,repeated ,,formula 7,mt vii1 #bh;a7 ,this formula must be considered1 as it is also found in five other places in ,matthew 7xi1 #a2 xiii1 #ec2 xix1 #a2 xxvi1 #a74 ,the first six words of the formula are precisely alike in all five instances1 ,greek3 kai egeneto hote etelesen ho ,isous4 ,in two instances these words are followed by the words ,greek3 tous logous toutous2 in one instance by the words ,greek3 pantas tous logous toutous2 in another instance by the words ,greek3 tas parabolas tautas4 ,in these four instances the formula not only follows a group of sayings1 but is followed by a narrative section2 and so apparently marks the transition from one of ,matthew's sources to another4 ,in the fifth instance1 however1 the closing words of the formula are ,greek3 diatassn tois ddeka mathtais autou2 and in this instance the formula does not mark a transition from ,q to ,mark1 but is followed as it is preceded by ,q material4 ,it is generally argued that since the formula does not occur in either ,mark or ,luke1 and since the construction ,greek3 egeneto hote does not occur in ,matthew outside of these five passages1 but is found twenty-two times in ,luke1 the formula was each time taken by ,matthew from his source4 ,this source must have been ,matthew's recension of ,q1 since the formula is always found with ,q material4 ,considering ,matthew's tendency to repeat himself1 all that need be affirmed is that in at least one of the five instances ,matthew did find the formula in ,q4 ,it certainly could not have occurred five times1 or even three or four times1 in ,luke's source1 and have been each time omitted by him4 ,,the ,,conclusion ,,of ,,the ,,story ,,of ,,the ,,centurion',s ,,servant 7,mt viii1 #ac7 ,harnack thinks this verse of ,matthew's and the corresponding verse in ,luke 7,lk vii1 #aj7 were not in ,q1 tho the rest of the story was4 ,but the deviation here is no greater than it is in the earlier part of the story1 in the item of the messengers4 ,matthew has separated this conclusion of the story from the body of it by his insertion of ,jesus' saying1 ,many shall come from the east and west1 which ,luke gives in another context 7,lk xiii1 #bh-bi74 ,luke's conclusion evidently belongs with his version of the story1 for it contains the reference to the messengers who do not appear in ,matthew's version4 ,some manuscripts give the conclusion to the story in ,matthew in words almost identical with ,luke's4 ,if this deviation in manuscripts suggests that the verse in ,matthew may be a gloss1 this suggestion may be held to be strengthened by the assumption that if ,matthew himself had inserted this concluding verse he would hardly have cut it off from the rest of the story by the saying ,many shall come1 etc4 ,chiefly on the ground of the alternative reading in ,hebrew1 and the ease with which a gloss would be suggested to a scribe who had the ,lucan narrative also before him1 the writer inclines to the opinion that the verse is a later addition4 ,i ,,will ,,have ,,mercy ,,and ,,not ,,sacrifice 7,mt ix1 #ac7 ,there is a duplicate of this quotation in ,mt xii1 #g4 ,in each instance ,matthew has inserted the quotation into a ,marcan narrative4 ,considering the fact of this insertion in each case1 and the absence of a duplicate in ,luke1 the verses may be ascribed to ,matthew1 perhaps upon the basis of an oral tradition4 ,,the ,,healing ,,of ,,two ,,blind ,,men 7,mt ix1 #bg-ca7 ,there is a strong similarity between this story and the story of the healing of two blind men near ,jericho 7,mt xx1 #bi-cd74 ,in the latter case ,matthew substitutes the two men for ,bartimaeus in the story of ,mark and ,luke4 ,the source is apparently a special one1 perhaps an oral tradition influenced by ,mk x1 #df-eb4 ,,the ,,healing ,,of ,a ,,dumb ,,man 7,mt ix1 #cb-cd7 ,vs4 #cd is a doublet of ,mt xii1 #bd2 the latter is from ,mk iii1 #bb1 where ,mark also appears to be following ,q4 ,perhaps ix1 #bg-cd1 has been inserted at just this place1 in order to warrant the statement of ,jesus to ,john the ,baptist that the blind see and the deaf hear4 ,it is hardly necessary to assign it to a special literary source4 ,,instructions ,,to ,,the ,,disciples 7,mt x1 #e-h7 ,these verses have a strong ,judaistic coloring3 ,into a way of the ,gentiles do not go1 and into a city of the ,samaritans do not enter1 etc4 ,they also betray the expectation of the early coming of the parousia4 ,these two items are inconsistent with the invention of these verses by ,matthew4 ,they must have arisen long before ,matthew's time4 ,yet they are imbedded in ,q material4 ,no theory of their origin suits all these facts so well as that they are a portion of the ,q material which was added to that document after its original compilation1 and in the recension that was finally used by ,matthew4 ,it is interesting to observe that ,matthew here makes ,jesus teach his disciples 7vs4 #g7 the same formula which he himself had learned from ,john the ,baptist4 ,,further ,,instructions ,,to ,,the ,,disciples 7,mt x1 #af;b-#be1 #da-db7 ,of the chapter in which this section occurs ,mr4 ,streeter says that ,matthew begins with ,mark1 adds some ,q material parallel to ,luke's ,q material in the same connection1 then ,q material unparalleled1 then ,q material paralleled in other connections in ,luke1 then material from a totally different part of ,mark4#ajf ,the verses enumerated here are not paralleled in either ,mark or ,luke4 ,they are not like the verses1 for the most part1 which ,matthew and ,luke agree in taking from ,q2 and they show marked difference in some respects from those which we have thus far assigned to ,matthew's recension of ,q4 ,in his ,apostolic ,age ,professor ,james ,hardy ,ropes#ajg suggests that at least one purpose of the collection of ,jesus' sayings was to furnish a kind of handbook of missionary practice for those times4 ,these verses1 better almost than any other section out of the instructions to the disciples1 answer this purpose4 ,if they rest upon words of ,jesus spoken at the time he sent out his disciples1 they are at least colored by the needs of ,christian missionaries who went out toward the end of the apostolic age4 ,they betray the conviction that the time of the parousia is near4 ,as coming from ,jesus they contain a prediction so obviously unfulfilled as to make their later invention and ascription to him very difficult4 ,on the other hand no words ascribed to him would by themselves more easily originate in the times of the early ,christian missions4 ,considering their position here1 and giving due weight to ,professor ,ropes's suggestion1 it seems much more probable that they are taken by ,matthew from some written source than from an oral tradition4 ,if so1 no better source can be posited than ,matthew's recension of ,q4 ,a ,,saying ,,about ,,elijah 7,mt xi1 #ad7 ,like the reference to ,elijah in ,mk ix1 #ab1 this verse sounds like a parenthesis4 ,it adds nothing to the context1 and rather interrupts than furthers the matter4 ,if not inserted by ,matthew from some unknown1 perhaps oral1 source1 it may perhaps best be considered as a gloss4 ,,he ,,that ,,hath ,,ears1 ,,let ,,him ,,hear 7,mt xi1 #ae7 ,this is a proverbial saying occurring seven times in the ,gospels 7eight times in the received text72 three times in ,matthew1 twice each in ,mark and ,luke4 ,it also occurs eight times in the ,apocalypse4 ,each evangelist has a form of his own1 to which he adheres thruout4 ,the saying sounds here as if it were intended to drive home what has just been said about ,elijah1 and may with propriety be assigned to the same hand as the preceding verse4 ,,the ,,occasion ,,of ,,pronouncing ,,woes ,,upon ,,the ,,galilean ,,cities 7,mt xi1 #bj7 ,this verse is quoted here chiefly because it furnishes so excellent an illustration of the nature of the introductory formulae found in ,matthew and ,luke in conjunction with their ,q material4 ,sometimes1 as in the case of the ,lord's ,prayer1 such an introduction is present in ,luke and absent in ,matthew4 ,in the present instance ,matthew alone has it4 ,yet few passages from ,q disclose a closer verbal agreement with the corresponding passage in ,luke than the passage to which this verse is an introduction4 ,in all such instances as this the writer sees no difficulty in ascribing the introductions to the evangelist in whose pages they are found4 ,,reason ,,assigned ,,for ,,the ,,pronunciation ,,of ,,the ,,woes 7,mt xi1 #bc;b-#bd7 ,following the woes1 ,matthew alone has this statement of the reasons for their being given4 ,he has a doublet for vs4 #bd in x1 #ae4 ,as this latter is paralleled by ,lk x1 #ab1 it may in that context be assigned to ,q2 here it may be assigned either to ,matthew or one of his early editors4 ,there is at least no new ,q material here4 ,,come ,,unto ,,me 7,mt xi1 #bh-cj7 ,it is impossible to suppose that this unusually fine utterance could have been in ,luke's copy of ,q and could have been omitted by him4 ,yet of the five scholars quoted in ,table ,,ii 7pp4 #aaj-aa71 ,wellhausen alone attributes it to ,q4 ,the others all attribute the preceding section to ,q1 but stop at vs4 #bg1 where the parallelism between ,matthew and ,luke breaks off4 ,this is necessary1 of course1 upon the assumption that nothing should be attributed to ,q except what is thus paralleled4 ,but if anything stood in ,matthew's recension of ,q that was not also in ,luke's1 certainly these verses stood there4 ,weiss's remarks concerning them indicate that he has no reason for assigning them1 as he does1 to a special source1 except the fact that they do not appear in ,luke4 ,he says ,since these words are not in ,luke we have no right to refer them to ,q4 ,this is not to say that they are the work of ,matthew2 they have been taken from another source1 oral or written4#ajh ,it has been pointed out by ,montefiore that these verses are largely made up of quotations4 ,the last bit of vs4 #bi comes from ,jer xi1 #g1 and the rest is an adapted echo of ,sirach li1 #bc seq4#aji ,the parallel1 however1 as ,montefiore also says1 covers vss4 #be-bg as well as those now under consideration4 ,loisy#aaj argues that the words cannot safely be ascribed to ,jesus1 but adds1 ,it may be readily admitted that the evangelist found them in the collection of ,logia4 ,a ,,saying ,,about ,,the ,,law 7,mt xii1 #e-g7 ,this saying occurs1 not in the midst of ,q material1 but as an appendix to a discussion which ,matthew and ,luke both take from ,mark4 ,the passage seems to be well attested textually4 ,considering its context1 and its relation to the material immediately preceding1 it seems natural to assign the verses either to ,matthew himself or to some early editor1 rather than to seek a special source for them or to attribute them to ,matthew's ,q4 ,vs4 #g has already been considered in connection with ix1 #ac4 ,if the ,greek3 anaitious in this latter verse were singular instead of plural it would certainly be taken as a reference to the condemnation and death of ,jesus2 indeed1 it may naturally1 tho not with so much assurance1 be so taken as it stands4 ,,an ,,old ,,testament ,,quotation 7,mt xii1 #ag-ba7 ,this long quotation1 occurring as it does in the midst of a ,marcan narrative1 may be ascribed either to ,matthew or one of his sources2 but there is no evidence that such quotations were part of ,q4 ,,generation ,,of ,,vipers 7,mt xii1 #cd;a7 ,greek3 ,gennmata echidnn is used once by ,matthew and ,luke in common 7,mt iii1 #g2 ,lk iii1 #g7 and twice by ,matthew alone4 ,the question in which it occurs here seems to render the statement in vss4 #cf-cg less justifiable4 ,the repetition1 not only of the one phrase1 but of the idea1 in the section might be taken to indicate that this half of a verse is an addition either by ,matthew or by some later hand4 ,a ,,saying ,,about ,,the ,,judgment 7,mt xii1 #cf-cg7 ,if ,matthew be credited with the insertion of vs4 #cd;a1 it is not unlikely that he added these verses also1 as a corrective of the impression that might be drawn from the previous insertion4 ,in character1 however1 the verses are similar enough to ,q1 and might be assigned to ,matthew's recension4 ,,an ,,interpretation ,,of ,,the ,,sign ,,of ,,jonah 7,mt xii1 #dj7 ,this verse occurs in a passage concerning the demand for a sign1 which ,matthew and ,luke have evidently taken from ,q4 ,luke's form of the saying about ,jonah is evidently the original one4 ,matthew's reference to the three days spent by ,jesus in the heart of the earth is post eventum1 and even so cannot be early4 ,it may perhaps be taken for a gloss1 or it may have been added by ,matthew4 ,it may equally well have been added by some editor of ,q before that document fell into ,matthew's hands2 there is nothing to determine1 except that the strong resemblance1 almost amounting to identity1 between ,matthew and ,luke in the rest of the passage may properly incline one toward the assumption of a late addition4 ,,the ,,weed ,,in ,,the ,,field 7,mt xiii1 #bd-cj7 ,this parable1 tho it has a ,q sound in the first verse1 is too long for any recension of that document4 ,it is better assigned to a special source1 oral or written4 ,the allegorical character of the parable1 with its elaborate interpretation in vss4 #cf-dc1 seems to indicate its comparatively late origin1 and it may be based upon ,mk iv1 #bf-bi4 ,at all events it should not be ascribed to ,q4 ,,the ,,parables ,,of ,,the ,,treasure1 ,,the ,,pearl1 ,,the ,,fish-,,net1 ,,and ,,the ,,scribe ,,instructed ,,in ,,the ,,kingdom 7,mt xiii1 #dd-eb7 ,in this chapter ,matthew has eight parables4#aaa ,the parables of the ,sower and of the ,mustard ,seed he has taken from ,mark4 ,that of the ,yeast he and ,luke have taken from ,q4 ,that of the ,weed in the ,field has just been assigned to some special source4 ,the four in vss4 #dd-eb we assign to ,matthew's recension of ,q4 ,the grounds upon which this assignment is made are the following3 the parables are extremely similar in form and content to those that admittedly come from ,q1 as the parable of the ,yeast in this same chapter4 ,they are so brief as to come under the category of sayings rather than of parables in the ordinary sense4 ,they are1 with one exception1 without allegorical or other interpretation4 ,these facts establish their general ,q character4 ,the parable of the ,fish-,net1 in vss4 #dg-ej1 contains an allegorical interpretation4 ,vs4 #ej also contains the phrase ,greek3 ekei estai ho klauthmos kai ho brygmos tn odontn1 which ,matthew employs in five other connections4 ,this phrase occurred at least once in ,q 7,mt viii1 #ab2 ,lk xiii1 #bh74 ,but in spite of a tendency toward repetition which may be observed in ,matthew1 it seems hardly fair to charge him with having inserted the phrase in the other five places where it occurs4 ,it seems strange also that ,matthew should record the parables of the ,treasure1 the ,pearl1 and the ,converted ,scribe without interpretation1 but should himself be responsible for the interpretation of the parable of the ,fish-,net4 ,it is much more likely that he found the interpretation1 with the parable1 in his source4 ,in these four parables obviously there are two items which most scholars would agree in calling secondary3 the allegorical interpretation of the parable of the ,fish-,net1 and the entire parable of the ,converted ,scribe4 ,yet the parables of the ,pearl and the ,treasure are as primary as any utterances recorded of ,jesus4 ,the strong general similarity in form and content between these parables and those taken by ,matthew and ,luke from ,q argues the probability of their presence in some form of that document4 ,their absence from the ,gospel of ,luke indicates their absence from the recension in his hands4 ,and the presence in them of these secondary traits argues their addition to ,q at some time after its original compilation4 ,all these considerations make the assignment of these four little parables to ,q,mt in a high degree probable4 ,,peter ,,walking ,,on ,,the ,,water 7,mt xiv1 #bh-ca7 ,the presence of so much narrative material in this section argues at once against its derivation from any form of ,q4 ,it belongs to a cycle of ,peter-sayings preserved in ,matthew alone4 ,the source appears to have been a special one1 very probably oral4 ,,to ,,the ,,lost ,,sheep ,,of ,,the ,,house ,,of ,,israel 7,mt xv1 #bb-bd7 ,these verses are an insertion of ,matthew's into the story of the ,syrophoenician woman1 which he has copied from ,mark4 ,it is worthy of note that thruout the entire story the verbal agreement is much more slight than is usual in narratives1 especially such as contain sayings of ,jesus1 taken by ,matthew from ,mark4 ,luke has no parallel4 ,considering the very slight proportion of narrative1 and the great preponderance of sayings-material1 in the section1 it would not be strange if it stood in ,q4 ,if it stood in ,luke's recension1 the attitude of ,jesus toward non-,jewish peoples1 as implied in the story1 would be sufficient to account for ,luke's omission of it4 ,the sentiment of vs4 #bd1 in particular1 is extremely primary4 ,it could hardly have been invented and ascribed to ,jesus after his time4 ,mark's words1 ,let the children first be fed1 tone down the excessively ,jewish particularism of ,matthew's account2 even aside from these words1 which are absent from ,matthew1 ,matthew's entire version of the incident is more primary than ,mark's4 ,this may be1 and has been1 explained by saying that ,mark's story has been worked over by an editor1 subsequent to ,matthew's use of his ,gospel4 ,but since ,mark and ,q have been shown to coincide in a certain amount of material1 a simpler explanation is that they coincided in this story of the ,syrophoenician woman2 the more primitive character of ,matthew's account is then explained by its dependence upon ,q1 which is older than ,mark4 ,it cannot be shown to have been absent from ,luke's recension1 and its presence there may be probable1 but cannot be demonstrated4 ,it is therefore assigned--but with some hesitation--to ,q,mt4 ,a ,,summary ,,of ,,jesus' ,,healing ,,work 7,mt xv1 #bi-ca7 ,this little summary1 like that in ,mt iv1 #bc-be1 would naturally be ascribed to ,matthew4 ,it might be regarded as a re-working of ,mk vii1 #ca1 and a substitute in general terms for the story which immediately follows that verse in ,mark4#aab ,the use by ,matthew of such a phrase as ,greek3 ton theon ,isral would be explained by the fact that the cures are represented as being worked outside of ,jewish territory4 ,with this explanation the verses may be ascribed to ,matthew4 ,,the ,,keys ,,of ,,the ,,kingdom ,,of ,,heaven 7,mt xvi1 #ag-ai7 ,this is another ,peter-section inserted in a story taken from ,mark4 ,luke has the story but not this insertion4 ,the section apparently belongs to the same cycle of ,peter-stories with the incident of the walking on the water1 already considered4 ,it should be ascribed to some special and undetermined source4 ,the general character of this particular section would indicate its very late origin4 ,,an ,,insertion ,,in ,,the ,,story ,,of ,,the ,,transfiguration 7,mt xvii1 #f-g7 ,no special source1 other at least than oral tradition1 is necessary to account for so slight an addition4 ,yet considering ,matthew's general tendency to condense1 rather than to expand1 ,mark's narratives1 and the faithfulness with which he has transcribed the rest of this narrative1 it may be easier to regard this insertion as a gloss4 ,,whosoever ,,humbles ,,himself ,,as ,,this ,,little ,,child 7,mt xviii1 #d7 ,the verse immediately preceding this is found in ,mark1 but in another context1 from where ,matthew has evidently transposed it to this place4 ,this vs4 #d is found in ,matthew alone4 ,a variant of it is found in ,mt xxiii1 #ab4 ,this latter is closely similar to1 but not identical with1 the saying twice given by ,luke 7,lk xiv1 #aa2 xviii1 #ad74 ,considering his dislike for doublets1 the fact that the saying occurs twice in ,luke may naturally be taken to indicate its presence in both ,mark and ,q4 ,but the verse under consideration here can be at most but a reminiscence of the saying which occurs twice in ,luke and in ,mt xxiii1 #ab4 ,considering the fact that ,matthew is here obviously exercising his talent at combination1 the verse should probably be ascribed to his editorial hand4 ,,the ,,unforgiving ,,servant 7,mt xviii1 #bc-ce7 ,in spite of its reference to the kingdom of ,heaven this parable is much too long for ,q1 and should be assigned to a special source4 ,,about ,,eunuchs 7,mt xix1 #aj-ab7 ,this saying is appended to a discussion taken from ,mark4 ,considering its loose connection in the context1 it is perhaps safer to assume that it has been added from some oral authority4 ,,the ,,laborers ,,in ,,the ,,vineyard 7,mt xx1 #a-af7 ,the parable is too long for ,q1 tho like the ,q parables it has to do with the kingdom of ,god4 ,the last verse is an apparently proverbial saying1 for which ,matthew has a doublet in xix1 #cj1 and ,luke a variant in ,lk xiii1 #cj4 ,,the ,,two ,,sons 7,mt xxi1 #bh-cb7 ,like the other matter in this vicinity peculiar to ,matthew1 and like the parables of this length thruout1 this parable should be assigned to a special source4 ,,the ,,wedding ,,feast 7,mt xxii1 #a-ad7 ,j4 ,weiss assigns this parable1 with ,lk xiv1 #af-bd1 to ,q4 ,but upon the principle we have been following the parable is too long for ,q4 ,while it is evidently the same parable as that told in ,lk xiv1 #af-bd1 there is clearly no literary connection between ,matthew and ,luke here4 ,both ,wellhausen and ,wernle assign it to ,q2 ,harnack and ,hawkins to a special source4 ,this instance brings up the question of what degree of literary similarity must be present in order to warrant the assumption of literary connection4 ,no words are identical here except such as had to be to enable two men to tell the same story4 ,,against ,,the ,,pharisees 7,mt xxiii1 #b-c1 #e1 #h-aj1 #ae-bb7 ,matthew here conflates his ,q material with his ,marcan material4 ,the matter is partially duplicated in ,luke's chap4 xi4 ,the similarities and the differences between the ,matthean and ,lucan versions are precisely such features as have led to the hypothesis of the two recensions4 ,the verses should be assigned to ,q,mt4 ,,the ,,parables ,,of ,,the ,,ten ,,virgins1 ,,the ,,talents1 ,,the ,,judgment 7,mt xxv1 #a-df7 ,the first two of these parables ,j4 ,weiss assigns to ,q2 presumably on the ground that parallels for them are found in ,luke's chaps4 xii and xix4 ,but if ,q be extended to include so many such long parables as these1 it loses entirely its character as a collection of sayings4 ,moreover1 the parallelism between ,matthew's and ,luke's versions of these two parables is extremely slight4 ,the subject-matter is the same1 but there is no indication of dependence upon a common written source4 ,the parable of the ,judgment is peculiar to ,matthew4 ,it seems better to assign all three of these parables to a special source4 ,,twelve ,,legions ,,of ,,angels 7,mt xxvi1 #eb-ed7 ,this is an insertion of ,matthew's in the story which he has taken from ,mark4 ,there is no indication of ,q in it4 ,we have now gone over all the logian sections of ,matthew unparalleled in either ,mark or ,luke4 ,we have found some of these that ought1 in our judgment1 to be assigned to ,matthew's recension of ,q4 ,this assignment cannot claim to be anything more than a suggestion2 in many instances1 however1 it may reach a very high degree of probability2 and we have tried to restrict it to such instances4 ,by saying that a certain section should be assigned to a special source1 it is not meant that this is one and the same source for all sections so assigned2 but only that these sections cannot be assigned either to ,matthew or to his recension of ,q4 ,in a few instances ,i have ventured to suggest an oral rather than a written source4 ,further comments will be made upon this analysis when a similar study has been made of the sections peculiar to the ,gospel of ,luke4 ,,chapter ,,iv ,q ,,in ,,the ,,single ,,tradition ,,of ,,luke 7,,qlk7 ,the single tradition of ,luke will now be examined with reference to possible ,q material unparalleled in ,matthew4 ,narrative material will not be considered4 ,as ,luke has omitted much more of ,mark than ,matthew has1 and as he has a much larger amount of non-,marcan material which obviously bears no sign of having stood in any form of ,q1 it is natural to expect the additions to our total of ,q matter to be much less in the single tradition of ,luke than of ,matthew4 ,,the ,,preaching ,,of ,,john ,,the ,,baptist 7,lk iii1 #aj-ad7 ,this section in ,luke follows immediately the description of ,john's preaching which ,luke and ,matthew have taken from ,q4 ,it is a natural supposition that it stood in ,luke's ,q1 tho not in ,matthew's1 just as the discussion between ,jesus and ,john at the baptism stood in ,matthew's but not in ,luke's4 ,but there is one thing which indicates either that it did not so stand1 or that it has been worked over by ,luke in a manner peculiar to him4 ,that is the presence of dialogue4 ,if this dialogue appeared only in those sayings of ,jesus that appear in ,luke but not in ,matthew1 and that are of a character to have come from any form of ,q1 we should pick out this item as a characteristic of the recension used by ,luke4 ,but dialogue is also a characteristic of many of the ,lucan parables which could not under any hypothesis be attributed to ,q4 ,in spite of its general resemblance to the ,q matter just preceding1 it seems best1 therefore1 to attribute this little section to some peculiar ,lucan source4 ,,the ,,initial ,,preaching ,,of ,,jesus ,,in ,,nazareth 7,lk iv1 #af-cj7 ,this is a complete re-working of ,marcan material4 ,in his ,synoptische ,tafeln zu den drei lteren ,evangelien1 ,j4 ,weiss attributes it to a special source4 ,this assignment is correct1 in the sense that there are sayings of ,jesus in the section which ,luke would certainly not manufacture1 and which he must therefore have derived from some source4 ,at all events there is no ,q material in the passage4 ,,the ,,call ,,of ,,peter 7,lk v1 #a-aa7 ,the same is to be said of this section as has just been said of iv1 #af-cj4 ,it is a re-working of ,mk i1 #af-bj4 ,the latter part of vs4 #aj has an especially genuine sound4 ,greek3 ,zgrn occurs here only in the ,gospels4 ,the dialogue characteristic of ,luke appears here also4 ,with the possible exception of the latter half of vs4 #aj1 nothing in the section could be attributed to any form of ,q4 ,,the ,,woes 7,lk vi1 #bd-bf7 ,we have here the alternatives of supposing that ,luke invented these woes1 that he found them in some altogether different source and inserted them here in the midst of his ,q material1 or that they stood1 with the beatitudes1 in his recension of ,q4 ,since the beatitudes themselves1 without the woes1 show such difference as to preclude ,matthew's and ,luke's having drawn them from an identical source1 but since they seem1 if anything1 to have stood in ,q1 it seems natural to assign these woes of ,luke's1 as we have assigned the beatitudes peculiar to ,matthew1 to the recension used by him4 ,the sympathy shown in the ,gospel of ,luke for the poor has usually been referred to ,luke himself4 ,it may just as well have been a characteristic of one or more of his sources4 ,,the ,,reception ,,of ,,john',s ,,preaching 7,lk vii1 #bi-cj7 ,these two verses are inserted in the midst of ,jesus' testimony to ,john the ,baptist4 ,they have the sound of a purely editorial insertion4 ,on the other hand1 if they were found elsewhere by ,luke1 his insertion of them in this place is accounted for by his desire to explain ,jesus' saying about ,john4 ,a possible hint of a source is found in the presence of ,greek3 dikaio4 ,this verb is found in three other passages that are peculiar to ,luke and that are evidently not from ,q,lk4 ,if not from ,luke himself1 these verses are from some special source4 ,but they are only what might be expected from ,luke himself in the way of editorial comment4 ,,the ,,sinner ,,in ,,simon',s ,,house 7,lk vii1 #cf-ej7 ,tho this narrative has considerable resemblance to that in ,mk xiv1 #c-i1 and ,mt xxvi1 #f-ac1 the different placing of the story1 and the differences in the story itself1 far outweighing the resemblances1 seem to indicate a special source for it4 ,there is no reason to attribute it1 or any saying in it1 to ,q4 ,a ,,would-,,be ,,follower ,,of ,,jesus 7,lk ix1 #fj;b-#fc7 ,this may either be attributed to ,luke 7or to some later scribe7 as an amplification of the incident just related by both ,matthew and ,luke from ,q1 or may be assumed to have stood in ,luke's recension of ,q4 ,the two facts1 that such amplification would be quite unlike ,luke1 as his literary habits are revealed to us in his treatment of ,mark1 and that the saying about the man who has put his hand to the plow has an extremely original and genuine sound1 lead us to the latter alternative4 ,,the ,,return ,,of ,,the ,,seventy 7,lk x1 #ag-bj7 ,tho the existence and mission of a separate band of seventy disciples be attributed to ,luke1 he would certainly never have manufactured these sayings that are connected with their return4 ,the sayings may indeed be ascribed to a special source2 and are so ascribed by those who allow nothing to ,q except the paralleled material4 ,but these sayings are extremely primary in character1 especially vss4 #ah and #bj2 and they are similar to much ,q material4 ,if in ,luke's recension of ,q the mission of the disciples was a mission of seventy instead of twelve1 ,luke will be relieved of the burden of personal responsibility for the creation of this mission of the seventy2 he has then merely conflated the account of the mission of the seventy which he found in his recension of ,q with the mission of the twelve which he found in ,mark4 ,it must be admitted that such conflation is contrary to ,luke's habit4 ,the alternatives to this hypothesis are1 either that he invented the mission of the seventy himself1 or that he had before him three accounts of the sending out of disciples1 one by ,mark and one in ,q1 and a third in some unknown source4 ,this lends probability to the ascription of these sayings to ,q,lk4 ,,the ,,great ,,commandment 7,lk x1 #be-bh7 ,mark has a partial parallel to this section in ,mk xii1 #bh-ca1 which ,matthew takes from him 7,mt xxii1 #cd-dj74 ,luke's account is evidently not from ,mark1 however4 ,luke may have omitted the ,marcan narrative because of this parallel of it in his own ,gospel4 ,the logian material in the section is of a primary character2 the implication that one might inherit eternal life by merely keeping the commandments is not such as to have been later invented1 and sounds particularly strange in ,luke's ,gospel4 ,no source is more probable for it than ,q,lk4 ,,the ,,good ,,samaritan 7,lk x1 #bi-cg7 ,this parable is entirely too long to be ascribed to any form of ,q4 ,its affinities with others of the long parables peculiar to ,luke is such as to indicate for all of them a special source4 ,,mary ,,and ,,martha 7,lk x1 #ch-db7 ,mr4 ,streeter#aac suggests a reason why this incident may have been omitted by ,matthew even if it stood in ,q4 ,but ,i can see no reason for assuming it to have stood in the latter source4 ,it has great affinity with much other ,lucan material which should not be assigned to ,q1 and is apparently from a special source4 ,,the ,,parable ,,of ,,the ,,friend ,,on ,a ,,journey 7,lk xi1 #e-h7 ,this parable is brief enough to have stood in ,q4 ,but it does not1 apparently1 relate to the kingdom of ,god1 as the undoubted ,q parables do4 ,it is also similar in motive to other ,lucan parables assigned to a special source4 ,,the ,,mother ,,of ,,jesus ,,praised 7,lk xi1 #bg-bh7 ,wellhausen considers this a variant of ,lk viii1 #ai-ba1 which latter is taken from ,mark 7iii1 #ca-ce74 ,the parallelism is not very close1 to say the least4 ,while a case may be made out for the occurrence of this section in ,q1 as is apparently done by ,mr4 ,streeter1 it seems better to us to assign it to a special source of ,luke's4 ,,if ,,thine ,,whole ,,body ,,is ,,light 7,lk xi1 #cf7 ,if this saying were genuine1 it would naturally be assigned to ,q,lk4 ,but the text is not well attested1 and it is perhaps better to regard it as a gloss4 ,,the ,,parable ,,of ,,the ,,foolish ,,rich ,,man 7,lk xii1 #ac-ba7 ,wernle remarks concerning this section that anyone with a sense for ,herrenworte will recognize at once that vss4 #ae and #ba are from ,luke and not from ,jesus4 ,vs4 #ba is omitted in some manuscripts4 ,the parable is from a special source4 ,,an ,,exhortation ,,to ,,watchfulness 7,lk xii1 #ce-ch7 ,this might almost be considered as a variant of ,matthew's parable of the ,ten ,virgins4 ,it stands in close connection here with ,q material4 ,no more probable source can be suggested for it than ,luke's recension of ,q4 ,,to ,,whom ,,much ,,is ,,given 7,lk xii1 #dg-dh7 ,this section1 consisting entirely of sayings1 and occurring between two blocks of ,q material1 is almost universally ascribed to a special source1 simply because it is not paralleled in ,matthew4 ,but it is quite homogeneous with ,q4 ,it is1 indeed1 unlikely that ,matthew would have omitted it if it had stood in his recension of ,q2 but no better source can be posited for it than ,q,lk4 ,of fifteen occurrences of ,greek3 der in the ,new ,testament1 eight are found in ,luke's ,gospel and in ,acts4 ,the three occurrences in ,acts are not indicative1 as they are accounted for by the subject-matter2 the five in the ,gospel are1 except in this passage1 paralleled in ,matthew and ,mark4 ,while the word is therefore in a sense a ,lucan word1 there is nothing to indicate that it was not in the source ,luke used4 ,i ,,came ,,to ,,cast ,,fire ,,upon ,,the ,,earth 7,lk xii1 #di-ej7 ,these two verses have a very primary sound4 ,the difficulty of them is much against their invention by ,luke or anyone in his time4 ,but if ,luke derived them from any written source1 they are exactly such sayings as would have found a place in his recension of ,q4 ,,the ,,galileans ,,slain ,,by ,,herod 7,lk xiii1 #a-e7 ,this saying was evidently spoken in ,jerusalem1 but ,luke has placed it during the journey thither4 ,we may perhaps detect here the beginnings of a ,jerusalem tradition4 ,,the ,,parable ,,of ,,the ,,fig ,,tree 7,lk xiii1 #f-i7 ,like the preceding1 the parable is given as part of the conversation on the ,samaritan journey4 ,but it seems to be ,luke's version of the story told by ,mark of the cursing of the fig tree2 and this latter ,mark places in ,jerusalem4 ,this may be taken as another hint of the origin of this section in a ,jerusalem tradition4 ,,go ,,tell ,,that ,,fox 7,lk xiii1 #ca-cc7 ,mr4 ,streeter#aad remarks of this section that it is so un-,lucan in its rough vigor that it is certainly original2 in other words1 that it certainly stood in ,luke's source4 ,this source ,mr4 ,streeter maintains is ,q1 not only for this brief section1 but for the solid block of ,lk ix1 #ea-xiii1 #ei 7with the possible exception of the two parables of the ,good ,samaritan1 the ,rich ,fool1 and perhaps the story of ,martha74 ,the passage1 xiii1 #a-ag1 he suggests may have been interpolated into ,q before ,q came to ,luke4 ,the primary character of the section now under consideration cannot be doubted4 ,the fact that ,luke has apparently left his ,q material by itself1 instead of mingling it with his ,marcan and other matter1 would argue for ,mr4 ,streeter's position4 ,yet ,luke has not altogether followed this general rule of his2 and he has made some very notable transpositions of ,marcan material4 ,this saying1 also1 is not quite like most of the sayings that are by common agreement to be ascribed to ,q4 ,it is neither a general rule of conduct1 like the sayings in the ,sermon on the ,mount1 nor has it to do with the kingdom of ,god1 like the brief parables of ,q4 ,if ,luke inserted it from another source1 his reason for inserting it in just this place may have been the fact of its closing with the word ,jerusalem4 ,yet the lament over ,jerusalem which immediately follows is evidently wrongly placed by ,luke1 in the midst of his ,perean journey4 ,we are inclined to assign these verses1 tho with some uncertainty1 to a special source4 ,the words were apparently spoken neither on the ,perean journey 7assuming such a journey to have taken place7 nor at its close in ,jerusalem1 but in ,galilee4 ,,the ,,healing ,,of ,,the ,,dropsical ,,man 7,lk xiv1 #a-f7 ,the only saying in this section is that paralleled in ,lk xiii1 #ae-af1 and duplicated in ,mt xii1 #aa4 ,the incident is somewhat similar to that recorded in ,mk iii1 #a-f2 and it is noticeable that ,matthew1 in taking over that incident from ,mark1 inserts in the midst of it this saying of ,jesus about the ox or ass falling into the pit on the ,sabbath4 ,if the saying occurred in ,q1 ,matthew has thus taken it out of its original context and made it a part of a ,marcan story2 but he would hardly have done this if it already1 in his copy of ,q1 constituted part of another and equally good story4 ,in view of the general character of ,q as a collection of sayings1 with as little mixture of incident as possible1 it seems better to say that this saying about the ox or ass falling into the pit occurred once in ,q1 unconnected1 and that ,luke found it again in the story before us1 in some other source4 ,,about ,,taking ,,the ,,less ,,honorable ,,seats ,,at ,,table 7,lk xiv1 #g-aa7 ,this saying may have been manufactured upon the basis of ,mk xii1 #ci 7they love the chief seats at feasts1 etc74 ,vs4 #aa is the oft-repeated formula discussed on p4 #ahb4 ,while this and the following section are not impossible for ,q,lk1 it seems better to assign them both to one of ,luke's special sources4 ,,whom ,,to ,,invite ,,to ,a ,,feast 7,lk xiv1 #ab-ad7 ,this saying of ,jesus seems out of place at a dinner to which he had been invited4 ,the saying itself is not unlike ,q4 ,observing that this saying and the two just preceding are placed by ,luke at feasts given for ,jesus1 but that they contain sayings of ,jesus either placed elsewhere by ,matthew or not given by him at all1 ,mr4 ,streeter is inclined to assign the setting of these sayings in each case to ,luke1 and the sayings to ,q4 ,this would seem more justifiable if it were not plain that ,luke had1 besides his recension of ,q and ,mark1 at least two or three other sources4 ,one cannot be categorical on such a matter1 and it is possible that this section with the two preceding should be assigned to ,q,lk4 ,,the ,,parable ,,of ,,the ,,dinner ,,and ,,the ,,invited ,,guests 7,lk xiv1 #ae-bd7 ,this parable is generally regarded as parallel to ,mt xxii1 #a-aj1 and the two are assigned to ,q4 ,but while the two evangelists are evidently relating the same parable1 there is so little verbal resemblance as to give no proof of a common literary source4 ,upon the assumption of such a source1 the violence done to it by ,matthew or ,luke or both in its transcription is quite beyond belief4 ,if the parable in either ,gospel is assigned to ,q1 the one in the other should be otherwise assigned4 ,it seems better to ascribe both of them to special sources4 ,the two versions are about as unlike as they could well be1 and still be versions of the same parable4 ,,conditions ,,of ,,discipleship 7,lk xiv1 #bh-ce7 ,here are four detached sayings1 the first two similar in meaning4 ,vs4 #bh sounds like a genuine logion1 with vss4 #bi and #cj added as an explanatory comment4 ,the same may be said1 respectively1 of vss4 #ca and #cb4 ,vs4 #cc1 tho beginning with ,greek3 houts1 does not seem to fit in this place4 ,vs4 #cd;a is from ,mark 7ix1 #ej7 or influenced by it4 ,considering the connections1 it is probably best to assign the passage to ,q,lk1 with improvements by ,luke4 ,,the ,,lost ,,sheep 7,lk xv1 #a-g7 ,mr4 ,streeter suggests that ,luke may have elaborated this parable out of the saying in ,mt xviii1 #ab-ac4 ,johannes ,weiss1 as indicated in his ,synoptische ,tafeln zu den drei lteren ,evangelien1 seems also to consider that while the parable as a whole is drawn from one of ,luke's peculiar sources1 there is a literary connection between vss4 #d-g and ,matthew's saying4 ,considering the connection of the parable with the two that immediately follow1 it seems better to assign all three to a common ,lucan source4 ,,the ,,lost ,,coin ,,and ,,the ,,prodigal ,,son 7,lk xv1 #h-cb7 ,these parables may be assigned without comment to one of ,luke's special sources4 ,,the ,,unjust ,,steward 7,lk xvi1 #a-ab7 ,the composite character of this parable has been asserted by various writers4 ,schmiedel#aae suggests that vss4 #aj-ab have been added by a later hand4 ,if the parable stops with vs4 #i1 the meaning of it apparently is that one should give mammon away2 the two following verses seem merely to inculcate honesty in business matters4 ,indeed1 perhaps the parable should be considered as ending with vs4 #g1 and vs4 #h as probably an editorial comment upon it4 ,in the latter case1 the ,greek3 ho kyrios of vs4 #h refers to ,jesus4 ,this supposition requires the further one that the writer of vs4 #i has forgotten that vs4 #h is indirect discourse attributed to ,jesus4 ,vs4 #ac is from ,q and is duplicated in ,mt vi1 #bd4 ,but there is no new ,q material here4 ,a ,,criticism ,,of ,,the ,,pharisees 7,lk xvi1 #ad-ae7 ,the verses which immediately follow these are from ,q4 ,streeter#aaf inclines to assign vss4 #ad-ae to the same source4 ,but if vss4 #af-ah be omitted here and placed in some other connection1 vss4 #ad-ae constitute an excellent introduction to the parable of the ,rich ,man and ,lazarus which follows in vss4 #ai-ca4 ,in favor of ,mr4 ,streeter's assignment is the fact that ,q was apparently a collection of sayings neither topically nor otherwise arranged1 and that the four sayings in vss4 #ae-ah are thus detached1 ,matthew having taken the three in vss4 #af-ah and worked them into appropriate contexts4 ,of vss4 #ad and #ae about all that can be said is that the latter sounds like ,q4 ,considering ,matthew's fondness for everything that reflects upon the ,pharisees1 it seems likely that if vs4 #ae stood in any form of ,q it was in ,luke's recension only4 ,,the ,,rich ,,man ,,and ,,lazarus 7,lk xvi1 #ai-ca7 ,this parable seems to show something of the same composite character as is found in that of the ,unjust ,steward1 the first part having to do with rich and poor and the second part with believing and unbelieving4 ,there is no ,q material in it4 ,,unprofitable ,,servants ,,and ,,the ,,healing ,,of ,,the ,,ten ,,lepers 7,lk xvii1 #g-aj2 xvii1 #aa-ai7 ,the former of these two sections might conceivably have stood in ,luke's recension of ,q2 the latter not in any recension4 ,it is better to assign them both to a special source4 ,,about ,,the ,,coming ,,of ,,the ,,kingdom ,,of ,,god 7,lk xvii1 #bj-ba7 ,this little section certainly has a ,q sound4 ,if it stood in ,matthew's recension1 reasons may easily be given for his omission of it2 he would not have understood the non-apocalyptic statement1 the kingdom of ,god is within or among you4 ,but it cannot be proved1 at least1 that the section stood in ,matthew's ,q2 therefore if it is assigned to ,q at all it would better be assigned merely to ,luke's recension4 ,later than this in the ,gospel of ,luke there is nothing that needs to be examined for possible ,q material4 ,his single tradition from here on includes the parables of the ,unjust ,judge1 and the ,pharisee and the ,publican in the ,temple1 the story of ,zacchaeus1 the lament over ,jerusalem1 the institution of the ,lord's ,supper1 and a few sections in the story of the trial1 the death1 and the resurrection appearances of ,jesus4 ,of these only one1 the lament over ,jerusalem1 bears any resemblance to the ,q material in general4 ,professor ,burkitt suggests1 indeed1 that xxii1 #ae-af1 #bd-cb1 and #ce-ch1 may be remnants of ,q's account of the passion4 ,we have seen no reason to suppose that there was such an account in ,q4 ,if there was1 there are no signs by which it can be identified in this portion of ,luke's narrative4 ,it is better to assign all this material to a special source4 ,the fact that ,luke has no resurrection appearances in ,galilee may perhaps be taken as confirmation of our hypothesis of a ,jerusalem source in his hands4 ,,matter ,,peculiar ,,to ,,matthew ,,or ,,to ,,luke ,in the determination of ,q material in the single traditions of ,matthew and ,luke on pp4 #aff-bjf1 the writer has ventured occasionally to suggest a possible source for such material as is not assigned to any form of ,q4 ,in addition to the sayings-material considered on pp4 #aff-ib1 ,matthew has in his single tradition the following narratives3 the birth and infancy sections1 chaps4 i1 ii2 the temple tax1 xvii1 #bd-bg2 the children in the temple1 xxi1 #ad-af2 the death of ,judas1 xxvii1 #c-aj2 the wife of ,pilate1 and ,pilate and the crowd1 xxvii1 #ai1 #bd-be2 miracles at the death of ,jesus1 xxvii1 #ea-ec2 the watch at the grave1 xxvii1 #fb-ff2 xxviii1 #aa-ae2 the angel rolling away the stone1 xxviii1 #b-c2 the appearances of ,jesus to the women1 xxviii1 #i-aj2 to the disciples1 xxviii1 #af-bj4 ,in addition to the sayings and parables of the single tradition of ,luke1 considered on pp4 #aic-bjf1 that tradition contains the following narratives3 the birth of ,john the ,baptist1 the birth and infancy of ,jesus1 with the ancestry1 chaps4 i1 ii1 iii1 #a-ch2 the miraculous draft of fishes1 v1 #d-i2 the raising of the widow's son1 vii1 #aa-ag2 the ministering women1 viii1 #a-c2 an event in a ,samaritan village1 ix1 #ea-ef2 the healing of the woman1 xiii1 #aj-ag2aag the ten lepers1 xvii1 #aa-ai2 ,zacchaeus1 xix1 #b-aj2 the trial before ,herod1 xxiii1 #f-ab2 the thief on the cross1 xxiii1 #ci-dc2 the walk to ,emmaus1 xxiv1 #ac-ce2 the appearances of the risen ,jesus1 xxiv1 #cf-ec4 ,matthew's peculiar material is scattered thru his entire ,gospel4 ,he begins and ends with it4 ,after he reaches the ,passion1 his peculiar material becomes unusually abundant4 ,in the twenty-three chapters between the infancy and the passion1 he has only seventeen insertions of peculiar material4 ,in the three chapters that follow1 he has nine4 ,these latter are of a different sort4 ,in the earlier part of his single tradition1 sayings and parables predominate2 here1 except for the saying about the legion of angels1 the peculiar material is all narrative4 ,luke has likewise distributed his peculiar material thruout his gospel1 and also begins and ends with it4 ,but after his stories of the birth and childhood1 he has1 up to his chap4 ix1 five insertions of peculiar matter4 ,four of these are incidents1 one is a speech of ,john the ,baptist4 ,with ix1 #ea1 begins his great interpolation4 ,in the less than ten chapters covered by this he has grouped twenty-five sections of his peculiar material4 ,this matter has a prevailing character of its own4 ,there are four narratives in it1 three of them being healings4 ,the other twenty-one sections consist of sayings and parables4 ,if we consider the relative length of the sayings1 the narratives1 and parables of this section1 we shall see that the whole is practically a parable section4 ,with the coming of ,jesus to ,jerusalem1 this material stops4 ,from here on ,luke has two brief sayings and one longer one1 five sections of narrative1 and no parable1 in his single tradition4 ,whether the source of ,matthew's peculiar material was one or more than one1 it suggests itself at once that the birth and infancy stories may have come from a place by themselves4 ,they have1 to a considerable extent1 a vocabulary of their own4 ,constituting about one twenty-second of the total matter of ,matthew's ,gospel1 they contain almost one-tenth of the occurrences of the characteristic words of that ,gospel4#aah ,even if the constantly recurring ,greek3 genna of the genealogy be removed1 the peculiar words occur with much more frequency in this birth and infancy section than in the rest of the ,gospel4 ,the force of this fact1 however1 is considerably weakened by the peculiar subject-matter of these chapters4 ,more decisive upon this matter is the general character of the birth and infancy sections1 which is sharply distinguished from that of the body of the ,gospel4 ,this is not due to the presence of the marvelous in these early chapters1 since that is found to some degree throughout1 but to the presence of what may be more distinctly called the legendary element4 ,in this characteristic it is like some of the material at the end of ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,let one compare the general character of the stories of the star and the magi1 the slaughter of the innocents1 and the flight into ,egypt with the story of the opening of the graves and the awakening of the departed dead1 and the angel rolling away the stone from the grave1 and the question will suggest itself1 whether ,matthew may not have obtained all these stories from one source4 ,this suggestion might appear to be seconded by the fact that this material1 which has such a striking family resemblance1 is not scattered thru the body of ,matthew's work1 but occurs1 part of it before he has reached his junction with ,mark and ,luke1 and the rest of it after he has parted from them4 ,he not only begins and ends alone1 but he begins and ends with material of a remarkably similar character4 ,this is not enough1 of course1 to prove the unity of ,matthew's source for the first and last parts of his single tradition2 but it is enough to suggest it4 ,as to the source of the rest of ,matthew's peculiar material1 we cannot get beyond guesswork4 ,some of it has an extremely genuine sound2 for example1 the sayings appended to the ,sabbath discussion1 ,the priests break the sabbath in the temple and are blameless1 etc4 7xii1 #e-f72 the saying about the angels of the little ones 7xviii1 #aj72 the parable of the ,fish-,net1 preserving so well the eschatological features of the preaching of ,jesus 7xiii1 #dg-ej72 the parable of the ,two ,sons 7xxi1 #bh-ca74 ,the incident of the temple tax 7xvii1 #bd-bg7 seems to go back for its origin to a time when the temple was still in existence1 and1 when it is relieved of the item of the coin in the fish's mouth 7which may easily be a later addition to the story71 seems to bear traces of undoubted genuineness4 ,the parable of the ,laborers who received every man a penny 7,mt xx1 #a-af7 seems likewise to indicate a time considerably later than that of ,jesus2 a time1 namely1 when those who had long waited for the parousia were asking whether those who had come in at the eleventh hour were to receive the rewards of the coming kingdom exactly as those who had borne the burden and the heat of the day4 ,that it was in such a time as this that ,matthew wrote his ,gospel may suggest the hypothesis that he has here worked over some genuine saying of ,jesus1 or received such a saying as it had been worked over by the waiting community1 to suit the need of the times4 ,in much the same manner the story of the ,wise and ,foolish ,virgins 7,,xxv1 #a-ac7 seems to come from a period when the church was commonly spoken of as the bride of ,christ1 or when ,christ was awaited as the coming bridegroom of the church2 this is not necessarily later than the times of ,paul's letter to the ,ephesians1 and so may be much earlier than ,matthew1 but is certainly later than the time of ,jesus4 ,the saying about eunuchs who have made themselves such for the kingdom of heaven has a harsh sound in the mouth of ,jesus2 and we wonder whether the circumstances of the expectation of the kingdom warranted such a statement at the time ,jesus is said to have made it4 ,we cannot but notice also1 as ,wernle has remarked1 that the saying seems to be displaced in ,matthew1 coming in with extreme inappropriateness between ,jesus' insistence upon the sacredness of marriage and his blessing of the children4 ,it may bespeak the period of developing asceticism within the church4 ,if it is not to be assigned to ,jesus we cannot fix very closely the date of its origin4 ,on the whole1 we must probably say that some parts of ,matthew's tradition1 outside of his infancy section and the stories of the wonders at the crucifixion1 show indications of antiquity and genuineness1 while others arouse our suspicions as to their coming from ,jesus1 or even from ,matthew4 ,,matter ,,peculiar ,,to ,,luke ,as to whether the source of ,luke's single tradition was one or many the statement in his prologue predisposes us toward the latter supposition4 ,the difference between the infancy sections and the rest of ,luke's peculiar material1 as in the case of ,matthew1 is marked4 ,hawkins reckons one hundred and fifty-one words as characteristic of ,luke4 ,of these1 seventy-seven1 or more than half1 occur once or more in the first two chapters1 while seventy-four of them are absent from these chapters4 ,these first two chapters contain about one hundred and thirty-two verses1 about one-ninth of the whole ,gospel2 yet one-half of the occurrences of ,luke's peculiar words are found here4 ,a strong ,hebraic character is observable in ,luke's infancy sections1 quite absent from his other peculiar material4 ,in the twenty-one verses in i1 #e-be1 ,greek3 kai is used many times where ,luke's habit elsewhere would lead us to expect the substitution of ,greek3 de4 ,there are also many ,hebraic phrases1 such as ,greek3 poreuomenoi en pasais tais entolais1 probebkotes en tais hmerais1 megas enpion kyriou1 and the construction ,greek3 egeneto1 thrice used1 as the formula introducing a paragraph4 ,luke's own hand may be seen in the introduction of ,greek3 de three times4 ,one of these is in connection with ,greek3 eipen1 which is probably ,luke's substitute for the historic present4 ,the retention of so many ,hebraistic and non-,lucan features probably justifies ,jlicher's suggestion of a special 7,hebraistic1 ,aramaic7 written source for these infancy sections4 ,a written and not an oral source is also indicated in ,luke's table of ancestors1#aai especially in its awkward placing after the baptism4 ,it is quite impossible that ,luke is here drawing upon the same source as in his great interpolation4 ,even more decisive in this direction than the vocabulary is the general character of the material4 ,sanday is especially glad to see the stress that is laid in certain other essays in the same volume on the homogeneity of the peculiar matter of ,luke4#abj ,he does not expressly say that he includes here the infancy sections1 or whether he refers merely to the great interpolation2 in the absence of such a statement1 it may be fair to assume the former4 ,he adds1 ,i fully believe1 myself1 in its ,jewish-,christian and ,palestinian origin4 ,but when he adds further1 ,i can altogether go along with the view that ,st4 ,luke probably collected this material during his two years' stay at ,caesarea 7,acts xxiv compared with xxi and xxvii1 #a72 ,i could even quite believe with ,harnack1 ,mr4 ,streeter1 and ,dr4 ,bartlet that his chief informants were ,philip the evangelist and his four daughters1 he is open to the suspicion of being too much influenced by a desire to trace the tradition back to a definite and authentic source1 even where the data do not warrant it4 ,there is certainly no justification for referring the infancy stories to ,philip and his four daughters 7and perhaps1 as suggested above1 ,dr4 ,sanday does not mean to do this74 ,dr4 ,sanday further agrees with ,dr4 ,bartlet that the information derived in this way probably lay before ,st4 ,luke in writing4 ,the interval between his stay in ,caesarea and the publication of his ,gospel could hardly have been less than some fifteen years and ,i doubt if the freshness1 precision1 and individual touches which characterize ,st4 ,luke could well have been preserved otherwise than by writing4 ,if ,dr4 ,sanday means that the writing was done by ,luke during his stay in ,caesarea1 from oral tradition given him by ,philip and his daughters1 we are left with the assumption that ,luke kept this written material of his own for fifteen years 7probably a good deal longer7 before he incorporated it in his ,gospel4 ,this would agree well with the theory that ,luke1 as the traveling companion of ,paul1 kept a diary of events1 which he preserved for a still longer period1 until he finally incorporated it in his ,book of ,acts4 ,both these assumptions are strange upon the face of them2 and for those who do not accept the same authorship for the we sections and the rest of ,acts 7as the present writer does not71 and who also think the ,gospel of ,luke was not written till considerably more than fifteen years from the time of ,luke's stay in ,caesarea1 and who do not identify the author of the ,third ,gospel with the traveling companion of ,paul1 ,dr4 ,sanday's statement will not appear conclusive4 ,outside of ,luke's infancy sections 7and the passion sections which will be considered in a succeeding paragraph7 there is an apparent homogeneity in much of ,luke's single tradition4 ,luke and ,matthew start out in their attempt to tell the gospel story1 each on his own independent line4 ,they come together at the point where ,mark has begun his story4 ,except for a few insertions and transpositions they stay together and with ,mark up to ,lk ix1 #ea4 ,here ,luke inserts something more than nine chapters before he gets back again to ,matthew and ,mark4 ,in these more than nine chapters there are some sections which ,matthew has in the earlier part of his ,gospel1 and little which ,mark has2#aba but in these nine chapters ,luke inserts most of the material peculiar to himself1 and by far the greater part of the nine chapters is made up exclusively of such material4 ,from the end of ,luke's infancy section to his great interpolation there are about one hundred and fourteen verses of exclusively ,lucan material1 but in this interpolation there are about one hundred and seventy verses4 ,the suggestion of these facts1 to the effect that ,luke is here employing a source distinct from that which he has used in his infancy section1 and that he is for the most part employing one source and not several1 may be further favored by the fact that when he comes back to the story told in ,mark 7and ,matthew7 he takes that up1 not where he left it1 at ,mk vi1 #da1 but at viii1 #bg2 as if he had found it inconvenient to make his peculiar source here work in with the common tradition4#abb ,,did ,,luke',s ,,great ,,interpolation ,,originally ,,exist ,,as ,a ,,separate ,,documentary ,,source8 ,the material of ,luke's great interpolation1 after the comparatively small amount of matter common to ,luke and ,matthew is subtracted from it1 has a decided homogeneity of its own4 ,it consists of nine sayings1 one incident 7the occurrence in the ,samaritan village7 which might with almost equal propriety be reckoned as a saying1 three healings1 all of which have the appearance of being introduced1 not for the sake of the cure1 but of the appended saying1 and thirteen parables4 ,these thirteen parables have not only a striking similarity among themselves1 but an equally striking dissimilarity to those parables which ,luke has in common with one or both of the other evangelists4 ,matthew's parables are usually brief sayings1 beginning with the phrase1 ,the kingdom of heaven is like1 etc4 ,the parables peculiar to ,luke 7there are fourteen in all and thirteen of them occur in this section7 are stories rather than parables in the strict sense4 ,some of them are introduced by the brief formula1 ,and he said unto them1 or ,and he said to his disciples1 etc4 ,others are given a more definite setting1 like the story of the ,good ,samaritan1 which is introduced as an answer to the question ,who is my neighbor8 ,however introduced1 they usually contain a more or less elaborated conclusion1 easily distinguished from the parable proper4 ,thus in the story of the ,good ,samaritan1 ,jesus asks the lawyer which of the three men he considers to have been neighbor to him who fell among the thieves4 ,the lawyer makes his reply1 and upon the basis of it ,jesus dismisses him with a word of pointed advice4 ,in the same manner the story of the ,rich ,fool is introduced as a rebuke to the man who asks ,jesus to help him secure his portion of an estate1 and closes with the reflection that whoever has the riches of this world but is not rich toward ,god is like this man4 ,so the stories of the ,lost ,sheep and the ,lost ,coin are introduced with the statement that the ,pharisees objected to ,jesus' eating with sinners1 and close with the statement1 ,likewise there is joy in the presence of the angels of ,god1#abc etc4 ,at least one or two of these parables seem to be provided with more than one conclusion4 ,the story of the ,unjust ,judge 7xviii1 #a-h7 is introduced in vs4 #a as being spoken concerning the necessity of continued prayer4 ,the story or parable itself then follows in vss4 #b-e4 ,vss4 #f-h;a give the conclusion in the words of ,jesus1 beginning with the words1 ,and the ,lord said4 ,then ,luke himself1 in vs4 #h;b1 adds1 ,but1 when the ,son of man cometh will he find the faith in the earth8#abd ,the story of the ,rich ,man and ,lazarus is introduced as a rebuke to the ,pharisees 7,lk xvi1 #ad-ae71 who loved riches and thot well of themselves4 ,the parable as thus introduced and as answering to this purpose appropriately closes at vs4 #be1 where ,abraham reminds the rich man that he had his good things and ,lazarus his poverty upon the earth1 but now their situations are reversed4#abe ,what follows in vss4 #bg-ca1 tho here given as a continuation of the same story1 has nothing to do with the contrast between rich and poor1 or with heartlessness and pity1 but only with belief and unbelief4 ,it may be observed also that the insertion of here and there a few verses that are elsewhere paralleled in ,matthew interrupts the otherwise good connection of ,luke's peculiar account4 ,thus the story of the ,rich ,man and ,lazarus is introduced1 as just remarked1 as a rebuke to the ,pharisees1 who loved money and justified themselves in the sight of men4 ,if it were allowed to follow immediately upon this1 the setting would be appropriate4 ,but between this introduction1 which is peculiar to ,luke1 and the story itself1 also peculiar to him1 there are inserted three verses 7xvi1 #af-ah7 in regard to law and divorce1 which quite break the connection4 ,these interrupting verses1 however1 are not peculiar to ,luke1 but are found in ,matthew also4 ,when all these facts are taken into account it is not surprising that the hypothesis has risen that the great interpolation1 exclusive of the ,q material contained in it1 came from a special source4 ,but the unity of this source is much harder to demonstrate than is the unity of ,q4 ,a considerable amount of the material1 aside from the ,q material1 in these sections is more or less closely duplicated by ,matthew1 and the ,perean source or its equivalent in parts must therefore have been used by him also4 ,matthew's demonstrated faithfulness to his sources raises serious doubt as to whether he could have known this ,perean source and have omitted so much of it4 ,the assumption that he did so1 and the assignment of the double tradition thruout this portion of ,luke1 would require also an entire rearrangement of ,q4 ,burton accepts this requirement1 and1 instead of ,q1 goes back to the ,logia as a special source of ,matthew4 ,the fact that some of this material in the so-called ,perean section of ,luke may easily be assigned to his own invention1 and that in the larger part of it where he is not duplicated by ,matthew his own hand can be clearly seen in additions and rearrangements1 would seem to tell against the unity of the ,perean source1 or against the assumption of any ,perean source properly so called1 and common to ,matthew and ,luke4 ,on the whole the hypothesis of a ,perean source does not seem to the writer to have been substantiated4 ,,other ,,possible ,,sources ,,for ,,material ,,peculiar ,,to ,,luke ,suggestion has been made in connection with a few of the passages considered on pp4 #aic-bjf as to a possible ,jerusalem source4 ,nothing can perhaps be said in support of such a hypothesis1 except what is suggested in the analysis on those pages and lies upon the surface of the passages4 ,another possible clew to the determination of one of ,luke's sources lies in the material that has to do particularly with women4 ,compare the raising of the widow's son and the speech of ,jesus referring to the ,old ,testament widow2 the ministering women1 ,mary and ,martha1 and the speech of the woman about the mother of ,jesus4 ,the writer does not consider this 7or the preceding7 to be anything more than a suggestion4 ,,conclusions ,,regarding ,q ,,material ,,in ,,the ,,single ,,traditions ,,of ,,matthew ,,and ,,luke ,the preceding investigations represent the recension of ,q used by ,matthew as containing about two hundred and sixty-seven verses1 or parts of verses4 ,of these ninety-eight are so closely parallel to ,luke as to be marked simply ,q4 ,eighty-nine1 paralleled in ,luke1 but with divergences such as to indicate a different wording in the source that lay before ,matthew and ,luke and eighty without any parallels in ,luke1 are assigned to ,q,mt4 ,the recension of ,q used by ,luke1 according to our analysis1 contained about two hundred and thirty-eight verses or parts of verses4 ,of these1 ninety-four are closely enough paralleled in ,matthew to be assigned simply to ,q2 eighty-one are paralleled in ,matthew1 but with such differences as to suggest different wording in the source2 and sixty-three are peculiar to ,luke4 ,it is not to be assumed that all of ,q is reproduced in either ,matthew or ,luke4 ,but from the treatment accorded to ,mark by ,matthew and ,luke1 respectively1 it is to be expected that ,matthew would omit less of the ,q material that lay before him than would ,luke2 and this presumption is confirmed by the results obtained4 ,the examination of ,luke's material indicates his command of a larger number of sources aside from ,mark and ,q than are apparent in ,matthew1 and this again agrees with ,luke's statement in his preface4 ,luke's ,gospel is longer than ,matthew's1 and approaches the limit apparently convenient in ancient documents4#abf ,this fact1 together with the greater amount of material he wished to incorporate from other sources1 would further account for ,luke's greater omissions from his ,q4 ,yet there is nothing to prove that ,luke's ,q1 as it was certainly different in some of its contents1 was not also briefer than ,matthew's4 ,it is possible to limit ,q strictly to the sections of ,matthew and ,luke in which the correspondences are extremely close1 to leave the remainder of their double tradition to unidentified sources1 and to make no claims for ,q 7,q,mt and ,q,lk7 in the single traditions of ,matthew and ,luke4 ,this indeed is the procedure of most scholars4 ,but it has the disadvantages of ignoring much material in the single traditions which is extremely similar to the ,q material and often stands1 in one or both ,gospels1 in closest connection with it1 and of leaving without explanation the material which is nearly enough alike to require some common basis but not near enough alike to indicate the use of the same recension of the same document4 ,the assumption of ,q,mt and ,q,lk1 going back to two different translations1 from different copies of the ,aramaic original1 and undergoing the process of alteration and accretion in different surroundings before falling into the hands of ,matthew and ,luke1 best accounts for the agreements1 the divergences1 and the peculiar but strongly similar material4 ,thus far we may claim that the facts of two hundred and sixty-seven verses in one source against two hundred and thirty-eight in the other1 ninety-eight in one extremely close in wording 7with many verses absolutely identical7 to ninety-four in the other1 and eighty verses in one against sixty-three in the other1 unduplicated1 but strongly suggesting by form and content their relationship with the rest1 do not throw any discredit upon the assumption of two recensions 7translations7 of one document1 but are what would be expected4 ,if the date for the original ,q is to be set as early as the year #fj1 or even earlier1 and its use by ,matthew and ,luke be put as late as #he to #ie1 the divergences between ,matthew's and ,luke's recensions will be further justified4 ,,chapter ,v ,,review ,,of ,q ,,material ,,in ,,matthew1 ,,luke1 ,,and ,,mark ,the accompanying tables of contents of ,q material in ,matthew1 ,luke1 and ,mark are prepared to facilitate comparison between the evangelists as to the amount and character of their ,q material4 ,they will help to determine whether ,,qmt and ,,qlk have enough in common1 and of such a sort1 as to entitle them still to be regarded as recensions of the same original4 ,they will also help us toward a determination of the original order of ,q4 ,the division into sections is a somewhat arbitrary one1 but has been made as nearly equal in ,matthew and ,luke as possible4 ,title and number are given to each section in each ,gospel1 to make the comparative study of contents and order more easy4 ,some slight differences may occasionally be detected between the assignments as they are made here1 and as they were made in the examinations of the double and single traditions4 ,these will be chiefly due to the necessity of taking the material here in sections instead of in detached verses and will not affect the results heretofore obtained4 ,,considerations ,,favoring ,,analysis ,,of ,q ,,into ,,qmt ,,and ,,qlk ,in the subjoined tables of ,q material in ,matthew and in ,luke the duplicated material is starred4 ,the sections which are identical 7or in a few cases not absolutely but practically so71 or in which the deviations are so slight as easily to be ascribed to the editorial work of ,matthew or ,luke1 are marked ,q4 ,the sections unduplicated1 or duplicated but with deviations too great to be assigned to ,matthew or ,luke working upon a similarly worded text1 are marked ,q,mt or ,q,lk4 ,,table ,,iv ,,contents ,,of ,q ,,material ,,in ,,matthew ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ,sec4,chap4 ,verse ,subject ,source ---------------------------------------- ------------------------- 99#a iii1 #g-aj,preaching of the ,baptist ,q 99#b iii1 #aa-ab,messianic announcement of the ,baptist ,q 99#c iv1 #a-aa,the temptation ,q 99#d v1 #c ,blessed are the poor in spirit ,q,mt #e v1 #d ,blessed are the meek ,q,mt #f v1 #e ,blessed are they that mourn ,q,mt 99#g v1 #f ,blessed are they that hunger after righteousness ,q,mt #h v1 #g ,blessed are the merciful ,q,mt #i v1 #h ,blessed are the pure in heart ,q,mt #aj v1 #i ,blessed are the peace-makers ,q,mt 99#aa v1 #aj-ab;,blessed are the persecuted ,q,mt 99#ab v1 #ac ,ye are the salt of the earth4 ,if the salt1 etc4 ,q,mt 99#ac v1 #ad-af,light of the world4 ,candle and bushel ,q,mt 99#ad v1 #ag-bj,relation to the law4 ,except your righteousness1 etc4 ,q,mt #ae v1 #ba-bb;,do not kill4 ,whoever is angry ,q,mt #af v1 #bc-bd;,if thou bring thy gift to the altar ,q,mt 99#ag v1 #be-bf;,agree with thine adversary ,q,mt #ah v1 #bg-bh,on adultery and lustfulness ,q,mt #ai v1 #bi-cj;,if thine eye1 hand1 offend thee ,q,mt 99#bj v1 #ca-cb,on divorce ,q 7,mk7 #ba v1 #cc-cg,on the taking of oaths ,q,mt 99#bb v1 #ch-db,on revenge4 ,resist not ,q,mt 99#bc v1 #dc-dh,love your enemies ,q,mt #bd vi1 #a-d ,on almsgiving ,q,mt #be vi1 #e-h ,on prayer3 be not as the hypocrites are ,q,mt 99#bf vi1 #i-ac,the ,lord's ,prayer ,q,mt 99#bg vi1 #ad-ae;,about forgiveness ,q,mt #bh vi1 #af-ah,on fasting3 not as the hypocrites ,q,mt 99#bi vi1 #ai-ba;,about treasures not on the earth ,q,mt 99#cj vi1 #bb-bc,the light of the body4 ,if thine eye be single ,q 99#ca vi1 #bd ,about serving two masters ,q 99#cb vi1 #be-cd;,about care ,q 99#cc vii1 #a-b ,about judging ,q,mt 99#cd vii1 #c-e ,the mote and the beam ,q #ce vii1 #f ,pearls before swine ,q,mt 99#cf vii1 #g-aa,seeking and finding ,q 99#cg vii1 #ab ,the ,golden ,rule ,q 99#ch vii1 #ac-ad,the narrow gate ,q,mt #ci vii1 #ae ,warnings against false prophets ,q,mt 99#dj vii1 #af-ah;,by their fruits ye shall know them ,q,mt 99#da vii1 #ba-bc,not everyone that saith1 ,lord1 ,lord ,q,mt 99#db vii1 #bd-bg;,house on rock and sand ,q,mt #dc vii1 #bh;a ,and it came to pass when he had finished1 etc4 ,q,mt 99#dd viii1 #e-aj,the centurion's servant healed ,q 99#de viii1 #aa-ab,many shall come from east and west ,q,mt 99#df viii1 #ai-bb,two men who would follow ,jesus ,q 99#dg ix1 #cg-ch,the harvest is great1 the laborers are few ,q 99#dh x1 #a ,the commission of the twelve ,q 7,mk7 #di x1 #e-f ,not in way of gentiles4 ,lost sheep of ,israel ,q,mt 99#ej x1 #g ,preach the kingdom of heaven at hand ,q,mt #ea x1 #h ,heal sick1 raise dead2 freely ye have received ,q,mt 99#eb x1 #i-aj;,instruction as to what to take4 ,laborer and his food ,q 7,mk7 99#ec x1 #aa-ac;,conduct on the way4 ,greet the house ,q 7,mk7 99#ed x1 #ad ,whoever does not receive you ,q 7,mk7 99#ee x1 #ae-af,more tolerable for ,sodom1 ,i send you forth as sheep among wolves ,q 99#ef x1 #ai-bj,take no thot what ye shall answer ,q 99#eg x1 #bd ,the disciple not above his teacher ,q 99#eh x1 #bf-cc;,fearless confession4 ,be not afraid of them2 things hidden and revealed ,q,mt 99#ei x1 #cd-cf;,division among relatives ,q,mt 99#fj x1 #cg-ci;,conditions of discipleship2 saving and losing one's soul ,q,mt 99#fa x1 #dj-db;,he that receiveth you ,q,mt 99#fb xi1 #b-f ,the question of the ,baptist1 and answer ,q 99#fc xi1 #g-aj;,jesus' testimony to ,john4 ,law and prophets till ,john ,q 99#fd xi1 #ba-bc,woes upon ,galilean cities ,q 99#fe xi1 #be-bg,wise and prudent4 ,all things are given unto me ,q #ff xi1 #bh-cj;,come unto me1 all ye that labor ,q,mt #fg xii1 #e-g ,the priests blameless2 mercy1 not sacrifice,q,mt 99#fh xii1 #bb-cb,the ,beelzebul controversy4 ,blasphemy ,q 7,mk7 99#fi xii1 #bd-ce;,a good man out of the good treasure of his heart ,q 99#gj xii1 #ci-dj,the sign of ,jonah ,q,mt 99#ga xii1 #da ,the men of ,nineveh ,q 99#gb xii1 #db ,queen of the ,south ,q 99#gc xii1 #dc-de;,about backsliding2 empty1 swept ,q 99#gd xiii1 #ab ,whoso has1 to him shall be given ,q 7,mk7 99#ge xiii1 #af-ag;,blessed are your eyes ,q,mt 99#gf xiii1 #ca-cb,parable of the ,mustard ,seed ,q 7,mk7 99#gg xiii1 #cc ,parable of the ,yeast ,q #gh xiii1 #dd ,parable of ,treasure ,hid in ,field ,q,mt #gi xiii1 #de-df,parable of the ,pearls ,q,mt #hj xiii1 #dg-dh,parable of the ,fish-,net ,q,mt #ha xiii1 #ea-eb,pharisee instructed in the kingdom of heaven ,q,mt 99#hb xv1 #ad ,blind leading the blind ,q 99#hc xvii1 #bj ,faith like a grain of mustard seed ,q,mt 99#hd xviii1 #f-g ,about offenses ,q 7,mk7 #he xviii1 #ab-ad,parable of ,lost ,sheep ,q,mt 99#hf xix1 #bh ,the apostles on twelve thrones ,q,mt 99#hf;a xxii1 #ce-ch,the great commandment ,q 7,mk7 #hg xxiii1 #b-c ,scribes and ,pharisees in ,moses' seat ,q,mt #hh xxiii1 #d ,they bind heavy burdens ,q,mt #hi xxiii1 #e ,they broaden their phylacteries ,q,mt #ij xxiii1 #h-aj;,be not called rabbi ,q,mt 99#ia xxiii1 #ac ,ye shut up the kingdom of heaven ,q,mt 99#ib xxiii1 #ae-af,woes upon ,pharisees ,q,mt 99#ic xxiii1 #cg-cj,lament over ,jerusalem ,q 99#id xxiv1 #bf-bg,the day of the ,son of man ,q,mt 99#ie xxiv1 #bh ,where the body is1 there the eagles1 etc ,q 99#if xxiv1 #cg-ci,the days of ,noah ,q,mt 99#ig xxiv1 #dj-da,the one taken1 the other left ,q,mt 99#ih xxiv1 #db-dd,the watching servant ,q 99#ii xxiv1 #de-ea,the true and false servants ,q ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------- 99 ,the asterisk indicates ,q material in ,matthew duplicated in ,luke4 ,,table ,v ,,contents ,,of ,q ,,material ,,in ,,luke ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ,sec4,chap4 ,verse ,subject ,source ---------------------------------------- ------------------------- 99#a iii1 #g-i ,preaching of the ,baptist ,q 99#b iii1 #af-ag,messianic announcement of the ,baptist ,q 99#c iv1 #a-ac,the temptation ,q 99#d vi1 #bj ,blessed are ye poor ,q,lk 99#e vi1 #ba ,blessed are ye that hunger ,q,lk 99#f vi1 #bb-bc;,blessed are ye when men hate you ,q,lk #g vi1 #bd-bf,woes upon rich1 full1 laughing1 popular ,q,lk 99#g;a vi1 #ca ,the ,golden ,rule ,q 99#h vi1 #bg-cf,love your enemies ,q,lk 99#i vi1 #cg-ch;,about judging ,q,lk 99#aj vi1 #ci ,parable of the ,blind ,leading the ,blind ,q 99#aa vi1 #dj ,the disciple not above his teacher ,q 99#ab vi1 #da-db,the mote and the beam ,q 99#ac vi1 #dc-dd,tree known by its fruits ,q,lk 99#ad vi1 #de ,a good man out of the good treasure of his heart ,q 99#ae vi1 #df ,why call ye me ,lord1 ,lord ,q,lk 99#af vi1 #dg-di;,house with and without foundation ,q,lk 99#ag vii1 #a-b1,the centurion's servant healed ,q #g-i 99#ah vii1 #ah1 ,question of ,john the ,baptist and answer ,q #bb-bc 99#ai vii1 #bd-bh;,jesus' testimony to ,john ,q #ca-ce 99#bj viii1 #af ,candle and bed 7bushel7 ,q,lk 99#ba viii1 #ag ,things hidden and revealed ,q,lk 99#bb viii1 #ah ,whoever has1 to him shall be given ,q 7,mk7 99#bc ix1 #a-b ,the mission of the twelve ,q 7,mk7 99#bd ix1 #e ,whoever shall not receive you ,q 7,mk7 99#be ix1 #eg-fj,two men who would follow ,jesus ,q #bf ix1 #fa-fb;,a third2 no man putteth his hand to the plow ,q,lk 99#bg x1 #b ,the harvest is great2 the laborers are few ,q 99#bh x1 #c ,i send you forth as lambs among wolves ,q 99#bi x1 #d ,instructions as to what to take ,q 7,mk7 7ix1 #c7 99#cj x1 #e-g ,conduct on the way2 greet the house4 ,laborer worthy of his hire ,q 7,mk7 99#ca x1 #h-aa,whoever receives1 or does not receive1 you ,q 7,mk7 99#cb x1 #ab ,more tolerable for ,sodom ,q 99#cc x1 #ac-ae,woes upon ,galilean cities ,q 99#cd x1 #af ,he that heareth 7receiveth7 you ,q,lk 7ix1 #dh7 #ce x1 #ag-bj,satan falling from heaven1 names written ,q,lk 99#cf x1 #ba-bb,wise and prudent2 all things are given unto me ,q 99#cg x1 #bc-bd;,blessed are the eyes that see what you see ,q,lk 99#ch x1 #be-bh,the great commandment ,q 7,mk7 99#ci xi1 #b-d ,the ,lord's ,prayer ,q,lk 99#dj xi1 #i-ac,seeking and finding ,q 99#da xi1 #ag-bc;,beelzebul controversy ,q 7,mk7 99#db xi1 #bd-bf;,about backsliding2 empty1 swept ,q 99#dc xi1 #bi-cj,the sign of ,jonah ,q,lk 99#dd xi1 #ca ,queen of the ,south ,q,lk 99#de xi1 #cb ,the men of ,nineveh ,q 99#df xi1 #cd-ce,the light of the body4 ,if thine eye be single ,q 99#dg xi1 #ci-eb,woes upon ,pharisees4 ,take away the key of knowledge ,q,lk 99#dh xii1 #d-i ,fearless confession2 be not afraid of them ,q,lk 99#di xii1 #aj ,blasphemy against ,son of man 7,beelzebul controversy7 ,q 7,mk7 99#ej xii1 #aa-ab,take no thot what ye shall answer ,q,lk 99#ea xii1 #bb-ca;,about care ,q #eb xii1 #cb ,fear not1 little flock ,q,lk 99#ec xii1 #cc-cd;,about treasures1 not on the earth ,q,lk #ed xii1 #ce-ch;,about the necessity for watchfulness ,q,lk 99#ee xii1 #ci-dj,the watching servant ,q 99#ef xii1 #db-df,the true and false servants ,q #eg xii1 #dg-dh;,beaten with few stripes or with many ,q,lk #eh xii1 #di-ej;,i came to cast fire2 ,i have a baptism ,q,lk 99#ei xii1 #ea-ec;,division among relatives ,q,lk #fj xii1 #ed-ef,signs of the time ,q,lk 99#fa xii1 #eg-ei;,agree with thine adversary ,q,lk 99#fb xiii1 #ah-ai,parable of the ,mustard ,seed ,q 7,mk7 99#fc xiii1 #bj-ba,parable of the ,yeast ,q 99#fd xiii1 #bc-bd,the narrow door 7gate7 ,q,lk #fe xiii1 #be-bg,when the door is shut ,q,lk 99#ff xiii1 #bh-bi,many from east and west ,q,lk 99#fg xiii1 #cd-be,lament over ,jerusalem ,q #fh xiv1 #g-aa;,about taking the chief seats at a feast ,q,lk #fi xiv1 #ab-ad;,about whom to invite to a feast ,q,lk 99#gj xiv1 #bf-bg;,conditions of discipleship ,q,lk #ga xiv1 #bh-cj,man building a tower ,q,lk #gb xiv1 #ca-cc,king going to war ,q,lk 99#gc xiv1 #cd-ce,salt is good4 ,if the salt has lost 7,mk7 ,q,lk 99#gc;a xvi1 #ac ,about serving two masters ,q 99#gd xvi1 #af ,the law and prophets until ,john ,q 99#ge xvi1 #ag ,relation to the law ,q,lk 99#gf xvi1 #ah ,divorce ,q 7,mk7 99#gg xvii1 #a-b ,offenses ,q 7,mk7 99#gh xvii1 #c-d ,on forgiveness ,q,lk 99#gi xvii1 #e-f ,faith as a grain of mustard seed ,q,lk #hj xvii1 #bj-ba,the kingdom cometh not with observation ,q,lk 99#ha xvii1 #bb-be,the day of the ,son of man ,q,lk 99#hb xvii1 #bf-bg,the days of ,noah ,q,lk #hc xvii1 #bh-cb,the days of ,lot ,q,lk 99#hd xvii1 #cc ,saving and losing one's soul ,q 99#he xvii1 #cd-ce,two in one bed 7field7 ,q,lk 99#hf xvii1 #cg ,where the body is1 there the eagles1 etc4 ,q #hg xviii1 #a-h ,the parable of the ,unjust ,judge ,q,lk #hh xxi1 #cd-ce,the necessity for watchfulness and prayer ,q,lk #hi xxii1 #cj ,eating and drinking in the kingdom of ,god2 twelve thrones ,q,lk ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 99 ,the asterisk indicates ,q material in ,luke duplicated in ,matthew4 ,as to the generally homogeneous character of the sections marked ,q1 there will be no dispute4 ,since these are restricted to the passages showing the very closest parallelism1 there can be no question about the propriety of assigning them to ,q4 ,the only question will be as to the assignment of any unduplicated material to any form of ,q1 and the assignment of the duplicated but not closely paralleled sections to ,q,mt and ,q,lk instead of simply to ,q4 ,reasons have been given#abg for such assignments in each case4 ,but a few sections may be taken as again illustrating the advantages of the ,q,mt-,q,lk hypothesis4 ,,passages ,,closely ,,similar1 ,,yet ,,with ,,divergences ,,too ,,great ,,to ,,be ,,accounted ,,for ,,upon ,,the ,,hypothesis ,,of ,,an ,,undifferentiated ,q ,sections #db in ,matthew and #af in ,luke contain the saying about the house on the rock and the sand 7with and without foundations74 ,these sections are universally ascribed to ,q1 both from their general similarity and from their position in each ,gospel as the conclusion to the ,sermon on the ,mount 7,plain74 ,but the wording is very dissimilar4 ,only those words are alike which must necessarily be so if two men were using the same subject as an illustration2 and this is true1 not only of the wording1 but of the thought4 ,those who assign the passage simply to ,q are compelled to suppose that1 ,matthew representing the original text1 ,luke has observed that the correct antithesis is not between a house built on a rock and a house built on the sand1 but between one built with a foundation and one built without one4 ,so he says nothing about the soil1 whether rock or sand1 but says that in one case the man built upon the surface1 and that in the other he digged deep and laid a good foundation4 ,the amount of re-working1 reinterpreting1 and re-writing thus required of ,luke is wholly unjustified by any treatment he has accorded to any of the sayings of ,jesus in ,mark4 ,it is presumable that he exercised his editorial function on his recension of ,q as he did upon the sayings-material in ,mark4 ,but it is much more natural to suppose that the story that lay before him in his source lay before him in a form considerably different from that which it had in ,matthew's source4 ,the assumption of the two recensions therefore has the advantage of preserving the section for ,q1 without the disadvantage of ascribing to ,luke a wholly unwarrantable amount of re-working4 ,sections #d-aa in ,matthew and #d-f in ,luke contain their different versions of the beatitudes4 ,those who assign indiscriminately to ,q all the verses contained in these sections have to assume that ,luke omitted five of the beatitudes4 ,no reason can be assigned for his doing so1 and it is wholly improbable that he would have deliberately mutilated a passage so liturgically complete and impressive4 ,the five omitted beatitudes are additions to the teachings of ,jesus1 manufactured on the basis of ,old ,testament exemplars4 ,but if anything stood in ,q1 these five beatitudes stood there1 only not in ,luke's recension1 but in ,matthew's4 ,,with ,,matthew',s ,q ,,before ,,him1 ,,luke ,,would ,,not ,,have ,,omitted ,,so ,,much ,,of ,,it ,those who argue for ,luke's omission of so much ,q material which 7according to their assumption7 stood before him1 allege as a precedent his omission of so much ,marcan material1 especially of the continuous section ,mk vi1 #de-viii1 #ba4 ,it is held by many students that the copy of ,mark used by ,luke did not contain this section4#abh ,the writer does not see the necessity for this assumption as there are obvious reasons for ,luke's omission of the section if it stood in his copy of ,mark4 ,it contains the doublet of the feeding of the four thousand4 ,luke avoids doublets as far as possible4 ,it contains the story of the walking on the sea1 a story similar in many respects to that of the storm at sea which ,luke had already taken from ,mark4 ,the dispute about hand-washing and the things that defile would have no interest for ,luke or his gentile readers4 ,the story of the ,canaanitish woman and her difficulties in securing help from ,jesus1 and the methods of healing the dumb man1 would offend ,luke's non-,jewish sympathies and his artistic sense4 ,the discussion about leaven he would omit because he had a partial parallel from another source4 ,in this whole section which ,luke omits from ,mark there are very few sayings of ,jesus1 and those of a character not to please or interest ,luke4 ,the omission of such a section1 or of anything else that ,luke omits from ,mark1 offers no precedent for the omissions he is alleged to have made from ,q4 ,in the preceding table of contents for ,q material in ,matthew 7pp4 #bbb-bc71 there are twenty-nine sections for which ,luke has no parallel4 ,five of these1 the omitted beatitudes1 have already been discussed4 ,of the remaining twenty-four there are a few which1 it may be admitted1 ,luke might not have cared to include1 even if they were in his ,q4 ,such are the sections on oaths1 on fasting1 on the blamelessness of the priests1 and on the ,pharisee instructed in the kingdom of ,god--all of a strongly ,jewish character4 ,to these may be added four other brief sections1 all from ,matthew's discourse against the ,pharisees2 especially1 the reference to phylacteries1 which would have no meaning for ,luke's readers1 and the injunction not to be called ,rabbi4 ,the saying1 ,give not that which is holy unto the dogs heathen nor cast your pearls before swine unbelievers1 he would hardly have taken if it had stood in his source4 ,but there are other sections which would particularly have delighted him1 and which it is almost inconceivable that he should have read and omitted4 ,such are the sections on alms-giving 7a favorite subject with ,luke2 see ,lk xi1 #da2 xii1 #cc72 on prayer 7a subject which he mentions eighteen times against ,matthew's ten1 outside of this passage72 the three little parables of the ,treasure ,hid in the ,field1 the ,pearls1 and the ,fish-,net1 and the beautiful saying1 so fitted to ,luke's universalistic purpose1 ,come unto me4 ,much less can any reason be assigned for ,matthew's omission of the sixteen unduplicated sayings ascribed to ,q,lk4#abi ,matthew almost invariably shortens ,mark's narratives1 and sometimes omits a narrative section1 but practically never omits a saying of ,jesus given in ,mark4 ,the case of the third would-be follower of ,jesus1 with the particularly fine saying1 ,no man having put his hand to the plow2 the little parables of the ,man ,building a ,tower and the ,king ,going to ,war2 the sayings1 ,i came to cast fire upon the earth1 ,i have a baptism to be baptized with1 ,fear not1 little flock1 would attract ,matthew as much as they did ,luke1 and with ,matthew's almost slavish adherence to ,mark in all ,mark's sayings-material1 no reason can be given for his omission of them4 ,if it be asked why these unduplicated sections1 which have been assigned to ,q,mt and ,q,lk1 are not assigned simply to special and undetermined sources1 the answer is that all these sections stand more or less closely connected with ,q material1 they are strongly similar to the other ,q matter in form and idea1 and equally different in form and feeling from the passages assigned to special sources4 ,they consist1 in both ,matthew and ,luke1 of short parables of the undoubted ,q type 7cf4 the ,treasure ,hid in the ,field1 the ,pearls1 the ,fish-,net1 the ,unjust ,judge7 and of short sayings2 whereas the special source or sources 7whether of ,matthew or ,luke7 consist of narratives 7the opening chapters of both ,gospels1 the ,peter-sections in ,matthew1 the death of ,judas in ,matthew1 ,jesus before ,herod in ,luke1 the watch at the grave in ,matthew1 the ,emmaus incident in ,luke1 and the peculiar matter of both ,matthew and ,luke in their accounts of the days in ,jerusalem7 and of story-parables like the ,prodigal ,son1 the ,lost ,coin1 the ,good ,samaritan1 the ,entrusted ,money4 ,these similarities in the material assigned to a special source or sources are not enough to prove the unity of that source for either ,matthew or ,luke1 and are not so intended2 but they are enough to distinguish the material so assigned from that assigned to ,q,mt and ,q,lk1 and to establish the comparative homogeneity of this latter material in each case4 ,,the ,,secondary ,,traits ,,are ,,in ,q,mt ,,and ,q,lk1 ,,not ,,in ,q ,the distinction between ,q and ,q,mt and ,q,lk is further justified by the consideration of secondary traits4 ,q,mt and ,q,lk represent deviations from1 or additions to1 an original ,q4 ,since these deviations and additions would go back to a very early time1 and even when comparatively late might embody an early tradition1 the presence of primary traits in ,q,mt and ,q,lk need not surprise us4#acj ,since ,q cannot be proved to be earlier than #fj-fe1 it may also easily contain secondary traits4 ,but since ,q,mt and ,q,lk are in general later than ,q1 and presumably represent a later tradition1 we should naturally expect to find in them a larger number of secondary characteristics4 ,in the material assigned to ,q in ,tables ,,iv and ,v#aca the writer believes that not many unmistakably secondary traits appear4 ,the messianic announcement of the ,baptist is certainly primary as compared with ,mark predicting ,jesus as the fire-judge1 contrary to the facts of his life4 ,the temptation in ,q is also primary as compared with ,mark1 with the exception of the conversation between ,jesus and ,john in ,matthew1 which is obviously secondary and belongs to ,q,mt4 ,of the sayings1 only a few have a secondary sound4 ,such are especially those connected with the instructions to the twelve1 which seem to embody some of the experiences1 or bespeak some of the needs1 of the early ,christian itinerant preachers3 ,the laborer is worthy of his hire or his keep2 ,i send you forth as sheep among wolves2 ,the disciple is not above his master2 ,the law and the prophets prophesied until ,john2 perhaps also ,matthew's long beatitude1 ,blessed are ye when men persecute you1 etc4 ,but by far the most of the secondary traits1 and the most unmistakable of them1 are found in the additions to and deviations from the ,q tradition in ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 ,such are the additional beatitudes supplied by ,matthew's ,q and made up of ,old ,testament quotations2 the insertion into the temptation story1 in ,q,mt1 of the protest of ,john the ,baptist and the answer of ,jesus2 the warning against false prophets in ,matthew2 the speech about those who say ,lord1 ,lord2 the prediction of division among relatives 7seemingly answering the condition in which the early church found itself72 the many coming from the east and the west 7written in the days of the expanding church72 the sign of ,jonah interpreted 7in ,matthew7 as referring to the resurrection2 the parable of the ,fish-,net with its eschatological interpretation2 the saying about the twelve apostles on twelve thrones2 and the various sections interpolated1 apparently from ,q,mt and ,q,lk1 into ,mark's apocalypse4 ,closer analysis of particular sections tends to corroborate this impression of secondary traits as coming not from ,q but from the recensions4 ,for example1 the sayings about the light and the bushel and about the salt that had lost its savor appear to have stood in ,q4 ,but from his own recension of ,q1 ,matthew prefixed to the saying what ,luke did not find in his recension1 ,ye are the light of the world1 ,ye are the salt of the earth1 two sayings which seem to reflect the exalted estimate of the apostles in the sub-apostolic age4 ,the ,lord's ,prayer probably stood in the original ,q much as it is in ,luke2 ,matthew's amplifications1 found in his source1 have the liturgical and ecclesiastical coloring that betray the later time4 ,so1 further1 ,luke's parable of the ,unjust ,judge1 with its generally ,q sound1 but with its pathetic question appended 7from ,luke's recension71 ,nevertheless1 when the ,son of man cometh1 shall he find the faith on the earth8 bespeaks the times of persecution when the survival of the new faith looked problematical4 ,matthew's ,cast not your pearls before swine1 ,the ,pharisee instructed in the kingdom of heaven1 ,the scribes and ,pharisees in ,moses' seat1 all from ,q,mt1 and ,luke's ,rejoice that your names are written in heaven1 his saying about discerning the signs of the time 7of the parousia71 his kingdom cometh not with observation1 and his twice repeated injunction to watchfulness1 all from ,q,lk1 certainly have a secondary sound4 ,the presence of so many secondary traits in ,q,mt and ,q,lk does not prove that the passages so assigned might not be assigned to ,s or some other special or undefined source2 but many if not all of them being passages ordinarily assigned simply to ,q1 the large number of secondary traits in them does tend to substantiate1 in an unlooked-for manner1 the assumption of the two recensions4 ,,chapter ,,vi ,,did ,,mark ,,also ,,use ,q8 ,in the introduction to his ,beginnings of ,gospel ,history1 ,bacon remarks that the dependence of ,mark upon ,q can be demonstrated4 ,wellhausen says that independence between ,mark and ,q is not to be thot of4 ,streeter1 in ,oxford ,studies1 has made the most recent and thoro study of the relation of ,mark and ,q1 and some of his results have already been utilized and acknowledged4 ,even ,dr4 ,sanday1 in the introduction to ,oxford ,studies1 confesses himself an unwilling convert to the theory that ,mark was acquainted with1 and made some use of1 ,q4 ,wellhausen alone1 so far as ,i know1 maintains the apparently untenable position that ,q is later than ,mark1 and that where the two overlap1 ,q has used ,mark instead of ,mark using ,q4 ,his acceptance of this position is partially explained by the fact that he makes no distinction between the original ,q and the recensions of it in the hands of ,matthew and ,luke2 he also allows to ,q much material 7e4g41 the conversation between ,john and ,jesus at the baptism7 which other scholars1 without the hypothesis of ,q,mt and ,q,lk1 ascribe to the hand of ,matthew or ,luke4 ,harnack and ,wernle maintain the priority of ,q to ,mark4 ,wernle concedes some small use of ,q by ,mark1 and ,harnack thinks ,mark was at least acquainted with ,q4 ,the discrimination between ,q,mt and ,q,lk and the original ,q makes unnecessary a good deal of the work that has heretofore been done toward determining the primary and secondary traits in ,mark and ,q respectively4 ,assuming that ,mark used either the original ,q1 or as near to the original of that document as we can yet get1 the recensions used by ,matthew and ,luke would be perhaps thirty1 certainly twenty1 years later than that used by ,mark4 ,in the fifty or more verses of ,mark that appear to have stood also in ,q1 there is nothing that can be shown to be later than the year #gj 7the date generally assigned to ,mark74 ,there is nothing to suggest that the author had witnessed the destruction of ,jerusalem1 or the events immediately leading up to it4 ,the presence of the same material in ,mark and ,q is demonstrated by the agreements of ,matthew and ,luke against ,mark1 or by the deviations of the one or the other of them from the ,marcan form of a saying1 in such way as not to admit of explanation except by the assumption of two sources 7,mark and ,q7 in the hands of ,matthew and ,luke4 ,in other words1 if ,mark did use ,q1 but if he used the same text of it as was used by ,matthew and ,luke1 and if the three followed ,q with equal faithfulness1 in all such instances ,q would fail to appear1 since both ,matthew and ,luke would appear to be following only ,mark4 ,it is therefore where there are deviations of either ,matthew or ,luke from ,mark in sections where the other follows ,mark closely1 or where there are agreements of ,matthew and ,luke against ,mark in sayings-material1 that the presence of ,q behind ,mark can be detected4 ,upon the hypothesis of ,q without ,q,mt or ,q,lk1 the argument by which the use of ,q by ,mark1 as against the use of ,mark by ,q1 was proven1 consisted of picking out the primary and secondary traits in ,mark and ,q respectively1 and of showing that the primary traits were in ,q and the secondary in ,mark4 ,but this was very difficult to do1 so long as1 e4g41 the ,peter incidents peculiar to ,matthew1 or the conversation during the baptism1 were attributed to ,q4 ,for these were indisputably secondary4 ,if the priority of ,mark was to be maintained1 all such traits had to be removed from ,q and assigned to the evangelist or to some special source4 ,upon the theory now advocated by the writer1 these secondary traits are practically all assigned1 not to the original ,q1 but to ,q,mt or ,q,lk4#acb ,but if ,mark used any form of ,q1 it was not ,q,mt or ,q,lk1 but some much simpler1 more primary1 and doubtless less extended1 form4 ,the presence of secondary traits in ,q,mt and ,q,lk therefore does nothing toward proving the secondary character of ,q in its original form1 or in such an early form as would have been used by ,mark4 ,since nothing can be found in ,q which is either demonstrably or probably later than the date of ,mark1 the assumption that ,mark used ,q may be permitted to stand2 and with the removal of the secondary traits to the recensions1 it does not require the minute analysis which earlier hypotheses made necessary1 since there are no longer any indications militating against ,mark's use of ,q4 ,what now remains therefore is to determine as nearly as possible what material stood in ,mark and ,q4 ,,what ,,material ,,did ,,mark ,,take ,,from ,q8 ,in the attempt to determine what material ,mark has taken from ,q1 an effort will also be made to decide whether ,matthew and ,luke took the same material directly from ,q1 or indirectly from ,q thru ,mark4 ,the verses which one or both of them appear to have taken directly from ,q 7tho these verses stand also in ,mark7 will be added to the number of verses already attributed to ,q 7or ,q,mt and ,q,lk74 ,we shall thus have before us the largest possible sum-total of ,q material4 ,the tables of contents already made out for the ,q material1 as it now stands in ,matthew and ,luke respectively1#acc will throw further light upon the propriety or impropriety of regarding ,q,mt and ,q,lk as recensions of one original document4 ,the same tables will serve to indicate the probable order of ,q1 and the investigation now following will then be used to determine what acquaintance1 if any1 ,mark had with ,q1 and what use1 if any1 he made of that document4 ,,the ,,messianic ,,announcement ,,of ,,the ,,baptist 7,mk i1 #g-h7 ,matthew and ,luke are close to ,mark in their wording here1 but agree against him in putting his verses in reverse order and in the addition of ,greek3 kai pyri4 ,they then each add a verse 7,mt iii1 #ab2 ,lk iii1 #ag7 which has already been assigned to ,q4 ,in each ,gospel this verse develops the idea introduced by the ,greek3 kai pyri4 ,the order of ,matthew and ,luke is here necessarily1 and apparently originally1 different from that of ,mark1 since the relative clause which begins the additional matter of ,matthew and ,luke depends upon the order of sentences in these two ,gospels and will not fit ,mark's arrangement4 ,in spite therefore of the close agreement of ,matthew's vs4 #aa and ,luke's vs4 #af with ,mark1 these verses must be assigned to ,q4 ,in other words1 it is probable that here ,matthew and ,luke are depending directly upon ,q1 and not merely indirectly upon him thru ,mark4 ,,the ,,baptism ,,of ,,jesus 7,mk i1 #i-aa7 ,this section is added to ,q by many critics1 on the ground of its position between the preaching of the ,baptist and the temptation of ,jesus1 both related in ,q4 ,the agreements between ,matthew and ,luke against ,mark are not1 however1 frequent or important enough by themselves to suggest this assignment4 ,on the other hand1 the addition in ,matthew of the conversation between ,jesus and ,john points to a source in that respect different from that of either ,mark or ,luke4 ,matthew also represents the voice from heaven as directed to the crowd1 and not to ,jesus alone1 as do ,mark and ,luke4 ,in both these deviations ,matthew has an apparently later tradition1 and has preferred to follow his recension of ,q4 ,either ,luke's recension here agreed substantially with ,mark's1 or else ,luke has followed ,mark more closely than ,q4 ,,the ,,temptation ,,of ,,jesus 7,mk i1 #ab-ac7 ,the very brief account in ,mark is followed in ,matthew and ,luke by nine and eleven verses respectively1 which have been already assigned to ,q4 ,the question here is whether ,matthew and ,luke followed ,mark in the first two verses of their narratives1 and after that forsook him for ,q1 or whether they followed ,q thruout4 ,matthew and ,luke agree in substituting ,greek3 diabolos for ,mark's ,greek3 satanas1 in the omission of the clause and was with the wild beasts1 and in placing the temptation in the period of hunger following the forty days' fast4 ,they apparently followed ,q rather than ,mark1 but each introduced some changes out of deference to the latter4 ,mark's account is similar enough to that of ,matthew and ,luke to be a brief extract from ,q4 ,,the ,,beelzebul ,,controversy 7,mk iii1 #bj-bi7 ,this ,marcan section is duplicated in ,mt xii1 #bd-cb1 and ,lk xi1 #ae-bc2 xii1 #aj4 ,of these ,matthean and ,lucan accounts1 ,mt xii1 #bf-bh1 and ,lk xi1 #ah-bj1 are practically identical1 but not paralleled in ,mark4 ,in xii1 #bi1 ,matthew follows ,mk iii1 #bg1 almost word for word4 ,at the same place ,luke forsakes ,mark and deviates widely1 tho agreeing closely with ,matthew in the three preceding verses4 ,matthew's xii1 #cj1 and ,luke's xi1 #bc1 are again unparalleled in ,mark1 and are evidently from ,q4 ,matthew's vs4 #ca again goes back to ,mark's vs4 #bh1 but is influenced by his own ,q material in the following verses4 ,the derivation of ,mark from ,q in this passage is rendered doubly sure by the facts that the verses seriously interrupt the connection in ,mark1 and that the passage here consecutive in ,matthew and ,mark is separated in ,luke4 ,matthew is a conflation of ,mark and ,q4 ,luke is apparently ,q thruout4 ,matthew's ,marcan and ,q material being mixed1 it is impossible to tell whether ,matthew's ,q was here identical with ,luke's or not4 ,out of this section there should be added to ,q the passages ,mt xii1 #be1 and ,lk xi1 #ag1 #ba4 ,,five ,,detached ,,sayings 7,mk iv1 #ba-be7 ,such detached sayings1 unconnected with ,mark's narrative1 create at once a presumption of their having been taken from ,q4 ,luke has the first saying 7about the lamp7 in two places 7viii1 #af2 xi1 #cc71 indicating that he found it both in ,mark and ,q4 ,he also has a duplicate for the second saying1 while the fifth is repeated twice in both ,matthew and ,luke4 ,mk iv1 #bc1 is the proverbial saying used twice in both ,mark and ,luke and three times in ,matthew4 ,there is thus only one of ,mark's sayings 7iv1 #bd7 which is not given twice by ,matthew or ,luke or both4 ,an additional indication of the occurrence of these verses in ,q1 and ,mark's derivation of them from that source1 is the fact that they are part of a section in ,mark which seriously interrupts his narrative1 interposing a private conversation of ,jesus with his disciples between the teaching in the boat and the storm on the lake4 ,the verses are also given by ,matthew in four different chapters1 and by ,luke in two1 and by both in different order from each other and from ,mark4 ,all five of these ,marcan verses1 therefore1 and their parallels in ,matthew and ,luke1 should be assigned to ,q4 ,,the ,,parable ,,of ,,the ,,mustard ,,seed 7,mk iv1 #cj-cb7 ,this parable has a strong resemblance to those already assigned to ,q4 ,matthew's connection is the same as ,mark's2 ,luke's is different4 ,luke agrees with ,mark in beginning with a question1 tho he omits the second half of the double question in ,mark4 ,matthew follows ,mark1 or is strongly influenced by him in ,mt xiii1 #cb4 ,matthew and ,luke agree against ,mark in the words ,greek3 hon labn anthrpos4 ,according to a suggestion of ,wellhausen's1 ,greek3 ebalen eis kpon and ,greek3 espeiren en t agr may be translation variants4 ,in the conclusion ,matthew and ,luke agree much more closely with each other than with ,mark4 ,except for the influence of ,mark at the beginning1 ,luke seems to be following ,q1 while ,matthew's parable is a conflation of ,q and ,mark4 ,if ,mark here rests upon ,q1 then ,matthew is conflating a parable which ,mark drew from ,q with the same parable as he 7,matthew7 found it in his recension of ,q4 ,complicated as this may seem1 ,mark's parable is too closely similar to ,luke's to have had any but a ,q origin4 ,to ,q in ,luke should be added ,lk xiii1 #ah-ai2 and to ,q in ,matthew1 ,mt xiii1 #ca-cb4 ,,the ,,sending ,,out ,,of ,,the ,,twelve 7,mk vi1 #g-aa7 ,this passage is to be compared with ,mt x1 #a1 #g-h1 #i-af1 and ,lk ix1 #a-e2 x1 #a1 #c1 #d-g1 #i-ab 7with considerable rearrangement of order in the verses74 ,the ,marcan material1 as it reappears in both ,matthew and ,luke1 is mixed with much other material from ,q4 ,luke's addition of a mission of seventy and his division of this ,marcan material between that mission and the mission of the twelve add to the confusion4 ,matthew 7x1 #ad7 and ,luke 7ix1 #e7 agree in six words against ,mark4 ,in the verb ,greek3 ektinaxete1 ,matthew 7x1 #ad7 follows ,mark against ,luke4 ,matthew and ,luke agree against ,mark in saying ,greek3 mte rhabdon instead of ,greek3 ei m rhabdon4 ,in those parts of ,matthew's and ,luke's narratives that are not paralleled in ,mark there is probably an oral tradition mingled with the ,q material4 ,mark's version might be considered an excerpt1 rather than a copy1 of ,q4 ,to ,q in ,matthew may be added ,mt x1 #a1 #i1 #aj;ab1 #ad2 and to ,q in ,luke1 ,lk ix1 #a1 #c1 #e2 x1 #d1 #aj4 ,a ,,sign ,,refused 7,mk viii1 #ab7 ,on the ground of ,matthew's having doublets for this saying 7,mt xii1 #ci2 xvi1 #d7 and ,luke a parallel to it 7,lk xi1 #bi71 it may without further consideration be assigned to ,q4 ,the agreement of ,matthew and ,luke1 and the agreement of ,matthew's doublets1 in adding ,except the sign of ,jonah1 may be taken to indicate the difference here between ,mark's ,q and the later recensions4 ,,whosoever ,,will ,,follow ,,me 7,mk viii1 #cd-ce7 ,matthew has doublets for this saying in x1 #ch-ci2 xvi1 #bd-be2 ,luke in ix1 #bc-bd2 xiv1 #bg2 xvii1 #cc4 ,matthew and ,luke copy the ,marcan version with unusual fidelity thru about forty words4 ,they agree against him in saying ,greek3 ei tis for ,mark's ,greek3 hostis1 in the substitution of a form 7tho not the same form7 of the verb ,greek3 erchomai for ,greek3 akolouthein1 and in the employment of a subjunctive in place of an indicative of the verb ,greek3 apollymi4 ,luke adds the phrase day by day4 ,considering the remarkably close verbal agreement as well as the agreement in order1 there can be no doubt that ,matthew in xvi1 #bd-be1 and ,luke in ix1 #bc-bd1 are following ,mark2 their agreements against him may be explained partly by a desire to correct his style1 and partly by assimilation4 ,the resemblances between the other member of the doublet in each case1 and the saying as here reported in ,mark 7i4e41 between ,mt x1 #ch-ci2 ,lk xiv1 #bg2 xvii1 #cc1 and ,mk viii1 #cd-ce71 are sufficiently close to suggest1 if not to prove1 that ,mark's saying was derived by him from ,q4 ,since these verses have already been assigned to ,q in the examination of the double tradition1 they yield no new ,q material here4 ,,whoever ,,is ,,ashamed ,,of ,,me 7,mk viii1 #ch7 ,matthew has a parallel of this saying1 and ,luke has doublets for it 7,mt x1 #cc2 ,lk ix1 #bf2 xii1 #i74 ,the verse may be assigned to ,q4 ,,about ,,offenses 7,mk ix1 #db-dh7 ,matthew here follows ,mark rather closely1 except that he adds ,woe to the world because of offenses1 and conflates ,mark's two sayings about the hand and the foot into one4 ,matthew has doublets for ,mk ix1 #dc1 #de-dg1 in ,mt v1 #bi-cj1 and xviii1 #h-i4 ,luke has avoided the doublet1 but has a parallel to ,mark's verses in ,lk xvii1 #a-b4 ,the section may be assigned to ,mark and ,q4 ,,about ,,salt 7,mk ix1 #di-ej7 ,the little saying in vs4 #di is unduplicated in either of the other ,gospels4 ,if any source be suggested for it1 nothing more likely than ,q could be suggested4 ,if the saying be assigned to ,q1 it will be the only ,q saying in ,mark not taken over by either ,matthew or ,luke4 ,luke agrees in xiv1 #cd1 with ,mark as against ,matthew 7v1 #ac71 and with ,matthew against ,mark in ,greek3 mranth1 but shows the influence of ,mark again in ,greek3 artythsetai4 ,either ,mark follows ,q very loosely1 perhaps from memory1 or ,matthew and ,luke have a different recension4 ,,about ,,divorce 7,mk x1 #aa-ab7 ,matthew has doublets for this saying 7,mt v1 #cb2 xix1 #i74 ,in the latter occurrence of the saying in ,matthew1 the connection is the same as that of ,mark's4 ,it is omitted in that instance by ,luke1 presumably because it is part of a controversy with the ,pharisees4 ,but doubt is thrown upon the presence of the saying in ,q by the fact that it occurs twice in ,mark also1 and may have been taken from him by ,matthew in both instances4 ,,the ,,first ,,who ,,shall ,,be ,,last 7,mk x1 #ca7 ,this saying is paralleled in ,luke 7xiii1 #cj7 and has doublets in ,matthew 7xix1 #cj2 xx1 #af74 ,it apparently stood in both ,mark and ,q4 ,,true ,,greatness 7,mk x1 #dc-dd7 ,there are doublets for this saying in ,mt xx1 #bf-bg1 and xxiii1 #aa1 and in ,lk xxii1 #bf2 ix1 #dh4 ,it probably stood in both ,mark and ,q1 but this again cannot be proved1 since ,mark also has the saying twice 7ix1 #ce74 ,,about ,,faith 7,mk xi1 #bc7 ,there is a parallel for this saying in ,lk xvii1 #f1 and there are doublets for it in ,mt xvii1 #bj1 and xxi1 #ba4 ,it stood in ,mark and ,q4 ,,against ,,the ,,pharisees 7,mk xii1 #ch-dj7 ,this section is listed by ,mr4 ,streeter as from ,q1 because it looks like a reminiscence from a long denunciation in ,q4 ,this is probably correct1 but the doublets to establish it are lacking4 ,,the ,,holy ,,spirit ,,speaking ,,in ,,the ,,disciples 7,mk xiii1 #aa7 ,this saying is paralleled in ,mt x1 #ai1 and has doublets in ,lk xii1 #aa-ab1 and xxi1 #ad-ae4 ,,other ,,marcan ,,passages ,,considered1 ,,but ,,rejected ,in addition to the passages assigned to ,q in the preceding investigation1 several are suggested by ,streeter and ,wernle4 ,streeter suggests ,mk xiii1 #ae-af2 but the doublets in ,luke are apparently taken in both instances from ,mark4 ,streeter thinks that xiii1 #bh-cb1 has a genuine sound2 but there is nothing more specific to prove its presence in ,q4 ,streeter's suggestion that ,mk i1 #b-c1 is from ,q seems unjustifiable4 ,vs4 #c is an ,old ,testament quotation which ,matthew1 ,mark1 and ,luke all have in common4 ,if it stood originally in ,mark and is not to be regarded as a later addition1 there is no occasion for the assumption of ,q4 ,vs4 #b could hardly have stood in its present place when ,matthew and ,luke used ,mark4 ,it occurs in another connection in ,matthew and ,luke 7,mt xi1 #aj2 ,lk vii1 #bg71 and was probably copied from there into its present place by a later hand4 ,wernle's additions to the above ,q material in ,mark do not seem to be justified4 ,some of them1 e4g41 ,mk xi1 #ad1 rest upon making doublets 7in this case ,mt xxi1 #ai1 and vii1 #g-h7 where the wording is not close enough to warrant them4 ,others rest upon the general character of the sayings4 ,the latter is a tempting criterion1 and in ,matthew and ,luke1 who demonstrably make such extensive use of ,q1 it is more justifiable and has been used to some extent in the preceding analyses4 ,but in ,mark1 where ,q is so sparingly and loosely used1 it cannot be safely employed aside from other indications1 especially the occurrence of doublets4 ,the writer believes that the matter listed in the above tabulation is about all that can at present safely be assigned to ,q in ,mark4 ,it yields us1 as new ,q material in ,matthew1 sixteen verses1 and as new ,q material in ,luke1 seventeen4 ,this would bring the totals for ,q material in ,matthew and ,luke up to two hundred and eighty-three in ,matthew and to two hundred and fifty-five in ,luke4#acd ,the number of verses in ,mark which can be traced to ,q are about fifty4 ,all but sixteen of these verses in ,matthew and all but seventeen in ,luke had already been assigned to ,q4 ,only one stands in ,mark alone4 ,,table ,,vi ,,contents ,,for ,q ,,material ,,in ,,mark ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ,sec4,chap4 ,verse ,subject ,source ---------------------------------------- --------------------------- #a i1 #g-h ,messianic announcement of the ,baptist ,q #b i1 #ab-ac ,the temptation ,q #c iii1 #bb-bi ,the ,beelzebul controversy ,q #d iv1 #ba ,the light and the bushel ,q #e iv1 #bb ,things hidden and revealed ,q #f iv1 #bd ,with what measure 7about judging7 ,q #g iv1 #be ,whoever has1 to him shall be given ,q #h iv1 #cj-cb ,parable of the ,mustard ,seed ,q #i vi1 #g-aa ,mission of the twelve1 what to take1 conduct by the way1 if any place does not receive you ,q #aj viii1 #ab ,a sign refused ,q #aa viii1 #cd1ch ,conditions of discipleship ,q #ab ix1 #db ,about offenses ,q #ac ix1 #di-ej ,salt is good4 ,if the salt has lost1 etc4 ,q #ad x1 #aa-ab ,about divorce ,q #ae x1 #ca ,first last and last first ,q #af x1 #dc-dd ,whoso would be great among you ,q #ag xi1 #bc ,about faith ,q #ah xii1 #ch-dj ,against ,pharisaism ,q #ai xiii1 #aa ,take no thot what ye shall say ,q ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ,the above content being made out for the material common to ,mark and ,q1 the use of ,q by ,mark may be permitted to rest upon its general probability1 there being nothing to contradict it or to substantiate the opposite hypothesis4 ,how closely ,mark used ,q1 whether actually copying certain passages from him1 or merely recalling what he had read or heard read from ,q1 cannot be determined1 since what stood in the text of ,q used by ,mark is only an inference from what stood in the recensions used by ,matthew and ,luke4 ,,do ,,the ,,vocabulary ,,and ,,style ,,of ,,mark ,,and ,q1 ,,respectively1 ,,throw ,,any ,,light ,,upon ,,their ,,literary ,,relationship8 ,the inquiry might perhaps be carried a step farther by a comparison of the vocabularies of ,mark and ,q4 ,hawkins1 between the first and second editions of his ,horae ,synopticae1 made a second and more diligent search for linguistic peculiarities in ,q1 and declares himself unable to find any4 ,harnack1 on the contrary1 believes he finds some such4 ,sentences in ,q1 according to ,harnack1 are generally connected by ,greek3 kai1 de being used but seldom4 ,the same is true of ,mark4 ,but this only indicates the comparative nearness of both ,mark and ,q to the ,semitic4 ,the same may be said of the preponderance of simple verbs in distinction from compound in both ,mark and ,q4 ,greek3 ,ean is used twice as frequently as ,greek3 ei2 ,mark also appears to use the former thirty-six times and the latter but fifteen4 ,this fact seems to have more significance by reason of the other1 that ,luke uses one word thirty-two and the other thirty-three times4 ,matthew1 however1 uses ,greek3 ean exactly twice as often as ,greek3 ei4 ,when we remember that all we have of ,q is contained in ,matthew and ,luke1 and only a small portion of it in ,mark1 these facts do seem to indicate a preference for ,greek3 ean over ,greek3 ei as between ,mark and ,q on the one side and ,luke on the other1 but between ,mark and ,q on the one side and ,matthew on the other no such contrast appears4 ,mark and ,q are here no nearer to each other1 or very little1 than either of them is to ,matthew4 ,the particle ,greek3 te is never found in ,q4#ace ,it occurs five times in ,mt and seven times in ,lk1 and but once in ,mk4 ,greek3 ,hs in temporal clauses seems to be absent2 it is also absent from ,matthew1 while ,luke uses it nineteen times and ,mark but once4 ,clauses with ,greek3 ginomai1 frequent in ,matthew and ,luke1 are absent from ,q2 they also occur in ,mark2 but their absence from ,q may be due simply to ,q's lack of historical matter4 ,greek3 ,para and ,greek3 syn are absent2 the first is used about evenly by ,mark and ,matthew1 and more frequently by ,luke2 the second1 three times by ,matthew1 five times by ,mark1 and twenty-four times by ,luke4 ,,conclusion ,,as ,,to ,,mark',s ,,dependence ,,upon ,q ,these facts do not all point in the same direction4 ,they seem sometimes to indicate a linguistic affinity between ,q and ,mark1 but this affinity usually extends to ,matthew also4 ,what seems to be proved by them is that ,mark and ,q and ,matthew all stand nearer to the ,semitic than does ,luke4 ,but this is only the obverse of the statement that ,luke is the best ,grecist4 ,it throws no light upon the literary relation of ,mark and ,q4 ,such literary relation1 in fact1 cannot in the strict sense be proved4 ,it can only be rendered probable1 tho perhaps extremely probable1 by the unlikelihood that ,mark and ,q should have fifty verses in common without any literary relationship4 ,such relationship being assumed1 the dependence is on the side of ,mark4 ,,chapter ,,vii ,,the ,,original ,,order ,,of ,q ,the following tables are intended to throw light upon the probable original order of ,q4 ,they will also facilitate comparison of the ,q material in the two tables of contents given on pp4 #bbb-be4 ,the section numbers at the left are those in the tables for ,matthew and ,luke respectively on those pages4 ,table ,,vii gives the sections in the order in which they come in ,matthew1 with the numbers of the corresponding sections as they occur in ,luke2 ,table ,,viii1 the sections as they come in ,luke1 with numbers of corresponding sections in ,matthew4 ,unduplicated sections are not listed4 ,since ,matthew shows everywhere a tendency to group his material into discourses1 it is a priori probable that the original order of the ,q material is to be sought in ,luke and not in ,matthew4 ,given this tendency to combine1 reasons are obvious for ,matthew's combining1 in his ,sermon on the ,mount1 much matter that ,luke has scattered thru his ,gospel4 ,but if the ,q material originally stood in such continuous discourses1 no motive can be assigned for ,luke's breaking up these discourses and scattering their material thru so many chapters4 ,the assumption that ,matthew has combined1 in his ,sermon on the ,mount1 material which originally was separated as it still is in ,luke1 is corroborated by an analysis of that ,sermon1 which shows it to be anything but a unity4 ,much of the material which ,matthew has combined into this ,sermon has no duplicate in ,luke4 ,there is no means of telling where in ,matthew's ,q this unduplicated material stood4 ,but the fact that the duplicated matter has been brot forward by ,matthew from later chapters in ,luke would give the presumption that such of the unduplicated material as has no necessary unity where it stands also stood in ,q,mt1 not at the beginning where it now is1 but later2 and this is also what we should expect4 ,,table ,,vii ------------ ,,mt ,,lk ----------- ,sec4 ,sec4 ------------ #a #a #b #b #c #c #d #d #g #e #aa #f #ab #gc #ac #bj #ad #ge #ag #fa #bj #gf #bb #h #bc #h #bf #ci #bg #gh #bi #ec #cj #df #ca #gc #cb #ea #cc #i #cd #ab #cf #dj #cg #g #cf #fd #dj #ac #da #ae #db #af #dd #ag #de #ff #df #be #dg #bg #dh #bc #ej #bc #eb #bi #ec #cj #ed #bd #ed #ca #ee #cb #ee #bh #ef #ej #eg #aa #eh #dh #eh #ba #ei #ei #fj #gj #fj #hd #fa #cd #fb #ah #fc #ai #fc #gd #fd #cc #fe #cf #fh #da #fh #di #fi #ad #gj #dc #ga #de #gb #dd #gc #db #gd #bb #ge #cg #gf #fb #gg #fc #hb #aj #hc #gi #hd #gg #hf #hi #hf #ch #ia #dg #ib #dg #ic #fg #id #ha #ie #hf #if #hb #ig #ib #ih #ee #ii #ef ----------- ,,table ,,viii ------------ ,,lk ,,mt ----------- ,sec4 ,sec4 ------------ #a #a #b #b #c #c #d #d #e #g #f #aa #g;a #cg #h #bb #h #bc #i #cc #aj #hb #aa #eg #ab #cd #ac #dj #ad #fi #ae #da #af #db #ag #dd #ah #fb #ai #fc #bj #ac #ba #eh #bb #gd #bc #dh #bd #ed #be #df #bg #dg #bh #ee #bi #eb #cj #ec #ca #ed #cb #ee #cc #fd #cd #fa #cf #fe #cg #ge #ch #hf #ci #bf #dj #cf #da #fh #db #gc #dc #gj #dd #gb #de #ga #df #cj #dg #ia #dg #ib #dh #eh #di #fh #ej #ef #ea #cb #ec #bi #ee #ih #ef #ii #ei #ei #fa #ag #fb #gf #fc #gg #fd #ch #ff #de #fg #ic #gj #fj #gc #ab #gc;a #ca #gd #fc #ge #ad #gf #bj #gg #hd #gh #bg #gi #hb #ha #id #hb #if #hd #fj #he #ag #hf #ae #hi #hf ----------- ,taking the hint that ,luke's order probably represents the original order of the ,q material1 we find this supposition confirmed by the present arrangement4 ,in spite of ,matthew's transpositions1 the sections in ,luke and ,matthew1 as grouped in ,table ,,ix1 still stand in the same relative order4 ,,table ,,ix ,lk ,mt #a #a ,the preaching of the ,baptist #b #b ,the messianic announcement of the ,baptist #c #c ,the temptation #d #d ,blessed are the poor #e #g ,blessed are ye that hunger #f #aa ,blessed are ye when men hate you #h #bc ,love your enemies #ac #dj ,tree known by its fruits #ae #da ,why call ye me ,lord1 ,lord8 #af #db ,house on rock and sand 7with and without foundation7 #ag #dd ,the centurion's servant healed #ah #fb ,question of ,john the ,baptist1 and ,jesus' answer #ai #fc ,jesus' testimony to ,john #be #df ,two men who would follow ,jesus #bg #dg ,the harvest is great1 the laborers are few #bi #eb ,instructions to disciples as to what to take on journey #cj #ec ,conduct on the way2 greet the house #ca #ed ,whoever receives you1 receives you not #cb #ee ,more tolerable for ,sodom #dg #ia ,woes upon the ,pharisees #dg #ib ,ye shut up the kingdom of heaven 7take away the key of knowledge7 #ee #ih ,the watching servant #ef #ii ,the true and false servants #fb #gf ,parable of the ,mustard ,seed #fc #gg ,parable of the ,yeast #ha #id ,the day of the ,son of man #hb #if ,the days of ,noah ,each of these groups--one of seven sections1 two of four1 and six of two sections each--probably stood1 within itself1 in the same order as that in which we now find it in ,matthew and ,luke4 ,the sections grouped in ,table ,x have suffered such slight transpositions as to make it probable that each of the groups constituted a continuous passage1 probably in the order preserved by ,luke4 ,,table ,x ,lk ,mt #ba #eh ,things hidden and revealed #bc #dh ,the mission of the twelve #bd #ed ,whoever shall not receive you #be #df ,two men who would follow ,jesus #bg #dg ,the harvest is great1 the laborers are few #bh #ee ,i send you forth as lambs among wolves #bi #eb ,instructions as to what to take on journey #cj #ec ,greet the house #ca #ed ,whoever receives you #cb #ee ,more tolerable for ,sodom #cc #fc ,woes upon ,galilean cities #cd #fa ,he that receiveth you receiveth me #cf #fe ,wise and prudent2 all things are given unto me of my ,father #da #fh ,the ,beelzebul controversy #db #gc ,about backsliding1 empty1 swept and garnished #dc #gj ,the sign of ,jonah #dd #gb ,queen of the ,south #de #ga ,the men of ,nineveh #di #fh ,blasphemy against the ,son of man #dh #eh ,fearless confession2 be not afraid of them #ej #ef ,take no thot what ye shall answer #ea #cb ,about care #ec #bi ,about treasures1 not on the earth #ha #id ,the day of the ,son of man #hb #if ,the days of ,noah #he #ig ,the one taken1 the other left #hf #ie ,where the body is1 there the eagles will be gathered ,there is one other item1 which ,i owe to ,mr4 ,streeter1#acf that strongly supports the assumption that ,luke has preserved the ,q material in its most nearly original form4 ,that is1 that ,luke allows himself much less liberty in the rearrangement of ,mark's order than does ,matthew4 ,the best single testimony to his faithfulness to ,mark's order is seen in the fact that where he makes his great omission from ,mk 7,mk vi1 #de-viii1 #bf71 beginning at that point his great interpolation 7,lk ix1 #ea-xviii1 #ad71 he does not1 after returning to ,mark1 go back and pick up any single item that he has omitted4 ,detached sayings1 some brief1 and some1 like the ,beelzebul controversy1 of considerable length1 which he places in a different connection from that in which ,mark gives them1 can uniformly be shown to have stood in ,q as well as in ,mark1#acg and ,luke follows ,q's order with ,q's wording4 ,in the earlier part of his narrative1 ,luke does permit himself some little freedom in deviating from ,mark's order2 notably in the imprisonment of ,john the ,baptist1 the call of the first disciples1 and the rejection at ,nazareth 7in each case1 apparently1 at the expense of some anachronism74 ,except for these instances his transpositions of ,marcan material are slight1 and usually amount rather to its rearrangement within a single section than to a genuine change of order in the structure4 ,an exception to this rule is his passion narrative1 where his use of ,mark is greatly influenced by his special source4 ,q was apparently a collection of sayings1 without chronological framework or data of any sort4 ,but to the sayings of ,jesus there was prefixed a slight account of the preaching of ,john the ,baptist4 ,this will not seem strange when it is remembered that ,q was a ,palestinian document1 and that the cult of ,john the ,baptist long survived the origin of ,christianity4 ,what is not so easy to explain is ,q's apparent inclusion of one narrative1 the story of the centurion's servant4 ,it also contained an account of the sending out of the twelve1 but apparently no reference to the passion4 ,the absence of narratives1 or of any chronological hints1 would make its rearrangement easy2 perhaps it suffered some derangement at the hands of those who added the sections peculiar to ,matthew's and ,luke's recensions 7as it did at the hands of ,matthew himself71 and who are responsible for some of the deviations between the two4 ,as ,mr4 ,streeter suggests1 if ,mark were lost1 we could not1 from ,matthew and ,luke1 be sure either of ,mark's content or his order4 ,no more can we of ,q4 ,about all that can be said is that the strong probability is that ,luke more nearly than ,matthew reproduces that order4 ,,chapter ,,viii ,,summary ,,and ,,conclusions ,the positions reached in this study may be gathered up in a few brief statements3 #a4 ,matthew and ,luke depend for the structure of their ,gospels1 and for practically all of their narrative material1 upon ,mark4 #b4 ,in the order of ,marcan material1 ,matthew and ,luke have made such changes as were desirable from the use to which they wished to put this matter4 ,matthew has made fewer omissions1 ,luke fewer transpositions4 #c4 ,the changes which ,matthew and ,luke have made in the substance or wording of the ,marcan material1 including their omissions from it1 may be accounted for by a desire to produce a better literary form1 to avoid statements that offended the growing sentiment of the church1 and to adapt their own narrative to their own public4 ,some changes must go unaccounted for4 #d4 ,the hypothesis of a more primitive form of ,mark in the hands of ,matthew and ,luke is not demanded by the facts4 ,matthew and ,luke used substantially our ,mark4 #e4 ,matthew and ,luke also used a document ,q1 whose content1 within limits1 is well agreed upon4 #f4 ,various facts1 especially translation variants1 require the assumption that this ,q was originally an ,aramaic document1 used by ,matthew and ,luke respectively1 in two ,greek translations that went back to two different ,aramaic texts4#ach #g4 ,this furnishes the clue for the analysis of ,q into ,q,mt and ,q,lk1 and for the assignment to these two recensions of ,q of much material which has hitherto been assigned to unknown sources4 #h4 ,mark has some literary dependence upon ,q2 but the ,q which he knew was an earlier form than those in the hands of ,matthew and ,luke4 #i4 ,the original order of ,q is best seen in the order of the ,q material preserved in ,luke4 ,,indexes ,i4 ,,passages ,,cited ,,mark3 i1 #g-h1 p4 #bcg4 i1 #i-aa1 pp4 #cg1 #bcg-ch4 i1 #ab-ac1 p4 #bch4 i1 #af-bj1 #ba-bh1 pp4 #ch1 #ie4 i1 #bi-ca1 pp4 #ch4 i1 #cb1 p4 #ajj4 i1 #cb-cd1 p4 #ci4 i1 #ce-ch1 pp4 #ci-dj4 i1 #dj-de1 p4 #da4 ii1 #a-ab1 pp4 #da-db4 ii1 #i-aj1 p4 #ic4 ii1 #ac-bb1 p4 #db4 ii1 #bc-bh1 p4 #dc4 ii1 #be-bf1 p4 #id4 iii1 #a-ai1 pp4 #dd-de4 iii1 #g-h1 p4 #aja4 iii1 #bj-cj1 pp4 #de1 #gb-gc4 iii1 #bj-bi1 pp4 #bch-ci4 iii1 #ca-;iv1 #ab1 p4 #de4 iv1 #a-cc1 p4 #gg4 iv1 #ac-bj1 p4 #df4 iv1 #ba-be1 p4 #dg4 iv1 #bd-be1 p4 #bci4 iv1 #cj-cb1 pp4 #dg1 #bdj4 iv1 #ce-da1 pp4 #dg-dh4 v1 #a-bj1 pp4 #dh-di4 v4 #ba-dc1 pp4 #di-ej1 #gb4 vi1 #a-f1 p4 #ea4 vi1 #f-ac1 pp4 #ea-eb4 vi1 #g-aa1 p4 #bda4 vi1 #ad-af1 pp4 #eb-ec4 vi1 #ag-bi1 pp4 #ec-ed4 vi1 #cj-dd1 pp4 #ed-ee4 vi1 #de-eb1 pp4 #ee-ef4 vi1 #de-viii1 #bf1 pp4 #ib-ic4 vi1 #ec-ef1 p4 #ef4 vii1 #a-bc1 pp4 #ef-eg4 vii1 #bd-cj1 p4 #eg4 vii1 #cb-cg1 p4 #gd4 viii1 #a-ba1 p4 #eg4 viii1 #ab1 p4 #bda4 viii1 #bb-bf1 p4 #gd4 viii1 #bg-cc1 p4 #eh4 viii1 #cd-ce1 pp4 #bda-db4 viii1 #cd-;ix1 #a1 pp4 #eh-ei4 viii1 #ch1 p4 #bdb4 ix1 #b-ac1 #ei4 ix1 #aa-ac1 p4 #gc4 ix1 #ad-cb1 pp4 #fj-fa4 ix1 #cc-dh1 p4 #fa4 ix1 #db-dh1 p4 #bdb4 ix1 #di-ej1 p4 #bdc4 x1 #aa-ab1 pp4 #fa1 #bdc4 x1 #ac-de1 p4 #fb4 x1 #bi1 pp4 #aja-b4 x1 #ca1 p4 #bdc4 x1 #dc-dd1 p4 #bdd4 x1 #df-eb1 p4 #fc4 xi1 #a-aa1 p4 #fc4 xi1 #ab-ad1 p4 #fd4 xi1 #bj-be1 p4 #fd4 xi1 #bc1 p4 #bdd4 xii1 #a-ab1 p4 #fe4 xii1 #c1 pp4 #ajb-c4 xii1 #ah-bg1 p4 #fe4 xii1 #bh-dj1 p4 #ff4 xii1 #ch-dj1 p4 #bdd4 xiii1 #i-bj1 p4 #ff4 xiii1 #aa1 p4 #bdd4 xiii1 #bd-cb1 p4 #fg4 xiv1 #a1 p4 #ajc4 xiv1 #c-i1 p4 #gc4 xiv1 #ab1 pp4 #ajd-e4 xiv1 #bb-be1 p4 #fh4 xiv1 #be1 p4 #gc4 xiv1 #bh1 p4 #gc4 xiv1 #cb-ed1 p4 #fh4 xiv1 #eh1 p4 #gc4 xiv1 #ff-gb1 p4 #fi4 xv1 #ba-cb1 p4 #fi4 xv1 #db1 p4 #aje4 ,,matthew3 iii1 #g-aj1 p4 #abi4 iii1 #aa-ab1 p4 #acj4 iii1 #ac-ag1 p4 #cg4 iv1 #c-aa1 pp4 #acj-ca4 iv1 #ah-bb1 pp4 #ch1 #ie-if4 iv1 #be1 p4 #aja4 v1 #c1 p4 #aca4 v1 #d-e1 p4 #afg4 v1 #e-f1 p4 #acb4 v1 #g-aj1 pp4 #afg-fh4 v1 #aa-ac1 pp4 #acb-cc4 v1 #ad1 p4 #afi4 v1 #ae1 pp4 #dg1 #acc-cd4 v1 #af1 p4 #afi4 v1 #ag1 #ai-bd1 #bg-bh1 pp4 #agj-ga4 v1 #ah1 p4 #ace4 v1 #be-bf1 p4 #ace4 v1 #bi-cj1 p4 #aga4 v1 #ca1 pp4 #aga-gb4 v1 #ca-cb1 p4 #fa4 v1 #cc-cg1 p4 #agb4 v1 #ci-dj1 pp4 #ace-cf4 v1 #da1 p4 #agb4 v1 #dc1 p4 #agc4 v1 #dd-dh1 pp4 #ace-cf4 vi1 #a-d1 pp4 #agc-gd4 vi1 #e-h1 p4 #agd4 vi1 #i-ac1 p4 #acf4 vi1 #af-ah1 p4 #age4 vi1 #ai-bc1 p4 #acg4 vi4 #bd-cc1 p4 #ach4 vii1 #a-e1 p4 #aci4 vii1 #f1 pp4 #age-gf4 vii1 #g-aa1 pp4 #aci-dj4 vii1 #ab-ad1 p4 #adj4 vii1 #ae1 p4 #agf4 vii1 #af-ah1 p4 #ada4 vii1 #ai-bj1 p4 #agg4 vii1 #ba-bc1 pp4 #ada-db4 vii1 #bd-bg1 p4 #adc4 vii1 #bh1 pp4 #agg-gh4 vii1 #bh-bi1 p4 #ch4 viii1 #a-d1 p4 #da4 viii1 #e-aj1 pp4 #adc-de4 viii1 #aa-ab1 pp4 #ade-df4 viii1 #ac1 pp4 #agh-gi4 viii1 #ad-ae1 pp4 #ch-ci4 viii1 #af1 p4 #ajj4 viii1 #af-ag1 p4 #ci4 viii1 #ai-bb1 p4 #adf4 ix1 #a-h1 p4 #da4 ix1 #e-f1 pp4 #ic-id4 ix1 #i-ac1 p4 #db4 ix1 #ac1 p4 #agi4 ix1 #ad-ag1 p4 #db4 ix1 #ah-bf1 pp4 #di-ej4 ix1 #bg-ca1 p4 #agi4 ix1 #cb-cd1 p4 #ahj4 ix1 #ce1 pp4 #ea-eb4 ix1 #cg-ch1 p4 #adf4 x1 #b-d1 pp4 #dd-de4 x1 #e-h1 p4 #ahj4 x1 #aj-ac1 pp4 #adf-dg4 x1 #ae1 p4 #adg4 x1 #af1 p4 #adh4 x1 #af-be1 pp4 #ahj-ha4 x1 #ai-bj1 p4 #adh4 x1 #bd-be1 p4 #adh4 x1 #bf-cc1 pp4 #adi-ej4 x1 #cd-cf1 p4 #aej4 x1 #cg-ci1 pp4 #aej-ea4 x1 #dj1 p4 #aea4 x1 #da-db1 pp4 #ahj-ha4 xi1 #b-bg1 p4 #aeb4 xi1 #ad1 p4 #aha4 xi1 #ae1 p4 #ahb4 xi1 #bj1 p4 #ahb4 xi1 #bc-bd1 pp4 #ahb-hc4 xi1 #bh-cj1 p4 #ahc4 xii1 #a-h1 p4 #dc4 xii1 #c-d1 p4 #id4 xii1 #e-g1 p4 #ahd4 xii1 #i-ba1 p4 #dd4 xii1 #ag-ba1 p4 #ahd4 xii1 #bb-cg1 p4 #de4 xii1 #bg-bh1 p4 #aec4 xii1 #cj1 p4 #aec4 xii1 #cd1 p4 #ahd4 xii1 #cf-cg1 p4 #ahe4 xii1 #ch-db1 p4 #aec4 xii1 #dj1 p4 #ahe4 xii1 #dc-de1 p4 #aed4 xiii1 #af-cc1 p4 #aed4 xiii1 #ah-bc1 p4 #df4 xiii1 #bd-cj1 p4 #ahe4 xiii1 #dd-eb1 pp4 #ahf-hg4 xiii1 #ec-eh1 p4 #ea4 xiv1 #a-b1 pp4 #eb-ec4 xiv1 #c-ab1 pp4 #ec-ed4 xiv1 #ac-ba1 pp4 #ed-ee4 xiv1 #bb-cc1 pp4 #ee-ef4 xiv1 #bh-ca1 p4 #ahg4 xiv1 #cd-cf1 p4 #ef4 xv1 #a-bj1 p4 #ef4 xv1 #ad1 p4 #aee4 xv1 #ba-bh1 p4 #eg4 xv1 #bb-bd1 pp4 #ahg-hh4 xv1 #bi-ca1 pp4 #ahh-hi4 xv1 #cb-ci1 p4 #eg4 xvi1 #a-ab1 p4 #eg4 xvi1 #ac-bc1 p4 #eh4 xvi1 #ag-ai1 p4 #ahi4 xvi1 #bd-bh1 pp4 #eh-ei4 xvii1 #a-h1 p4 #ei4 xvii1 #f-g1 p4 #ahi4 xvii1 #i-ac1 p4 #ei4 xvii1 #ad-bc1 p4 #fj4 xviii1 #a-e1 p4 #fa4 xviii1 #d1 pp4 #ahi-ij4 xviii1 #f-i1 p4 #fa4 xviii1 #g1 p4 #aef4 xviii1 #ab-ad1 p4 #aef4 xviii1 #ba-bb1 p4 #aeg4 xviii1 #bc-ce1 p4 #aij4 xix1 #aj-ab1 p4 #aij4 xix1 #ac-ae1 p4 #fb4 xix1 #af-cj1 p4 #fb4 xix1 #bh1 p4 #aeg4 xix1 #bi1 p4 #aja4 xx1 #a-af1 p4 #aij4 xx1 #ag-bh1 p4 #fb4 xx1 #bi-cd1 p4 #fc4 xxi1 #a-aa1 p4 #fc4 xxi1 #ah-bg1 p4 #fd4 xxi1 #cc-df1 p4 #fe4 xxi1 #bh-cb1 p4 #aia4 xxi1 #ce1 p4 #ajb4 xxii1 #a-ad1 p4 #aia4 xxii1 #cd-dj1 p4 #ff4 xxii1 #da-df1 p4 #ff4 xxiii1 #b-c1 p4 #aia4 xxiii1 #d1 pp4 #aeg-eh4 xxiii1 #e1 #h-aj1 p4 #aia4 xxiii1 #ab-ac1 p4 #aeh4 xxiii1 #ae-bb1 p4 #aia4 xxiii1 #bc-bf1 p4 #aei4 xxiii1 #bi-ca1 p4 #aei4 xxiii1 #cd-cf1 p4 #afj4 xxiii1 #cg-ci1 p4 #afa4 xxiv1 #i-bb1 p4 #ff4 xxiv1 #bf-bh1 p4 #afa4 xxiv1 #cd-cf1 p4 #fg4 xxiv1 #cg-ci1 pp4 #afa-fb4 xxiv1 #dj-da1 p4 #afb4 xxiv1 #dc-ea1 p4 #afb4 xxv1 #a-df1 pp4 #aia-ib4 xxvi1 #b1 p4 #ajc4 xxvi1 #ag1 p4 #ajd4 xxvi1 #bf-bi1 p4 #fh4 xxvi1 #cf-eh1 p4 #fh4 xxvi1 #eb-ed1 p4 #aib4 xxvi1 #fg-fh1 pp4 #ajd-e4 xxvi1 #fi-ge1 p4 #fi4 xxvii1 #cb-dd1 p4 #fi4 xxvii1 #eg1 p4 #aje4 ,,luke3 iii1 #g-i1 p4 #abi4 iii1 #aj-ad1 p4 #aic4 iii1 #af-ag1 p4 #acj4 iii1 #ba-bb1 p4 #cg4 iv1 #c-ac1 p4 #acj4 iv1 #af-cj1 pp4 #ea1 #aid4 iv1 #ca-ci1 p4 #ch4 iv1 #dj1 p4 #ajj4 iv1 #dj-dc1 p4 #ci4 v1 #a-aa1 pp4 #ch1 #dj4 v1 #ab-bf1 p4 #da4 v1 #bc-bd1 pp4 #ic-id4 v1 #bg-ci1 p4 #db4 vi1 #a-e1 p4 #dc4 vi1 #c-d1 p4 #id4 vi1 #f-ai1 p4 #dd4 vi1 #ag1 p4 #aja4 vi1 #bj1 p4 #aca4 vi1 #ba1 p4 #acb4 vi1 #bb-bc1 pp4 #acb-cc4 vi1 #bd-bf1 pp4 #aid-ie4 vi1 #bg-cj1 #cb-cf1 p4 #ace4 vi1 #ca1 p4 #adj4 vi1 #cg-ch1 p4 #aci4 vi1 #ch1 p4 #dg4 vi1 #ci1 p4 #aee4 vi1 #dj1 p4 #adh4 vi1 #dc-dd1 p4 #ada4 vi1 #dg-di1 p4 #adc4 vii1 #a-i1 pp4 #adc-de4 vii1 #ah-ce1 p4 #aeb4 vii1 #bi-cj1 p4 #aie4 vii1 #cf-ej1 p4 #aie4 vii1 #da-db1 p4 #aci4 viii1 #d-aj1 p4 #de4 viii1 #aa-ae1 p4 #df4 viii1 #af-ah1 p4 #dg4 viii1 #ai-ba1 p4 #de4 viii1 #bb-be1 p4 #dg4 viii1 #bf-ci1 pp4 #dh-di4 viii1 #dj-ef1 pp4 #di-ej4 ix1 #a-f1 pp4 #ea-eb4 ix1 #g-i1 pp4 #eb-ec4 ix1 #aj-ag1 pp4 #ed-ee4 ix1 #ah-bb1 p4 #eh4 ix1 #bc-bg1 p4 #eh-ei4 ix1 #bh-cf1 p4 #ei4 ix1 #cg-de1 p4 #fj4 ix1 #df-ej1 p4 #fa4 ix1 #eg-fj1 p4 #adf4 ix1 #fj-fc1 p4 #aif4 x1 #b1 p4 #adf4 x1 #c1 p4 #adh4 x1 #e-h1 p4 #adg4 x1 #ab1 p4 #adg4 x1 #ac-ae1 p4 #aeb4 x1 #af1 p4 #aea4 x1 #ag-bj1 p4 #aif4 x1 #ba-bb1 p4 #aeb4 x1 #bc-bd1 p4 #aed4 x1 #be-bh1 pp4 #ff1 #aig4 x1 #bi-cg1 p4 #aig4 x1 #ch-db1 p4 #aig4 xi1 #b-d1 pp4 #acf-cg4 xi1 #e-h1 p4 #aih4 xi1 #i-ac1 pp4 #aci-dj4 xi1 #ad-bc1 p4 #de4 xi1 #ai-bj1 p4 #aec4 xi1 #bc1 p4 #aec4 xi1 #bd-bf1 p4 #aed4 xi1 #bg-bh1 p4 #aih4 xi1 #bi-cb1 p4 #aec4 xi1 #cc1 pp4 #acc-cd4 xi1 #cd-ce1 pp4 #acg-ch4 xi1 #cf1 p4 #aih4 xi1 #ci-db1 p4 #aei4 xi1 #dg-dh1 p4 #aei4 xi1 #di-ea1 p4 #afj4 xii1 #b-i1 p4 #adi4 xii1 #aa-ab1 p4 #adh4 xii1 #ac-ba1 p4 #aih4 xii1 #bb-ca1 p4 #ach4 xii1 #cc-cd1 p4 #acg4 xii1 #ce-ch1 p4 #aih4 xii1 #ci-dj1 p4 #afb4 xii1 #db-df1 p4 #afb4 xii1 #dg-ej1 p4 #aii4 xii1 #ea-ec1 p4 #aej4 xii1 #eh-ei1 p4 #ace4 xiii1 #a-e1 p4 #aii4 xiii1 #f-i1 p4 #bjj4 xiii1 #ah-ai1 p4 #dg4 xiii1 #bj-ba1 p4 #aed4 xiii1 #bc-bd1 p4 #adj4 xiii1 #bf-bg1 pp4 #ada-db4 xiii1 #bh-bi1 pp4 #ade-df4 xiii1 #ca-cc1 pp4 #bjj-bja4 xiii1 #cd-ce1 p4 #afa4 xiv1 #a-f1 p4 #bja4 xiv1 #g-aa1 pp4 #bja-b4 xiv1 #aa1 p4 #aeh4 xiv1 #ab-bd1 p4 #bjb4 xiv1 #bf-bg1 pp4 #aej-ea4 xiv1 #bh-ce1 p4 #bjc4 xiv1 #cd1 p4 #acc4 xv1 #a-g1 p4 #bjc4 xv1 #d-g1 p4 #aef4 xv1 #h-cb1 p4 #bjc4 xvi1 #ah1 p4 #fa4 xvi1 #a-ab1 pp4 #bjc-d4 xvi1 #ad-ae1 p4 #bjd4 xvi1 #ag1 p4 #ace4 xvi1 #ai-ca1 p4 #bje4 xvii1 #a1 p4 #aef4 xvii1 #a-b1 p4 #fa4 xvii1 #d1 p4 #aeg4 xvii1 #f1 p4 #aee4 xvii1 #g-ai1 p4 #bje4 xvii1 #i-ac1 p4 #ei4 xvii1 #bj-ba1 pp4 #bje-f4 xvii1 #bc-bd1 #bf-bg1 p4 #afa4 xvii1 #bf-bg1 p4 #afa4 xvii1 #cc1 pp4 #aej-ea4 xvii1 #cd-ce1 p4 #afb4 xvii1 #cg1 p4 #afa4 xviii1 #ae-ag1 p4 #fb4 xviii1 #ah-cj1 p4 #fb4 xviii1 #bi1 p4 #aja4 xviii1 #ca-cd1 p4 #fb4 xviii1 #ce-dc1 p4 #fc4 xix1 #bh-ch1 p4 #fc4 xx1 #a-h1 p4 #fd4 xx1 #i-ai1 p4 #fe4 xx1 #aj1 p4 #ajb4 xx1 #bg-dj1 p4 #fe4 xx1 #de-dg1 p4 #ff4 xxi1 #ab-bd1 pp4 #ff-fg4 xxi1 #cb-cc1 p4 #fg4 xxii1 #a1 pp4 #ajc-d4 xxii1 #g1 p4 #ajd4 xxii1 #ae-bj1 p4 #fh4 xxii1 #bh-cj1 p4 #aeg4 xxii1 #ci-ee1 p4 #fh4 xxii1 #ef-fb1 p4 #fi4 xxiii1 #bf-dc1 p4 #fi4 xxiii1 #ed1 pp4 #aje-f4 ,,ii4 ,,general ,,index ,abbott1 ,e4 ,a41 #ij4 ,angels1 twelve legions of1 #aib4 ,arrest of ,jesus1 #fh4 ,assimilation1 #ia1 #ib1 #bdb4 ,authority of ,jesus questioned1 #fd-fe4 ,bacon4 ,b4 ,w41 #fe1 #ajh1 #agc1 #bcd4 ,bartimeus1 #fc4 ,bartlet1 ,j4 ,v41 #fj1 #ajh1 #bab4 ,beatitudes1 #aca-cb4 ,beelzebul controversy1 #bch-ci4 ,birt1 #cf4 ,blessing of the children1 #fb4 ,blind leaders1 #aee4 ,brotherhood of ,jesus1 #de4 ,burkitt1 ,f4 ,c41 #aji1 #aab1 #bjf4 ,burton1 #add1 #bag4 ,calling of the first disciples1 #ch4 ,canaanitish woman1 #eg4 ,care1 #ach4 ,centurion's son1 #adc-de1 #agh-gi4 ,changes of ,matthew and ,luke in ,marcan narratives1 chap4 iv4 ,changes of ,matthew and ,luke in ,marcan order1 ,table ,i1 #bd-bg4 ,come unto me1 #ahc4 ,conflation1 #aia1 #bdj4 ,crucifixion1 #fi4 ,danger of riches1 #fb4 ,dependence of ,luke upon ,matthew1 #ih1 #ii4 ,dependence of ,matthew upon ,luke impossible1 #ih4 ,detached sayings1 #dg4 ,disciples1 instructions to1 #adf-ea1 #ahj-ha4 ,disciples1 mission of1 #ea-eb4 ,disciples1 return of1 #ed-ee4 ,discipleship1 demands of1 #eh4 ,distress1 predictions of1 #ff-fg4 ,doublets1 #aij1 #bci1 #bda-de4 ,elijah1 #ei4 ,entry into ,jerusalem1 #fc-fd4 ,epileptic boy1 #fj4 ,evil husbandmen1 #fe4 ,feeding of the five thousand1 #ed-ee4 ,feeding of the four thousand1 #eg4 ,fig tree cursed1 #fd4 ,gadarene demoniac1 #dh1 #di4 ,genealogies1 #ih4 ,gennesaret1 #ef4 ,gethsemane1 #fh4 ,golden ,rule1 #adj4 ,goodspeed1 ,e4 ,j41 #gb4 ,great ,commandment1 #ff1 #aig4 ,great ,omission of ,luke1 #ce1 #ib1 #ic4 ,harnack1 ,adolf1 #cg1 #aaj1 #aaa1 #aab1 #aad1 #aae4 --1 ,on content of ,q1 #ajh-ai passim1 #abf1 #adb1 #afe1 #agh1 #aia1 #bab1 #bcd1 #bdg4 ,hawkins1 ,sir ,john1 ,,vi1 #i1 #ae1 #af1 #cc1 #eh1 #fg1 #gj1 #hd1 #he1 #aaj1 #aaa1 #aab1 #aad4 -- on content of ,q1 #ajh-ai passim1 #afd1 #afe1 #agj1 #aia1 #bjh1 #baa1 #bdg4 ,healings in the evening1 #ci4 ,herod1 judgment concerning ,jesus1 #eb-ec4 ,historic present in ,mark1 #he4 ,holtzmann1 ,j4 ,h41 #bad4 ,huck1 ,adolph1 v4 ,infancy section3 in ,luke1 #baa2 in ,matthew1 #bjh4 ,jairus' daughter1 #di-ej4 ,jerusalem1 lament over1 #afa4 ,jerusalem narrative1 #aj4 ,jerusalem tradition1 #aii-bjj4 ,john the ,baptist3 death of1 #ec2 preaching of1 #abi2 preaching of1 in ,luke1 #aic4 ,jonah1 #aec1 #ahe4 ,judaistic features in ,matthew1 #afg1 #afh1 #agj1 #agb1 #agf1 #ahj1 #ahh4 ,jlicher1 ,adolf1 #gc1 #abe1 #aid1 #baa4 ,kingdom of ,heaven1 eschatalogical meaning of1 #aff4 ,last ,supper1 #fh4 ,leper healed1 #da4 ,logia1 #ig4 ,loisy1 ,a41 #gc1 #ahc4 ,lord's ,prayer1 #acf-cg4 ,lost ,sheep1 parable of1 #aef4 ,luke's ,great ,interpolation1 #h-i4 ,luke's ,great ,omission1 #g1 #h1 #bbg-bbh4 ,luke3 matter peculiar to1 #bjg1 #baj-ah2 single tradition of1 #bjf-g2 source peculiar to1 #bag-ah4 ,mark3 his use of ,q1 #bcd-dh2 framework of1 in ,matthew and ,luke1 #c-ac2 words peculiar to1 #he-hg4 ,matthew1 matter peculiar to1 #bjg-aj2 not a source for ,luke1 ,robinson ,smith's argument on1 #ajj-ajg2 single tradition of1 #bjf2 tendency to condensation1 #ahi2 messianic proclamation of1 #acj4 ,montefiore1 ,c4 ,g41 #ahc4 ,motives of ,matthew and ,luke1 #gj1 #ga4 ,mustard ,seed1 parable of1 #dg4 ,narrow gate1 parable cf1 #adj4 ,nazareth1 preaching in1 #ea4 ,offences1 #fa4 ,omission of ,marcan material by both ,matthew and ,luke1 #cj1 #ca4 ,omissions of ,luke1 #cb-cf4 ,order1 deviations in1 chap4 ii4 ,order of narratives of the ,synoptics1 chap4 ii4 ,oxford ,studies1 vi4 ,parable of the ,sower1 #de2 interpretation of1 #df2 of ,treasure1 ,pearl1 ,fish-net1 ,converted ,scribe1 #ahf-hg4 ,parables peculiar to ,luke1 #aig1 #aih1 #bjj1 #bjb1 #bjc1 #bje4 ,parables1 purpose of1 #de4 ,paralytic healed1 #da4 ,parousia1 #fg1 #ahj4 ,passion narrative1 #ab1 #ac4 ,perean source1 #bad-ag4 ,peter3 calling of1 #dj1 #aid2 confession of messiahship1 #eh2 denial of1 #fi4 ,peter's mother-in-law1 #ch4 ,petrine strand in ,mark1 #ge-gf1 #hc-hd4 ,pharisaic accusation1 #de4 ,pharisees1 #ff1 #aec1 #aeh1 #aei1 #bjd4 ,prediction of sufferings1 #eh1 #fj1 #fb4 ,primary and secondary elements in ,mark3 according to von ,soden1 #gd-gg2 according to ,wendling1 #gd-hg4 ,primary and secondary traits1 #ahg1 #ahh2 in ,mark and ,q1 #bce2 in ,luke1 #bjj2 priority of1 #c-af4 ,q3 existence and content of1 #ajh-bj2 analysis of1 by ,wellhausen1 ,wernle1 ,weiss1 ,hawkins1 and ,harnack1 #aab2 distribution of1 in ,matthew1 #aab-ac2 ,mark1 overlapping of1 #aad2 general agreement as to nucleus in ,matthew1 #aad-ae2 in ,luke1 content according to ,wellhausen1 ,wernle1 ,weiss1 ,hawkins1 and ,harnack1 #aaf-ai2 distribution of in ,luke1 #aai2 necessity for further extension of1 #abj2 originally an ,aramaic document1 #abc-be2 translation variance1 #abd1 #abe2 analysis into ,q,mt and ,q,lk1 #abf-fe2 in single tradition of ,luke1 #aic-bbj2 in single tradition of ,matthew1 #aff-ib2 original order of1 #bdi-ed4 ,q,mt1 ,q,lk3 meaning of the symbols1 #abg2 advantages of the hypothesis1 #bai1 #bba-cc4 ,resistance and non-resistance1 #ace-cf4 ,retirement of ,jesus1 #ci4 ,ropes1 ,j4 ,h41 #aha4 ,rrdam1 ,t4 ,s41 #gb4 ,sadducees1 #fe4 ,sanday1 ,w41 #hi1 #bab-ac1 #bai1 #bcd4 ,sanders1 ,h4 ,a41 #ih4 ,schmeidel1 ,paul1 #df1 #fg1 #gc1 #ace1 #aci1 #agj1 #age1 #bjc4 ,seats in the ,kingdom1 #fb4 ,secondary traits in ,q1 ,q,mt1 and ,q,lk1 #bcj-cc4 ,seeking and finding1 #aci4 ,sermon on the ,mount1 sayings from1 #acc-dc1 #afg-gh4 ,seventy1 return of the1 #aif4 ,sign demanded1 #eg4 ,smith1 ,robinson1 #ajj1 #ajg passim1 #agc4 ,soden1 von1 ,h4 ,h41 #gd-hd passim4 ,special source of ,luke1 #aig1 #bja1 #bjb1 #bjc2 meaning of1 #aib4 ,stanton1 ,v4 ,h41 #aab1 #aga1 #bbh4 ,storm on the lake1 #dg4 ,streeter1 ,h4 ,b41 #aad1 #aca1 #ahj1 #aig1 #aih1 #bjj1 #bjb1 #bjc1 #bjd1 #bab1 #bcd1 #bdd1 #bec1 #bed4 ,strife3 about rank1 #fa2 among relatives1 #aej4 ,summary and conclusions1 #bee-ef4 ,synagogue at ,capernaum1 #ch4 ,tables3 ,i1 order of ,marcan material in ,matthew and ,luke1 #bd-bg2 ,,ii1 ,q material in ,matthew according to five scholars1 #aaj1 #aaa2 ,,iii1 ,q material in ,luke according to five scholars1 #aaf-ag2 ,,iv1 ,q material in ,matthew1 #bbb-bc2 ,v1 ,q material in ,luke1 #bbd-be2 ,,vi1 ,q material in ,mark1 #bdf2 ,,vii and ,,viii1 on relative order of ,q matter in ,matthew and ,luke1 #bej2 ,,ix1 sections in ,q material in their order in ,matthew and ,luke1 #bea2 ,x1 sections in ,q material1 slightly rearranged in order1 #beb4 ,temptation1 #acj2 in ,mark and ,q1 #bch4 ,things that defile1 #ef-eg4 ,transfiguration1 #ei4 ,translation variants1 #bdj4 ,transposition3 in ,luke1 #gj2 in ,mark1 #gb-gd4 ,tree and fruits1 #ada4 ,twelve3 calling of the #dd2 mission of1 in ,mark and ,q1 #bda4 ,two foundations1 #adc4 ,unknown exorcist1 #cb1 #fa4 ,ur-,marcus1 #gb1 #hh-ic4 ,verbal resemblance illustrated1 #ic-if4 ,vocabulary in ,mark and ,q1 #bdf-dh4 ,votaw1 ,c4 ,w41 #agc4 ,widow's mite1 #cb4 ,walk thru the corn1 #dc4 ,walking on the sea1 #ee4 ,weiss1 ,b41 #ajh4 ,weiss1 ,j41 #df1 #aaj1 #aaa1 #aab4 -- on content of ,q1 #ajh-aj passim1 #acd1 #aia1 #aid4 ,wellhausen1 ,j41 #cg1 #ee1 #gc1 #aaj1 #aaa1 #aab1 #aae4 -- on content of ,q1 #ajh-ai passim1 #acc1 #aej1 #ahc1 #aia1 #aih1 #bcd1 #bdj4 ,wendling1 ,e41 #gd-hg1 #bbh4 ,wernle1 ,paul1 vi1 #cb1 #cg1 #fe1 #aaj1 #aaa1 #aae4 -- on content of ,q1 #ajh-ai passim1 #aia1 #aih1 #baj1 #bcd1 #bdd1 #bde4 ,westcott and ,hort1 #fi4 ,withered hand1 #dd4 ,yeast1 a saying about1 #eg4 ,,footnotes3 #a ,mohr1 ,tbingen1 #aijf1 #c;d ed4 ,a fourth edition of this valuable book appeared in #aiaa1 but without important changes4 #b ,cf4 ,sanders1 ,journal of ,biblical ,literature1 ,,xxxii1 #ahd ff41 for evidence that this did not stand in the original text of ,luke4 #c ,this statement may be questioned1 as ,lk xiii1 #ah-ai may be considered parallel to ,mk iv1 #cj-cb4 ,at all events ,matthew has the passage with ,mark4 ,the matter is complicated by the fact that the parable apparently stood in both ,mark and ,q4 #d ,tho ,lk xiv1 #cd;a is apparently taken from ,mk ix1 #ej;a1 as against ,mt v1 #ac;a4 #e ,for discussion of ,luke's non-use of ,mark thruout the ,great ,interpolation1 see pp4 #af-ah2 for an elaborate analysis of the sources of the section1 see ,hawkins1 ,oxford ,studies in the ,synoptic ,problem1 pp4 #bi-ei4 #f see ,hawkins1 ,horae ,synopticae1 pp4 #aci-da1 for other instances4 #g ,for an elaborate analysis of the sources of the material in the ,great ,interpolation1 see ,hawkins1 ,oxford ,studies in the ,synoptic ,problem1 pp4 #bi-ei4 #h ,an apparent exception is ,lk xiv1 #cd ,mk ix1 #ej2 no parallel in ,matthew4 ,lk xvii1 #b ,mk ix1 #db1 and ,lk x1 #bg ,mk xii1 #cj should perhaps be added1 but are not so clear4 #i ,chapter and verse for each of these sections being given in the tabulated arrangement of this same material on pp4 #bd-bg1 only such references are given here as are necessary to help the reader to follow the analysis at this point4 #aj ,we do not include here the omission of single words or phrases1 or even occasionally of an entire verse1 where it is plain that this is in the interest of some change or condensation4 #aa ,see especially the parable of the ,weed in the ,field 7,mt xiii1 #bd-cj71 the ,mustard ,seed 7,mk iv1 #cj-cb2 ,mt xiii1 #ca-cb2 ,lk xiii1 #ah-ai71 the ,sower 7,mt xiii1 #a-i2 ,lk viii1 #d-h74 #ab ,wernle1 ,synoptische ,frage1 p4 #abf4 #ac ,thruout this discussion ,i am greatly indebted to ,wernle1 as anyone must be who has read his ,synoptische ,frage4 #ad ,wernle includes among these the defense of ,jesus in ,mk iii1 #bc-cj1 practically duplicated in ,lk xi1 #ag-bc4 ,why not a transposition1 rather than an omission8 ,so considered here4 #ae ,wernle1 op4 cit41 p4 #e4 #af ,yet not always4 ,cf4 his two bands of teachers1 his healing of ten lepers and of one1 his two disputes about priority among the disciples1 his three predictions of the passion and two of the resurrection4 ,but cf4 his omission of anointing at ,bethany1 the barren fig tree1 the mocking by ,pilate's soldiers1 because of their duplications of his material already used4 ,see ,hawkins1 op4 cit41 #fi4 #ag ,matthew takes no offense at this2 for he even adds to it1 ,i am not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of ,israel4 #ah ,hawkins1 op4 cit41 p4 #ga4 ,it seems strange that ,hawkins' discussion of the great omission contains no reference to ,wernle's treatment of the same subject4 #ai ,wernle1 op4 cit41 p4 #f4 #bj ,on the size of ancient books1 see ,sanday1 ,oxford ,studies1 pp4 #be-bf2 cf4 ,birt1 ,das antike ,buchwesen4 #ba ,for complete and detailed discussion1 see ,wernle1 ,wellhausen1 ,harnack4 #bb ,see pp4 #ie-if1 where the account of the call of the first disciples is further discussed1 and printed in heavy-faced type4 #bc ,p4 #cj2 see also pp4 #ie-if1 where the account of the calling of the first disciples is printed in heavy-faced type and is further discussed4 #bd ,this latter is not the usual word for bed1 but means a little bed--some sort of bed4 #be ,agreement of ,matthew and ,luke in these two corrections is held to show ,urmarkus4 ,the need of correction is obvious enough1 and the corrections are the natural ones to make4 ,so also ,sinaiticus in ,mark1 with other authorities4 #bf ,some ,,mss omit this reference in ,mark4 #bg ,p4 #ba4 #bh ,see ,lk iii1 #ba2 ix1 #ah1 #bh1 #bi2 xi1 #a4 #bi ,see pp4 #aec1 #bch-ci4 #cj ,das lteste ,evangelium1 p4 #afe4 #ca ,for further discussion of this and the preceding section see pp4 #bci-dj4 #cb ,p4 #ai4 #cc ,huck's ,synopse1 pp4 #hj and #aji1 will show the verses belonging respectively to the two sources4 #cd ,it is argued later1 pp4 #bcd-dh1 that ,mark also is dependent upon ,q1 but since he has the ,q material in much briefer and more fragmentary form than ,matthew and ,luke1 his use of ,q does not preclude ,matthew's and ,luke's preservation of more primary features of the ,q tradition4 #ce ,wellhausen1 ,einleitung1 p4 #ei4 #cf ,for further discussion see p4 #bda4 #cg ,horae ,synopticae1 p4 #abc4 #ch ,a note on this passage by ,professor ,h4 ,a4 ,sanders says that this is ,mark's order in ,b ,d 7k d c7 only4 #ci ,cf4 a similar omission of the address to the waves1 p4 #dh4 #dj ,see ,bartlet1 ,sources of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel1 ,oxford ,studies1 p4 #cba4 #da ,i am unable to account for ,matthew's addition that ,jesus touched the man's eyes4 #db ,see p4 #bdd for further discussion of the saying as in ,mark and ,q4 #dc ,no reason can be given1 so far as ,i know1 for ,luke's addition of his xx1 #ah4 ,some texts ascribe the same saying to ,matthew also4 #dd ,i think ,i owe this suggestion to ,wernle1 but do not find the passage in his ,synoptische ,frage4 #de ,bacon explains this saying of ,mark's to mean that ,jahwe is not a god of the underworld1 like ,pluto 7,beginnings of ,gospel ,story74 #df ,luke 7xvii1 #cd7 wishes to suggest that the parousia may occur in the night4 #dg ,horae ,synopticae1 p4 #abj4 #dh ,see his study1 from which these statements are abridged1 in ,oxford ,studies in the ,synoptic ,problem1 pp4 #gf-gg4 #di ,the fact that ,matthew agrees much more closely with ,mark1 in those sections which are omitted by ,luke1 is a somewhat curious one1 for which ,i have seen no sufficient explanation offered4 ,a possible explanation might be that in these sections no opportunity was offered to later copyists to assimilate the texts of ,matthew and ,luke1 and thus introduce further changes from ,mark4 ,if the extent of such assimilation could be proved to be great enough1 this explanation would perhaps be sufficient4 #ej ,see ,goodspeed on ,the ,original ,conclusion of ,mark's ,gospel1 in ,american ,journal of ,theology1 ,vol4 ,,ix 7#aije71 pp4 #dhd-ij2 also1 ,rrdam1 ,hibbert ,journal1 ,vol4 ,,iii1 pp4 #gfi-ij1 ,what ,was the ,lost ,end of the ,gospel of ,mark8 #ea ,see ,wellhausen1 ,einleitung1 p4 #ef2 ,loisy1 ,gospel and ,church1 p4 #bi4 #eb ,this study of von ,soden's and ,wendling's treatment of ,mark appeared in the ,harvard ,theological ,review for ,april1 #aiac4 #ec ,p4 #bc4 #ed ,p4 #bd4 #ee ,for reasons which he does not explain1 he rearranges the sections4 #ef ,von ,soden1 ,die wichtigsten ,fragen1 pp4 #ch1 #ci4 #eg ,ibid41 pp4 #ci1 #dj4 #eh ,and still more in his ,entstehung1 too elaborate to be here considered4 #ei ,cf4 especially the words ,greek3 mystrion1 meta charas lambanein1 digmos1 epithymiai1 karpophorein1 and see ,wendling1 p4 #ce1 n4 #aa4 #fj ,cf4 ii1 #bj1 also the work of the redactor4 #fa ,cf4 especially v1 #b with i1 #bc2 v1 #f1 #g1 with i1 #bd2 v1 #h-ac1 with i1 #be2 v1 #ac1 with i1 #bf2 v1 #ad-ag1 with i1 #bg1 and see ,wendling1 p4 #aa4 #fb ,in ,die ,entstehung des ,marcus-,evangeliums1 p4 #bjd1 ,wendling arranges the verses from ,m#a in chaps4 xiii and xiv as follows3 xiii1 #a-b1 #cc1 #bh-bi1 #cd-cf2 xiv1 #a-b1 #aj-aa1 #c-g1 #bb-be1 #dc-df1 #dh-ej1 #fe4 ,some minor differences in analysis1 affecting words or clauses1 are registered ibid41 p4 #bcg4 #fc ,hawkins1 ,horae ,synopticae1 pp4 #ab-ac4 #fd ,see ,hawkins1 pp4 #add-dh4 #fe ,the seventy-eight does not include parables1 where the present is not historic4 #ff ,see ,sanday's essay1 in ,oxford ,studies1 pp4 #ba-bb4 #fg ,turner1 ,theological ,studies1 ,january1 #aiji1 p4 #age1 quoted by ,sanday4 #fh ,see ,hawkins1 ,oxford ,studies1 pp4 #fd-ff4 #fi ,both genealogies may easily be suspected of being later additions4 ,if ,luke's genealogy is a gloss there is no apparent reason why it should not have been inserted in the appropriate place2 cf4 ,sanders1 ,journal of ,biblical ,literature1 ,,xxx1 #aa4 #gj ,e4g41 the verses on ,peter and the keys1 or on ,peter walking on the water1 or the conversation of ,jesus with ,john the ,baptist at the time of ,jesus' baptism4 #ga ,in the ,hibbert ,journal1 ,no4 #ci1 ,april1 #aiab1 pp4 #fae-be4 #gb ,this passage has been already treated in a different connection on p4 #ci4 #gc ,omitted in some manuscripts of ,mark4 #gd vii1 #bh2 xi1 #a2 xiii1 #ec2 xix1 #a2 xxvi1 #a4 #ge ,hawkins1 ,horae ,synopticae1 p4 #afe4 #gf ,wernle1 p4 #aaj4 #gg ,luke uses it twenty-four times against ,matthew's seven and ,mark's four4 #gh ,p4 #fag4 #gi ,mk xiv1 #ed4 #hj ,in xiv1 #ff4 #ha ,p4 #fag4 #hb ,lk xxii1 #ed4 #hc ,see his note1 p4 #fah4 #hd ,p4 #fba4 ,this judgment upon ,luke is in striking contrast to that expressed by ,mller1 ,zur ,synopse1 p4 #c3 ,wellhausen calls ,luke a historian4 ,this judgment rests on excellent grounds4 ,we see this at once in the manner in which ,luke has used the text-scaffolding of ,mark4 ,logical1 simple1 and transparent considerations have moved him1 etc4 ,mller's judgment is decidedly the better4 #he ,p4 #fbe4 #hf ,in his ,gospel ,history and ,its ,transmission1 and ,earliest ,sources for the ,life of ,jesus4 #hg ,e4g41 ,stanton3 see his ,gospels as ,historical ,documents1 ,part ,,ii2 and ,robinson3 see his ,study of the ,gospels4 #hh ,cf4 especially the prediction of sufferings connected with the confession of ,peter 7,mt xvi1 #ac-bc72 the speech about ,elijah1 connected with the transfiguration 7,mt xvii1 #i-ac72 the speech about true greatness1 connected with the request of the sons of ,zebedee 7,mt xx1 #bj-bh74 #hi ,oxford ,studies1 p4 xxii4 #ij ,hawkins' list comes from his ,horae ,synopticae4 ,in his essay in ,oxford ,studies he assigns a considerably larger content to ,q4 #ia ,einleitung1 pp4 #af-ah4 #ib ,effort will be made later to determine the extent of ,q,mt and ,q,lk by themselves4 #ic ,the writer began the following examination with the intention of assigning to ,q only1 and rejecting all passages not showing sufficient agreement to warrant such assignment4 ,he found this task so difficult1 involving the rejection of so many passages which did not apparently belong to ,q but which nevertheless showed unmistakable signs of literary relation1 that he adopted the theory 7suggested but not worked out in the introduction to ,bacon's ,beginnings of ,gospel ,story7 of ,q,mt and ,q,lk4 #id ,see ,wellhausen's ,einleitung1 p4 #cf1 and pp4 #abd-be of this book4 #ie ,das lteste ,evangelium1 p4 #age4 #if ,encyclopaedia ,biblica1 col4 #ahfd4 #ig ,see also pp4 #abd-be4 #ih ,see the treatment of this passage on p4 #abd4 #ii ,see his ,sayings of ,jesus1 pp4 #cj-ca4 #ajj ,oxford ,studies in the ,synoptic ,problem1 p4 #aji4 #aja ,sayings of ,jesus1 p4 #eb4 #ajb ,oxford ,studies1 p4 #acc4 #ajc ,encyclopedia ,biblica1 ,vol4 ,,ii1 col4 #ahfd4 #ajd ,p4 #gh4 #aje ,greek3 ,kryphai is in vs4 #ah substituted for ,greek3 krypt used in #d and #f4 #ajf ,oxford ,studies in the ,synoptic ,problem1 p4 #adi4 #ajg ,pp4 #dj-db4 #ajh ,schriften des ,neuen ,testaments1 ,i1 #cbd4 #aji ,the ,synoptic ,gospels1 ,i1 #fjh4 #aaj ,quoted by ,montefiore1 ,i1 #faj4 #aaa ,sometimes counted as only seven1 the similitude in vs4 #eb not being reckoned as a parable4 #aab ,so regarded1 apparently1 by ,j4 ,weiss in his ,schriften des ,neuen ,testaments1 ,i1 #cdb4 #aac ,oxford ,studies1 p4 #aib4 #aad ,oxford ,studies1 p4 #aic4 #aae ,encyclopedia ,biblica1 col4 #ahfd4 #aaf ,oxford ,studies1 p4 #bja4 #aag ,the healing of a dropsical man 7,lk xiv1 #a-f71 tho a narrative section1 has been considered on p4 #bja1 on account of the sayings in it4 #aah ,hawkins1 ,horae ,synopticae1 p4 #i4 #aai ,unless this should be regarded as a gloss1 which would not so well account for its awkward position4 ,see ,sanders1 ,journal of ,biblical ,literature1 ,october1 #aiac4 #abj ,oxford ,studies1 ,introductory ,essay1 pp4 xx-xxi4 #aba ,see pp4 #h-i1 #af-ah4 #abb ,holtzmann's suggestion that ,luke omitted the ,mark section because it ends with the second feeding of the multitude--implying the same sort of omission by mistake as is often made when two lines end with the same word--seems strangely insufficient4 #abc ,why does ,luke have two laments over ,jerusalem1 as well as two missions of the disciples1 especially considering his apparent avoidance of duplicates8 #abd ,this last1 quite inappropriate alike in the mouth of ,jesus and as a part of his parable1 becomes1 in the mouth of ,luke1 a pathetic commentary upon the difficulty of preserving the ,christian faith while waiting for the long-delayed parousia4 #abe ,the soliloquy in the parables of ,jesus is introduced by ,luke alone4 ,the dialogue1 tho more frequent in ,luke than in ,matthew1 is not restricted to him4 #abf ,sanday1 ,oxford ,studies1 pp4 #be-bf4 #abg ,pp4 #abi-bjf4 #abh ,so ,wendling4 ,stanton also says ,mark's connection is better with ,mk vi1 #de-vii1 #bc1 omitted4 #abi ,it should be said that most of those who argue for ,luke's omission of so much ,q material assign these sixteen sections to some special source of ,luke's4 #acj ,see especially ,matthew's ,go not into any way of the gentiles1 which might be assigned to ,q1 with obvious reasons for ,luke's omission4 #aca ,pp4 #bbb-be4 #acb ,see analyses on pp4 #bcj-cc4 #acc ,pp4 #bbb-ce4 #acd ,see the reckoning made without inclusion of ,marcan ,q on pp4 #afb1 #bah4 #ace ,still according to ,harnack4 #acf ,oxford ,studies1 p4 #adf4 #acg ,see pp4 #bcd-df for material in ,mark and ,q4 #ach ,a note by ,professor ,sanders says1 quite correctly1 that ,the general agreement in translation words requires that one of these translations should have preceeded and influenced the other4 ,,the ,,macmillan ,,company #fd-ff ,,fifth ,,avenue ,,new ,,york ,university of ,michigan ,studies ,,humanistic ,,series ,general ,editors3 ,,francis ,w4 ,,kelsey and ,,henry ,a4 ,,sanders ,size1 #bb4g x #ae4b cm4 #ho4 ,bound in cloth ,,vol4 ,i4 ,,roman ,,historical ,,sources ,,and ,,institutions4 ,edited by ,professor ,henry ,a4 ,sanders1 ,university of ,michigan4 ,pp4 viii#djb4 #b4ej net4 ,,contents #a4 ,,the ,,myth ,,about ,,tarpeia3 ,professor ,henry ,a4 ,sanders4 #b4 ,,the ,,movements ,,of ,,the ,,chorus ,,chanting ,,the ,,carmen ,,saeculare3 ,professor ,walter ,dennison1 ,swarthmore ,college4 #c4 ,,studies ,,in ,,the ,,lives ,,of ,,roman ,,empresses1 ,,julia ,,mamaea3 ,professor ,mary ,gilmore ,williams1 ,mt4 ,holyoke ,college4 #d4 ,,the ,,attitude ,,of ,,dio ,,cassius ,,toward ,,epigraphic ,,sources3 ,professor ,duane ,reed ,stuart1 ,princeton ,university4 #e4 ,,the ,,lost ,,epitome ,,of ,,livy3 ,professor ,henry ,a4 ,sanders4 #f4 ,,the ,,principales ,,of ,,the ,,early ,,empire3 ,professor ,joseph ,h4 ,drake1 ,university of ,michigan4 #g4 ,,centurions ,,as ,,substitute ,,commanders ,,of ,,auxiliary ,,corps3 ,professor ,george ,h4 ,allen1 ,university of ,cincinnati4 ,,vol4 ,,ii4 ,,word-,,formation ,,in ,,proven,,al4 ,by ,professor ,edward ,l4 ,adams1 ,university of ,michigan4 ,pp4 xvii#fjg4 #d4jj net4 ,,vol4 ,,iii4 ,,latin ,,philology4 ,edited by ,professor ,clarence ,linton ,meader1 ,university of ,michigan4 ,pp4 viii#bij4 #b4jj net4 ,parts ,sold ,separately in ,paper ,covers3 ,part ,i4 ,,the ,,usage ,,of ,,idem1 ,,ipse ,,and ,,words ,,of ,,related ,,meaning4 ,by ,clarence ,l4 ,meader4 ,pp4 #a-aab4 #j4ge4 ,part ,,ii4 ,a ,,study ,,in ,,latin ,,abstract ,,substantives4 ,by ,professor ,manson ,a4 ,stewart1 ,yankton ,college4 ,pp4 #aac-gh4 #j4dj4 ,part ,,iii4 ,,the ,,use ,,of ,,the ,,adjective ,,as ,a ,,substantive ,,in ,,the ,,de ,,rerum ,,natura ,,of ,,lucretius4 ,by ,dr4 ,frederick ,t4 ,swan4 ,pp4 #agi-bad4 #j4dj4 ,part ,,iv4 ,,autobiographic ,,elements ,,in ,,latin ,,inscriptions4 ,by ,professor ,henry ,h4 ,armstrong1 ,drury ,college4 ,pp4 #bae-hf4 #j4dj4 ,,vol4 ,,iv4 ,,roman ,,history ,,and ,,mythology4 ,edited by ,professor ,henry ,a4 ,sanders4 ,pp4 viii#dbg4 #b4ej net4 ,parts ,sold ,separately in ,paper ,covers3 ,part ,i4 ,,studies ,,in ,,the ,,life ,,of ,,heliogabalus4 ,by ,dr4 ,orma ,fitch ,butler1 ,university of ,michigan4 ,pp4 #a-afi4 #a4be net4 ,part ,,ii4 ,,the ,,myth ,,of ,,hercules ,,at ,,rome4 ,by ,professor ,john ,g4 ,winter1 ,university of ,michigan4 ,pp4 #aga-bgc4 #j4ej net4 ,part ,,iii4 ,,roman ,,law ,,studies ,,in ,,livy4 ,by ,professor ,alvin ,e4 ,evans1 ,washington ,state ,college4 ,pp4 #bge-ced4 #j4dj net4 ,part ,,iv4 ,,reminiscences ,,of ,,ennius ,,in ,,silius ,,italicus4 ,by ,dr4 ,loura ,b4 ,woodruff4 ,pp4 #cee-dbd4 #j4dj net4 ,,vol4 ,v4 ,,sources ,,of ,,the ,,synoptic ,,gospels4 ,by ,rev4 ,dr4 ,carl ,s4 ,patton1 ,first ,congregational ,church1 ,columbus1 ,ohio4 ,pp4 xiii#bfc4 #a4cj net4 ,size1 #bh x #ai cm4 #do4 ,,vol4 ,,vi4 ,,athenian ,,lekythoi ,,with ,,outline ,,drawing ,,in ,,glaze ,,varnish ,,on ,a ,,white ,,ground4 ,by ,arthur ,fairbanks1 ,director of the ,museum of ,fine ,arts1 ,boston4 ,with #ae plates1 and #eg illustrations in the text4 ,pp4 x#cga4 ,bound in cloth4 #d4jj net4 ,,vol4 ,,vii4 ,,athenian ,,lekythoi ,,with ,,outline ,,drawing ,,in ,,dull ,,color ,,on ,a ,,white ,,ground1 ,,and ,,an ,,appendix3 ,,additional ,,lekythoi ,,with ,,outline ,,drawing ,,in ,,glaze ,,varnish ,,on ,a ,,white ,,ground4 ,by ,arthur ,fairbanks4 ,with #da plates4 ,pp4 x#bge4 ,bound in cloth4 #c4ej net4 ,,vol4 ,,viii4 ,,the ,,old ,,testament ,,manuscripts ,,in ,,the ,,freer ,,collection4 ,by ,professor ,henry ,a4 ,sanders1 ,university of ,michigan4 ,part ,i4 ,,the ,,washington ,,manuscript ,,of ,,deuteronomy ,,and ,,joshua4 ,with #c folding plates of pages of the ,manuscript in facsimile4 ,pp4 vi#ajd4 ,paper covers4 #a4jj4 ,part ,,ii4 ,,the ,,washington ,,manuscript ,,of ,,the ,,psalms4 7,in ,press47 ,,vol4 ,,ix4 ,,the ,,new ,,testament ,,manuscripts ,,in ,,the ,,freer ,,collection4 ,by ,professor ,henry ,a4 ,sanders1 ,university of ,michigan4 ,part ,i4 ,,the ,,washington ,,manuscript ,,of ,,the ,,four ,,gospels4 ,with #e plates4 ,pp4 viii#bdg4 ,paper covers4 #b4jj4 ,part ,,ii4 ,,the ,,washington ,,fragments ,,of ,,the ,,epistles ,,of ,,paul4 7,in ,preparation47 ,,vol4 ,x4 ,,the ,,coptic ,,manuscripts ,,in ,,the ,,freer ,,collection4 ,by ,professor ,william ,h4 ,worrell1 ,hartford ,seminary ,foundation4 7,in ,preparation47 ,,vol4 ,,xi4 ,,contributions ,,to ,,the ,,history ,,of ,,science4 7,in ,press47 ,part ,i4 ,,robert ,,of ,,chester',s ,,latin ,,translation ,,of ,,the ,,algebra ,,of ,,al-,,khowarizmi4 ,with an ,introduction1 ,critical ,notes1 and an ,english ,version4 ,by ,professor ,louis ,c4 ,karpinski1 ,university of ,michigan4 ,with #d plates showing pages of manuscripts in facsimile1 and #be diagrams in the text4 7,in ,press47 ,part ,,ii4 ,,the ,,prodromus ,,of ,,nicholas ,,steno',s ,,latin ,,dissertation ,,on ,a ,,solid ,,body ,,enclosed ,,by ,,natural ,,process ,,within ,a ,,solid4 ,translated into ,english by ,professor ,john ,g4 ,winter1 ,university of ,michigan4 ,with a ,foreword by ,professor ,william ,h4 ,hobbs4 7,in ,press47 ,,vol4 ,,xii4 ,,studies ,,in ,,east ,,christian ,,and ,,roman ,,art4 ,part ,i4 ,,east ,,christian ,,paintings ,,in ,,the ,,freer ,,collection4 ,by ,professor ,charles ,r4 ,morey1 ,princeton ,university4 ,with #ac plates 7#aj colored7 and #cd illustrations in the text4 ,pp4 xii#hg4 ,bound in cloth4 #b4ej4 ,part ,,ii4 ,a ,,gold ,,treasure ,,of ,,the ,,late ,,roman ,,period ,,from ,,egypt4 ,by ,professor ,walter ,dennison1 ,swarthmore ,college4 7,in ,press47 ,,vol4 ,,xiii4 ,,documents ,,from ,,the ,,cairo ,,genizah ,,in ,,the ,,freer ,,collection4 ,text1 with ,translation and an ,introduction by ,professor ,richard ,gottheil1 ,columbia ,university4 7,in ,preparation47 ,,scientific ,,series ,size #bh x #ah4e cm4 #do4 ,bound in cloth ,,vol4 ,i4 ,,the ,,circulation ,,and ,,sleep4 ,by ,professor ,john ,f4 ,shepard1 ,university of ,michigan4 ,pp4 x#hc1 with an ,atlas of #hc plates1 bound ,separately4 ,text and ,atlas1 #c4jj net4 ,,vol4 ,,ii4 ,,studies ,,on ,,divergent ,,series ,,and ,,summability4 ,by ,professor ,walter ,b4 ,ford1 ,university of ,michigan4 7,in ,preparation47 ,,humanistic ,,papers ,size1 #bb4g x #ae4b cm4 #ho4 ,bound in cloth ,,latin ,,and ,,greek ,,in ,,american ,,education1 ,,with ,,symposia ,,on ,,the ,,value ,,of ,,humanistic ,,studies4 ,edited by ,francis ,w4 ,kelsey4 ,pp4 x#cif4 #a4ej4 ,,contents ,,the ,,present ,,position ,,of ,,latin ,,and ,,greek1 ,,the ,,value ,,of ,,latin ,,and ,,greek ,,as ,,educational ,,instruments1 ,,the ,,nature ,,of ,,culture ,,studies4 ,,symposia ,,on ,,the ,,value ,,of ,,humanistic1 ,,particularly ,,classical1 ,,studies ,,as ,a ,,preparation ,,for ,,the ,,study ,,of ,,medicine1 ,,engineering1 ,,law1 ,,and ,,theology4 ,,symposia ,,on ,,the ,,value ,,of ,,humanistic1 ,,particularly ,,classical1 ,,studies ,,as ,a ,,training ,,for ,,men ,,of ,,affairs2 ,,on ,,the ,,classics ,,and ,,the ,,new ,,education2 ,,and ,,on ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,formal ,,discipline ,,in ,,the ,,light ,,of ,,contemporary ,,psychology4 ,handbooks of ,archaeology and ,antiquities ,edited by ,,percy ,,gardner1 of the ,university of ,oxford1 and ,,francis ,w4 ,,kelsey1 of the ,university of ,michigan4 ,the ,principles of ,greek ,art ,by ,,percy ,,gardner1 ,litt4,d41 ,lincoln and ,merton ,professor of ,classical ,archaeology1 ,university of ,oxford4 ,makes clear the artistic and psychological principles underlying ,greek art1 especially sculpture1 which is treated as a characteristic manifestation of the ,greek spirit1 a development parallel to that of ,greek literature and religion4 ,while there are many handbooks of ,greek archaeology1 this volume holds a unique place4 ,illustrated1 cloth1 #b4be2 postpaid1 #b4df ,greek ,architecture ,by ,,allan ,,marquand1 ,ph4,d41 ,l4,h4,d41 ,professor of ,art and ,archaeology in ,princeton ,university4 ,professor ,marquand1 in this interesting and scholarly volume1 passes from the materials of construction to the architectural forms and decorations of the buildings of ,greece1 and1 lastly1 to its monuments4 ,nearly four hundred illustrations assist the reader in a clear understanding of the subject4 ,cloth1 #b4be2 postpaid1 #b4de ,greek ,sculpture ,by ,,ernest ,a4 ,,gardner1 ,m4,a41 ,professor of ,archaeology in ,university ,college1 ,london4 ,a comprehensive outline of our present knowledge of ,greek sculpture1 distinguishing the different schools and periods1 and showing the development of each4 ,this volume1 fully illustrated1 fills an important gap and is widely used as a textbook4 ,cloth1 #b4ej2 postpaid1 #b4fg ,greek ,constitutional ,history ,by ,a4 ,h4 ,j4 ,,greenidge1 ,m4,a41 ,late ,lecturer in ,hertford ,college and ,brasenose ,college1 ,oxford4 ,most authors in writing of ,greek ,history emphasize the structure of the constitutions2 ,mr4 ,greenidge lays particular stress upon the workings of these constitutions4 ,with this purpose ever in view1 he treats of the development of ,greek public law1 distinguishing the different types of states as they appear4 ,cloth1 #a4be2 postpaid1 #a4ce ,greek and ,roman ,coins ,by ,g4 ,f4 ,,hill1 ,m4,a41 of the ,department of ,coins and ,medals in the ,british ,museum4 ,all the information needed by the beginner in numismatics1 or for ordinary reference1 is here presented4 ,the condensation necessary to bring the material within the size of the present volume has in no way interfered with its clearness or readableness4 ,cloth1 #b4be2 postpaid1 #b4ch ,greek ,athletic ,sports and ,festivals ,by ,e4 ,,norman ,,gardiner1 ,m4,a41 ,sometime ,classical ,exhibitor of ,christ ,church ,college1 ,oxford4 ,with over two hundred illustrations from contemporary art1 and bright descriptive text1 this work proves of equal interest to the general reader and to the student of the past4 ,many of the problems with which it deals--the place of physical training1 games1 athletics1 in daily and national life--will be found as real at the present time as they were in the far-off days of ,greece4 ,cloth1 #b4ej2 postpaid1 #b4ff ,athens and ,its ,monuments ,by ,,charles ,,heald ,,weller1 ,university of ,iowa4 ,this book embodies the results of many years of study and of direct observation during different periods of residence in ,athens4 ,it presents in concise and readable form a description of the ancient city in the light of the most recent investigations4 ,it is profusely illustrated with half-tones and line engravings4 #d4jj net2 postpaid1 #d4be ,the ,destruction of ,ancient ,rome ,by ,,rodolfo ,,lanciani1 ,d4,c4,l41 ,oxford2 ,,ll4,d41 ,harvard2 ,professor of ,ancient ,topography in the ,university of ,rome4 ,rome1 the fate of her buildings and masterpieces of art1 is the subject of this profusely illustrated volume4 ,professor ,lanciani gives us vivid pictures of the ,eternal ,city at the close of the different periods of history4 ,cloth1 #a4ej2 postpaid1 #a4fc ,roman ,festivals ,by ,w4 ,,warde ,,fowler1 ,m4,a41 ,fellow and ,sub-,rector of ,lincoln ,college1 ,oxford4 ,this book covers in a concise form almost all phases of the public worship of the ,roman state1 as well as certain ceremonies which1 strictly speaking1 lay outside that public worship4 ,it will be found very useful to students of ,roman literature and history as well as to students of anthropology and the history of religion4 ,cloth1 #a4be2 postpaid1 #a4cg ,roman ,public ,life ,by ,a4 ,h4 ,j4 ,,greenidge1 ,m4,a41 ,late ,lecturer in ,hertford ,college and ,brasenose ,college1 ,oxford4 ,the growth of the ,roman constitution and its working during the developed ,republic and the ,principate is the subject which ,mr4 ,greenidge here set for himself4 ,all important aspects of public life1 municipal and provincial1 are treated so as to reveal the political genius of the ,romans in connection with the chief problems of administration4 ,cloth1 #b4ej2 postpaid1 #b4fc ,monuments of the ,early ,church ,by ,,walter ,,lowrie1 ,m4,a41 ,rector of ,st4 ,paul's ,church1 ,rome4 ,nearly two hundred photographs and drawings of the most representative monumental remains of ,christian antiquity1 accompanied by detailed expositions1 make this volume replete with interest for the general reader and at the same time useful as a handbook for the student of ,christian archaeology in all its branches4 ,cloth1 #a4be2 postpaid1 #a4ci ,monuments of ,christian ,rome ,by ,,arthur ,l4 ,,frothingham1 ,ph4,d41 formerly ,professor of ,archaeology and ,ancient ,history in ,princeton ,university4 ,the plan of the volume is simple and admirable4 ,the first part comprises a historical sketch2 the second1 a classification of the monuments4--,the ,outlook4 ,profusely illustrated4 ,cloth1 #b4be2 postpaid1 #b4dc ,transcriber's ,notes3 ,passages in italics are indicated by italics4 ,passages in bold are indicated by bold4 ,the original text includes ,greek and ,hebrew characters4 ,for this text version these letters have been replaced with transliterations4