By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Sources of the Synoptic Gospels
Author: Patton, Carl S.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Sources of the Synoptic Gospels" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries.)

_The volumes of the University of Michigan Studies are published by
authority of the Executive Board of the Graduate Department of the
University of Michigan. A list of the volumes thus far published or
arranged for is given at the end of this volume._

  University of Michigan Studies









  New York
  _All Rights Reserved_


  Printed August, 1915

  Composed and Printed By
  The University of Chicago Press
  Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.


The purpose of this study is twofold: first, to give some account of the
investigations recently made in the Synoptic Problem, and the present
status of scholarly opinion concerning it; secondly, upon the basis of
such established results, to push the inquiry into certain items a step

The first part of the work, including pages 3-120, tho largely occupied
with results reached by many different scholars, and bringing the matter
up to where the writer adds his own more personal contribution, is yet not
a mere survey of results attained. The writer has expressed his own
judgment freely thruout it, as to the merits of arguments of others, and
as to the points involved in the discussion. But his more personal
contribution lies in the analysis of the groundwork Q into the two
recensions, Q Mt and Q Lk.

The one book constantly in the writer's hands during the preparation of
this study was A. Huck's _Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien_.[1] Without
some such parallel edition of the Greek Gospels constantly open before
him, one can neither write nor read profitably upon the Synoptic Question.
The question of originality, and of giving credit for arguments and
suggestions derived from other students, in a study of this sort, is
extremely difficult. In the minute comparison of passages in one Gospel
with passages in another, many of the differences and resemblances noted
are part of the working material of most writers upon the Synoptic
Problem; when one has worked thru the analyses of other students, has made
their results his own, and has also made his own observations upon the
basis of them, 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
others. The writer is more deeply indebted to Paul Wernle, Sir John
Hawkins, and the authors of the _Oxford Studies_, than to anyone else. The
latter book came out after this study had been completed but the results
have been revised somewhat under its influence. I have attempted to give
credit in footnotes for suggestions received from many sources, but many
must have gone unnoticed.

I am under deep obligation to the kind friends who have encouraged and
made possible the publication of this Study, particularly to Mr. William
H. Murphy, of Detroit.


      August, 1914





  THE FRAMEWORK OF MARK IN MATTHEW AND LUKE                              3
    Up to Luke's "Great Omission"                                        3
    Luke's "Great Omission" and Beyond                                   7
    Luke's "Great Interpolation": Its Content                            8
    The Jerusalem Narrative                                             10
    The Story of the Passion                                            12

  THE PRIORITY OF MARK                                                  13
    Luke's Great Interpolation: Its Non-Use of Mark                     16


  ORDER OF MARK IN MATTHEW AND LUKE                                     19
    Table I: Showing Changes Made by Matthew and Luke in the Order
        of Marcan Material                                              24
    Deductions from the Table                                           28


  OMISSIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN MARK                                 30
    Omissions Made by Both Matthew and Luke                             30
    Omissions Made by Matthew in the Marcan Narrative                   31
    Omissions Made by Luke in the Marcan Narrative                      32


  CHANGES OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN MARK                                   37
    The Baptism of Jesus                                                37
    The Calling of the First Disciples                                  38
    Jesus in the Synagogue at Capernaum                                 38
    The Healing of Peter's Mother-in-Law                                38
    The Healing in the Evening                                          39
    The Retirement of Jesus                                             39
    The Calling of Peter                                                40
    The Healing of the Leper                                            41
    The Healing of the Paralytic                                        41
    The Calling of Levi (Matthew)                                       42
    The Question about Fasting                                          42
    The Walk Through the Corn                                           43
    The Man with the Withered Hand                                      44
    The Crowd and the Healings                                          44
    The Calling of the Twelve                                           44
    The Pharisaic Accusation and Jesus' Defense                         45
    The True Brotherhood of Jesus; the Parable of the Sower; the
        Purpose of the Parables                                         45
    The Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower                      46
    A Group of Detached Sayings                                         47
    The Parable of the Mustard Seed                                     47
    The Storm on the Lake                                               47
    The Gadarene Demoniac                                               48
    The Daughter of Jairus and the Woman with the Issue of Blood        49
    The Initial Preaching in Nazareth                                   51
    The Sending out of the Disciples                                    51
    The Judgment of Herod concerning Jesus                              52
    The Death of the Baptist                                            53
    The Return of the Disciples and the Feeding of the Five Thousand    54
    The Walking on the Sea                                              55
    The Return to Gennesaret                                            56
    About the Things That Defile                                        56
    The Canaanitish Woman                                               57
    The Feeding of the Four Thousand                                    57
    The Demand for a Sign                                               57
    The Saying about Yeast                                              57
    The Confession of Peter, and the First Prediction of Sufferings     58
    The Demands of Discipleship                                         58
    The Transfiguration                                                 59
    The Discussion about Elijah                                         59
    The Healing of the Epileptic Boy                                    60
    The Second Prediction of Sufferings                                 60
    The Strife about Rank                                               61
    Minor Passages                                                      61



  HAVE WE MARK IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM?                                    72
    Discussion of the Analysis of Mark by Wendling and von Soden        74
    Conclusions of von Soden and Wendling Compared                      83
    Matthew and Luke Used Our Mark as a Source                          88
    The Hypothesis of a Primitive Mark Superfluous; Simpler
        Explanations                                                    88
    Some Remarkable Verbal Resemblances                                 93


  USE OF A COMMON DOCUMENT BY MATTHEW AND LUKE                          97
    A Recent Attempt to Prove Matthew a Source for Luke                100


  EXISTENCE AND CONTENT OF Q                                           108
    Deductions from the Table                                          109
    Table II: Material from Q in Matthew                               110
    Deductions from Table III                                          115
    Table III: Material in Luke Taken from Q                           116
    The Necessity for a Further Extension of Q                         120



  ANALYSIS OF Q                                                        123
    Q Originally an Aramaic Document, Used in Greek Translations
        by Matthew and Luke                                            123
    The Analysis of Q into QMt and QLk                                 126


  Q, QMT, AND QLK IN MATTHEW AND LUKE                                  129
    The Preaching of John the Baptist                                  129
    The Messianic Proclamation of the Baptist                          130
    The Temptation                                                     130
    "Blessed Are the Poor"                                             131
    "Blessed Are They That Mourn"                                      132
    "Blessed Are They That Hunger"                                     132
    "Blessed Are The Persecuted"                                       132
    A Saying about Salt                                                133
    A Saying about Light                                               133
    A Saying about the Law                                             135
    "Agree with Thine Adversary"                                       135
    About Non-Resistance and Love of Enemies                           135
    The Lord's Prayer                                                  136
    A Saying about Treasures                                           137
    A Saying about the Eye                                             137
    About Double Service                                               138
    About Care                                                         138
    About Judging                                                      139
    The Beam and the Mote                                              139
    About Seeking and Finding                                          139
    The Golden Rule                                                    140
    The Narrow Gate                                                    140
    The Tree and Its Fruits                                            141
    Warning against Self-Deception                                     141
    The Two Houses                                                     143
    The Centurion's Son                                                143
    "Many Shall Come from East and West"                               145
    Two Men Would Follow Jesus                                         146
    "The Harvest Is Great"                                             146
    "The Laborer Is Worthy of His Hire"                                146
    "Greet the House"                                                  147
    "More Tolerable for Sodom"                                         147
    "Sheep among Wolves"                                               148
    How to Act under Persecution                                       148
    The Disciple and His Teacher                                       148
    Exhortation to Fearless Confession                                 149
    Strife among Relatives                                             150
    Conditions of Discipleship                                         150
    "He That Receiveth You"                                            151
    The Question of the Baptist and Jesus' Answer                      152
    The Woe upon the Galilean Cities                                   152
    "I Thank Thee, O Father"                                           152
    Jesus' Defense against the Pharisees                               153
    "He That Is Not with Me"                                           153
    Jonah and the Ninevites                                            153
    A Speech about Backsliding                                         154
    "Blessed Are the Eyes That See"                                    154
    The Parable of the Yeast                                           154
    The Blind Leading the Blind                                        155
    A Saying about Faith                                               155
    A Saying about Offenses                                            156
    The Stray Sheep                                                    156
    About Forgiveness                                                  157
    Rewards for Discipleship                                           157
    Against the Pharisees                                              157
    "Whoso Humbles Himself"                                            158
    Against the Pharisees                                              158
    A Woe upon the Scribes                                             159
    "I Send unto You Prophets"                                         160
    The Lament over Jerusalem                                          161
    The Day of the Son of Man                                          161
    The Body and the Eagles                                            161
    The Days of Noah                                                   161
    The One Taken, the Other Left                                      162
    The Watching Servant                                               162
    The True and False Servants                                        162
    Results of the Preceding Investigation                             162


  Q IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW                                 166
    Two Beatitudes                                                     167
    Four More Beatitudes                                               167
    "Ye Are the Light of the World"                                    169
    "Let Your Light Shine"                                             169
    Various Sayings from the Sermon on the Mount                       170
    A Saying about Offenses                                            171
    The Commandment about Divorce                                      171
    About Oaths                                                        172
    The Second Mile                                                    172
    Another Old Testament Commandment                                  173
    About Alms-Giving                                                  173
    About Prayer                                                       174
    About Fasting                                                      175
    Pearls before Swine                                                175
    The False Prophets                                                 176
    A Saying about Trees                                               177
    "By Their Fruits"                                                  177
    An Oft-Repeated Formula                                            177
    The Conclusion of the Story of the Centurion's Servant             178
    "I Will Have Mercy and Not Sacrifice"                              179
    The Healing of Two Blind Men                                       179
    The Healing of a Dumb Man                                          180
    Instructions to the Disciples                                      180
    Further Instructions to the Disciples                              180
    A Saying about Elijah                                              181
    "He That Hath Ears, Let Him Hear"                                  182
    The Occasion of Pronouncing Woes upon the Galilean Cities          182
    Reason Assigned for the Pronunciation of the Woes                  182
    "Come unto Me"                                                     183
    A Saying about the Law                                             184
    An Old Testament Quotation                                         184
    "Generation of Vipers"                                             184
    A Saying about the Judgment                                        185
    An Interpretation of the Sign of Jonah                             185
    The Weed in the Field                                              185
    The Parables of the Treasure, the Pearl, the Fish-Net, and the
        Scribe Instructed in the Kingdom                               186
    Peter Walking on the Water                                         187
    "To the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel"                         187
    A Summary of Jesus' Healing Work                                   188
    The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven                                  189
    An Insertion in the Story of the Transfiguration                   189
    "Whosoever Humbles Himself as This Little Child"                   189
    The Unforgiving Servant                                            190
    About Eunuchs                                                      190
    The Laborers in the Vineyard                                       190
    The Two Sons                                                       191
    The Wedding Feast                                                  191
    Against the Pharisees                                              191
    The Parables of the Ten Virgins, the Talents, the Judgment         191
    "Twelve Legions of Angels"                                         192


  Q IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF LUKE                                    193
    The Preaching of John the Baptist                                  193
    The Initial Preaching of Jesus in Nazareth                         194
    The Call of Peter                                                  194
    The Woes                                                           194
    The Reception of John's Preaching                                  195
    The Sinner in Simon's House                                        195
    A Would-Be Follower of Jesus                                       196
    The Return of the Seventy                                          196
    The Great Commandment                                              197
    The Good Samaritan                                                 197
    Mary and Martha                                                    197
    The Parable of the Friend on a Journey                             198
    The Mother of Jesus Praised                                        198
    "If Thine Whole Body Is Light"                                     198
    The Parable of the Foolish Rich Man                                198
    The Exhortation to Watchfulness                                    198
    "To Whom Much Is Given"                                            199
    "I Came to Cast Fire upon the Earth"                               199
    The Galileans Slain by Herod                                       199
    The Parable of the Fig-Tree                                        200
    "Go Tell That Fox"                                                 200
    The Healing of the Dropsical Man                                   201
    About Taking the Less Honorable Seats at the Table                 201
    Whom to Invite to a Feast                                          202
    The Parable of the Dinner and the Invited Guests                   202
    Conditions of Discipleship                                         203
    The Lost Sheep                                                     203
    The Lost Coin and the Prodigal Son                                 203
    The Unjust Steward                                                 203
    A Criticism of the Pharisees                                       204
    The Rich Man and Lazarus                                           205
    "Unprofitable Servants" and the Healing of the Ten Lepers          205
    About the Coming of the Kingdom of God                             205
    Matter Peculiar to Matthew or to Luke                              206
    Matter Peculiar to Luke                                            210
    Did Luke's Great Interpolation Originally Exist as a Separate
        Documentary Source?                                            214
    Other Possible Sources for Material Peculiar to Luke               217
    Conclusions Regarding Q Material in the Single Traditions of
        Matthew and Luke                                               218


  REVIEW OF Q IN MATTHEW, LUKE, AND MARK                               221
    Considerations Favoring Analysis of Q into QMt and QLk             221
    Table IV: Contents of Q Material in Matthew                        222
    Table V: Contents of Q Material in Luke                            224
    Passages Closely Similar, Yet With Divergences Too Great to Be
        Accounted for upon the Hypothesis of an Undifferentiated Q     226
    With Matthew's Q before Him, Luke Would Not Have Omitted So
        Much of It                                                     227
    The "Secondary Traits" Are in QMt and QLk, Not in Q                230


  DID MARK ALSO USE Q?                                                 234
    What Material Did Mark Take from Q?                                236
    The Messianic Announcement of the Baptist                          237
    The Baptism of Jesus                                               237
    The Temptation of Jesus                                            238
    The Beelzebul Controversy                                          238
    Five Detached Sayings                                              239
    The Parable of the Mustard Seed                                    240
    The Sending Out of the Twelve                                      241
    A Sign Refused                                                     241
    "Whosoever Will Follow Me"                                         241
    "Whosoever Is Ashamed of Me"                                       242
    About Offenses                                                     242
    About Salt                                                         243
    About Divorce                                                      243
    The First Who Shall Be Last                                        243
    True Greatness                                                     244
    About Faith                                                        244
    Against the Pharisees                                              244
    The Holy Spirit Speaking in the Disciples                          244
    Other Marcan Passages Considered, But Rejected                     244
    Table VI: Contents of Q Material in Mark                           246
    Do the Vocabulary and Style of Mark and Q, Respectively, Throw
        Any Light upon Their Literary Relationship?                    246
    Conclusions as to Mark's Dependence upon Q                         248


  ORIGINAL ORDER OF Q                                                  249
    Table VII                                                          250
    Table VIII                                                         250
    Table IX                                                           251
    Table X                                                            252






The one universally accepted result of modern study of the synoptic
problem is the dependence of Matthew and Luke upon the Gospel of Mark.

Tho it is no longer necessary to demonstrate this use of Mark by Matthew
and Luke, the relation among the three Gospels is not to be dismissed with
a simple statement of this dependence. The Gospel of Mark is the one
document possessed by us in substantially the same form in which it was
used by Matthew and Luke. 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 have. Our first
work, therefore, is to observe, with some thoroness, the manner in which
Matthew and Luke use the Gospel of Mark. If any proof is still required
that Matthew and Luke did employ this Gospel, it will appear in the


Matthew and Luke begin with introductory matter of their own, occupying
the first two chapters of their Gospels. With the appearance of John the
Baptist their narrative begins to coincide with that of Mark. Luke in a
manner characteristic of his Gospel attempts to supply historical details.
Mark (i, 6) gives a fuller description of the personal habits and
appearance of the Baptist; the others omit this, and pass to a description
of his preaching (Mt iii, 7-10; Lk iii, 7-9). Luke adds a brief section
(iii, 10-14) on this subject derived from some source of his own.

After these insertions of non-Marcan material, Matthew and Luke come back
to the narrative of Mark, and recount (Mk i, 7-8; Mt iii, 11-12; Lk iii,
15-18) the messianic prediction of the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus (Mk
i, 9-11; Mt iii, 13-17; Lk iii, 21-22), the temptation (Mk i, 12-13; Mt
iv, 1-11; Lk iv, 1-13), and the initial appearance of Jesus in Galilee (Mk
i, 14-15; Mt iv, 12-17; Lk iv, 14-15). Between the messianic preaching of
the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus, Luke has inserted a notice of the
arrest and imprisonment of John, and between the baptism and the
temptation, his table of the ancestors of Jesus.[2] The large amount of
closely parallel matter in Matthew and Luke, especially in their account
of the Baptist's preaching and their narrative of the temptation, shows
their use of a common non-Marcan source; but the order of their narrative,
as well as its wording, shows their use of Mark also. To his account of
the initial appearance of Jesus in Galilee, Luke adds (iv, 16-30) an
account of Jesus' first preaching in Nazareth.

Matthew proceeds to tell with Mark (Mt iv, 18-22; Mk i, 16-20) of the
calling of the first disciples. Luke postpones this, having a more
detailed and interesting account of the call of Peter which he will
introduce later (Lk v, 1-11). Mark (i, 21-28) then tells of Jesus'
preaching in a synagogue at Capernaum. This Matthew omits, but Luke (iv,
31-37) gives the story as Mark has it. Matthew here inserts his Sermon on
the Mount and the healing of the nobleman's daughter (Mt v, 1-viii, 13);
he then comes back to the narrative of Mark, and with Luke tells (Mk i,
29-31; Mt viii, 14-15; Lk iv, 38-39) of the healing of Peter's
mother-in-law. The three evangelists then relate together (Mk i, 32-34; Mt
viii, 16-17; Lk iv, 40-41), the story of the healings at evening. Luke and
Mark add the story of Jesus' retirement into a desert place (Mk i, 35-38;
Lk iv, 42-43), which Matthew omits. Mark and Luke then add a brief
statement of a preaching tour thru Galilee (Mk i, 39; Lk iv, 44); Matthew
has already utilized this statement, somewhat enlarged, as introductory to
his Sermon on the Mount (Mt iv, 23-25). Luke inserts (Lk v, 1-11) his
account of the calling of Peter, postponed from its earlier position in
Mark. The three then tell together the story of the healing of the leper
and the paralytic, the call of Levi (called Matthew in Matthew), and the
discussion about fasting (Mk i, 40-ii, 22; Mt viii, 1-4; ix, 1-17; Lk v,
12-39). Matthew (ix, 35-x, 16) inserts his account of the sending out of
the twelve, which Mark and Luke give later. After this he comes back into
agreement with the other two, and all three relate the incident of Jesus'
walking thru the corn on the Sabbath (Mk ii, 23-28; Mt xii, 1-8; Lk vi,
1-5), the healing of the withered hand (Mk iii, 1-6; Mt xii, 9-14; Lk vi,
6-11), and the healings in the crowd (Mk iii, 7-12; Mt xii, 15-21; Lk vi,

At this point Luke has transposed two brief sections of Mark, because, it
is evident, by so doing he secures a better introduction to his Sermon on
the Level Place, which he now (Lk vi, 20-49) proceeds to give. By placing
the account of the calling of the twelve (Mk iii, 13-19; Lk vi, 12-16)
just before the account of the gathering of the throng (Mk iii, 7-12; Lk
vi, 17-19) he secures his audience for his Sermon on the Plain; if the
narrative had been given in reverse order, as by Mark, the sermon might
appear to have been addressed to the twelve alone. After his Sermon on the
Plain (Lk vi, 20-49) Luke adds the story of the widow's son, the anointing
in Simon's house, and the ministering women (vii, 11-17, 36-50; viii,
1-3), not found in either Mark or Matthew, after which the three take up
the same story again in the accusation of the scribes and the speech about
Beelzebub, tho Luke's order is here not that of the other two (Mk iii,
20-30; Mt xii, 22-37; Lk xi, 14-23). After the insertion of non-Marcan
material by both Matthew and Luke, both return to Mark's narrative in the
story of the family of Jesus who had come to take him home (Mk iii, 31-35;
Mt xii, 46-50; Lk viii, 19-21), the parable of the Sower, the speech about
the purpose of the parables, the interpretation of the parable of the
Sower, and the group of detached sayings (Mk iv, 1-25; Mt xiii, 1-23; Lk
viii, 4-18); Matthew, however, omits three out of the four sayings at this
point, because he has already incorporated them in his Sermon on the

Then follows in Mark alone (Mk iv, 26-29) the parable of the Seed that
grew of itself, the only section of Marcan material thus far omitted by
both Matthew and Luke. Then the parable of the Seed-Corn, which Luke omits
but Matthew gives (Mk iv, 30-32; Mt xiii, 31-32).[3] Then come the storm
on the lake, the story of the Gadarene demoniac, the healing of Jairus'
daughter, with the interpolation of the story of the woman with the
hemorrhage (Mk iv, 35-v, 43; Mt viii, 23-34; ix, 18-26; Lk viii, 22-56),
all in the same order. Then follows the rejection in Nazareth (Mk vi, 1-6;
Mt xiii, 53-58); Matthew follows Mark in it, but Luke omits it because he
has related a similar incident in his fourth chapter. Luke then follows
Mark in relating the incident of the sending out of the twelve (Mk vi,
6-13; Lk ix, 1-6); Matthew has given it in an earlier location. The
judgment of Herod concerning Jesus is then given by all three (Mk vi,
14-16; Mt xiv, 1-2; Lk ix, 7-9). Matthew gives with Mark (Mk vi, 17-29; Mt
xiv, 3-12) the story of the Baptist's death; Luke omits it, having
concluded his story of John in connection with his account of the baptism
of Jesus (Lk iii, 19-20). Then follow in all three the return of the
disciples and the feeding of the five thousand (Mk vi, 30-44; Mt xiv,
13-21; Lk ix, 10-17). Thus far, several items of Mark's narrative have
been omitted now by Matthew and now by Luke, but only one fragment, the
parable of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mk iv, 26-29), by both Matthew and


With Mk vi, 45, begins a section extending to Mk viii, 26, in which
Matthew follows Mark closely, both in wording and in order (Mt xiv,
22-xvi, 12), except that Matthew omits Mark's healing of the deaf
stammerer (Mk vii, 31-37), inserts (Mt xv, 29-31) a summary of the healing
narratives, and omits the healing of the blind man (Mk viii, 22-26). Luke
omits the entire section. Luke picks up the thread of Mark's narrative
again at Mk viii, 27, and he and Matthew follow it thru the confession of
Peter (Mk viii, 27-33; Mt xvi, 13-23; Lk ix, 18-22), the prediction of
sufferings for the disciples (Mk viii, 34-ix, 1; Mt xvi, 24-28; Lk ix,
23-27), and the transfiguration (Mk ix, 2-8; Mt xvii, 1-8; Lk ix, 28-36).
Luke omits the question of the scribes concerning Elias, but Matthew
follows Mark in it (Mk ix, 9-13; Mt xvii, 9-13). After the omission of
these five Marcan verses Luke again continues Mark's narrative, as does
Matthew, and the three relate together the healing of the epileptic boy
(Mk ix, 14-29; Mt xvii, 14-21; Lk ix, 37-43_a_), and the second prediction
of sufferings (Mk ix, 30-32; Mt xvii, 22-23; Lk ix, 43_b_-45).

Matthew inserts from another source the passage about the temple-tax (Mt
xvii, 24-27), and the three continue together in the passage concerning
the strife about precedence (Mk ix, 33-37; Mt xviii, 1-5; Lk ix, 46-48).
Matthew then drops out for a few verses, but Luke follows Mark in the
story of the unknown exorcist (Mk ix, 38-41; Lk ix, 49-50). Luke omits
Mark's saying about offenses, but Matthew follows Mark in it (Mk ix,
42-48; Mt xviii, 6-9). Both Matthew and Luke then forsake Mark for the
moment, since they have both given his saying about salt (Mk ix, 49-50) in
other connections, their treatment of Mark here being evidently influenced
by their use of another source.[4] Matthew then inserts a few sections
peculiar to his Gospel (Mt xviii, 10-35), a few verses of which (Mt xviii,
10-14; Lk xv, 3-7; Mt xviii, 15; Lk xvii, 3; Mt xviii, 21-22; Lk xvii, 4)
are somewhat loosely paralleled in Luke.


Beginning with the 51st verse of his 9th chapter, and extending thru the
14th verse of his 18th chapter, occurs Luke's "Great Interpolation," his
account of the journey thru Samaria. Here occur in Luke many of Jesus'
sayings which Matthew has combined into his "Sermon on the Mount";
notably the Lord's Prayer, the speech about backsliding, and the saying
"Ask and ye shall receive." Here also is much material peculiar to Luke;
notably Jesus' visit to the home of Mary and Martha, the blessing of the
woman upon the mother of Jesus, the sending out and return of the seventy
disciples, the healing of the ten lepers, and the parables of the Good
Samaritan, the Friend Asking for Bread, the Foolish Rich Man, the Lost
Sheep, the Lost Coin, the Prodigal Son, Dives and Lazarus, the Unjust
Judge, and the Publican and Pharisee in the Temple.

Since the purpose here is merely to indicate the relation of the framework
of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke to that of Mark, the full content of
this great interpolation of Luke's does not need to be presented. Enough
has been given to show how long and important a section it is. Thruout it
Luke appears to forsake Mark, tho there seem to be evidences that for some
of the material contained in this section and also to be found in Mark,
Mark and Luke have been drawing upon a common source.[5]

After forsaking Mark for so long, Luke comes back to him, and to Matthew
(who has not made this deviation at the same place), in the blessing of
the children (Mk x, 13-16; Mt xix, 13-15; Lk xviii, 15-17), the danger of
riches (Mk x, 17-31; Mt xix, 16-30; Lk xviii, 18-30), and the third
prediction of sufferings (Mk x, 32-34; Mt xx, 17-19; Lk xviii, 31-34).
Matthew has meantime inserted (Mt xx, 1-16) his parable of the Workers in
the Vineyard, but has not allowed this insertion to influence his
adherence to the Marcan order. Luke then drops out of the triple
tradition in the passage concerning the request of James and John for
chief seats in the kingdom, but Matthew continues to follow Mark (Mk x,
35-45; Mt xx, 20-28). After this brief omission of Luke's, the three come
together again in the story of the healing of Bartimaeus (Mk x, 46-52; Mt
xx, 29-34; Lk, xviii, 35-43). Luke inserts his story of Zaccheus, unknown
to the other evangelists (Lk xix, 1-10), and his parable of the Talents
(Lk xix, 11-27), more or less closely parallel to Matthew's parable (Mt
xxv, 14-30).


In their account of the happenings in Jerusalem, the three evangelists
start out together in the story of the triumphal entry (Mk xi, 1-11; Mt
xxi, 1-11; Lk xix, 28-38). Matthew and Luke then insert some material
unknown to Mark (Mt xxi, 14-17; Lk xix, 39-44). Matthew follows Mark in
the story of the cursing of the fig tree (Mk xi, 12-14; Mt xxi, 18-19);
Luke omits this, perhaps considering it a variant of the parable of the
Barren Fig Tree given later by all three. The three continue together in
the account of the cleansing of the temple (Mk xi, 15-18; Mt xxi, 12-13;
Lk xix, 45-48), and Matthew gives with Mark the speech of Jesus concerning
the withered fig tree (Mk xi, 20-26; Mt xxi, 20-22); Luke, having omitted
the cursing of the fig tree, omits also this speech concerning it.

The three then give together the Pharisees' question about Jesus'
authority for the cleansing of the temple (Mk xi, 27-33; Mt xxi, 23-27; Lk
xx, 1-8). Matthew adds his parable of the Dissimilar Sons (Mt xxi, 28-32),
and the three relate together the parable of the Evil Husbandmen (Mk xii,
1-12; Mt xxi, 33-46; Lk xx, 9-19). Matthew next gives the parable of the
Wedding Feast (Mt xxii, 1-14) which Luke has given earlier, in his Great
Interpolation (Lk xiv, 16-24). Matthew and Luke follow Mark again in the
question about the tribute money (Mk xii, 13-17; Mt xxii, 15-22; Lk xx,
20-26) and the question of the Sadducees about marriage (Mk xii, 18-27; Mt
xxii, 23-33; Lk xx, 27-40). Matthew continues to follow Mark in the
question about the great commandment (Mk xii, 28-34; Mt xxii, 34-40); Luke
has included this also in his Great Interpolation (Lk x, 25-28); both
Matthew and Luke omit the complimentary remarks of the scribe to Jesus
given by Mark (Mk xii, 32-34). This omission does not hinder their
following Mark in his next sections, the question of David's son, and the
speech against the Pharisees (Mk xii, 35-37; Mt xxii, 41-46; Lk xx, 41-44,
and Mk xii, 38-40; Mt xxiii, 1-36; Lk xx, 45-47). Matthew's largely
expanded form of the latter of these two sections shows him to be here
combining some other source with Mark.

Luke's discourse against the Pharisees recorded in this place agrees
closely with Mark's, but he has given in his eleventh chapter much of the
non-Marcan material which Matthew gives in this place (Lk xi, 39-50).
Matthew then inserts the lament over Jerusalem (Mt xxiii, 37-39) which
Luke has given at an earlier and less appropriate point (Lk xiii, 34-35).
Matthew deserts, but Luke follows, Mark in the story of the widow's mite
(Mk xii, 41-44; Lk xxi, 1-4). All three continue together in the
prediction of the destruction of the temple (Mk xiii, 1-4; Mt xxiv, 1-3;
Lk xxi, 5-7), and in the signs of the parousia (Mk xiii, 5-9; Mt xxiv,
4-8; Lk xxi, 8-11). Thruout the remainder of the "Little Apocalypse"
Matthew has an occasional expansion of Marcan material, and Luke makes an
occasional omission, but it is obvious that Matthew and Luke are here, in
the main, following Mark closely (Mk xiii; Mt xxiv; Lk xxi). There follow
in Matthew several sections not duplicated in Mark, as the saying about
the days of Noah (Mt xxiv, 37-41), the parables of the Watching Servant
(Mt xxiv, 42-44), the True and False Servant (Mt xxiv, 45-51), the Wise
Virgins (Mt xxv, 1-13), the Talents (Mt xxv, 14-30), and the parable of
the Judgment (Mt xxv, 31-46). Luke has given to the "Little Apocalypse" an
ending of his own (Lk xxi, 34-36); the material which Matthew has inserted
continuously in his xxiv, 37-xxv, 30, Luke has scattered over his
seventeenth, twelfth, and nineteenth chapters; the Matthean parable of the
Judgment is duplicated in neither Mark nor Luke. Luke adds a summary of
the activity of Jesus in Jerusalem (Lk xxi, 37-38).


Here the three evangelists start out together with the machinations of the
rulers (Mk xiv, 1-2; Mt xxvi, 1-5; Lk xxii, 1-2). Luke drops out the
account of the anointing in Bethany, which Mark and Matthew relate (Mk
xiv, 3-9; Mt xxvi, 6-13), Luke having related a similar event in an
earlier chapter (Lk vii, 36-50). The three then go on together in the
story of the bargain of Judas with the priests (Mk xiv, 10-11; Mt xxvi,
14-16; Lk xxii, 3-6), and the account of the preparation for the Passover
(Mk xiv, 12-17; Mt xxvi, 17-20; Lk xxii, 7-14). Luke then brings forward
Mark's story of the institution of the Lord's Supper, apparently feeling
that it fits better here than as given by Mark; except for the
transposition of Luke's xxii, 21-23 (= Mk xiv, 18-21; Mt xxvi, 21-25), the
three agree in their account of the prediction of the betrayal and the
institution of the Supper. Luke then adds a section of seven verses (Lk
xxii, 24-30) on the strife about rank in the coming kingdom, which Mark
and Matthew have given earlier (Mk x, 42-45; Mt xx, 25-28). After this
interruption of the common order the three go on with the prediction of
the denial by Peter (Mk xiv, 26-31; Mt xxvi, 30-35; Lk xxii, 31-34). Then
come, tho interrupted by here and there a slight addition peculiar to
Matthew or Luke, and with transpositions of verses or small sections more
frequent than in other parts of the Gospels, the scene in Gethsemane, the
arrest, trial, execution, and burial of Jesus, and the story of the empty
grave (Mk xiv, 32-xvi, 8; Mt xxvi, 36-xxviii, 10; Lk xxii, 39-xxiv, 11);
thus bringing us down to the mutilated end of Mark's Gospel.

Matthew and Luke have thus taken, between them, with trifling exceptions,
the entire Gospel of Mark. The historical framework of the Synoptic
Gospels goes back to Mark.


We add here a brief statement of the theory that Mark's Gospel is an
abstract of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Tho this theory is no longer
defended, it may be worth while to summarize the more general
considerations which have led to its abandonment.

1. It is impossible, upon this theory, to account for the omission by Mark
of so much of the material that stood before him in Matthew and Luke. He
has omitted most of the parables and sayings. He has added no narrative.
He has therefore made an abstract in which much is omitted, nothing is
added, and no improvement is introduced. No reason can be assigned for the
making of such a Gospel by abstracting from the fuller and better Gospels
of Matthew and Luke. The abstract not only adds nothing of its own, but
fails to preserve the distinctive character of either of its exemplars.

2. If Mark had wished to make such an abstract, it is impossible to
explain why in practically every instance he follows, as between Matthew
and Luke, the longer narrative, while his own narrative is longer than
either of those he copied. In the story of the healing of the leper, for
example, Matthew (viii, 1-4) has 62 words, Luke (v, 12-16, without his
introduction) has 87, and Mark (i, 40-45) has 97. In the healing of the
paralytic (Mk ii, 1-12; Mt ix, 1-8; Lk v, 17-26) Matthew has 125 words,
Luke 172, and Mark 190. In the calling of Levi (Matthew, in the Gospel of
Matthew) Matthew has 92 words, Luke 93, and Mark 110 (Mk ii, 13-17; Mt ix,
9-13; Lk v, 27-32). In the parable of the Sower (Mk iv, 1-9; Mt xiii, 1-9;
Lk viii, 4-8) Matthew has 134 words, Luke 90, and Mark 151. In the
interpretation of that parable (Mk iv, 13-20; Mt xiii, 18-23; Lk viii,
11-15) Matthew has 128 words, Luke 109, and Mark 147. Many more such
instances might be given. In every case the additional words of Mark
contain no substantial addition to the narrative. They are mere
redundancies, which Matthew and Luke, each in his own way, have

3. Mark contains a large number of otherwise unknown or unliterary words
and phrases. For example, σχιζομένους, i, 10; ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ, i, 23;
κράβαττος, ii, 4, and in five other places; ἐπιράπτει, ii, 21; θυγάτριον,
v, 23; vii, 25; ἐσχάτως ἔχει, v, 23; σπεκουλάτωρ, vi, 27; συμπόσια
συμπόσια, vi, 39; εἰσὶν τινὲς ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων, ix, 1; εἷς κατὰ εἷς, xiv,
19; ἐκπερισσῶς, xiv, 31. Such expressions might easily have been replaced
by Matthew and Luke with the better expressions which they use instead of
these; they could hardly have been substituted by Mark for those better

4. Mark contains many broken or incomplete constructions; as in iii, 16+;
iv, 31+; v, 23; vi, 8+; xi, 32; xii, 38-40; xiii, 11, 14, 16, 19; xiv, 49.
Such constructions would be easily corrected by Matthew and Luke; they
would not easily be inserted into the narratives of Matthew and Luke by

5. Mark has many double or redundant expressions, of which Matthew has
taken a part, Luke sometimes the same part, sometimes another. Such
instances may be found in Mark's Gospel at ii, 20, 25; iv, 39; xi, 2; xii,
14; the corresponding passages in Matthew and Luke will show their
treatment of these redundancies.[6]

6. Mark uses uniformly καὶ, where Matthew and Luke have sometimes καὶ, and
sometimes δὲ. Mark's use shows him to be nearer the Hebrew or Aramaic. No
explanation can be given for his substitution of this monotonous
conjunction in the place of the two conjunctions used by Matthew and Luke.
The variation in Matthew and Luke of Mark's one conjunction is entirely

7. Mark has many Aramaic words, which he translates into Greek; see
especially iii, 17; v, 41; vii, 11; vii, 34. It would be easy for these to
be dropped out by writers making use of Mark's material for Hellenistic
readers; but very unnatural for Mark to have inserted these Aramaic words
into the Greek texts of Matthew and Luke.

8. Mark's narrative thruout is more spirited and vivid than either
Matthew's or Luke's. It would be much easier for these graphic touches to
be omitted for various reasons by Matthew and Luke, even tho they found
these before them in their Gospel of Mark, than for Mark to have added
these touches in copying the narratives of Matthew and Luke. One may
mention especially the details about the appearance and dress of the
Baptist (Mk i, 6); the four men carrying the litter (ii, 3); the
statement, "He looked around upon them with wrath, being grieved at the
hardness of their hearts" (Mk iii, 5); the names of persons, and their
relatives, unknown to the other evangelists, the description of the
Gadarene demoniac, the additional details of the conversation between
Jesus and the parents of the epileptic boy (ix, 20-24), and many similar


Thruout this Great Interpolation, Luke entirely forsakes Mark.[7] Out of
the two hundred and fifty-two verses of the interpolation, there are about
thirty-five which contain material also to be found in Mark. But thirteen
of these thirty-five verses are doublets. And of these doublets, the
member which appears in the interpolation seems never to agree in its
setting with the verse in Mark to which it is parallel, whereas the verse
which, outside the interpolation, constitutes the other member of the
doublet does so agree. In the case of five of these doublets, the member
standing outside the interpolation is also more closely similar to Mark in
wording than the half standing in the interpolation. The thirteen verses
containing the doublets therefore came apparently from some other source
than Mark.

Nine other brief sayings in the interpolation have a parallel in Mark, and
also in Matthew. But the similarity in each case is greater between the
Marcan and Matthean than between the Lucan and Marcan forms, and thus
indicates that these Lucan verses were not drawn from Mark, tho Matthew's
parallel verses apparently were.[8] The placing of these nine verses in
Luke is unlike that in Mark, but their placing in Matthew is exactly
similar to Mark's. In twenty-two out of the thirty-five verses of the
Great Interpolation that are paralleled in Mark there are thus but three
expressions, at the most, that can possibly be held to indicate that Luke
is here following Mark.

Two more such expressions are found in the remaining thirteen verses. Four
of these contain the discussion about the Great Commandment, paralleled in
Mk xii, 28-34, and Mt xxii, 34-40. The connection is identical in Matthew
and Mark, but very different in Luke. The same is true of the introductory
question of the scribe. Mark and Matthew assign to the questioner the Old
Testament quotation which Luke assigns to Jesus. The commendation of the
questioner, common to Mark and Luke, and the addition, also common to them
against Matthew, of ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου (ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου) would
naturally point toward a dependence of Luke upon Mark, but are not strong
enough to counterbalance so much evidence in the opposite direction.

The next seven verses (xi, 15, 17-23) contain the defense of Jesus against
the charge of having a devil. Mark and Luke agree but slightly, Matthew
and Luke very closely. Matthew has 136 words, Luke 139, Mark only 98,
whereas the narratives which Luke takes from Mark are invariably
abbreviated by Luke. Matthew and Luke have the same setting, Mark a
different one. Matthew follows Mark against Luke in the little parable of
the Strong Man Armed; Luke has no parallel. Matthew has conflated two
sources, one of which was Mark, but Luke has forsaken Mark for the other

The remaining two verses, the parable of the Mustard Seed (Lk xiii, 18-19;
Mk iv, 30+; Mt xiii, 31+) show the same features as those just considered.
We conclude that thruout his Great Interpolation, Luke, while having some
matter paralleled in Mark, was not following Mark, but some other source.



In the treatment of the framework of the Synoptics, something has been
said of the way in which Matthew and Luke treat the order of the material
which they have taken from Mark. The subject, however, calls for a more
careful analysis.

At the opening of the 3d chapters of Matthew and Luke, these writers begin
their use of Marcan material. Thru the story of John the Baptist, the
baptism and temptation of Jesus, and his first preaching in Galilee,
Matthew and Luke follow Mark's order, with the trifling exception that
Luke has brot forward to his 3d chapter the account of John's
imprisonment, which in Mark is not given till his 6th chapter and in
Matthew till his 14th, Matthew's order here being the same as Mark's.
Luke's insertion of the genealogy of Jesus between the baptism and the
temptation of Jesus does not constitute a deviation from the order, but
only an addition to the material, of Mark. In Luke's 4th chapter (16-30)
he brings forward an incident which Mark relates much later (Mk vi, 1-6),
the incident also being much worked over by Luke. Matthew, on the
contrary, follows Mark in next relating the call of the first disciples;
Luke continues his deviation in order by postponing this till later.[9]

Luke then comes back to Mark's order (Mk i, 21-38; Lk iv, 31-43), and
follows it thru four sections: the incident in the synagogue at Capernaum,
the healing of Peter's wife's mother, the healings in the evening, and the
retirement of Jesus. Of these four sections, Matthew omits the first,
presumably because he considers himself to have given, in his Sermon on
the Mount, a much fuller account of the effect of Jesus' preaching than is
conveyed by the words of Mark. The second and third of the four sections
Matthew postpones till after his Sermon on the Mount. The last one, about
the retirement of Jesus, he omits, because he has no place for it, since
he has not recorded the preaching at Capernaum and the incident attached
to it, out of which the retirement came.

Luke then inserts (v, 1-11) his account of the calling of Peter. He then
returns to Mark's order (Mk i, 40-45; Lk v, 12-16) in the healing of the
leper; this incident Matthew has postponed till after his Sermon on the
Mount. Matthew again brings forward the account of the storm on the lake
and the Gadarene demoniac, which Mark does not relate till his 4th and 5th
chapters. But after these deviations he again coincides with Mark and Luke
in the healing of the paralytic, the calling of Levi, and the question
about fasting. 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
narrative. Having done this he falls again into the Marcan order, which
Luke has been still following, and relates in the same order with Mark the
walk thru the corn and the healing of the withered hand.

Luke has thus far shown few deviations from Mark's order, Matthew many.
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 Mount. Luke
now makes a slight transposition; he relates with Mark the story of the
healings and the crowd, and the calling of the twelve, but in the reverse
order; he has thus secured a better introduction to his Sermon on the
Level Place (beginning Lk vi, 20). After the conclusion of that sermon,
and the inclusion of much non-Marcan material, in Luke; and after the
Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, and the insertion by him of much Marcan
material which in Mark's Gospel comes at later points, Matthew and Luke
come back to Mark's order in the Beelzebul controversy. Matthew continues
with Mark in the story of the family of Jesus, come to take him home, the
parable of the Sower, and the interpretation of that parable. Luke also
follows Mark's order thruout these three sections, tho he has placed all
three of them at an earlier point in his Gospel, and has transposed the
first section.

Beginning again with the storm on the lake and the Gadarene demoniac,
Matthew and Luke follow Mark's order thru two long sections. Matthew, in
copying Mark's earlier narrative, omitted his healing of the paralytic,
his call of Levi (Matthew), and his report of the discussion about
fasting, where these occurred in Mark's 2d chapter. He therefore inserts
them here in his 9th chapter. After the insertion of these Matthew comes
back to the order of Mark in his story of the daughter of Jairus. Luke,
having followed Mark's order in the earlier narrative where Matthew
deviated from it, follows it here uninterruptedly thru the three sections
about the storm on the lake, the Gadarene demoniac, and the daughter of
Jairus. After omitting Mk vi, 1-6, the story of the rejection at Nazareth,
which Luke has given in an expanded form much earlier, Luke again follows
Mark's narrative thru two sections on the sending out of the disciples and
the judgment of Herod concerning Jesus. He omits the death of the Baptist,
perhaps under the impression that this will be inferred from his leaving
him in prison in an earlier chapter, but goes on with Mark again in the
account of the return of the disciples and the feeding of the five
thousand. Matthew has come back to Mark's order at Mk vi, 14 (Mt xiv, 1),
and follows it without deviation or interruption thru about seventy
verses; after which, tho omitting several small sections of Marcan
material, and inserting some non-Marcan matter, he continues to follow the
Marcan order to Mk ix, 48; thus following Mark's order, in spite of
additions and omissions, thru more than three of Mark's chapters, without
deviation. Luke has fallen out at Mk vi, 45, and takes nothing from Mark
again till he reaches Mark's viii, 27; at which point, without having made
any insertion of his own peculiar material, he again takes up Mark's
narrative, and follows it from Mk viii, 27, to Mk ix, 8 (= Lk ix, 18, to
ix, 36); then making another omission of a few Marcan verses, he continues
to follow Mark up to Mk ix, 40. In spite of Luke's omission of several
brief Marcan sections, and of more than three Marcan chapters at another
point, Luke has thus not disturbed the Marcan order from Mk vi, 6, to Mk
ix, 40.

Beginning with Mk x, 1, Matthew follows Mark, tho making an insertion of
16 verses, up to Mk xi, 11, at which point he transposes a few verses.
Luke has come in at Mk x, 13, and has followed up to Mk x, 34, at which
point he makes an omission of ten Marcan verses. Going on with Mark at Mk
x, 46, he continues to follow him (tho inserting his story of Zaccheus and
his parable of the talents) to Mk xiii, 9, omitting, however, Mark's
story of the cursing of the fig tree and the speech of Jesus attached to
this incident in Mark's Gospel. After the transposition of a few Marcan
verses in Mt xxi, 12-13, Matthew also continues Mark's order, beginning
with Mk xi, 20, down to Mk xiii, 9.

From Mk xiii, 9, to xiii, 32, both Matthew and Luke follow Mark's order.
At Mk xiii, 33-37, they come upon a section which Matthew postpones and
which Luke has previously inserted. After the insertion of some non-Marcan
matter common to Matthew and Luke, and of some matter peculiar to each,
both Matthew and Luke go on with the Marcan material, beginning where they
left off at Mk xiv, 1. Luke omits Mk xiv, 3-9, because of a duplicate or
variant of the passage which he has inserted in his 7th chapter; except
for this omission (which does not affect Matthew), the three proceed in
the same order down to Mk xiv, 17, where Luke again transposes a few
verses, but Matthew follows without deviation. From here on to the end of
Mark's Gospel, Matthew follows practically without deviation, tho adding
much matter of his own. Luke makes a transposition of the story of Peter's
denial, and of one or two other items; except for which he also follows
Mark's order substantially as he finds it.

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
large, and give a general idea of how faithfully Matthew and Luke have
followed the order of Mark. For purposes of studying the matter in more
detail, Table I is appended. The sections are given and numbered as they
occur in Mark, and also as they occur in Matthew and Luke.



                          |         CHAPTER AND VERSE            |SEC. NOS.
    SUBJECT-MATTER OF     |--------------------------------------|---------
         SECTION          |     Mk    |     Lk     |      Mt     |Mk|Lk|Mt
  John the Baptist        |   i, 1-6  | iii,   1-6 |   iii, 1-6  |  1| 1| 1
  His messianic           |           |            |             |   |  |
    announcement          |   i, 7-8  | iii,  15-18|   iii, 11-12|  2| 2| 2
  Baptism of Jesus        |   i, 9-11 | iii,  21-22|   iii, 13-17|  3| 3| 3
  Temptation of Jesus     |   i, 12-13|  iv,   1-13|    iv, 1-11 |  4| 4| 4
  Appearance in Galilee   |   i, 14-15|  iv,  14-15|    iv, 12-17|  5| 5| 5
  Calling first disciples |   i, 16-20|   v,   1-11|    iv, 18-22|  6|12| 6
  In the synagogue        |   i, 21-28|  iv,  31-37|   vii, 28-29|  7| 7|11
  Peter's wife's mother   |   i, 29-31|  iv,  38-39|  viii, 14-15|  8| 8|13
  Healings in the evening |   i, 32-34|  iv,  40-41|  viii, 16-17|  9| 9|14
  Retirement of Jesus     |   i, 35-38|  iv,  42-43|  .........  | 10|10|..
  Preaching tour in       |           |            |             |   |  |
    Galilee               |   i, 39   |  iv,  44   |    iv, 23-25| 11|11| 7
  Healing of leper        |   i, 40-45|   v,  12-16|  viii, 1-4  | 12|13|12
  Healing of paralytic    |  ii, 1-12 |   v,  17-26|    ix, 1-8  | 13|14|17
  Calling of Levi         |  ii, 13-17|   v,  27-32|    ix, 9-13 | 14|15|18
  Question of fasting     |  ii, 18-22|   v,  33-39|    ix, 14-17| 15|16|19
  Walk thru the corn      |  ii, 23-28|  vi,   1-5 |   xii, 1-8  | 16|17|25
  The withered hand       | iii, 1-6  |  vi,   6-11|   xii, 9-14 | 17|18|26
  Crowd and healings      | iii, 7-12 |  vi,  17-19|   xii, 15-21| 18|20|27
  Calling of the twelve   | iii, 13-19|  vi,  12-16|     x, 2-4  | 19|19|22
  The pharisaic accusation| iii, 20-22|  xi,  14-16|   xii, 22-24| 20|43|28
  Jesus' defense          | iii, 23-30|  xi,  17-23|   xii, 25-37| 21|44|29
  Jesus' true kindred     | iii, 31-35|viii,  19-21|   xii, 46-50| 22|28|30
  Parable of the Sower    |  iv, 1-9  |viii,   4-8 |  xiii, 1-9  | 23|23|31
  Purpose of parables     |  iv, 10-12|viii,   9-10|  xiii, 10-15| 24|24|32
  Interpretation of Sower |  iv, 13-20|viii,  11-15|  xiii, 18-23| 25|25|33
  Saying about a light    |  iv, 21   |viii,  16   |     v, 15   | 26|26| 9
  Hidden and revealed     |  iv, 22   |viii,  17   |     x, 26   | 27|27|24
  Ears to hear            |  iv, 23   |viii,  8;   |    xi, 15;  | 28|30|27
                          |           |  xiv, 35   |    xiii, 9  |   |  |
  The measure             |  iv, 24   |  vi,  38   |   vii, 2    | 29|21|10
  Whoever has             |  iv, 25   |  vi,  38   |  xiii, 12   | 30|22|32
  Seed Growing of Itself  |  iv, 26-29| .......... | ..........  | 31|..|..
  Mustard Seed            |  iv, 30-32|xiii,  18-19|  xiii, 31-32| 32|..|34
  Speaking in parables    |  iv, 33-34| .......... |  xiii, 34-35| 33|..|35
  Storm on the lake       |  iv, 35-41|viii,  22-25|  viii, 23-27| 34|29|15
  Gadarene demoniac       |   v,  1-20|viii,  26-39|  viii, 28-34| 35|30|16
  Daughter of Jairus, and |   v, 21-43|viii,  40-56|    ix, 18-26| 36|31|20
    woman with issue of   |           |            |             |   |  |
    blood                 |           |            |             |   |  |
  Rejection in Nazareth   |  vi,  1-6 |  iv,  16-30|  xiii, 53-58| 37| 6|36
  Sending out disciples   |  vi,  6-13|  ix,   1-6 |    ix, 35;  | 38|32|21
                          |           |            |     x,  9-11|   |  |23
  Judgment of Herod on    |           |            |             |   |  |
    Jesus                 |  vi, 14-16|  ix,   7-9 |   xiv,  1-2 | 39|23|37
  Death of the Baptist    |  vi, 17-29| .......... |   xiv,  3-12| 40|..|38
  Return of disciples and |  vi, 30-44|  ix,  10-17|   xiv, 13-21| 41|34|39
    feeding of five       |           |            |             |   |  |
    thousand              |           |            |             |   |  |
  Walking on the water    |  vi, 45-52| .......... |   xiv, 22-33| 42|..|40
  Return to Gennesaret    |  vi, 53-56| .......... |   xiv, 34-36| 43|..|41
  About hand-washing      | vii,  1-23| .......... |    xv,  1-20| 44|..|42
  The Canaanitish woman   | vii, 24-30| .......... |    xv, 21-28| 45|..|43
  Healing of deaf         |           |            |             |   |  |
    stammerer             | vii, 31-37| .......... | ..........  | 46|..|..
  Feeding of four thousand|viii,  1-10| .......... |    xv, 32-39| 47|..|44
  Demand for a sign       |viii, 11-13|  xi,  29;  |   xvi,  1-4 | 48|45|45
                          |           | xii,  54-56|             |   |47|
  Saying about yeast      |viii, 14-21| xii,   1   |   xvi,  5-12| 49|46|46
  The blind man of        |           |            |             |   |  |
    Bethsaida             |viii, 22-26| .......... | ..........  | 50|..|..
  Confession of Peter     |viii, 27-33|  ix,  18-22|   xvi, 13-23| 51|35|47
  Warnings of persecutions|viii, 34-  |  ix,  23-27|   xvi, 24-28| 52|36|48
                          |      ix, 1|            |             |   |  |
  The transfiguration     |  ix,  2-8 |  ix,  28-36|  xvii,  1-8 | 53|37|49
  Question about Elias    |  ix,  9-13| .......... |  xvii,  9-13| 54|..|50
  The epileptic boy       |  ix, 14-29| ix,  37-43a|  xvii, 14-21| 55|38|51
  Prediction of sufferings|  ix, 30-32| ix,  43b-45|  xvii, 22-23| 56|39|52
  Strife about rank       |  ix, 33-37|  ix,  46-48| xviii,  1-5 | 57|40|53
  The unknown exorcist    |  ix, 38-41|  ix,  49-50| ..........  | 58|41|..
  About offenses          |  ix, 42-48|xvii,   1-2 | xviii,  6-9 | 59|49|54
  About salt              |  ix, 49-50| xiv,  34-35|     v, 13   | 60|48| 8
  Marriage and divorce    |   x,  1-12| .......... |   xix,  1-12| 61|..|55
  Blessing the children   |   x, 13-16|xviii, 15-17|   xix, 13-15| 62|50|56
  Danger of riches        |   x, 17-31|xviii, 18-30|   xix, 16-30| 63|51|57
  Prediction of woes      |   x, 32-34|xviii, 31-34|    xx, 17-19| 64|52|58
  The request for seats   |   x, 35-45| .......... |    xx, 20-2 | 65|..|59
  Healing of Bartimaeus   |   x, 46-52|xviii, 35-43|    xx, 29-34| 66|53|60
  Entry into Jerusalem    |  xi,  1-11|  xix, 28-38|   xxi,  1-11| 67|54|61
  Cursing of the fig tree |  xi, 12-14| .......... |   xxi, 18-19| 68|..|63
  Cleansing of the temple |  xi, 15-19|  xix, 45-48|   xxi, 12-13| 69|55|62
  About the fig tree      |  xi, 20-26| .......... |   xxi, 20-22| 70|..|64
  Question about authority|  xi, 27-33|   xx,  1-8 |   xxi, 23-27| 71|56|65
  Parable of the Vineyard | xii,  1-12|   xx,  9-19|   xxi, 33-46| 72|57|66
  Question of Pharisees   | xii, 13-17|   xx, 20-26|  xxii, 15-22| 73|58|67
  Question of Saducees    | xii, 18-27|   xx, 27-40|  xxii, 23-33| 74|59|68
  The great commandment   | xii, 28-34|    x, 25-28|  xxii, 34-40| 75|42|69
  The Son of David        | xii, 35-37|   xx, 41-44|  xxii, 41-46| 76|60|70
  Against the Pharisees   | xii, 38-40|   xx, 45-47| xxiii,  1-36| 77|61|71
  Prediction about temple |xiii,  1-4 |  xxi,  5-7 |  xxiv,  1-3 | 78|62|72
  Signs of the parousia   |xiii,  5-9a|  xxi,  8-11|  xxiv,  4-8 | 79|63|73
  Warnings of troubles    |xiii, 9b-13|  xxi, 12-19|  xxiv, 9-14;| 80|64|74
                          |           |            |     x, 17-21|   |  |21
  Anguish in Judaea       |xiii, 14-20|  xxi, 20-24|  xxiv, 15-22| 81|65|75
  The crisis              |xiii, 21-23| .......... |  xxiv, 23-25| 82|..|76
  The parousia            |xiii, 24-27|  xxi, 25-28|  xxiv, 29-31| 83|66|77
  Parable of Fig Tree     |xiii, 28-29|  xxi, 29-31|  xxiv, 32-33| 84|67|78
  The "when" of the       |           |            |             |   |  |
    parousia              |xiii, 30-32|  xxi, 32-33|  xxiv, 34-36| 85|68|79
  Conclusion of speech    |xiii, 33-37|  xxi, 34-36| ..........  | 86|69|..
  The plot against Jesus  | xiv,  1-2 | xxii,  1-2 |  xxvi,  1-5 | 87|70|80
  Anointing at Bethany    | xiv,  3-9 | .......... |  xxvi,  6-13| 88|..|81
  Treachery of Judas      | xiv, 10-11| xxii,  3-6 |  xxvi, 14-16| 89|71|82
  Preparation for Passover| xiv, 12-17| xxii,  7-14|  xxvi, 17-20| 90|72|83
  Prediction of betrayal  | xiv, 18-21| xxii, 21-23|  xxvi, 21-25| 91|74|84
  Institution of Supper   | xiv, 22-25| xxii, 15-20|  xxvi, 26-29| 92|73|85
  Prediction of Peter's   |           |            |             |   |  |
    fall                  | xiv, 26-31| xxii, 31-34|  xxvi, 30-35| 93|75|86
  In Gethsemane           | xiv, 32-42| xxii, 39-46|  xxvi, 36-46| 94|76|87
  The arrest              | xiv, 43-54| xxii, 47-55|  xxvi, 47-58| 95|77|88
  Trial before Sanhedrim  | xiv, 55-65| xxii, 63-71|  xxvi, 59-68| 96|79|89
  Denial of Peter         | xiv, 66-72| xxii, 56-62|  xxvi, 69-75| 97|78|90
  Delivery to Pilate      |  xv,  1   |xxiii,  1   | xxvii,  1-2 | 98|80|91
  Examination before      |           |            |             |   |  |
    Pilate                |  xv,  2-5 |xxiii,  2-5 | xxvii, 11-14| 99|81|92
  The condemnation of     |           |            |             |   |  |
    Jesus                 |  xv,  6-15|xxiii, 18-25| xxvii, 15-26|100|82|93
  The mocking of Jesus    |  xv, 16-20| .......... | xxvii, 27-31|101|..|94
  The death journey       |  xv, 21   |xxiii, 26-32| xxvii, 32   |102|83|95
  The crucifixion         |  xv, 22-32|xxiii, 33-43| xxvii, 33-44|103|84|96
  The death of Jesus      |  xv, 33-41|xxiii, 44-49| xxvii, 45-56|104|85|97
  The burial              |  xv, 42-47|xxiii, 50-56| xxvii, 57-61|105|86|98
  The empty grave         | xvi,  1-8 | xxiv,  1-12|xxviii,  1-10|106|87|99

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 material.


An examination of the preceding table will show how generally both Matthew
and Luke have followed the order of Mark.

Of the 87 Marcan sections retained by Luke, only 11 sections (Nos. 6, 12,
21, 22, 23, 42-47) are seriously misplaced. From sec. 35 to the end, the
order is particularly well preserved, the only changes being in the
placing of 49 before 48, and 74 before 73. Luke's displacements are
usually made in the interest of a better historical or literary sequence;
some of them may also be occasioned by his large omissions of Marcan
material and his large insertions of peculiar matter.

Matthew has made rather a larger number of changes in the order of his
Marcan material; due perhaps to his habit of combining his Marcan and his
other matter, and to his wish to present most of his sayings-material in
one block (chaps. v-vii). His notable transpositions occur near the
beginning of his Gospel, just before or after the insertion of his Sermon
on the Mount, and in that section (the sending out of the twelve) where he
has made his most obvious conflation of Marcan and other matter. From sec.
37 to the end, however, changes in order are extremely few. The insertion
of 8 between 54 and 55 may be only an apparent dislocation, since the
saying about salt may here not have been derived from Mark but from Q. The
placing of the cleansing of the temple before the cursing of the fig tree
(secs. 62, 63) may be due to his wish to bring the cursing of the fig tree
into immediate connection with the remarks to which it gave rise; the
transposition is an improvement. From here on to the end the sections
occur precisely as in Mark, except that 21 is inserted between 74 and 75;
apparently owing to the influence of Q. The table will also show that
Matthew and Luke practically never concur in forsaking the order of Mark.
It also warrants the assertion often made of late years that Matthew is
more faithful to the content of Mark, permitting himself fewer omissions,
but Luke is more faithful to his order.




The omission of the stories of the healing of the deaf-and-dumb man and
the blind man (Mk vii, 31-37; viii, 22-26), is sufficiently accounted for
by the character of those accounts. The crassness of the means used and
the apparent difficulty of the cures offended the growing sense of the
dignity of Jesus.

The exceedingly patronizing answer of the scribe to Jesus in Mk xii, 32-34
is probably omitted by Matthew and Luke for the same reason. The parable
of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mk iv, 26-29) may have been omitted because
it so closely duplicated other material in both Matthew and Luke;[11] it
has been suggested also that it might have a discouraging effect, or at
least not a stimulating one, upon the missionary activities of the early

The first visit of Jesus to the temple (Mk xi, 11) is mentioned by Mark in
three words only. No incident is connected with it, but Jesus is said to
have looked about and, as it was late, to have gone back to Bethany. The
incident may have dropped out because unsupported by any events or
sayings; or the three words εἰς τὸ ἱερόν may have crept into the text of
Mark after its use by Matthew and Luke (the sense is equally good without

The mention of the man in the linen garment (Mk xiv, 51) and the names of
Alexander and Rufus (Mk xv, 21) may have been omitted because neither
Matthew nor Luke nor their readers would be acquainted with these persons.


Matthew omits the account of the preaching of Jesus in the synagogue at
Capernaum (Mk i, 21-28) because he wished to give a much more detailed
account of Jesus' preaching, in his Sermon on the Mount. 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 synagogue,
"They were astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one having
authority and not as the scribes," is used by Matthew to describe the
effect of the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew's omission of the flight of Jesus (Mk i, 35-38) is probably due to
its failure to fit into his story, as this has been changed on account of
the insertion of the Sermon on the Mount. The retirement takes place from
Capernaum, as a result of the enthusiasm aroused by Jesus' preaching
there. Matthew does not represent Jesus as preaching in Capernaum. He
brings Jesus to Capernaum in chaps. 8 and 9, not however to preach, but to
work miracles. Jesus closes this series of healings with the statement (Mt
ix, 37-38), "The harvest is great but the laborers are few. Pray ye
therefore the lord of the harvest that he send forth laborers into his
vineyard." The retirement does not follow naturally upon this series of
healings, much less upon these words, and so is omitted.

The omission of the story of the unknown exorcist (Mk ix, 38-41), as
Wernle remarks,[12] is not so easy to explain. It may be observed,
however, that by its omission Matthew secures a better connection between
the two sayings of Jesus which are thus brought into succession: "He that
receiveth one such little one in my name receiveth me," and "but he that
causeth one of these little ones that believe in me to stumble, it is
better for him," etc. (Mt xviii, 5, 6).

The story of the widow's mite (Mk xii, 41-44) Matthew may have omitted
because he lacks the connection for it which is supplied in the Gospel of
Mark. Mark makes Jesus speak of the Pharisees who "devour widow's houses,"
and immediately after this introduces the incident of the widow's
self-sacrifice. Matthew has omitted the incident because he has not the
proper occasion for it.[13]

Matthew's other omissions have been accounted for under the omissions
common to him with Luke. The sum total of them is very small and in
general they are easily accounted for.


Luke omits the circumstantial account of the death of the Baptist (Mk vi,
17-29); he has long ago inserted the account of his imprisonment (Lk iii,
19-20), wishing to finish with John before beginning with Jesus. "But the
circumstantial account did not fit in that place."[15]

The longest omission of continuous Marcan material is made by Luke in
omitting the whole of Mk vi, 45 to viii, 26. This long omission
immediately precedes the long insertion of special Lucan material,
indicating a possible difficulty in combining the two sources at this
point. Quite without this, however, there are more or less obvious reasons
for Luke's omission of every section in this long passage. He avoids[16]
the repetition of the same story, and may have regarded Mark's feeding of
the four thousand (Mk viii, 1-10) as a repetition of the feeding of the
five thousand which Luke has already copied from him.

The demand for a sign is a doublet in Matthew; Luke has taken it once with
Matthew from Q and therefore does not care to take it with him here again
from Mark (Mk viii, 11-13). The dispute about things that defile (Mk vii,
1-23) had no significance for a gentile writer or his gentile readers. As
early as his 4th chapter, Luke has represented Jesus as turning from the
Jews, who had rejected him, to the gentiles; he cannot therefore use
Mark's story of the Canaanitish woman, (Mk vii, 24-30), with its
apparently narrow national outlook: "It is not meet to take the children's
bread and throw it to the dogs."[17] The crossing of the lake to
Gennesaret has in Mark (vi, 53-56) no particular incident connected with
it, merely the statement that many people came to Jesus and were healed.
It may have been omitted by Luke because he has a duplicate in viii,
22-25. The omission of this item was no particular loss to Luke's
account; but with its omission the incident of the walking on the water
also fell out. The latter may have been omitted also because of its
implied aspersion upon the disciples. Luke may have been the more ready to
drop this, as his interest in the miracles of Jesus is confined more
largely to the healings, the miracles peculiar to Luke being entirely of
this kind.

Luke omitted the discussion of Jesus with the Pharisees about Elias (Mk
ix, 9-13) because it had no interest for his gentile readers. The omission
of the saying about offenses (Mk ix, 42-48) is accounted for by Luke's
having a parallel for the first part of it in another connection; the last
part, about cutting off the hand or the foot, may have seemed to him, with
his Greek taste, too harsh a saying to be attributed to Jesus.

Luke omitted the journey thru Judaea (Mk x, 1) (or Perea) because in its
place he has given a long account (Lk ix, 51-xviii, 14) (again his great
interpolation) of the journey thru Samaria. The terminus of both journeys
and their place in the story are the same. The question about marriage and
divorce (Mk x, 2-12) is again connected with a Pharisaic dispute; Luke has
also given his own briefer version of the same item (xvi, 18); for either
or both of these reasons he omits it here. The request of James and John
for chief seats in the kingdom (Mk x, 35-45) Luke omits because it
reflects upon the motives of those disciples; Matthew perceives the same
objection to it, but, more faithful to his sources he gets over the
difficulty by attributing the request to the mother, instead of to the
disciples. Mark's discussion about the disciples' failure to bring bread
(Mk viii, 14-21) Luke may have omitted because of its implication of
carelessness on the part of the disciples. Luke also uniformly avoids any
implication of lack of knowledge on the part of Jesus, and this incident
includes one such.[18]

The question about the great commandment (Mk xii, 28-34) Luke may have
omitted because it also is connected with a dispute with a scribe. Or if
Luke's passage (x, 25-28) be considered a parallel to it, this is enough
to account for its omission here. On this latter supposition, Luke has
used the saying as an introduction to his story of the Good Samaritan. The
cursing of the fig tree (Mk xi, 12-14) Luke apparently regarded as a
misunderstanding of the parable of the Fig Tree, which he gives. Whether
so or not, it is of the same kind as the other miracles which Luke omits,
in that it is not a miracle of healing. The anointing in Bethany (Mk xiv,
3-9) has a parallel in the anointing (both in the "house of Simon") by the
sinful woman, which Luke has related in his 7th chapter (vss. 36-50). "The
second session of the sanhedrim he has combined with the first."[19]

Concerning the great omission of Luke (Mk vi, 45-viii, 26), it should be
added that his Gospel is now considerably longer than Mark's and even than
Matthew's. He had much material of his own to incorporate. Rolls of
papyrus were of an average length, and not capable of indefinite
extension. Luke could not include all Mark's material without omitting
much that he has derived elsewhere. If it was necessary or convenient for
him to make an omission amounting in length to the matter he has passed
over in Mark, it was much easier and simpler for him to omit an entire
section of that length, than to go here and there thru Mark to make his
necessary total of eliminations. This consideration, with the character of
the material omitted, sufficiently accounts for the "great omission."[20]




(Mk i, 9-11; Mt iii, 13-17; Lk iii, 21-22)

Matthew adds to Mark's account the conversation in which John objects to
baptizing Jesus, and Jesus quiets his scruples (Mt iii, 14-15). This
reflects the later time, when the superiority of Jesus to John had been
historically demonstrated, and when the baptism might have given offense
by seeming to imply a need of forgiveness. The item approaches the point
of view of the similar addition in the Fourth Gospel. Matthew, who has
added this item here, is the only evangelist who says that John's baptism
was εἰς μετάνοιαν (iii, 11). Matthew's added conversation appears, still
more elaborated, in the Gospel of the Hebrews. Luke (iii, 21) adds that
Jesus was praying during his baptism, which may be an accommodation to the
custom of the early church. Mark says the voice from the sky was addressed
to Jesus; Matthew represents it as addressed to the crowd, perhaps to give
more public honor to Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites adds to Mark's "in
thee I am well pleased," the quotation from the Psalms, "this day have I
begotten thee"; and certain MSS contain the same words in the text of
Luke, omitting "in thee I am well pleased." These variations show the
freedom of the early tradition, but its unanimity in the idea that the
baptism was Jesus' messianic consecration. Matthew and Luke replace Mark's
σχιζομένους, a word not elsewhere found, with a word common in such


(Mk i, 16-20; Mt iv, 18-22; Lk v, 1-11)

Luke postpones this account, and in connection with it gives the story of
the miraculous draft of fishes, unknown to Mark and Matthew. The reason is
not apparent, especially since the transposition involves Luke in some
anachronisms. Matthew follows Mark's account closely,[22] retaining even
the parenthetical and appended explanation in vs. 16. He omits Mark's
words, "with the hired men," perhaps because of his general tendency
toward condensation, perhaps because the departure of James and John from
their father is rendered less critical by Mark's mention of the hired men.


(Mk i, 21-28; Mt vii, 28-29; Lk iv, 31-37)

Luke omits "and not as the scribes," because his readers would not
understand the allusion. He replaces Mark's awkward phrase ἐν πνεύματι
ἀκαθάρτῳ by the good Greek phrase ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου. He
omits Mark's mention of Galilee at the end of his account, because he has
inserted it at the beginning. Matthew's omission of the whole story may be
controlled by his unwillingness, elsewhere manifested, to represent the
demons as recognizing Jesus as the Messiah.


(Mk i, 29-31; Mt viii, 14-15; Lk iv, 38-39)

Mark calls Peter by the name of Simon, as is uniform with him up to the
time Jesus gives him the name of Peter at his calling of the twelve.
Matthew calls him Peter, by which name he knows him from the beginning.
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


(Mk i, 32-34; Mt viii, 16-17; Lk iv, 40-41)

Mark says "In the evening when the sun was set." Matthew has reduced the
redundancy of this expression by saying merely "When it was evening." Luke
has caught the point of Mark's expression, namely, that the Sabbath was
over, and so has reduced the pleonasm by saying only "The sun having set."
Mark says they brot all the sick to Jesus and he healed many. Matthew
improves this by saying they brot many and he healed all. Luke goes a step
farther and says they brot all, and he healed every one. No explanation is
necessary for these changes except the natural desire to avoid the
implication that there were some whom Jesus did not heal, and to make the
statement of his cures as positive and inclusive as possible. Matthew
mentions only the possessed, Mark puts the sick and the possessed in the
same class, Luke gives a separate paragraph to each. Both Matthew and Luke
avoid Mark's irregular and unusual form ἤφιεν.


(Mk i, 35-38; Lk iv, 42-43)

Matthew omits, for reasons already given.[23] Luke avoids Mark's strange
word, κωμοπόλεις. Where Mark says "Simon and those with him," Luke says
"the crowd," because in Luke's story Simon is not yet a disciple.


(Lk v, 1-11)

Luke here displays his freedom in working over the story of Mark. He
builds upon Mk i, 19, yet instead of saying that the fishermen were
mending their nets in their boats, he says they had gone out of their
boats and were washing their nets. He has apparently read Mk iv, 1, also,
and builds upon this the statement about Jesus' going into the boat to get
away from the crowd (which statement he later omits when he comes to it in
Mark's parable of the Sower). (There is a reminiscence here also of Mk
iii, 9.) After the draft of fishes, when he comes to the words of Jesus to
Peter, he picks up again a fragment of Mark's account, tho still with an
addition and with a deviation in the wording; Mark says δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου,
καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλεεῖς ἀνθρώπων; Luke says μὴ φοβοῦ· ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν
ἀνθρώπους ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν. Luke's closing statement, "They left all and
followed him" is substantially, tho not quite in wording, the same as
Mark's. No example could be more striking, of Luke's freedom in his
treatment of Mark. He exercises this freedom, however, in the narratives
rather than in the words of Jesus; when he comes to these latter, even in
the midst of a narrative which he has largely created out of mere
fragments of Mark, he follows Mark comparatively closely. 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 (initial preaching) at Nazareth.
But this is typical of him, as compared with Matthew's treatment of the
same source.


(Mk i, 40-45; Mt viii, 1-4; Lk v, 12-16)

Matthew and Luke both omit Mark's ἐμβριμησάμενος, for which they have in
this case double ground; it is an unusual word, and it implies that Jesus
was angry. Luke avoids Mark's statement that the man directly disobeyed
Jesus' command not to tell of his cleansing.


(Mk ii, 1-12; Mt ix, 1-8; Lk v, 17-26)

Both Matthew and Luke have supplied their own introductions. Both
substitute εἶπεν for Mark's λέγει (Mk ix, 5) (a correction which Luke
invariably makes). Both use substitutes for Mark's κράβαττον. Luke avoids
Jesus' address to the man as τέκνον. In the words of Jesus to his critics
and to the paralytic, both follow Mark with general fidelity, and tho
Mark's vss. 5_b_-10 appear to interrupt the story, both follow him in
their inclusion of these verses. Luke's change of Mark's vs. 7 is a fine
example of his ability to make an improvement in the sense with the least
possible change in the wording. Mark reads, τί οὗτος οὕτως λαλεῖ;
βλασφημεῖ· Luke changes to τίς ἐστιν ὃς λαλεῖ βλασφημίας; The latter fits
much better into the question, "Who has power to forgive sins except God?"
Mark has made Jesus, in his dispute with his critics, say "Which is
easier, to say, ... or to say, rise, take up thy bed and walk?" Matthew
and Luke make him leave out the clause "take up thy bed," reserving this
for Jesus' actual address to the man a little later, whereas Mark uses it
in both places. Luke heightens the effect of his story by saying "He took
up that upon which he had been carried," instead of "he took up his bed."
This may be a heightening of the contrast, or perhaps a hint that he did
not know exactly what Mark's κράβαττον was, tho he has elsewhere replaced
it by κλινίδιον.[24]


(Mk ii, 13-17; Mt ix, 9-13; Lk v, 27-32)

Matthew and Luke both correct Mark's unusual if not ungrammatical use of
ὅτι in the sense of why. Mark says "Why does _he_ eat with publicans and
sinners?" Matthew improves by reading, "Why does _your master_ eat," etc.
Luke improves still more by directing the question to the disciples in
such manner as to include Jesus, "Why do _ye_ eat," etc.


(Mk ii, 18-22; Mt ix, 14-17; Lk v, 33-39)

Matthew and Luke avoid Mark's verb ἐπιράπτει, a word found nowhere but in
this verse of Mark's (ix, 21). At the end they avoid Mark's clumsy
expression, "The wine and the bottles will be destroyed," and say, "The
wine will be spilled and the bottles destroyed."[25] They both omit the
last part of Mark's vs. 19, an obvious pleonasm and possibly a later
insertion. Luke's addition in his vs. 39 does not fit well, but is
bracketed by Westcott and Hort and is probably an insertion. More
difficult (and so far as I see impossible) 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 procedure, certainly. He may possibly have been misled into this
statement by his desire to heighten the contrast between old and new.


(Mk ii, 23-28; Mt xii, 1-8; Lk vi, 1-5)

Matthew and Luke avoid Mark's expression ὁδὸν ποιεῖν, which sounds as if
Mark meant to say that Jesus made a new path thru the corn. They add, what
Mark forgets to say, that he and his disciples ate the grain. Luke adds
that they rubbed it in their hands. They are led to these corrections by
the fact that the justification of Jesus by the example of David has to
do, not with making a road thru the grain, but with eating on the Sabbath
and, perhaps, eating something which it would not ordinarily have been
proper for him to eat. Matthew and Luke omit Mark's colorless and
unnecessary "when he had need," and his historically difficult reference
to Abiathar.[26] All three have the clause, "and to those that were with
him," but each in a different place. Luke improves the order of the
clauses in Mark's 26th verse. Matthew adds to the words of Jesus the
reference to the priests profaning the temple and yet being guiltless. The
addition is suggested by David's eating the shewbread, but does not fit
the case so closely, since Jesus was not defending himself against the
charge of profaning a holy place. Both Matthew and Luke omit Mark's saying
that "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Sir John
Hawkins suggests that the saying may have been offensive to Jewish ears.
This may account for Matthew's omission of it; and Luke may have omitted
it because he and his readers had not much interest in discussions about
the Sabbath. But it is perhaps still more likely that the sentence is a
later addition to Mark.


(Mk iii, 1-6; Mt xii, 9-14; Lk vi, 6-11)

Luke changes Mark's σάββασιν to σαββάτῳ, perhaps because he is not
acquainted with the Hebrew (Aramaic) usage of the plural of this word in
the sense of the singular. Both Matthew and Luke avoid the direct
statement of Mark in his 5th verse that Jesus was angry.


(Mk iii, 7-12; Mt xii, 15-21; Lk vi, 17-19)

Matthew's treatment of Mark is influenced by the fact that just before his
Sermon on the Mount he has, in iv, 25, given a somewhat similar statement.
Luke's transposition has been noticed.[27]


(Mk iii, 13-19; Mt x, 2-4; Lk vi, 12-16)

Characteristic of Luke is his "He was continuing all night in prayer."[28]
The addition by Matthew and Luke of the words ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ (τὸν ἀδελφὸν
αὐτοῦ) is held by some to indicate their use of a Marcan text different
from ours. The order of the names is not the same in any two of the three
lists. Both Matthew and Mark avoid an anacoluthon of Mark in his vs. 16,
and omit the appellative "Boanerges," with its translation. Matthew and
Luke follow Mark in naming Matthew, tho in their account of his call in Mt
ix, 13, and Lk v, 27, Luke follows Mark in calling him Levi. Luke changes
Mark's "Simon the Canaanite" to "Simon the Zealot." Matthew alone gives
the name of Lebbaeus, Mark alone says Thaddeus, Luke alone names Judas the
son of James. No simple explanation suggests itself as covering all these
deviations. Matthew or Luke or both may have been influenced by a similar
list of names in Q or some other non-Marcan source; but that both of them
are here following Mark is rendered practically certain by their addition
of the appended parenthetical statement concerning Judas, with which all
three accounts close.


(Mk iii, 20-30; Mt xii, 22-37; Lk xi, 14-23)

The discussion of this section is complicated by the presence of the
section in both Mark and Q, and is therefore postponed to a later


(Mk iii, 31-iv, 12; Mt xii, 46-xiii, 15; Lk viii, 4-10, 19-21)

Luke has done more than Matthew to turn Mark's narrative into good Greek,
tho Matthew has also improved it. The agreement of Matthew and Luke in the
addition of αὐτὸν in Mt xiii, 4, and Lk viii, 5, where it does not occur
in their exemplar (Mk iv, 4), is sometimes held to indicate a text of Mark
containing this word. The hypothesis of assimilation seems simpler; or in
this case even accidental agreement would not be strange. The insertion
of πάλιν in Mk iv, 1, not in Matthew and Luke, has been suggested by Weiss
to be the work of an editor who saw the confused character of the
geographical references since Mk iii, 7.[30]


(Mk iv, 13-20; Mt xiii, 18-23; Lk viii, 11-15)

Matthew changes Mark's Σατανᾶς to ὁ πονηρὸς. The latter is used by Matthew
in this sense five times, and not at all by Mark and Luke. The change may
therefore be regarded as stylistic. Luke's addition of "lest they should
believe and be saved" sounds like a Christian addition, and may be
explained by the development of the Christian doctrine. Mark's loose and
unliterary addition of "and the desires for the rest of the things," after
the "cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches," Luke very
naturally corrects into "the cares and wealth and pleasures of life." In
iv, 19, Mark uses the participle εἰσπορευόμεναι in a somewhat inexact
manner: "The cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the
desires for the rest of the things, coming in, choke the word." Luke's
change may be accounted for by his desire to improve the style; which he
does without discarding Mark's misplaced participle. For he says, "And by
the cares ... as they [i.e., the people who have heard the word] proceed,
they are choked and rendered unfruitful." Probably Schmiedel's statement,
in his article in the _Encyclopedia Biblica_, that this instance alone
would prove literary relation between Mark and Luke is too strong;
especially considering the fact that Luke's participle is not precisely
the same as Mark's; but the deviation is certainly an interesting one. In
the earlier part of the passage Matthew and Luke both omit Mark's
reference to the dulness of the disciples. The omission is due to their
customary deference to the feeling of a later time.


(Mk iv, 21-25; Mt v, 15; x, 26; vii, 2; xiii, 12; Lk viii, 16-18; vi, 38)

The divergences in wording, the fact that the verses found together in
Mark are separated in both Matthew and Luke, and the additional fact of
doublets in Matthew or Luke for all but one of Mark's verses, indicate
beyond a doubt that these verses stood in both Mark and Q.


(Mk iv, 30-32; Mt xiii, 31-32; Lk xiii, 18-19)

This section also stood in both Mark and Q. Luke is perhaps independent of
Mark here, preferring to follow Q. Matthew seems, as often, to try to
combine the two sources, showing some resemblances to Mark as against
Luke, and others to Luke as against Mark. The passage is narrative only in
Mark, parable only in Luke, and a combination of narrative and parable in
Matthew. The anacoluthon in Mk iv, 31, is avoided by Matthew and Luke.[31]


(Mk iv, 35-41; Mt viii, 23-27; Lk viii, 22-25)

Matthew and Luke omit the statement that other boats accompanied the one
in which Jesus sailed. Perhaps, as Hawkins suggests, they wondered how
these weathered the storm. Or, since the point of narrating the story has
to do only with the boat in which Jesus sailed, they may simply have seen
no advantage in relating the circumstance of the other boats. Matthew
substitutes the comparatively common word, tho I believe not common in
exactly this connection, σεισμὸς, for Mark's rare word λαῖλαψ. Matthew and
Luke omit the statement that Jesus was "asleep on the cushion"; it has
been suggested that they may have considered the use of the cushion as an
effeminacy unworthy of Jesus; or more probably they have omitted it as of
no consequence. They both omit the direct address of Jesus to the sea, as
they often omit his words of address to the demons. They do not wish to
represent the disciples as distrustful; so while Mark says "Master, dost
thou not care that we perish?" Matthew says "Save, Lord; we perish," and
Luke simply "Master, we perish."


(Mk v, 1-20; Mt viii, 28-34; Lk viii, 26-39)

The name of the locality is different in each account. Some texts,
however, make Matthew agree with Mark; others make him agree with Luke;
while still other texts do the same for Luke with reference to Mark and
Matthew. The exact location, or the proper name for it, may have been in
dispute. Matthew shortens Mark's narrative, as almost invariably. Luke
shows himself to be no mere copyist; in view of Mark's statement that
after the demoniac's cure they found him "clothed," he supplies in his
original description of the demoniac the statement which Mark does not
have, that the man wore no clothes. Matthew and Luke again omit Jesus'
command to the demon to come out of the man. Luke includes Jesus'
question, "What is thy name?" But to make it plain that this question is
addressed to the man and not to the demon, he changes Mark's statement,
"for we are many," into his own editorial explanation, "for many demons
had entered into him." Matthew and Luke are involved in a slight
difficulty by their abbreviation of Mark. For while Mark makes those who
have seen the cure of the demoniac tell their neighbors about him "and
about the swine," Matthew and Luke omit this latter item. It therefore
appears from Matthew and Luke that the Gadarenes requested Jesus to depart
from their coasts lest their demoniacs should be cured; in Mark they asked
him to depart because they did not wish their property destroyed. Luke's
change of Mark's ὁ κύριος (Mk's vs. 19) into ὁ θεός, is not easily
explained if Luke understood Mark to refer to Jesus by his ὁ κύριος. As
the latter word, however, is ambiguous, and as Mark seems to use it more
often than the other evangelists with reference to God, Luke _may_ have so
understood his narrative here. But as the man went and told, not what God,
but what Jesus, had done for him, Luke can hardly have so misunderstood
Mark; and Luke's change may be due to his feeling that Jesus did not call
himself κύριος. This indeed seems to be the only place where Mark puts
this self-designation into the mouth of Jesus. Matthew and Luke seem
consistently to avoid it.


(Mk v, 21-43; Mt ix, 18-26; Lk viii, 40-56)

This curious insertion of one miracle within another might be held to be
enough in itself to prove the literary dependence of the three synoptists.
Luke's change of Mark's vs. 23 is explained by the anacoluthon in Mark.
Matthew and Luke naturally avoid Mark's θυγάτριον. Their substitution of
the "tassel of his garment" for "his garment" is unusual, since it seems
to indicate their closer definition of the kind of cloak worn by Jesus.
The change may serve to heighten the appearance of reverence in the woman.
Luke substitutes παραχρῆμα for Mark's εὐθὺς; the latter is Mark's uniform
word for "immediately," used by him forty-one times against Matthew's
eighteen and Luke's seven; the former is Luke's favorite word, being used
ten times by him, twice by Matthew, and never by Mark. Matthew and Luke
omit the question of the disciples to Jesus, "Sayest thou, Who touched
me?" as possibly implying lack of respect upon their part. They also omit
Mark's parenthetical statement that John was the brother of James; this
had been mentioned often enough already. Luke's abbreviation of Mark
involves him in the difficulty of saying that Jesus allowed nobody to go
_into the house_ with him, except the three disciples and the parents of
the child, whereas Mark expressly says that he allowed only those to go
with him _into the death chamber_. Matthew, not mentioning the death
chamber, has a reminiscence of it in his participle εἰσελθὼν, coming as it
does after the ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν of his previous verse. In this story
also Luke has read Mark thru carefully; and finding that Mark inserts "she
was twelve years old" after the statement that she arose and walked,
prefers to put this into the more appropriate place as part of the
introductory narrative; 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 eat; a command which in Mark follows only after several other items.
Luke thus makes the giving of food to the girl a part of the means used
for her recovery.


(Mk vi, 1-6; Mt xiii, 53-58; Lk iv, 16-30)

Luke's working over of the account in Mk vi, 1-6, has already been
considered.[32] He has preferred to put it at the beginning of Jesus'
ministry, as a sort of introductory résumé of the reception which Jesus
received at the hands of the Jews, and his consequent turning to the
gentiles. The anachronism involved is seen in the fact that Jesus says,
"Ye will say to me, ... what we have heard done in Capernaum do also here
in thine own town"; whereas, in Luke's own account the wonders in
Capernaum have not yet occurred. The words, "No prophet is accepted in his
own country," do not fit so well here as where Mark has them (vi, 4)
following upon the question, "Is not this the carpenter, ... and are not
his sisters here with us?" and where Mark adds to the word "country" the
words "and among his own kinsmen and in his own house." Luke does not add
that Jesus was not able to do many wonders there, partly because he is
speaking of his preaching only, but still more because he always avoids
such statements about the inability or limitation of Jesus.


(Mk vi, 6-13; Mt ix, 35; x, 1, 9-11; Lk ix, 1-6)

Luke has a second sending out of disciples in his 10th chapter.
Considering his usual avoidance of duplicates, it seems probable that he
took one of these accounts from Mark and one from Q, and that the account
therefore stood in both Q and Mark. The account in Luke's chap. 10 is
closely akin to one part of Matthew's parallel section, and his account in
his 9th chapter is more closely akin to other verses of Matthew's account.
These latter verses of Matthew agree more closely with Mark's account
than do his other verses. 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 Mark. This combination of material from his
two sources is characteristic of him, as the careful separation of it is
characteristic of Luke.[33]

Comparing here the passages of Matthew and Luke which were apparently
taken from Mark, Luke and Matthew correct the anacoluthon of Mark's vss. 8
and 9. Matthew and Mark mention the healing but once; Luke three times.
Mark says the disciples are to take nothing, except a staff; Luke and
Matthew say they are to take nothing, not even a staff. Mark seems to
contemplate a mission chiefly to houses, not so much to cities, tho his
word τόπος may indicate the latter. The substitution by Matthew and Luke
of κονιορτός for Mark's χοῦν, as well as other minor and verbal
deviations, may easily be accounted for by their acquaintance with the
account in Q. Harnack suggests that Mark's permission of the staff, which
is denied in Matthew and Luke, may indicate a relaxation of the rule,
arising in actual practice. If so, Matthew and Luke, because they here
follow Q, may represent a more original form of the saying.[34]


(Mk vi, 14-16; Mt xiv, 1-2; Lk ix, 7-9)

Matthew and Luke correct Mark's "Herod the king" into "Herod the
tetrarch," tho Matthew a few verses later falls back into the error which
he has corrected. Mark says that Herod himself surmised that Jesus was
John the Baptist risen from the dead (tho some texts read ἔλεγον for
ἔλεγεν in vs. 14). Matthew follows Mark in this by saying distinctly that
Herod "said to those about him, it is John," etc. Luke says Herod had
heard of the things Jesus did, "and was perplexed because _it was said_
that John was risen." Luke may here have been following one text of Mark
and Matthew another text. The fact that with ἔλεγεν in Mark's vs. 14, his
vs. 16 is a mere repetition of this verse (Matthew omits the parallel to
Mark's vs. 16), may indicate either that ἔλεγον is the original reading of
vs. 14, or that Luke, finding ἔλεγεν there, corrected it into his own
statement which upon the face of it is much better. Luke does not
represent Herod as personally making any such statement about John, but
says merely that when Herod heard of the deeds of Jesus and of the
explanation that was popularly given for them, he desired to see Jesus.


(Mk vi, 17-29; Mt xiv, 3-12)

Luke has omitted this because he has long ago finished with the Baptist
(in iii, 19-20). The passage seems to be parenthetical in Mark, to explain
Herod's statement that he has killed John the Baptist. Mark says Herod did
_not_ wish to kill John, because he regarded him as a just and holy man.
Matthew says Herod _wished_ to kill John, but _feared the people_, because
_they_ considered John a prophet. Matthew's difference here may be due to
a different tradition which he considered superior to Mark's, or it may be
due simply to the abbreviation he has made in Mark's narrative. Mark's
account contains the somewhat improbable feature of the daughter of
Herodias dancing before the drunken tetrarch and his companions; which
Matthew omits. The Latin word σπεκουλάτωρ in Mark (vi, 27) is dropped in


(Mk vi, 30-44; Mt xiv, 13-21; Lk ix, 10-17)

Matthew assigns as the reason for Jesus' departure in the boat the news of
what had happened to John the Baptist. Mark, treating this latter as
purely parenthetical, says Jesus and his disciples went away to escape the
crowds. Luke, not having related the death of the Baptist, assigns still a
different reason for Jesus' withdrawal, saying that "the _apostles_" had
returned, and Jesus went aside with them, apparently to hear their report.
Luke says they retired to Bethsaida, where it seems out of place that the
feeding of the five thousand should occur; this latter event being more
appropriately located by Mark and Matthew in a "desert place." Mark and
Matthew both say the crowds went on foot; Mark says they preceded Jesus,
Matthew and Luke, that they followed him when they knew of his departure.
The deviations are easily accounted for by the desire of Matthew and Luke
to improve the story of Mark. Luke's mention of Bethsaida is accounted for
by his desire to supply exact details wherever possible; perhaps also by
the fact that the second feeding, which he omits, was related to have
occurred in that place. Luke is apparently unaffected, in his placing of
the five thousand in Bethsaida, by the fact that he represents Jesus as
saying, "We are here in a desert place." He may also have been misled in
his location of the miracle by the mention, in Mark vi, 45 (which Luke
omits), of the departure of Jesus and his disciples for Bethsaida. Luke
transposes Mark's statement of the numbers fed, to an earlier and
presumably better position. Matthew adds, as in the feeding of the four
thousand, that the numbers given were exclusive of women and children;
apparently from his desire, or the desire of the tradition lying back of
him, to heighten the impressiveness of the miracle. Mark's Hebraism,
συμπόσια συμπόσια, is omitted by both Matthew and Luke.


(Mk vi, 45-52; Mt xiv, 22-33)

Mark's narrative seems to imply (vs. 46) that Jesus "meant to walk past
them." Matthew implies, on the contrary, that Jesus was coming to their
help. Matthew "spiritualizes" the account by adding the experiment of
Peter: "Peter can do it so long as he has faith."[35] It has been observed
that in this narrative, as in others which Matthew takes from Mark but
which Luke omits, the verbal agreement is considerably closer than in the
sections which Matthew and Luke both copy. Schmiedel has suggested that
this points to a common document occasionally employed by Matthew and Mark
but not by Luke. The hypothesis of a later assimilation of Matthew and
Luke seems simpler. At all events, the very close agreement of Matthew and
Mark in this narrative, up to the point where Matthew inserts the
experiment of Peter, may possibly indicate that this latter is later than
the body of Matthew's Gospel. Whether so or not, its presence is easily
accounted for by Matthew's ecclesiastical point of view, the primacy of
Peter being asserted by him in one other notable passage which occurs in
Matthew alone. Probably Matthew has drawn these special passages about
Peter from a source of his own, and, according to his custom, has here
combined one of them with a narrative of Mark's.


(Mk vi, 53-56; Mt xiv, 34-36)

This section is omitted by Luke. There are no sayings in it. Matthew's
customary abbreviation is shown in his 44 words against Mark's 72; but
there is much close verbal correspondence in spite of this.


(Mk vii, 1-23; Mt xv, 1-20)

Mark has an editorial comment about the scrupulosity of the Jews. It may
be a later addition in his narrative, at least this may be the case with
the words καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, which make it apply to the whole people
and not simply to the Pharisees; or it may have seemed to Matthew to be
somewhat exaggerated and have been omitted by him on that account. Its
omission improves the connection in Matthew's narrative, and might be
sufficiently accounted for by Matthew's tendency to omit superfluous or
negligible portions of Mark's stories. In his vs. 11 (Matthew has
transposed several verses) Mark has the Aramaic word κορβᾶν, omitted by
Matthew. In Mark's vs. 19 occurs the phrase καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.
The construction is loose, the nearest verb with which the participle can
be connected being the λέγει of the first part of the preceding verse.
This alone might have induced Matthew to omit it; still more, the
implication, that Jesus had in this saying abolished the distinction
between clean and unclean. Nor is it surprising that Matthew should omit,
among Mark's list of the things that come out of a man's heart and "defile
him," his mention of the "evil eye."


(Mk vii, 24-30; Mt xv, 21-28)

Matthew omits Mark's statement that Jesus was not able to be hid. It may
have seemed to him an unworthy limitation of the power of Jesus. Mark also
recounts a clever answer of the woman, "The dogs under the table eat of
the children's crumbs"; and Jesus, for the cleverness of her reply, as he
says, grants her wish. It is not strange that Matthew replaces this by
Jesus' words, "Great is thy faith."


(Mk viii, 1-10; Mt xv, 32-39)

Matthew follows Mark closely. He seems in vss. 37 and 38 to be quoting
from his own account of the previous feeding. This item brings out a
tendency of Matthew to repeat in one place phrases which he has used in


(Mk viii, 11-13; Mt xii, 38-39; Mt xvi, 1-4; Lk xi, 29; xii, 54-56)

Doublets in both Matthew and Luke indicate the presence of this section in
both Mark and Q.[36]


(Mk viii, 14-21; Mt xvi, 5-12)

Matthew omits the rebuke to the disciples in Mark (viii, 17, 18). He
apparently manufactures a saying of Jesus in his vs. 11, in order to
introduce therewith his own editorial statement of vs. 12.


(Mk viii, 27-33; Mt xvi, 13-23; Lk ix, 18-22)

Matthew spoils the question of Jesus by obtruding his own estimate of him
in the words "The son of man" in vs. 13. Upon Peter's answer, he adds
Jesus' words of commendation, and makes Jesus reciprocate by telling Peter
who he (Peter) is, and that the church shall be founded upon him. The
addition may be later than Matthew. If not, it betrays the ecclesiastical
interest, and especially the interest in the primacy of Peter, which comes
out elsewhere in Matthew. Matthew and Luke correct Mark's statement,
"after three days he shall rise again," to "on the third day," so making
the prediction agree more accurately with the facts, and giving a Greek
method of reckoning instead of the Hebrew. It is not surprising that Luke
omits the rebuke to Peter; Matthew's inclusion of it seems strange. Both
omit Mark's statement that "Jesus spoke the word openly," because, as
Hawkins suggests,[37] if this meant that he spoke to the crowd, it is
contradicted by Mark's vs. 34; if it meant that he told them clearly about
the resurrection, it would seem strange that the disciples did not


(Mk viii, 34-ix, 1; Mt xvi, 24-28; Lk ix, 23-27)

Mark's redundant expression ὀπίσω ἀκολουθεῖν is corrected by each of the
others, in a different way. The phrase καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου in Mark's vs. 35
sounds like a later addition; it would hardly have been omitted by Matthew
and Luke if it had stood in their source. Matthew makes Jesus say that
"the son of man is about to come"; Mark and Luke say "when the son of man
comes"; Matthew betrays his own attitude, or the attitude of his time, to
the long-expected parousia. Mark's extremely awkward order of words, τινες
ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων,[38] each of the other evangelists corrects in his own


(Mk ix, 2-8; Mt xvii, 1-8; Lk ix, 28-36)

Mark says "he was changed in form" (μεταμορφώθη), which Luke improves to
"the appearance of his countenance was different" (τὸ εἶδος τοῦ προσώπου
αὐτοῦ ἕτερον). Both Matthew and Luke change Mark's "Elias and Moses" to
the chronological order. Luke adds that these spoke of the approaching
entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, and adduces, as an excuse for the
disciples' not understanding, or for Peter's apparently foolish remark,
that they were heavy with sleep. Matthew and Luke change Mark's Aramaic
ῥαββεί into Greek words, Luke using the ἐπιστάτα which is peculiar to him.


(Mk ix, 9-13; Mt xvii, 9-13)

Mark says Elias has come (in the person of John the Baptist), and they
have done whatever they would with him, "as it was written of him."
Matthew understands, rightly, that this last is a reference to the Old
Testament, and not knowing where or what had there been written of the
Baptist, omits it. Perhaps the statement is a later addition to Mark.


(Mk ix, 14-29; Mt xvii, 14-21; Lk ix, 37-43_a_)

Mark says that when the crowd saw Jesus they were amazed. This might seem
to be a parallel to the amazement of the Israelites on seeing Moses'
countenance when he came down from the mount. But Matthew and Luke have
omitted it. They also omit Jesus' direct address to the demon,[39] and
Jesus' statement, "This kind cometh not out except with prayer." This may
reflect the custom in ecclesiastical exorcisms, and may have been added by
a later hand, or omitted by Matthew and Luke because as matter of fact
Jesus had not prayed and therefore the saying did not fit the case.


(Mk ix, 30-32; Mt xvii, 22-23; Lk ix, 43_b_-45)

In the second prediction of sufferings Matthew and Luke both avoid Mark's
οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τις γνοῖ (Mk ix, 30). It seems to be a part of Mark's
_Geheimnis-Theorie_; but since Matthew and Luke both include some of
Mark's other references to this theory, this fact is not a sufficient
explanation of its omission, which may perhaps be attributed to the
growing reverence for Jesus. Luke's vs. 44_a_, θέσθε ὑμεῖς εἰς τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν
τοὺς λόγους τούτους, is without parallel in Mark (or Matthew). Luke has
also omitted a part of Mark's prediction, "and they shall kill him," which
he would hardly have done if he were here following Mark, or if the clause
had stood in his copy of Mark. These facts may be taken to indicate that
Luke is here following another source. The words quoted from vs. 44_a_
would be very unlikely to be added by Luke himself.[40] Matthew seems to
follow Mark, making his customary abbreviation and changing Mark's "after
three days" to "on the third day." In another instance already noticed
both Matthew and Luke make the same change in Mark's statement. Luke may
here be following Q. But the absence of any agreements between him and
Matthew as against Mark would rather indicate his use of a peculiar
source. There are no doublets to substantiate the supposition of the use
of Q.


(Mk ix, 33-37; Mt xviii, 1-5; Lk ix, 46-48)

The section on the strife about rank probably stood in both Mark and Q,
but the resemblances are too general for one to draw definite conclusions
as to the exact source relationship.


It will be sufficient if we look with less detail thru a few more passages
of the triple tradition, to note the changes made by Matthew and Luke in
the text of Mark.

In the case of the unknown exorcist (Mk ix, 38-41; Lk ix, 49-50) Luke says
"he followed not with us" instead of "he followed not us"; the assumption
of authority upon the part of John is thereby lessened.

In the saying about offenses (Mk ix, 42-48; Mt xviii, 6-9; Lk xvii, 1-2)
Matthew has combined Mark's saying about the hand and his separate saying
about the foot, into one. The saying stood in Mark and Q. In the
discussion about marriage and divorce (Mk x, 11-12; Mt v, 31-32; Lk xvi,
18; xix, 9) Matthew has rearranged the order of Mark, and has added
"except for adultery," as he has done in another place; he has omitted
Mark's reference to the woman divorcing her husband, as this would mean
nothing to his Palestinian readers.

In the blessing of the children (Mk x, 13-16; Mt xix, 13-15; Lk xviii,
15-17) Matthew and Luke omit Mark's statement that Jesus was angry.

In the saying concerning the danger of riches (Mk x, 17-31; Mt xix, 16-30;
Lk xviii, 18-30) Mark makes Jesus say, "Why callest thou me good?" Matthew
changes this to "Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?" tho
his following words, "There is One who is good," betray the fact that he
had Mark's reading before him. Matthew shows his Jewish affinities by
making Jesus say that the questioner may "enter into life," by keeping the
commandments. Both Matthew and Luke omit one commandment which Mark
quotes, because it is not found in the Decalogue. Matthew changes Mark's
order of the commandments to agree with the Old Testament. Matthew, having
called the questioner a youth, omits from his reply to Jesus the words,
"from my youth up." Both omit Mark's vs. 24, which is practically a
duplicate of the previous verse. Luke, having included the idea of
"sisters" in his word for family, omits sisters, but, with his
characteristic interest in women, adds "wife."

In the third prediction of sufferings (Mk x, 32-34; Mt xx, 17-19; Lk
xviii, 31-34) the agreement between Mark and Matthew is very close
throughout. The only agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark is in
their substitution of εἶπεν for λέγει. Both Matthew and Luke change Mark's
"after three days" to "on the third day." Three words in Mark's vs. 34 are
reproduced in Luke alone; ἀναστήσεται, ἀποκτενοῦσιν, ἐμπτύσουσιν. Matthew
has added καὶ σταυρῶσαι.

In the request for seats in the kingdom (Mk x, 35-45; Mt xx, 20-28) Mark
makes James and John ask Jesus directly; Luke omits the incident; Matthew
puts the burden of the ambitious request upon the mother instead of upon
the sons; tho he betrays the fact that he is remaking Mark, by making
Jesus direct his reply to the men.

In the healing of Bartimaeus (Mk x, 46-52; Mt xx, 29-34; Lk xviii, 35-43)
Mark says "the son of Timaeus," perhaps in explanation of the Aramaic
name. Matthew specifies two men instead of one, giving no names; it has
been suggested that he may have been misled by Mark's "Bartimaeus" and
"the son of Timaeus," tho the Jewish affinity of Matthew's Gospel makes
this unlikely. Since "the son of Timaeus" did not serve to identify the
man to their readers, Matthew and Luke omit the phrase. Mark's graphic
statement that the man threw off his cloak and ran to Jesus was unsuited
to the dignity of the Later Gospels. Matthew and Luke again substitute the
Greek κύριε for Mark's ῥαββουνί. They omit his ὕπαγε, which seems out of

In the preparation for the entry into Jerusalem (Mk xi, 1-11; Mt xxi,
1-11; Lk xix, 28-38) Mark represents Jesus as telling the disciples who go
after the colt, to explain that Jesus has need of him and that he will
return him soon. Luke omits the latter item; Matthew changes it to mean
that when the disciples have explained to the owner that Jesus needs the
animal, the owner will quickly send it to Jesus. The growing reverence for
Jesus easily explains the change and the omission. Matthew undoubtedly
represents Jesus as riding into Jerusalem upon two beasts, the ass and her
foal; the strange phenomenon is explained by his attempt to harmonize the
event with an Old Testament prophecy. The prophecy, however, for that
matter, had only one beast in mind. Mark says Bethany (in some texts
Bethany and Bethphage), Matthew Bethphage, and Luke Bethany and Bethphage;
the two names in Luke, and in certain texts of Mark, are probably to be
explained as the harmonizing effort of some copyist.

In the cursing of the fig tree (Mk xi, 12-14; Mt xxi, 18-19), the
statement of Mark, "For it was not the time for figs," may have been
omitted by Matthew because seeming to imply an unreasonable expectation on
the part of Jesus. Or it may be a later addition to Mark. Matthew says
that the disciples noticed "immediately" that the tree had withered,
whereas Mark says they observed this the next day. Matthew's change may
have been in the interest of heightening the miracle. Upon his observation
here he has hung his statement about the wonder of the disciples in his
vs. 20. Luke omits this miracle; probably because he considers the parable
of the Fig Tree which he gives in xxi, 29-31 (taking it from Mk xiii,
28-29 = Mt xxiv, 32-33) a variant of, or an improvement upon, the same

The speech about the withered fig tree (Mk xi, 20-25; Mt xxi, 20-22) Luke
omits because he has omitted the miracle upon which it depends. The saying
about faith apparently stood in both Mark and Q, since Matthew has a
doublet upon it. This may have been an additional reason for Luke's
omission of it here, since he has incorporated it in his xvii, 6.[42]

In the question about authority (Mk xi, 27-33; Mt xxi, 23-27; Lk xx, 1-8)
the intervention of the fig tree story in Mark (and Matthew) obscures the
point of the question about Jesus' authority, which was directed toward
his action in cleansing the temple. There is very close agreement among
the three in the question of Jesus to his questioners (Mk xi, 30; Mt xxi,
25; Lk xx, 4), tho both Matthew and Luke avoid Mark's anacoluthon at the
beginning of the following verse.

In the parable of the Evil Husbandmen (Mk xii, 1-12; Mt xxi, 33-46; Lk xx,
9-19) Mark says, "They took him and killed him and cast him out"; Matthew
and Luke say, "They cast him outside the vineyard and killed him,"
presumably influenced in this correction by the fact of Jesus' crucifixion
outside the city.[43] Matthew puts into the mouth of the questioners one
saying which Mark ascribes to Jesus; the questioners are thus convicted by
their own testimony.

In the question of the Sadducees about the resurrection (Mk xii, 18-27; Mt
xxii, 23-33; Lk xx, 27-40) Mark says, quite correctly, "The Sadducees, who
(as is well known) say there is no resurrection";[44] Matthew not so
happily represents them as making this statement to Jesus; Luke corrects
still further, being apparently unacquainted with the tenets of the
Sadducees as a class, and so says, "Certain of the Sadducees came, denying
that there is any resurrection." It is one of the instances, perhaps
comparatively few, where Mark would better have been left as he was. To
make the contrast between this world and the next stronger Luke adds in
his vs. 34, "the sons of this world marry and are given in marriage." He
also attempts to explain the apparently incomplete statement, "God is not
of the dead but of the living," by adding "for all live to him."[45]

In the question about the great commandment (Mk xii, 28-34; Mt xxii,
34-40; Lk x, 25-28), Matthew's addition, "Upon these two commandments hang
all the law, and the prophets," is perhaps an old Christian formula, which
seems to fit remarkably well in this place.

In the question about David's son (Mk xii, 35-37; Mt xxii, 41-46; Lk xx,
41-44), Luke corrects Mark's statement, "David said in the Holy Spirit,"
with "David says in the book of Psalms"; Mark is nearer to Jesus, Luke
writes for the convenience of his readers who might wish to look up the

In the speech against the Pharisees (Mk xii, 38-40; Mt xxiii, 1-7; Lk xx,
45-47), Mark's "Beware of the Pharisees, who love to walk about in robes,
and greetings in the market" is not positively ungrammatical, since the
infinitive and the noun may both be the object of the verb. But it is a
loose construction; Luke corrects it by the insertion of a second verb
governing the noun.

In the predictions of distress (Mk xiii, 9-13; Mt xxiv, 9-14; Lk xxi,
12-19), Mark's προμεριμνᾶτε, a word not found elsewhere in the New
Testament or Septuagint, is avoided by Matthew and Luke. Matthew's passage
(xxiv, 10-12) about the false prophets who shall deceive many, and the
love of many growing cold, whether attributed to the evangelist, or to the
tradition lying just behind him, reflects the conditions of his times.

In the saying about the distress in Judaea (Mk xiii, 14-20; Mt xxiv,
15-22; Lk xxi, 20-24), Mark's construction of a neuter noun with a
masculine participle, a construction according to the sense (βδέλυγμα ...
ἑστηκότα), his unusual construction of εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν meaning "in the
field," and his equally strange combination of words ἔσονται γὰρ αἱ ἡμέραι
εκεῖναι θλίψις, οἵα οὐ γέγονεν τοιαύτη, are all replaced by Matthew and
Luke. Luke omits ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω, because it is not applicable to his
readers. He adds "until the times of the nations are fulfilled,"
apparently upon Paul's hypothesis that the end could not come till the
gospel had first been preached to all the nations (Rom xi, 11, 15, 31).
This is Luke's substitute for the explanation which Matthew has copied
from Mark, that the Lord has shortened the days for the sake of the
Christians. In the speech about the parousia (Mk xiii, 24-27; Mt xxiv,
29-31; Lk xxi, 25-28), Matthew has added εὐθέως. This is Mark's favorite
adverb, and its addition by Matthew where it is lacking in Mark is hard to
understand. Perhaps, as Bacon says, Matthew the Palestinian wishes to
encourage the hope of the speedy coming of Jesus, while Mark the Roman
wishes to discourage it; but the reasons for this are not perfectly clear.
Schmiedel considers the omission of the εὐθέως in Mark as a sign of his
secondary character at this point.

In the passage about the time of the parousia (Mk xiii, 30-32; Mt xxiv,
34-36; Lk xxi, 32-33), Luke omits Mark's statement that "the son" does not
know the time; because he always avoids any implication of a limitation in
the knowledge of Jesus.[46] In the preparation for the Passover (Mk xiv,
12-17; Mt xxvi, 17-20; Lk xxii, 7-14), Luke omits the "my" in the question
which Jesus tells the disciples to ask, "Where is my chamber where I
shall," etc.; perhaps, as Hawkins[47] suggests, because it may have seemed
to him a somewhat harshly expressed claim.

In the institution of the Last Supper (Mk xiv, 22-25; Mt xxvi, 26-29; Lk
xxii, 15-20), Luke adds (xxii, 19-20) words which seem to be taken from
Paul's account in I Cor xi, 25. Westcott and Hort regard them as
interpolated from that epistle. Matthew adds, in his vs. 28, as he has
added in his account of the purpose of John's baptism, "for the remission
of sins."

In the account of Jesus in Gethsemane (Mk xiv, 32-42; Mt xxvi, 36-46; Lk
xxii, 39-46), Luke's vss. 43-44 are lacking in many manuscripts, and are
probably a later addition. Luke and Matthew, probably from the growth of
the tradition, and from the wish not to omit anything from this solemn
scene, represent Jesus as addressing Judas, but do not agree in the words
ascribed to him.

In the account of the arrest (Mk xiv, 43-54; Mt xxvi, 47-58; Lk xxii,
47-55) Mark has the words "but that the scriptures might be fulfilled,"
without attaching the "that" to anything. Matthew fills out his incomplete
sentence by writing, "All this happened that the scriptures," etc. Luke
omits the flight of the disciples, because the appearances of the risen
Jesus which he recounts take place in Jerusalem. Both Matthew and Luke
omit the reference to the young man in the linen garment, either because
they did not understand it, or knew it would have no meaning for their
readers, or both. Mark says the crowd who came to arrest Jesus came
"_from_ the chief priests"; Luke has apparently overlooked the
preposition, and so represents the chief priests themselves as taking part
in the arrest.

To Mark's mocking "Prophesy!" addressed to the blindfolded Jesus by the
soldiers, Luke and Matthew add the words, clearly explanatory, "Who is he
that struck thee?"

In the denial of Peter (Mk xiv, 66-72; Mt xxvi, 69-75; Lk xxii, 56-62),
Matthew and Luke omit two obscure and strange words of Mark, προαύλιον in
vs. 68 and ἐπιβαλὼν in vs. 72. In the treatment of Jesus by Pilate, Luke
adds the charge that Jesus had stirred up the people not to pay tribute to
Caesar; it is probably a reflection of the anarchistic charges made
against Christians in Luke's time. Matthew's addition of Pilate's
hand-washing is probably due to his desire, or the desire of the tradition
back of him, to relieve the Roman authorities of responsibility for the
death of Jesus.

In the story of the journey to the crucifixion (Mk xv, 21; Mt xxvii, 32;
Lk xxiii, 26-32), the omission of the names of Rufus and Alexander is
probably due (as already said) to the fact that these men were unknown to
Matthew and Luke and their readers, and added no weight to the testimony
of Simon their father. 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 Jesus.

In the story of the crucifixion (Mk xv, 22-32; Mt xxvii, 33-44; Lk xxiii,
33-43), Luke's words, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they
do," are omitted in many manuscripts, are bracketed by Westcott and Hort,
and are probably a later addition. Matthew corrects Mark, who says a man
came with a sponge, saying, "Let him be," etc.; Matthew makes the crowd
address the "Let him be" to the man with the sponge.

Luke apparently differs much more than Matthew, from Mark, in his story of
the crucifixion, and the events that led up to and followed it. This can
be explained by his possession of special sources for these last days of
Jesus, and his desire to use material from these sources with his Marcan
matter. Transpositions are especially frequent.

In his xxii, 18, e.g., Luke makes a transposition of Mk xiv, 25. This may
be taken as typical of his procedure throughout these sections. Mark gives
the reference to the approaching betrayal before the institution of the
Supper; Luke, after that institution. Mark places the prediction of the
denial of Peter after Peter has left the room; Luke, before his leaving.
Similar transpositions are made in the story of the rending of the veil.
In all, Luke makes some twelve or thirteen such transpositions in Mark's
passion narrative. Matthew follows Mark closely, both in matter and in

Comparing Luke's use of Mark in the other parts of his Gospel with his use
of him in these last sections, Hawkins[48] 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 passion." 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 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
considered. No single motive, especially no one so-called "tendency" of
either writer explains all his modifications of his Marcan source. Both
Matthew and Luke omitted what seemed to them superfluous, as well as
whatever appeared to them to conflict with the higher veneration for
Jesus which had developed in their times. Luke especially omitted what
would have no significance or interest for his Greek readers--disputes
with the Pharisees, questions of Jewish law, and other Judaistic features.
Both Matthew and Luke treated the actual words of Jesus, as recorded in
Mark, with great respect. But the narrative, and in a less degree the
parables, they felt free to work over as they would. Matthew shows much
greater fidelity to his source than Luke. But both of them reconstructed
sentences or whole stories, changed bad constructions into good ones,
added what material they would, Matthew combining this with his Marcan
material while Luke kept it for the most part distinct. Not every change
which they made suggests its explanation to us, and we cannot be certain
that in most of them we have the actual motive operating in the mind of
the evangelist. But the method of their procedure, the kind of motives
that influenced them, the degree of freedom which they took in the
re-working of their material from Mark, and their habits with reference to
the relation of this Marcan material to the other matter which they wished
to combine with it, have been sufficiently established.[49]



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 form. A certain number of such agreements might be
passed over as merely accidental. A certain number more might be assigned
to assimilation. 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 ways, the assumption would be justified that
Matthew and Luke used, not our copy of Mark, but one in which the text ran
as it now does in those passages where Matthew and Luke agree against

There are some indications that we do not have the Gospel of Mark in its
original form. The conclusion is lacking. This however throws no light on
an Ur-Marcus, since the conclusion was lacking in the Mark used by Matthew
and Luke.[50]

There are many signs of apparent transposition in our Mark. The insertion
of one miracle into the midst of another, as in the case of Jairus'
daughter and the woman with the issue of blood (v, 21-43), might be held
to be such a transposition. The incident of the Beelzebul dispute (iii,
20-30) is inserted between the coming of the family of Jesus (iii, 21) to
take him home with them, and Jesus' statement (iii, 31-35), which is the
sequel of their coming, about his true brotherhood. The speech about the
cursing of the fig tree (xi, 20-26) intervenes between the cleansing of
the temple (xi, 15-19) and the demand of the scribes (xi, 27-33) as to the
authority by which Jesus has done so unwonted a thing. After this question
about authority, and before Jesus' reply to it, or before the description
of the discomfiture of the scribes at the reply, seriously interrupting
the connection, comes the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen.[51]

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 (Mk ix, 11-13). Loisy thinks Mk xiv, 28, out of place. It
certainly disturbs the connection. Jülicher considers Mk xiv, 25, to be
later and less original than its parallel in Mt xxvi, 29. The saying in
xiv, 9, 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 à propos of the occurrence, and not a saying of Jesus.
Wellhausen has even suggested that the whole story in xiv, 3-9, may be a
later addition. The saying, "Ye shall say to this mountain" (xi, 23)
should probably be placed in Galilee, presumably at Capernaum, where with
a wave of his hand Jesus could point to both mountain and sea--not in
Jerusalem where Mark gives it. Schmiedel considers Mk xiv, 58, secondary.
It has been argued, or almost assumed, that the second feeding of the
multitude could not have been written by the same hand that described the
first, nor the events narrated in the first thirty-four verses of chap. iv
have been written in their present order. If one is at liberty to
subtract what he will from the Gospel of Mark, and to rearrange its parts
somewhat, he can undoubtedly make a much more readable and better arranged
Gospel of it than it now is.


Two attempts have recently been made to resolve our Gospel of Mark into
its constituent elements, which are sufficiently successful to be noticed
here. The first is that of von Soden, in his _Die wichtigsten Fragen im
Leben Jesu_, and the second Wendling's _Ur-Marcus_.[52]

Von Soden[53] begins by distinguishing two strands of narrative, easily
separable from each other by matter and style. The great differences
between these two strands betray two different authors. As the clearest
instance of the earlier strand, he takes Mk ii, 1-iii, 6, which he
contrasts with iv, 35-v, 43. In the first, all the interest is centered in
the words of Jesus; in the second, in the events themselves. "Let one
compare the story of the Gadarene demoniac with its twenty verses and the
debate about fasting with its five verses, and estimate the weight of the
religious value of the thots expressed in the two sections."

Von Soden next separates Mk vii, 32-37, and viii, 22-26 (the healing of
the deaf man and the blind man), as quite distinct in character from such
stories as those in ii, 1-12, and iii, 1-6. "In the former, the miracle of
healing is itself the subject of the representation; in the latter, the
miracle is merely a part of the story, whose real subject is Jesus'
forgiveness of sins and his violation of the Sabbath laws."

In this way von Soden picks out his _Kernstücke_. To these _Kernstücke_
certainly belong the group of narratives in i, 21-39; ii, 1-iii, 6; xii,
13-44; iii, 20-35; vi, 1-6; iv, 1-8; iv, 26-32; and x, 13-31; perhaps also
vii, 24-30; vi, 14-16; i, 4-11. To these narratives which go back to Peter
may also belong the brief notices concerning the stages of growth of the
apostolic circle, in i, 16-20; iii, 13-19; vi, 7-13; viii, 27-ix, 1; and
ix, 33-40.[54] To these passages von Soden adds xiii, 1-6, 28-37. He says
that at the basis of the story of the days in Jerusalem, xi, 1-xii, 12,
and the passion narrative in chaps. xiv and xv, lie narratives of a
similar style; but these latter he does not include in his _Kernstücke_.

Von Soden then prints the passages which he thus refers to Peter (or the
Petrine tradition), "undisturbed by all that our Gospel of Mark has
interwoven with them."[55] The result presents the Petrine nucleus of the
Gospel as follows: John the Baptist and the Baptism of Jesus; a Sabbath in
Capernaum; the offense of the Jews at Jesus' forgiving of sins, his
association with sinners, his breaking of the Sabbath, and the fact that
his disciples do not fast; how the Jews attempt to take him; how Jesus
meets the general misunderstanding; parables about the kingdom of God; the
question as to who shall enter that kingdom; the development of the
apostolic circle; glimpses into the future.

This makes (with the readjustment in the order of some of the sections) a
remarkably straightforward and connected narrative. Von Soden's remarks
concerning it are well worth quoting:

    These narratives are without any embellishment or secondary interest.
    They are plastic and concrete in every feature. The local coloring is
    strikingly fresh and yet in no way artificial. No edificatory remarks
    are inserted, no reflections, only deeds and striking sayings. No
    story requires its secret meaning to be explained by symbol or
    allegory. In no one of them does one feel any occasion to inquire for
    the meaning, which lies clear upon the surface. Situations and words
    are too original to have been invented. Everything breathes the odor
    of Palestine. There is no reminiscence of Old Testament stories.
    Miracles appear only here and there, and incidentally.... The
    christological or soteriological question never constitutes the motive
    of a story. Not once is there any expression from the language of the
    schools, especially from that of Paul. Words and sentences are
    reminiscent of the Aramaic. The figure of Jesus itself bears in every
    reference a human outline. He is stirred and astonished, he is angry
    and trembles, he needs recuperation and feels himself forsaken of God,
    he will not have the thotless, conventional designation "good"
    addressed to him, and confesses that he does not know when all which
    he sees to be approaching shall be fulfilled. His mother and his
    sisters fear that he may be out of his mind. This and much else is
    told with the greatest naïveté. So Jesus lived; so he expressed
    himself; thus they received him; thus the apostolic circle was formed
    and developed--this is what the writer intends to tell.[56]

These sections of Mark certainly have a very primary character; so far as
their contents is concerned, they may well go back to the Petrine

With these sections von Soden contrasts the remaining parts of the Gospel,
in which he finds not only much interruption of the primary narrative, but
much interpretation, much allegorizing, much absence of actual situations,
much reminiscence of Old Testament stories, much influence from Paul, and
many reflections of the experiences of individual Christians and the
Christian church.[57] 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 Mark, and that von Soden has at least
pointed out many of the junctures between these two.

The attempt of Wendling in his _Ur-Marcus_[58] is still more thorogoing.
The basis of his discussion is Mark's 4th chapter, where he considers the
two strands most easily separated. To the original belong iv, 1-9, and
vss. 26-33. Vss. 10-25 are later; they have been inserted mechanically,
yet so as to respect the older text; they have no organic connection with
the rest of the chapter, and even contradict its situation. Jesus is
teaching from a boat (and other boats are with his); then suddenly, in
vss. 10-25, he is alone with his disciples who ask him the meaning of the
parable of the Sower. He gives his explanation, and again without any
indication of change of situation he is in the boat surrounded by the
other boats, with the people still on the shore, and the storm comes up
and is stilled.

This little insertion (iv, 10-25) also contains theories of the writer,
quite contradictory to those of the writer of other parts of the Gospel.
In other places, Jesus speaks to all the people in parables "as they were
able to hear him"; he stretches out his hand over the multitude of his
disciples and says, "These are my mother and my sisters"; he is the
teacher of the crowd, who understand him better than his own family; there
is nothing in his parables that needs explaining. But in this insertion
(iv, 10-25) the theory of the writer is that the parables are "mysteries,"
enigmas, which not only need to be explained (by the allegorical method),
but which are spoken for the express purpose of preventing the people
from understanding. Without the key which Jesus gives, even the disciples
do not understand them. The section is also marked by Pauline

Two clews are thus given, aside from interruptions in the narrative, by
which the work of a second writer may be detected. He has the
_Geheimnis-Theorie_ of the parables, and he has in thot and vocabulary
reminiscences of the Pauline school. Applying these tests to another
section which seems to interrupt the narrative where it stands, Wendling
adds a second insertion--iii, 22-30. This is the section about the dispute
with the Pharisees, which comes in inaptly between the introduction (iii,
20, 21) and the continuation (iii, 31) of the story of Jesus' family who
have come to take him home. It seems to have been inserted in this place
because the Pharisees also said "he hath a devil." By repeating in vs. 30
the ἔλεγον ὅτι which he found in vs. 21, the redactor preserves for the
continuation of the original story precisely the same connection it would
have had without his interpolation; and by the use of the same words in
vs. 22 he connects the interpolation with the opening narrative. His hand
is seen in the superfluous repetition of words, especially of the subject,
as in iii, 24, 25.[60]

To these two insertions should be added a third, iii, 6-19. The motives
for it seem to be copied from narratives in other chapters. It consists
(in part) of generalization and interpretation, both marks of the
redactor's work. It also contains his _Geheimnis-Theorie_.

To these should be added i, 34_b_ ("he suffered not the demons to speak,
because they knew him"), because of the presence in it of this same
theory. Nor does i, 45, fit where it is; the connection without it is
good; it also contains the favorite theory of the redactor that the more
Jesus told people not to proclaim him, the more they did so, and the more
he tried to seclude himself the more they found him.

To these again, on somewhat other grounds and not so securely, should be
added the little groups of loosely strung logia which are found in vi,
7-11; viii, 34-ix, 1; ix, 40-50; x, 42-45; xi, 23-25; xii, 38-40; xiii,
9-13. The ground for asserting these to be additions is that these logia
are not closely connected in the passages in which they occur, and that
they share this characteristic with the similar group of disconnected
sayings in the first and best attested interpolation, iv, 21-25.

In i, 1-3, 14_b_, 15, the word εὐαγγέλιον arouses a natural suspicion. The
same word also occurs in four other places (viii, 35; x, 29; xiii, 10;
xiv, 9), all of which are in passages which are suspicious upon other
grounds; consequently with the three instances in chap. i, they are
ascribed to the redactor.

With the exception of the interpolation in iv, 10-25, the section i,
16-iv, 33, appears to be a unit, and belongs to the oldest stratum. But
with iv, 35, says Wendling, begins a new section, easily distinguished
from that just mentioned. It copies the motives and the characteristics of
other sections.[61] The writer is to be distinguished, however, not merely
from the writer of the earliest stratum, but from the author of the
insertions already identified. None of the criteria of the latter's manner
appear in the section beginning at iv, 35. It shows no trace of Pauline
conceptions, has none of Jesus' prohibitions to the demons, its
_Heimlichkeit_ is of a different sort, and goes back to Old Testament
exemplars. And since the insertion in iv, 10-25, presupposes the story of
the storm on the lake in iv, 35-v, 43, this latter is older than the
former. The writer of this section (iv, 35-v, 43) therefore stood between
the writer of the original strand, and the evangelist or redactor. The
last writer (Wendling calls him Ev) worked over the combined work of his
two predecessors.

To the author who is intermediate between the first writer and the
Evangelist, Wendling assigns twenty-nine different sections, some of
considerable length and some of only a verse or part of a verse. They are
as follows: i, 4-14_a_; iv, 35-v, 42; v, 43_b_; vi, 14, 17-30, 35-44; ix,
2-8, 14-27; x, 46-xi, 10; xiv, 12-20, 26-35_a_, 36-37, 39-41_a_, 42, 47,
51-56, 60-62_a_, 63, 64, 66-72; xv, 16-20, 23, 24_b_, 25, 29-30, 33,
34_b_-36, 38, 40-43, 46-xvi, 7_a_, 8--about two hundred verses or parts of
verses in all.

The contributions of the author of the Gospel are more extensive than
those of his predecessor. They comprise i, 1-3, 14_b_-15, 34_b_, 39_b_,
45; ii, 15_b_-16_a_, 18_a_, 19_b_-20; iii, 6-19, 22-30; iv, 10-25, 30-32,
34; v, 43_a_; vi, 1-13, 15, 16, 30-31, 45-viii, 26, 30_b_-33_a_, 33_c_-35,
38-ix, 1, 9-13, 28-50; x, 2-12, 24, 26-30, 32_b_-34, 38-40, 45; xi, 11-14,
18-25, 27_a_; xii, 14_b_, 32-34_a_, 38-44; xiii, 3-27, 30-32, 37; xiv, 8,
9, 21, 35_b_, 38, 41_b_, 57-59, 62_b_; xv, 39, 44, 45; xvi, 7_b_, in all
about two hundred and seventy verses or parts of verses.

This leaves to the original writer the following sections: i, 16-34_a_,
35-39_a_, 40-44; ii, 1-15_a_, 16_b_-17, 18_b_, 19_a_, 21-iii, 5, 20, 21,
31-iv, 9, 26-29, 33; vi, 32-34; viii, 27-30_a_, 33_b_, 36, 37; x, 1,
13-23, 25, 31-32_a_, 35-37, 41-44; xi, 15-17, 27_b_-xii, 14_a_, 14_c_-31,
34_b_-37; xiii, 1-2, 28-29, 33-36; xiv, 1-7, 10, 11, 22-25, 43-46, 48-50,
65; xv, 1-15, 21, 22, 24_a_, 26-27, 31-32, 34_a_, 37, in all about two
hundred and twelve verses or parts of verses.[62]

Wendling calls the writers of these three strands M1, M2, and Ev. Printing
the text of M1 and M2 without rearrangement, but with the omission of all
matter assigned to Ev, he finds them to make a continuous story, well
connected and without breaks. Whether M1 alone makes such a story, he is
in doubt; and therefore as to whether M2 found M1 as a connected
discourse, or himself first assembled the sections of it in connection
with his own additions, the same doubt exists. The passion-story of M1 by
itself seems to be a connected account; it may therefore be assumed that
so much of M1 was found by M2 as a whole and in its present order.
Further, since the work of Ev in the passion-story is so slight, it is to
be assumed that the combination of M1 and M2 in this story was more
carefully done than in many other parts, and also that for this part of
the gospel history Ev possessed very few traditions which had not already
been embodied in M1 + M2. 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' death, and that it was only later that
the attempt was made to preserve with equal care the story of his whole
public career.

When one remembers the fine-spun analyses of the historical books of the
Old Testament, which, long ridiculed for their elaborateness, have finally
been accepted by most scholars, one hesitates on this account alone to
pronounce an adverse judgment upon Wendling's theory. Yet his analysis
certainly seems over-elaborate. It is a great advantage to be able to
distinguish the more obvious work of the redactor from the earlier
document upon which he worked. All students will feel this with reference
to chap. iv, and the advantage in chap. iii is perhaps only less great.
Still more welcome is the assignment of vi, 45-viii, 27, to the redactor.
The great stumbling-block of this section is its feeding of the four
thousand, so obviously copied from the feeding of the five thousand. That
one and the same author should have written both these accounts has seemed
strange to many readers. But this duplication is as easily disposed of
upon von Soden's theory as upon Wendling's. Von Soden's analysis into two
strata (without the assumption of two writers) is much simpler than
Wendling's analysis into three, with three writers. Wendling's theory is
more secure where it goes with von Soden's, and less convincing where it
goes beyond it.

Some distinction has in any case to be made between the final writer of
the Gospel and the earliest tradition upon which he worked; and Wendling
has indicated the criteria which such a distinction must employ. Von
Soden's division of the Marcan material into a Petrine and a later source
amounts to the same thing. The two critics do not differ greatly about the
passages they regard as secondary. Von Soden's Petrine narrative does not
differ greatly from Wendling's M1 + M2. But the line of demarkation
between M1 and M2, and Wendling's reasons for drawing this, are not as
self-evident as the line which Wendling and von Soden agree in drawing
between the earlier document, or source, and the work of the Evangelist.


A tabulation of the results discloses the following agreements and
disagreements between von Soden's Petrine narrative and Wendling's M1+M2.

  Von Soden i, 4-11,  16-20, 21-39           ii, 1-28
  Wendling  i, 4-14a, 16-34a, 35-39a, 40-44  ii, 1-15a, 16b-17, 18b, 19b

  Von Soden       iii, 1-6, 13-19, 21-35 iv, 1-9, 21-32
  Wendling  21-28 iii, 1-5, 20,21, 31-35 iv, 1-9, 26-29, 33, 35-41

  Von Soden              vi, 6-16             viii, 27-38
  Wendling  v, 1-42, 43b vi, 14, 17-30, 33-44 viii, 27-30a, 33b, 36, 37

  Von Soden ix, 1    32-40 x, 13-45
  Wendling  ix, 2-8, 14-27 x, 1, 13-23, 25, 31, 32a, 35-37, 41-52, xi, 1-10

  Von Soden               xii, 13-44                 xiii, 1-6
  Wendling  15-17, 27b-33 xii, 1-14a, 14c-31, 34b-37 xiii, 1-2, 28-29

  Von Soden 28-37
  Wendling  33-36 xiv, 1-7, 10-20, 22-35a, 36-37, 39-41a, 42-56, 60-62a

  Von Soden
  Wendling  63-72 xv, 1-38, 40-42, 46-47 xvi, 1-7a, 8

The comparison shows Wendling's analysis to be much more complex than von
Soden's. This results from his separation of his groundwork into two
strands. It also shows that Wendling assigns considerably more to M1 and
M2 than von Soden to his Petrine source. This Wendling can afford to do,
since he supposes two documents instead of one. The matter assigned by von
Soden to the Petrine source is in part assigned by Wendling to M1 and in
part to M2. E.g., i, 4-11, is assigned by von Soden to the Petrine source,
and by Wendling to M2; but i, 16-39, is assigned to the Petrine source,
and (with the exception of two parts of verses) to M1. The passage ii,
1-28, is assigned by von Soden to the Petrine source, by Wendling to M1
(again with exception of a few parts of verses). Of the one hundred and
seventy-seven verses assigned by von Soden to his Petrine source, up to
and including xiii, 37 (after which he so assigns nothing), Wendling
assigns about one hundred and twenty-four to his M1, and only ten to M2.
Tho he assigns some verses to M1 which von Soden does not give to the
Petrine source, and omits some (assigning them to the redactor) which von
Soden does so assign, up to xiii, 37, the M1 of Wendling agrees very
closely with the Petrine source of von Soden. The material assigned to M1
and M2 after xiii, 37, is about equally divided between them. Wendling
makes no claims for the Petrine origin of his M1 or M2, 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
subtracted. Since Wendling distinguishes between two sources and the work
of the redactor, and von Soden only between the Petrine tradition and
other matter, this result also is what would be expected.

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 Gospel. Beyond this, 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 tradition, while
the latter asserts that the redactor is quite another person than the
writer of either M1 or M2. Is this latter position of Wendling's
susceptible of proof or disproof?

Perhaps the simplest criterion, and the one to be most safely applied, is
that of vocabulary. Sir John Hawkins compiled a list[63] of forty-one
words which he regards as characteristic of Mark. Do these words occur
indiscriminately in M1, M2, and Ev, or are they confined some of them to
M1, and some to M2, and some to Ev? Or is there sufficient difference in
the frequency with which these words occur in the three strata to justify
the assumption of three different authors, and especially that Ev was
distinct from the writers of the two documents? If not, the division
between earlier and later material in Mark may still stand, but it may
have been one and the same writer who put the whole Gospel together out of
these earlier and later materials.

Characteristic of Mark[64] is the historic present. Hawkins finds one
hundred and fifty-one examples of this use in Mark against seventy-eight
in Matthew (twenty-one of these taken from Mark),[65] and four in Luke. Of
these one hundred and fifty-one historic presents in Mark, forty-nine
occur in passages assigned by Wendling to M1, sixty-nine in M2, and
thirty-three in Ev.

Of the peculiarly Marcan words, some prove nothing in this connection.
Εὐαγγέλιον is used only by Ev (seven times); 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 occurs, this adds nothing to the proof. Ἄλαλος is used
once by M1, twice by M2, and not by Ev. But since Ev adds no story of a
dumb man, he has no occasion to use the word. (He does add a story of a
stammering man, where he uses the word, μογιλάλος.) Κλάσμα, used once by
M2 and three times by Ev, signifies little; since the three uses in Ev
occur in the same passage, and this passage is a copy of the passage in M2
(the feeding of the multitudes). Στάχυς occurs three times, all in M1, but
this also signifies nothing, since no passage in which it could occur is
assigned to M2 or Ev. Ἐκπορεύομαι is used twice each by M1 and M2, and
seven times by Ev; but since five of these seven occurrences are in the
same passage, they cannot establish any particular fondness for this word
on the part of Ev as against the other two. Εἰσπορεύομαι looks a little
more favorable for Wendling's hypothesis, since it is used once by M1,
twice by M2, and five times, in separated passages, by Ev. Ἀκάθαρτος,
found three times in M1, four in M2, and three in Ev; ἀπὸ μακρόθεν, three
times in M2 and twice in Ev; διδαχὴ, used three times by M2 and twice by
the redactor, and φέρω, five times used by M1, eight times by M2, and
twice by Ev, do nothing toward establishing a distinct vocabulary for any
one of the three. Only two words, διαστέλλομαι, used four times by the
redactor in four different chapters, and not by M1 or M2; and ἐκθαμβοῦμαι,
used only by M2, four times in three different chapters, point in the
direction of distinct vocabularies. But the absence of the third of these
words can certainly, and of the second probably, be accounted for by the

There is here practically no evidence of distinct vocabularies. Even if
there were, it would be fully offset by the use of words having no
necessary connection with any particular subject-matter, and therefore
equally likely to occur in any part of the Gospel. Five such words are the
adverbs εὐθὺς, πάλιν, πολλὰ, οὐκέτι, and οὔπω. Of these, the first (Mark's
most characteristic word) is used seventeen times by M1, fifteen by M2,
and ten by Ev. Considering the relative amounts of narrative matter
ascribed to the three, this usage seems to indicate an equal fondness for
this word among them. The second (πάλιν) is used ten times by M1, eight
times by M2, and nine times by Ev; the third (πολλὰ) is used adverbially
three times by M1, six times by M2, and three times by Ev; the fourth
(οὐκέτι), twice by M1, twice by M2, three times by Ev; the fifth (οὔπω),
once by M1 and four times by Ev.

Characteristic of Mark also is his use of the imperfects ἔλεγεν and
ἔλεγον. They are found fourteen times in M1, fifteen times in M2, and
twenty-one times in the passages ascribed to Ev.

Of the forty-one verses listed on p. 246 as standing in both Mark and Q,
thirty-four are in passages assigned by Wendling to Ev. This would seem to
tell in Wendling's favor, 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 Q. Three verses, however, occur in passages assigned to M1,
and four in M2. This would indicate that all three writers, besides having
the same favorite words, were acquainted with and made some use of Q. The
item of the relation of the various writers to Q, however, has little or
no significance; since it is the sections having the greatest amount of
logian matter and the least narrative, that are assigned to Ev.

The cumulative effect of these considerations is very much to the
discredit of Wendling's assumption of three different writers for our
Gospel of Mark. It cannot, to be sure, disprove that assumption; but it at
least shows a lack of proof where proof would be most easily found and
most convincing.


Even if Wendling's analysis had been capable of substantiation on
linguistic grounds, 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 Luke. For Matthew or Luke or both of
them follow Mark in all the transpositions, dislocations, and other
misarrangements of his Gospel. Whether these features stood in the
original Mark or not, they evidently stood in the Mark used by Matthew and

Matthew and Luke also used a Mark which contained the story of Jesus in
the same order given by our present Mark. Tho both of them deviate from
this order for assignable reasons, one or the other of them is found
following it all the time. If these deviations go back to an Ur-Marcus,
there must have been one Ur-Marcus in the hands of Matthew and another in
the hands of Luke.


Can the verbal agreements of Matthew and Luke as against Mark, or their
deviations from him without apparent reason, be explained upon any simpler
hypothesis than that of Ur-Marcus? It appears to the writer that they can.

A certain number (tho no one can say exactly what proportion of the whole)
of the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark may be allowed to be
accidental. Many of them, like the substitution of εἶπεν for λέγει, or of
an occasional δέ for Mark's invariable and monotonous καί or the
substitution of a common for an uncommon word (like κλίνη for κράβαττος)
require no explanation.

_Agreements_ of Matthew and Luke _in their omissions_ from the Marcan
narrative do not stand upon the same plane with the agreements in
_substitutions_, and may all be accounted for on the ground of accident,
or by the same desire on the part of both writers to be more concise, or
to avoid anything derogatory to Jesus or the apostles; or by some other
similar motive at work separately in the minds of the two later
evangelists. It is only the agreements in corrections and substitutions
that require accounting for. I believe these can be explained chiefly on
two grounds:

1. It is not necessary to assume that Matthew and Luke both worked upon
the same identical copy of our Mark. If they used two copies, these two
would not be expected to agree absolutely with each other in the wording
of every passage. This would account for some of the slight deviations in
the wording of either Matthew or Luke where the other agrees with our
present Mark. These two copies that Matthew and Luke used may neither of
them have been the original (since in both of them the conclusion at least
was gone); or at least not the original in its original form. One of them
may have been a copy of the original, and the other a copy of this copy.
Or they may both, as Sanday argues, have belonged to a type later, and not
earlier, than our present Mark. This would account for the agreements, and
for such deviations as have not already been accounted for, or cannot be
accounted for, by the known literary peculiarities of Matthew and Luke.
Since the text of Mark that has come down to us is more corrupt than that
of either Matthew or Luke, various words in which Matthew and Luke now
agree against Mark may have stood in the text which both of them used, and
may later have dropped out, before the copy was made to which our present
texts go back. Or the two copies of Mark, assumed above, may both have
been made from the original copy which Mark made with his own hand. Upon
this supposition even, they would not always agree, and so deviations in
Matthew and Luke from Mark, and occasional agreements in such deviations,
would be explained. Or these agreements may be explained, as is obvious in
many instances, by the working of similar motives in the minds of Matthew
and Luke, even assuming them to have made their extracts from one and the
same copy, or from two practically identical copies, of Mark.

Dr. E. A. Abbott, in his _Corrections of Mark_ (London, 1901) gives an
exhaustive list of the deviations from Mark in which Matthew and Luke
agree. Many of these are such as to suggest that Matthew and Luke used not
an Ur-Marcus, but a text of Mark later than the one that has come down to
us. E.g., in twelve instances Matthew and Luke agree in supplying the
subject or object which our Mark omits. In fifteen, they agree in
correcting abrupt constructions, supplying a connecting word. In thirteen
(exclusive of λέγει) they agree in correcting Mark's historic present. In
twelve they agree in replacing Mark's relative clause or his subjunctive
by a participle. In twenty-three they agree in substituting εἶπεν for
λέγει. In thirty they agree in the use of δέ for καί. It is not impossible
that Matthew and Luke, independently bent on improving Mark's style, have
accidentally agreed in making these same improvements in the same places
(especially since there are other improvements of the same sort in which
they do not agree). But it is a much simpler and more adequate hypothesis,
that they both used a text of Mark in which these corrections had already
been made.

Yet even of this text they probably did not use the same identical copy.
And as the copy used by one or both of them may have been two or three
removes from the text from which it started, many changes may have crept
into the copy used by one of them, not contained in the copy used by the
other. This would account alike for the agreements in deviations from our
present Mark, and for the fact that these corrections are not all of them
found in both Matthew and Luke. 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 them.[66] 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 Luke.[67]

2. The agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark can further be
accounted for by the hypothesis of assimilation. Matthew made certain
changes of his own in the wording of Mark; Luke apparently made many more.
The various texts still extant show many efforts of copyists to bring the
deviations of Matthew and Luke in small verbal items into an agreement. If
this same process went on during the period covered by our earliest
manuscripts, it is probable that it went on to a much greater extent at an
earlier date, before our Gospels had acquired the sacredness which they
later came to possess. A fine illustration of this process and its results
is to be seen in the Matthean and Lucan versions of the Lord's Prayer, in
which the probably original "Let thy Holy Spirit come upon us and purify
us," of Luke, has been assimilated to "Thy kingdom come," and in many
manuscripts also to "Thy will be done as in heaven so upon earth," of
Matthew. The extent of this sort of assimilation can never be determined;
but it seems quite sufficient to account for agreements of Matthew and
Luke against Mark not easily accounted for on other grounds.

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 Mark, as compared with the very large number of
the deviations in which they do not agree, and as compared also with the
vastly greater number of instances in which both Matthew and Luke follow
Mark faithfully. In other words, if Ur-Marcus differed from our Mark only
in those words and phrases in which Matthew and Luke agree against our
Mark, then Ur-Marcus was at the most not a different Mark from ours, but
only a different copy or text of our Mark. The assumption of an Ur-Marcus
was a natural one for the explanation of the phenomena in question; but it
is a cumbersome hypothesis, and insecure; further study seems to discredit
it. Matthew and Luke used our Mark, not another.

It has often been suggested that the Marcan material covered by the "great
omission" of Luke (Mk vi, 45-viii, 26) was absent from the copy of Mark
used by Luke, tho present in that used by Matthew. Reasons for Luke's
omission of this long Marcan section have been given, and seem sufficient
without the assumption of its absence from Luke's copy of Mark. But the
theory of its absence has also important items directly against it. The
section has the general Marcan characteristics. Mark has one hundred and
forty-one historic presents; eighteen of them are in this section. He uses
εὐθὺς thirty-four times, five in this section; πάλιν twenty-six times,
five in this section. He is partial to the imperfects ἔλεγεν and ἔλεγον,
which he uses fifty times (against Matthew's twenty-three and Luke's
nine), six times in this section. The same habit of duplicate expression
which occurs in other parts of his Gospel appears here. ὅ ἐστιν in the
sense of "i.e.," peculiar to Mark among the evangelists, appears here
twice (four times elsewhere in the Gospel). Seven out of the nine sections
begin with καί. The section seems to be too homogeneous with the rest of
the book to be from a different hand.[68]

The foregoing considerations seem to render the hypothesis of Ur-Marcus
superfluous. The phenomena for which it was designed to account are more
easily and naturally explained by other suppositions.


In the preceding pages sufficient consideration has been given not only to
the fact, but to the manner, of the use of Mark by Matthew and Luke.
Visual illustration, by the printing of a few passages in different kinds
of type may serve to enforce some of the more general facts already brot
out. The words (or parts of words) common to the three Synoptics, in the
following passages, will be printed in heavy-faced type.

  Mt ix, 5-6: =τί= γάρ =ἐστιν      Mk ii, 9-10_a_: =τί ἐστιν
  εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν=·              εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν=
                  =ἀφ=ίε=νταί     τῷ παραλυτικῷ· =ἀφ=ίε=νταί
  σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, ἢ               σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, ἢ
  εἰπεῖν· ἔγειρε καὶ=                 εἰπεῖν· ἔγειρε καὶ=
                               ἆρον τὸν κράββατόν
  περιπάτει; =ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε             σου καὶ ὕπαγε; =ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε
  ὅτι ἐξουσίαν                     ὅτι ἐξουσίαν
  ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου           ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
  ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι                ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι
  ἁμαρτίας=, τότε λέγει               ἁμαρτίας=, λέγει
  =τῷ παραλ=υτικῷ                 =τῷ παραλ=υτικῷ· σοὶ λέγω,
           =ἐγερ=θεὶς =ἆρ=όν =σου=   =ἔγε=ι=ρ=ε =ἆρ=ον τὸν
  τὴν κλίνην καὶ ὕπαγε              κράββατόν =σου= καὶ ὕπαγε
  =εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου=.              =εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου=.

  Lk v, 23-24: =τί ἐστιν
  εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν=·
  σοι =αἱ ἁμαρτίαι σου
  ἢ εἰπεῖν· ἔγειρε καὶ=

  περιπάτει; =ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε
  ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
  ἐξουσίαν ἔχει
  ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι
  ἁμαρτίας=, εἶπεν
  =τῷ παραλ=ελυμένῳ· σοὶ λέγω,
  =ἔγε=ι=ρ=ε καὶ =ἆρ=ας τὸ
  κλινίδιόν =σου= πορεύου
  =εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου=.

Here the evangelists differ each from the other in the words ascribed to
Jesus, but when they come to the parenthetic explanation injected into the
midst of the sentence, ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε, etc., they agree exactly, not only
in the wording, but in the awkward placing of the clause. The three
accounts agree in the first five lines, except for the presence of γὰρ in
Matthew, the insertion of τῷ παραλυτικῷ in Mark, and a slightly different
form of the verb ἀφίημι in Luke. In the fourth line Luke also inserts σοι,
after which come seven consecutive agreeing words (tho with slight
rearrangement in order by Luke). Mark then has a clause of six words which
Matthew and Luke omit. The latter agree in substituting περιπάτει for
ὕπαγε, and two (different) words from the same root for Mark's κράββατον.
Luke has preserved the σοὶ λέγω which Matthew has dropped.

 Mt xii, 3-4: οὐκ          Mk ii, 25-26: οὐδέποτε
  =ἀνέγνωτε= τί =ἐποίησεν        =ἀνέγνωτε= τί =ἐποίησεν
  Δαυείδ, ὅτε ἐπείνασεν          Δαυείδ, ὅτε= χρείαν ἔσχεν
                 καὶ        καὶ =ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ
  οἱ μετ' αυτοῦ;=              οἱ μετ' αὐτοῦ;=
  π=ῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν          π=ῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν
  οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ=             οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ= ἐπὶ
                          Ἀβιάθαρ ἀρχιερέως
  =καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς          =καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς
  προθέσεως                  προθέσεως
  ἔφαγον=, ὃ =οὐκ ἐξ=ὸν ἦν     ἔφαγεν=, οὓς =οὐκ ἔξ=εστιν
  αὐτῷ =φαγεῖν= οὐδὲ =τοῖς=      =φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ
  μετ' =αὐτ=οῦ, =εἰ μὴ=       το=ὺ=ς ἱερε=ῖ=ς=, καὶ ἔδωκεν
  =το=ῖ=ς ἱερε=ῦσιν μόνοις;       καὶ =τοῖς= σὺν
                           =αὐτ=ῷ οὖσιν;

  Lk vi, 3-4: οὐδὲ τοῦτο
  =ἀνέγνωτε= ὃ =ἐποίησεν
  Δαυείδ=, ὁπ=ότε ἐπείνασεν=
  αὐτὸς =καὶ=
  =οἱ μετ' αὐτοῦ= ὄντες;
  =ὡς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν
  οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ=

  =καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς
  προθέσεως= ἔλαβεν καὶ
  =ἔφαγεν=, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ
  =τοῖς= μετ' =αὐτ=οῦ, οὓς =οὐκ
  ἔξ=εστιν =φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ=
  μόνους =το=ὺ=ς ἱερε=ῖ=ς=;

Few brief passages in the triple tradition will better repay study than
this. Note that the three introduce their question with three different
particles. Matthew and Luke omit the apparently superfluous words of Mark,
χρείαν ἔσχεν, but Luke retains the αὐτὸς of Mark which Matthew has
dropped. Luke adds ὄντες, perhaps in deference to Mark's οὖσιν, used in a
similar phrase but different connection. He substitutes ὡς for the πῶς of
Mark and Matthew. Mark and Luke both have the statement that David "gave"
the bread to those that were with him, Luke adding that he "took" it. All
three have in conclusion the phrase "to those with him," but each has
inserted it in a different place. Matthew follows Mark more closely than
does Luke, the latter transposing one or two clauses. Both Matthew and
Luke have omitted the reference to Abiathar, either because they (or Luke
at least) had no interest in it, or for its historical difficulty. In
spite of these changes there is a most remarkable verbal agreement
thruout. Except for Mark's superfluous "had need," and his reference to
Abiathar, nothing can be found in either account that is not duplicated,
practically word for word and almost letter for letter, in one or both of
the others.

  Mt iv, 18-22: Περιπατὼν δὲ =παρὰ τὴν
  θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας εἶδεν= δύο
  ἀδελφούς, =Σίμωνα= τὸν λεγόμενον Πέτρον
  =καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐ=τοῦ
  =βάλλοντας= ἀμφίβληστρον =ἐ=ις =τὴ=ν =θάλασσ=αν·
  =ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλεεῖς. Καὶ= λέγει
  =αὐτοῖς· δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ
  ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλεεῖς ἀνθρώπων=. οἱ
  δὲ =εὐθέως ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολούθησαν
  αὐτῷ. Καὶ προβὰς= ἐκεῖθεν
  =εἶδεν= ἄλλους δύο ἀδελφούς,
  =Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ Ἰωάννην
  τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ=
  μετὰ Ζεβεδαίου τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν
  =καταρτίζοντας τὰ δίκτυα= αὐτῶν· =καὶ
  ἐκάλεσεν αυτούς=. οἱ δὲ (=εὐθέως=)
  =ἀφέντες τ=ὸ =πλοῖ=ον καὶ (=τὸν πατέρα
  αὐτῶν=) ἠκολούθησαν =αὐτῷ=.

  Mk i, 16-20: Καὶ παράγων =παρὰ τὴν
  θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας εἶδεν
      καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν= Σίμωνος
  ἀμφι=βάλλοντας ἐ=ν =τῇ θαλάσσ=ῃ·
        =ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλεεῖς. καὶ= εἶπεν
  =αὐτοῖς· δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω
  ὑμᾶς= γενέσθαι =ἁλεεῖς ἀνθρώπων=. καὶ
  =εὐθὺς ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολούθησαν
  αὐτῷ. Καὶ προβὰς= ὀλίγον
  Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ Ἰωάννην
  τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ=, καὶ αὐτοὺς =ἐν τῷ
  καταρτίζοντας τὰ δίκτυα. καὶ= (=εὐθὺς=)
  =ἐκάλεσεν αὐτούς=· καὶ =ἀφέντες= (=τὸν πατέρα
  αὐτῶν=) Ζεβεδαῖον ἐν =τ=ῷ =πλοί=ῳ μετὰ τῶν
  μισθωτῶν ἀπῆλθον ὀπίσω =αὐτ=οῦ.

This passage contains the striking addition of the parenthetical
explanation ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλεεῖς. That this should occur in a narrative
portion, and not in a saying of Jesus, is the more significant. For the
rest, the saying ascribed to Jesus runs word for word (tho its brevity in
this case robs this fact of any very remarkable significance); in the
narrative portion Matthew mentions that Simon was called Peter (a remark
which Mark saves till he comes to the formal naming of the twelve), and in
the conclusion he says "they left the boat and their father," while Mark
says "they left their father in the boat," adding, "with the hired men."
Mark says Jesus _called_ the two "immediately." Matthew says they _left_



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 Matthew, the disciple of the Lord, wrote in
Hebrew, undoubtedly meaning Aramaic. Until some sufficient justification
for this identification has been given, it seems better to refer to the
common non-Marcan source of Matthew and Luke under the more colorless
symbol Q.

The common non-Marcan tradition of Matthew and Luke consists almost
exclusively of logian material. It contains a few parables, brief, and
dealing usually with the "kingdom of heaven," and one or two sections
(such as that concerning the centurion from Capernaum, and the Temptation)
which may quite properly be regarded as narrative, but which also contain
large logian content and may have been introduced for the sake of the

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 Gospels; it cannot be
summarized in a paragraph, but comes out only in a detailed examination of
the double tradition such as is undertaken in the following pages.

Before the theory of a common documentary source for the non-Marcan
material in Matthew and Luke can be accepted, it must defend itself
against two apparently simpler hypotheses, viz., that Matthew copied from
Luke or Luke from Matthew.

Did Matthew copy from Luke? His genealogical tree does not agree with
Luke's.[69] He betrays in his story of the birth at Bethlehem no knowledge
of the fact that Joseph's home was originally at Nazareth. This latter
place he first mentions in ii, 23, as the place to which Joseph went upon
his return from Egypt. Matthew has a greater interest in John the Baptist
than has Luke, as is indicated by his fuller treatment of the fact and
circumstances of his death, contrasted with Luke's leaving him in prison
undisposed of. Yet Matthew does not employ the material concerning the
preaching of John, which Luke has embodied in his iii, 10-14. Matthew
makes a specialty of the sayings of Jesus, yet omits many that Luke
contains. In short, the reason for denying that Matthew copied from Luke
is the impossibility, upon that hypothesis, of explaining the omissions of
Lucan material from Matthew's Gospel, and the very great divergences
between the two Gospels where such divergences would not be expected with
either one using the other as an exemplar.

The same argument which refutes Matthew's use of Luke refutes Luke's use
of Matthew.

But it may be added, 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 them, both in its wording and
its order. If Matthew copied from Luke, he would naturally have followed
his order, which he does not do. Or, deviating from that order for obvious
reasons, he would naturally return to it when those reasons no longer
prevailed, which he does not do. Or if Luke copied from Matthew, he could
hardly have inserted a genealogical tree which is at variance with
Matthew's, in the unnatural place where it now is, as against the natural
place in which he found it in Matthew. Nor could he, when he had the
Sermon on the Mount before him in the form in which Matthew gives it,
break it up into little pieces and scatter it up and down thruout his
Gospel. Moreover, 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
reading; as when Matthew says, "Cleanse first the inside of the cup," and
Luke in place of this says, "Give alms of that which is within." But again
it is not Matthew but Luke who gives the more original form of a saying;
as when Luke says "Blessed are ye poor," and Matthew says, "Blessed are
the poor in spirit."

The phenomena of peculiar words, ninety-five characteristic of Matthew and
one hundred and fifty-one characteristic of Luke, is also impossible of
explanation upon the theory that either writer copied from the other. If
either one were copying from the other, they would certainly agree against
Mark in some really important matter, and not merely in an occasional word
or phrase. If Luke were copying from Matthew, he would certainly have
incorporated some one of those numerous additions which Matthew makes to
the narratives of Mark.[70]

In addition to any of the more general considerations which have suggested
the possible use of Matthew by Luke, a recent writer has evolved an
ingenious and somewhat elaborate proof for this use, which it may be well
to consider in some detail.


Mr. Robinson Smith[71] attempts to dispose both of Ur-Marcus and Q by
maintaining that Luke copied from Matthew. His argument rests upon the
deviations which Matthew and Luke make, respectively, in their common
abbreviations of certain of Mark's narratives. "Where a choice from two or
more Marcan expressions has been made, the first choice falls to Matthew
and the second to Luke."

As examples of these first choices by Matthew and second choices by Luke,
Mr. Smith instances (with the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke) Mk i,
32; iii, 7, 8; x, 29, 33, 34; xii, 3; xiv, 1, 12, 65; xv, 42. The argument
seems to be that Luke having both Mark and Matthew before him, and seeing
that in each of these instances Matthew has chosen a certain part of
Mark's phrase and rejected the rest, himself avoids using that part of the
phrase which Matthew has chosen, restricting himself to the part which
Matthew has left unused. We will take up first the particular instances,
and see whether other, perhaps simpler, reasons suggest themselves for
these deviations; after that we will consider the general argument.

Mk i, 32 (Mt viii, 16; Lk iv, 40): Mark's phrase runs Ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης,
ὅτε ἔδυ ὁ ἥλιος. Of this phrase, Matthew takes the first three words as
they stand. Luke appropriates the remainder, changing into Δύνοντος δὲ
τοῦ ἡλίου. Mark's phrase is here redundant, and Matthew and Luke (as
usual) both reduce the redundancy. But Matthew has omitted the point of
Mark's phrase, since in Matthew's account the events described did not
happen on the Sabbath. Luke has retained the essential part of the

Mk iii, 7, 8 (Mt iv, 25; Lk vi, 17): "Mark gives in order and by name six
districts from which the multitudes came. Matthew mentions all save the
last, Tyre and Sidon. Luke omits the first, fourth, and fifth, but does
mention the last, Tyre and Sidon." The changes in these lists seem to be
more various than Mr. Smith suggests. Matthew adds Decapolis and omits
Idumaea.[73] The thing hard to account for in Luke's list is his omission
of Galilee, not his inclusion of Tyre and Sidon. These latter regions
would interest him especially, with his universalistic tendency; we should
hardly have been surprised to find him adding them if he had not found
them in Mark. A simple explanation of the changes made by both Matthew and
Luke may perhaps be seen in Matthew's Judaistic tendency, which led him to
omit Tyre and Sidon, and in Luke's universalistic tendency which made him
include them. To make Mr. Smith's argument hold in this case, Luke should
certainly have come much closer than he does, to preserving the parts
which Matthew rejects, and rejecting the parts which he retains. It
appears that Luke has no great knowledge of nor interest in Palestinian
geography, but Tyre and Sidon suited his purpose.

Mk x, 29 (Mt xix, 29; Lk xviii, 29): Mark here hasἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ ἕνεκεν
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Matthew has ἕνεκα τοῦ ἐμοῦ ὀνόματος, and Luke εἵνεκεν τῆς
βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ. But Matthew's "my name's sake" is not the same as
Mark's "my sake," and seems to bespeak Matthew's later date of writing.
Luke's "for the sake of the kingdom of God" has a more primitive sound
than the latter part of Mark's phrase. It probably represents the original
words of Jesus which Matthew has everywhere changed into the "kingdom of
heaven." Since all the passages in Mark where the word εὐαγγέλιον occurs
are on independent grounds suspected of being later additions, it seems
probable that the reading of Mark which Matthew and Luke had before them
here was merely ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ, that both Matthew and Luke changed this
phrase as they would, and that the ἕνεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου of Mark is later
than either Matthew or Luke. At all events, it does not seem to be true in
this instance that Matthew takes the first part of Mark's phrase and Luke
the last.

Mk xii, 3 (Mt xxi, 35; Lk xx, 10): Matthew's account here is quite
different from Mark's (which is followed much more closely by Luke).
According to Mark, only one servant was sent, whom the vineyard-keepers
"caught and beat and sent away empty." According to Matthew several
servants were sent; the vineyard-keepers caught them, beat one, killed
one, and stoned another. 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 indignity. Luke sticks close to the
story of Mark, and merely omits the λαβόντες which Matthew retains.
Perhaps Luke had reflected that the servant had to be caught if he was to
be beaten, and so regarded the item as superfluous. It does happen to come
before the items that Luke retains, 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 it. It is not only hard to detect any
influence of Matthew upon Luke here, but much harder to see, if Luke were
copying Matthew, why he should not have preferred his several servants to
Mark's one. Later in the same story, Luke again omits Mark's λαβόντες
where Matthew retains it (Mk xii, 8), tho here both Matthew and Luke
change the order of the incidents in the verse, probably to make them
conform more exactly to the experience of Jesus. The omission of the
participle by Luke and its inclusion by Matthew is most simply explained
by Luke's greater interest in stylistic improvement. The instance seems to
be barren for Mr. Smith's purpose.

Mk xiv, 1 (Mt xxvi, 2; Lk xxii, 1): Matthew's account is here very
different from Mark's. He introduces it with the words, "And it came to
pass when he had ended these sayings." This is a formula which Matthew
uses five times,[74] and which is found in Matthew alone. Since the
construction ἐγένετο followed by a finite verb is found in these five
passages alone in Matthew, the formula appears to have stood (once, at
least, if not in all five instances) in Q.[75] It also seems to be used by
Matthew to mark his transition from one of his sources to the other.[76]
The remark which Mark here makes about the approach of the passover,
Matthew puts into the mouth of Jesus as a part of the speech which Mark
does not have. Luke follows Mark in making the statement a part of his
narrative and in omitting the speech which Matthew gives. These facts
would seem to indicate that Matthew is here following Q, while Luke
follows Mark. Luke's looser statement (omitting the μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας, and
substituting his own favorite ἤγγιζεν,[77] and adding his ἡ λεγομένη
πάσχα) would seem to go back to his desire not to trouble his Greek reader
with too exact details, and yet to supply him with a little information
about the Jewish feast. Here again, as in the last instance, it seems
especially strange to suggest Matthew as a source of Luke where he shows
such an absence of any influence from him.

Mk xiv, 12 (Mt xxvi, 17; Lk xxii, 7): Here, says Mr. Smith, Matthew gives
the first and second parts of Mark's phrase, Luke the second and third
parts. The fact seems to be that Matthew here, with his usual habit of
condensing Mark's narrative, omits (what his Jewish readers would know
without his stating it) the statement that on the first day of the feast
of unleavened bread they "killed the passover." Luke changes this from a
particular to a general statement, so (as above) conveying to his Greek
reader some information about the custom of the occasion (ἔδει θύεσθαι τὸ
πάσχα). Luke here shows the influence of Mark and not of Matthew; since he
follows Mark (Mk xiv, 13; Lk xxii, 10) in including eleven words which he
copies very closely and which Matthew omits. He also agrees with Mark in
the ascription of supernatural knowledge to Jesus upon this occasion,
whereas Matthew's narrative does not carry this implication.

Mk xiv, 65 (Mt xxvi, 67, 68; Lk xxii, 63, 64): Mr. Smith finds the
influence of Matthew upon Luke in this passage, in the fact that while
Mark says that they "spat upon Jesus, blindfolded him and smote him,
Matthew records the first and third of these actions, Luke the second and
third."[78] Why Luke omits the spitting, may not be easy (or necessary) to
say. But that Luke here shows the reverse of any influence from Matthew is
indicated in the fact that whereas Matthew follows Mark in relating, first
the examination of Jesus, then the mockery, and third the denials of
Peter, Luke rearranges the Marcan narrative to make it run, first the
denials, second the mockery, and third the examination. He has received
his suggestion for this rearrangement from the fact that Mark, just before
he begins the story of the mockery, has mentioned that Peter was outside
the hall, warming himself by the fire.[79] It has seemed (quite naturally)
to Luke that this is the place where the story of the denials should be
related, tho Mark inserts the story of the mockery before he goes on[80]
with the denials. In a passage where Luke has so thoroughly rearranged
Mark it seems unnecessary to account for his omission of one word,
especially by such a remote theory as that of Mr. Smith; and in a passage,
too, where his rearrangement of Marcan material contradicts Matthew's
slavish following of it.

Mk xv, 42 (Mt xxvii, 57; Lk xxiii, 54): "Where Mark says, 'When the even
was come because it was the preparation, that is the day before the
Sabbath,' Matthew says, 'When even was come,' and Luke 'the rest.'"[81]
But Luke does not quite say "the rest." He says,[82] "It was the day of
preparation, and the Sabbath was dawning." And this he says, not in the
same connection, nor with the same purpose, as Mark (and Matthew). Mark
and Matthew use their statement about the evening having come as an
introduction to their story about the request of Joseph of Arimathea.
Luke tells his story of Joseph without any such introduction, and mentions
the time only after he has finished that story, apparently with reference
to the story of the women which follows, rather than to that of Joseph
which precedes. The argument of the last paragraph will apply here.

It will not be necessary to go with equal care thru the five other
instances in which Mr. Smith detects in a similar way the influence of
Matthew upon Luke.[83] He admits "two, or three, or at the most four,
cases of Marcan expressions" of which (without explanation) it might
appear that Luke uses the first part and Matthew the last. His willingness
to push his theory to the extreme may be inferred from his general
estimate of the character of Luke as a writer: "He blurs, obliterates,
blunders, fabricates, falsifies, flattens out, mutilates, murders."[84]

The secondary interest of the writer would also seem to have influenced
his work somewhat too strongly. That interest is indicated in the
following statements: "If Acts was written in A.D. 62, ... and Luke was
written before Acts, then Matthew, slipping in between Mark and Luke must
throw Mark still further back.... We thus would come very close to the
resurrection, perhaps to within fifteen years, and the possibility of
legendary and controversial elements having entered into the gospel story
would accordingly be reduced to a minimum.... With our understanding of
Lucan derivations from Matthew, as well as from Mark, the ghost of a
chance of existence belonging to postulated common sources, such as an
earlier or a later Mark and a Q is frightened away, and we are left with
the Gospels Mark, Matthew, Luke, written in that order," etc.[85]

Passing from the details of Mr. Smith's statement to the general argument
upon which they rest, the present writer can see no cogency in that
argument. Even if the use of Matthew by Luke were not contradicted by so
many characteristics of both those Gospels, 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 Luke. Why should not
Luke feel free to take precisely that part of a Marcan phrase which
Matthew has taken--if he wanted it? Why should his finding it in Matthew
make him feel that he was not at liberty to use it? Why, indeed, if Luke
was copying Matthew, should he not have _followed_ him in his quotation of
a certain part of a Marcan phrase, 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 left? It does not quite appear why the facts
cited by Mr. Smith (so far as analysis of the passages from which they are
cited leaves any of them standing) might not just as well be turned
against his theory as for it.



Coming back to the theory that Matthew and Luke used a common document for
their sayings-material, we have next to determine what the content of that
document was.

A reasonable degree of unanimity prevails among scholars as to this
content, or at least as to a considerable part of it. Where students
differ is as to the sayings which are not very closely parallel in the two
Gospels, or as to sayings that are contained in only one of the two. As to
the sayings which are practically identical in the two, or which show such
very marked literary agreements as to put different sources out of the
question, there is no dispute.

There appears to be a disposition on the part of some scholars to extend Q
indefinitely. In his essay in the _Oxford Studies_, Mr. Bartlet seems to
use the symbol to cover the general apostolic tradition (it is not always
apparent whether he means written or not). Among German scholars, B. Weiss
shows the same disposition. Among American scholars, Mr. B. W. Bacon
suggests that Q might originally have contained much more and other
material than can now be identified for it; as the narrative parts of it,
being taken up by Mark, and copied from him by Matthew and Luke, would
fail to leave in these latter Gospels any traces of themselves. This is
quite true. But if Q, in addition to nearly all the logian material in
Matthew and Luke originally contained all the narrative matter of Mark, Q
was not only a complete Gospel, but quite as complete a Gospel as that of
Matthew or Luke; perhaps more so, since Matthew and Luke may each have
omitted something from Q; and no motive remains for the writing of these
later Gospels. Mr. Burkitt[86] has maintained that Q very probably
contained some references to the passion; but this position has not
commended itself to many, if to any, other students.

Q was a collection of sayings. That the content of it, within limits, can
be made out with some degree of unanimity is indicated by the following
tables. The first represents the content of Q in Matthew, as given by the
five scholars whose names head the five columns, with additional
statements in the following columns, concerning the amount of agreement or
divergence. The second table does the same thing for the Q matter assigned
to the Gospel of Luke by the same five investigators.


In Table II the verses are indicated as they stand in Matthew without
their parallels in Luke (which would add nothing for our purpose here),
and without indicating the rearrangement of order which most if not all of
these scholars attempt at various places. The purpose here is simply to
present the content of Q as made out by these different men. Besides
showing what each one of them assigns to Q, I have (in the column headed
"All Five") tried to show the verses which all these scholars agree in so
assigning; and in the next column the verses assigned to Q by three or
more out of the five. In the last two columns I have indicated the total
number of verses out of each chapter, assigned to Q by all five, and by
three or more, respectively. No attempt was made to select men whose work
would have special tendency toward agreement; undoubtedly two
investigators[87] might be substituted for Wellhausen and Wernle, whose
work would make the total agreement much greater than it is in the present



  Chap.|   Harnack      |Wellhausen|   Hawkins     | J. Weiss        |
  iii  |5, 7-12         |1-12      |7-10, 12       |7-10             |
  iv   |1-11            |1-11      |3-11           |1-11             |
  v    |1-4, 6, 11,     |1-12,     |1-4, 6, 11-12, |1b-6, 10, 13,    |
       |  12, 39-40,    |  38-48   |  18, 25-26,   |15, 18, 20-48    |
       |  42, 44-48,    |          |  39-40, 42,   |                 |
       |  15, 25-26,    |          |  44-48        |                 |
       |  13, 18, 32    |          |               |                 |
  vi   |9-13, 22-23,    |19-34     |9-13, 20-24,   |1-9(?), 10-15,   |
       |  19-21, 25-33, |          |  25-33        |  19-33          |
       |  24            |          |               |                 |
  vii  |12, 1-5, 16-19, |1-6, 7-11,|1-2, 3-5, 7-14,|1-5, 7-13,       |
       |  24-27, 28,    |  15-27   |  21-27        |  17-22a,        |
       |  7-11, 13-14   |          |               |  24-28          |
       |                |          |               |                 |
  viii |5-10, 13, 19-22,|5-13      |5-10, 11, 12,  |5-13, 19-22      |
       |  8, 11-12      |          |  19-22        |                 |
  ix   |37-38           |          |37-38          |37-38            |
  x    |24, 25, 7, 10,  |5-15      |7, 8a, 10,     |7-8a, 10, 11a,   |
       |  16a, 12,      |          |  11-13,       |  12-14,         |
       |  13, 10b,      |          |  15-16a,      |  15-16a,        |
       |  15, 40, 26-33,|          |  24-25a,      |  17-22,         |
       |  34-36,        |          |  26-38, 40    |  24-25a,        |
       |  37, 38, 39    |          |               |  26a-40         |
  xi   |2-13, 16-19,    |1-19,     |2-3, 4-13,     |3-9, 11, 16-19,  |
       |  21-23, 25-27  |  20-30   |  16-19, 21-27 |   21-27         |
       |                |          |               |                 |
  xii  |33, 22-23, 25,  |22-42     |22-23, 27-28,  |11, 23-24,       |
       |  27-28, 30,    |          |  30, 33-35,   |  27-28, 33,     |
       |  43-45,        |          |  38, 39,      |  35, 38, 39,    |
       |  38-39, 41,    |          |  41-45        |  41-45b         |
       |  42, 32        |          |               |                 |
  xiii |16, 17, 31-33   |          |16, 17, 33     | 16, 17, 31-33(?)|
  xv   |14              |          |14             |                 |
  xvii |20b             |          |20             |                 |
  xviii| 12, 13, 7, 15, |          |7, 12-14, 15,  | 7, 12-13, 15, 22|
       | 21, 22         |          |  21-22        |                 |
  xix  | 28             |          |28             |                 |
  xxi  |                |          |               | 32ab            |
  xxii |                |1-14      |               | 1-10            |
  xxiii| 4, 13, 23, 25, |13-39     |4, 12-14, 23,  | 4, 6-7, 13-15,  |
       | 27, 29, 30-32, |          |  25-27, 29-31,| 23ab,           |
       | 34-36          |          |  34-39        | 25, 27, 29-31,  |
       |                |          |               | 34-39           |
  xxiv | 26-28, 37-41   |1-51      |27-28, 37-41,  | 26-28, 37-41    |
       |                |          |  43-51a       | 42-44(?), 45-51 |
  xxv  | 29             |14-30     |               | 1-13(?)         |
  Total|       190      |   256    | 194           | 248             |

  | Wernle         | All Five       | Three or More |Total 5|Total 3
  | 7-12           | 7-10           | 7-12          |    4  |   6
  | 3-10           | 3-10           | 1-11          |    8  |  11
  | 3-48           | 3, 4, 6, 39-40,| 1-4, 6, 11,   |   11  |  23
  |                |   42, 44-48    | 12, 18, 25-26,|       |
  |                |                | 38, 40-48,    |       |
  |                |                | 13, 32        |       |
  |                |                |               |       |
  | 9-13, 19-34    | 20-33          | 9-13, 20-33   |  14   |  19
  |                |                |               |       |
  |                |                |               |       |
  | 1-6, 7-11      | 1-2, 3-5, 7-11 | 1-5, 7, 11-13,|  10   |  21
  |                |                | 17-19,        |       |
  |                |                | 21, 22,       |       |
  |                |                | 24-27         |       |
  | 5-13, 19-22    | 5-13           | 5-13, 19-22   |   6   |  10
  |                |                |               |       |
  | 37-38          |                | 37-38         |       |   2
  | 5-16, 23-25,   | 7, 10, 12, 13, | 7, 10, 12, 13,|   5   |  22
  | 40-42, 26-39   |     15         | 15, 16,       |       |
  |                |                | 24-40         |       |
  |                |                |               |       |
  |                |                |               |       |
  |                |                |               |       |
  | 33, 20-27, 2-19| 3-9, 11, 16-19,| 2-13, 16-27   |  18   |  24
  |                | 21-23,         |               |       |
  |                | 25-27          |               |       |
  | 22-37, 58-59,  | 22, 23, 27,    | 22-25, 27,    |   8   |  16
  | 38-45          | 28, 38, 39,    | 28, 30, 32,   |       |
  |                | 41, 42         | 35, 38, 39,   |       |
  |                |                | 41-45         |       |
  |                |                |               |       |
  | 16, 17, 31-33  |                | 16-17, 31-33  |       |   5
  |                |                |               |       |
  |                |                |               |       |
  | 7, 12-22       |                | 7, 12, 13, 15,|       |   6
  |                |                | 21, 22        |       |
  |                |                |               |       |
  |                |                |               |       |
  | 1-14           |                | 1-10          |       |  10
  | 1-39           | 13, 23, 25,    | 13-15, 23,    |  10   |  17
  |                | 27, 29-31,     | 25-27, 29-32, |       |
  |                | 34-36          | 34-39         |       |
  |                |                |               |       |
  | 26-28, 37-51   | 27-28, 37-41   | 26-28, 37-51  |   7   |  15
  |                |                |               |       |
  | 14-30          |                |  29           |       |   1
  | 302            | 101            | 208           | 101   | 208

The analysis of Wellhausen is the least elaborate of the five, and that of
Wernle is almost as simple. The other three show more disposition to
select out the verse or part of the verse which, occuring in the midst of
Q material, should nevertheless be assigned to some other source. Weiss
adds a question mark to several of his sections, but these have been
included in the table. All the students say that not the same certainty
attaches to all the sections which they have included. Sir John Hawkins,
especially, says he does not consider his work a "reconstruction of Q,"
which, with Mr. Burkitt, he considers a task beyond the data at our

According to these five scholars, Q has furnished a source for Matthew in
eleven chapters. According to three out of the five, Q is found in sixteen
chapters. Harnack and Hawkins agree in finding one verse each in chaps.
xv, xvii, and xix. Weiss alone finds two-thirds of a verse in xxi. Among
the five, they find Q in twenty chapters. The only chapters in which Q is
not found by any of them are i, ii, xiv, xvi, xx, xxvi, xxvii, and xxviii.

The most conspicuous absences of Q from Matthew are in his first two
chapters, in his chapters dealing with the Passion (chaps. xxvi-xxvii),
and in his story of the empty grave and the resurrection appearances
(chap. xxviii).

Concerning the absence of Q from chaps. xiv, xvi, and xx, and its
practically negligible presence in chaps. xv, xvii, xix, and xxi, it will
be observed that these chapters do not deal exclusively with narrative
material. Their content is, in brief, the death of the Baptist, the return
of the disciples, the feeding of the five thousand, the walking on the
sea, the dispute about hand-washing, the Canaanitish woman, the feeding of
the four thousand, the demand of the Pharisees for a sign, the confession
of Peter, the demands for discipleship, the transfiguration, the healing
of the epileptic boy, the prediction of Jesus' sufferings, the temple-tax,
the strife about rank, the strange exorcist, the speech about offenses and
about the rescue of the lost, the rules for reconciliation with a brother
and for forgiveness, the parable of the Evil Steward, the dispute about
marriage and divorce, the blessing of the children, the danger of riches,
the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard, the second prediction of
sufferings, the demand of the sons of Zebedee, the healing of Bartimaeus,
the entry into Jerusalem, the offense of the scribes and priests, the
cursing of the fig tree, the purification of the temple, the parables of
the Dissimilar Sons and the Evil Vineyard-Keepers.

So far as the narrative material in these chapters is concerned, it is
derived from Mark. Of the discourse material, some is connected with the
narrative in Mark, and taken, like the narrative, from him.[88] Other
passages of discourse material, like the demands of discipleship (Mt xvi,
24-28), not closely connected with Marcan narrative, yet apparently taken
from Mark, contain verses elsewhere duplicated in Matthew. For these
verses, some of which Luke takes from Mark, he has duplicates elsewhere.
Since these duplicates in both Matthew and Luke are elsewhere closely
connected with Q material, and are in their other connections apparently
uninfluenced by Mark, it appears that in these chapters, where Matthew
forsakes Q, he has nevertheless embodied certain material from Mark which
originally stood alike in Mark and Q.

Other instances of this kind occur in Mt xviii, 1-5, the strife about
rank; in xviii, 6-9, about offenses; and in xx, 24-28, about true
greatness. These verses represent passages in which, according to Sanday's
statement,[89] Mark and Q "overlapped"; or, according to other students
(notably Mr. Streeter in the same volume), Mark also copied from Q. As we
are here interested, not in the relation of Mark to Q, but only in the
content of the latter as it is found in Matthew, we may go back to our
statement that Matthew has combined his material from Q in his chaps.
iii-viii and x-xii, and practically (if not quite) forsaken him in chaps.

Going back once more to Table II, the largest content ascribed to Q is
given by Wernle: three hundred and two verses (including a few parts of
verses). The next largest are from Weiss and Wellhausen, two hundred and
forty-eight and two hundred and fifty-six verses respectively. Harnack and
Hawkins assign only one hundred and ninety and one hundred and
ninety-four.[90] But the facts that out of the largest content ascribed by
any one of the five students (three hundred and two by Wernle), two
hundred and eight of the same verses are likewise assigned by two others,
and that out of the smallest content (one hundred and ninety by Harnack),
one hundred and one are likewise assigned by all five, show that as to the
nucleus of Q, including more than half of it according to Harnack and
one-third of it according to Wernle, there is practically no dispute.

Table III will show the results of the work of the same five scholars as
to the Q material in Luke.


Table III, containing the content ascribed to Q as it is found in Luke, by
the same five scholars mentioned above, discloses some interesting results
when compared with Table II (pp. 110-11). As was the case with Q in
Matthew, the smallest total is assigned by Harnack. That he finds one
hundred and ninety verses (including a few parts of verses) in both
Matthew and Luke indicates that he has limited his Q pretty closely to the
duplicate matter in both Gospels. Hawkins' results are very close in this
respect to Harnack's (one hundred and ninety-four Q verses in Matthew and
one hundred and ninety-two in Luke), and indicate the same basis of
computation. Wellhausen finds Q in two hundred and fifty-six verses of
Matthew, and in only two hundred and ten of Luke.

Both tables show that Wellhausen's analysis of Q is much less elaborate
than that of any of the other students. Since the number of Q verses which
he finds in both Matthew and Luke is considerably larger than that which
Harnack and Hawkins find, 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 Q. 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 Matthew. He gives to Luke
twenty more Q verses, and to Matthew sixty-six more, than Harnack. Of
these sixty-six, he may consider thirty to be duplicates in Matthew and
Luke (since what constitutes derivation from a common source must always
be matter of opinion). The other thirty-six verses he assigns to Q in
Matthew, tho lacking duplicates in Luke, on the ground of their general
characteristics. The habits of Matthew and Luke, respectively, in their
treatment of Mark, render it practically certain that Matthew would feel
less at liberty to omit Q material than Luke. Wernle's assignments (three
hundred and two Q verses to Matthew and two hundred and fifty-five to
Luke) may be explained in the same way.



  Chapter |  Harnack    |Wellhausen|   Hawkins      |  J. Weiss   |
          |             |          |                |             |
  iii     |7-9, 16-17   |1-7       |7-9, 17         |7-9, 17-18   |
  iv      |1-13         |1-15      |3-13            |1-13         |
  vi      |17, 20-23,   |20-23,    |17, 20-23       |47-49        |
          |  27-33,     |  27-49   |  27-49         |             |
          |  35b-44,    |          |                |             |
          |  46-49      |          |                |             |
  vii     |1-10, 18-28, |1-10,     |1-3, 6-9, 18-19,|1-3, 7-10,   |
          |  31-35      |  18-35   |  22-28,        |  18-26,     |
          |             |          |  31-35         |  28-35      |
  ix      |2, 57-60     |          |  57-60         |57-60        |
  x       |2-7b, 9,     |1-24      |2-6, 7b-9,      |2-3, 13-14,  |
          |  16, 21-22, |          |  12-16,        |  16, 21-27  |
          |  23b, 24    |          |  21-24         |             |
  xi      |2-4, 9-14,   |9-32,     |2-4, 9-14,      |2-4, 9-11,   |
          |  16-17, 19- |  37-52   |  16, 19-20,    |  15-16, 24- |
          |  20, 23-26, |          |  23-26, 29-32, |  26, 29-31, |
          |  29-35, 39, |          |  34-35,        |  33-35,     |
          |  42, 44,    |          |  39, 41, 42,   |  39-52      |
          |  46-52      |          |  44, 46-51     |             |
  xii     |2-10, 22-31, |22-46     |2-9, 22-31,     |2-8, 10-12,  |
          |  33-34, 39- |          |  33b-34,       |  22-31, 33- |
          |  40, 42-46, |          |  39, 40, 42-46,|  34, 39-46, |
          |  51, 53,    |          |  51-53,        |  51-52      |
          |  58-59      |          |  58, 59        |             |
  xiii    |18-21, 24,   |34-35     |20-21, 23-29,   |18-21, 23-25,|
          |  28-29, 34, |          |  34-35         |  28-30,     |
          |  35         |          |                |  34-35      |
  xiv     |11, 26-27,   |16-24     |11, 26-27       |11, 16-23,   |
          |  34-35      |          |                |  26-27, 34, |
          |             |          |                |  35         |
  xv      |4-7          |          |4, 5, 7         |3-5          |
  xvi     |13, 16-18    |          |13, 16-17       |13, 16-18    |
  xvii    |1, 3-4, 6,   |20-35     |1, 3, 4, 6, 24, |1-2, 5-6, 23,|
          |  23-24, 26, |          |  26, 27, 34,   |  24, 26, 27,|
          |  27, 32, 34,|          |  35, 37        |  31, 33b-4  |
          |  35, 37     |          |                |             |
  xviii   |             |          |                |13, 15, 16   |
  xix     |26           |11-27     |                |             |
  xxii    |28, 30       |          |28, 30          |22-25        |
  Total   |     190     |   210    |     192        |     174     |

  |   Wernle    |   All Five    |  Three or    |No. in|No. in
  |             |               |  More        | Five | Three
  |7-9, 16-17   |7              |7-9, 17       |  1   |  4
  |3-12         |3-12           |1-13          |  6   | 13
  |20-49        |47-49          |20-23, 27-49  |  3   | 27
  |             |               |              |      |
  |             |               |              |      |
  |             |               |              |      |
  |2-10, 18-35  |1-3, 6-9, 18,  |1-10, 18, 28, | 19   | 26
  |             |  19, 22-26,   |  31-35       |      |
  |             |  31-35        |              |      |
  |57-62        |               |57-60         |      |  4
  |1-16, 21-24  |2-3, 16, 21-24 |2-9, 12-16    |  7   | 13
  |             |               |              |      |
  |             |               |              |      |
  |2-4, 9-26,   |9-11, 16,      |19, 20, 23-26,| 19   | 39
  |  29-36,     |  24-26, 29-31,|  29-35,      |      |
  |  39-52      |  39, 42,      |  39-52, 2-4, |      |
  |             |  44, 46-51    |  9-17        |      |
  |             |               |              |      |
  |             |               |              |      |
  |2-12, 22-34, |22-31, 33-34,  |2-10, 22-31,  | 19   | 34
  |  39-46, 51- |  39-40,       |  33-34, 39-  |      |
  |  53, 58-59  |  42-46        |  46, 51-53,  |      |
  |             |               |  58-59       |      |
  |             |               |              |      |
  |18-21, 28-30,|34-35          |18-21, 24,    |  2   |  9
  |  34-35      |               |  28, 29, 34, |      |
  |             |               |  35          |      |
  |16-24, 26-27 |               |16-23, 26-27  |      | 10
  |             |               |              |      |
  |             |               |              |      |
  |3-10         |               |4-7           |      |  4
  |13, 16-17    |               |13, 16-17     |      |  3
  |1-4, 23-37   |24, 26, 27, 34 |1, 3, 4, 6,   |  4   | 14
  |             |               |  23, 24, 26, |      |
  |             |               |  27, 31-35,  |      |
  |             |               |  37          |      |
  |             |               |              |      |
  |12-27        |               |26            |      |  1
  |             |               |              |      |
  |    255      |     80        |       201    |   80 |  201

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 Luke. He has here in common sixteen fewer verses than
Harnack and Hawkins assign in common to Matthew and Luke from Q. But he
also assigns to Matthew seventy-four Q verses not paralleled in the Q
material which he assigns to Luke. 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 source; as also to Weiss's interest in the
special source (S) of Luke. If we deduct from Weiss's Q in Matthew the
twenty-eight verses after which he places an interrogation mark, this will
leave him with only forty-six Q verses in Matthew unduplicated in Luke.
This is only ten more than Wellhausen has.

All five scholars find Q material in nine of Luke's chapters (against
eleven of Matthew's). Three find it in fourteen chapters. Chaps. iii and
iv in Matthew correspond with the same chapters in Luke. Harnack finds in
Matthew's two chapters seventeen Q verses, and in Luke's two chapters,
eighteen. Hawkins finds fourteen in Matthew's two, and fifteen in Luke's.
Matthew's chaps. v-viii (Sermon on the Mount) contain according to Harnack
sixty-six Q verses, according to Hawkins sixty-eight. To these three
chapters of Matthew, chap. vi of Luke forms a partial parallel. It
contains, according to Harnack, twenty-six, and according to Hawkins
twenty-eight Q verses, parallel to that number of Matthew's sixty-six. Of
the remaining forty Q verses in Matthew (chaps. v-viii), Luke has in other
connections, in chaps. xi, xii, xiii, xiv, and xvi, thirty-four parallel Q
verses. 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 Luke.
But of this Q material in Luke more than half is scattered about in
different chapters, in marked contrast to its concentration in Matthew.
This is perhaps the best single illustration of the fact, often mentioned,
that Luke blends his Q material with material from other sources, while
Matthew inserts it in blocks.

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 Matthew. 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 him. If, however, Wernle, Wellhausen,
and Weiss be disregarded, and attention be paid only to the lists of
Hawkins and Harnack, these latter lists will be found to agree as closely
in their identification of Q material in Luke as in Matthew. This merely
shows that we are on firm ground in the identification of Q, so long as we
restrict ourselves closely to the duplicate passages in Matthew and Luke,
and require a reasonably strict agreement before admitting a common
source. It is when we leave this duplicate material, to extend the limits
of Q beyond it, that the uncertainties begin.


Yet the presence in both Matthew and Luke, especially in the former, of
much sayings-material which is not only imbedded in Q matter, but has all
the characteristics of Q; the presence of "translation variants"; the
natural assumption that even if Matthew and Luke had before them the same
identical copy of Q, they would not agree entirely in the amount of
material they would respectively quote from it; and the desire to assign
as much as seems reasonable to this source before positing another, all
lead us to the task of a further determination of the content of Q. This
further determination issues in an analysis of Q into QMt and QLk.






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 document, but that this Greek document was a translation from the
Aramaic. If Matthew and Luke had been independently translating from an
Aramaic document, they could not have hit so generally upon the same order
of words, especially where many other arrangements would have done as well
(and occasionally better), nor would they have agreed in the translation
of an Aramaic word by the same unusual Greek word, as notably in the
ἐπιούσιον of the Lord's Prayer. The Q they used was a Greek document.

But Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek; and if Q is Palestinian, and as early
as 60-65 or 70, it would be strange for it to have been written in any
language except that which Jesus spoke. Mark had an Aramaic tradition; and
tho he probably wrote in Greek he preserved many Aramaic words and
expressions; Q as found in Matthew and Luke has no Aramaic words; this
seems to be explicable only upon the supposition that though the original
of it was in Aramaic, Matthew and Luke knew it only in its Greek form.

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 it. The clearest illustration of this is found in the speech
against the Pharisees. Matthew reads, καθάρισον πρῶτον τὸ ἐντὸς τοῦ
ποτηρίου. Luke reads, πλῆν τὰ ἐνόντα δότε ἐλεημοσύνην. One of these Greek
clauses would be as difficult to derive from the other, or both of them
from the same Greek original, as would be the English translation of the
words. The meaning of Luke's is far from clear. In an Aramaic original,
however, Matthew's verb might have read [Hebrew], while Luke's might have
read [Hebrew]. A mere stroke of the pen, if the saying originally stood in
Aramaic, explains a variation which cannot be explained at all if the
saying was originally in Greek. This statement, however, will apply only
if the Aramaic was written and not merely spoken; for the two letters so
alike in appearance are not particularly similar in sound.

Tho the above is the simplest and clearest instance, others of the same
sort are not wanting. In Matthew's Sermon on the Mount Jesus says, "So
persecuted they the prophets which were before you"; while in the
corresponding passage in Luke's Sermon on the Plain he says, "In the same
manner their fathers treated the prophets." Matthew's phrase (v. 12), τοὺς
πρὸ ὑμῶν, and Luke's (vi, 23), οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν, are equivalents,
respectively, of the Hebrew or Aramaic phrases for "your ancestors" and
"their ancestors." But whereas the two Greek phrases look nothing alike
and could not be mistaken for one another, the difference in the Aramaic
again reduces itself to the difference in one letter between the endings
[Hebrew] and [Hebrew]. For Matthew's saying (x, 12), ἀσπάσασθε αὐτήν (τὴν
οἰκίαν) Luke reads (x, 5), λέγετε· εἰρήνη τῷ οἴκῳ τούτῳ. Here Luke
preserves the wording of the Aramaic greeting, "Peace be unto you," while
Matthew says, "Greet the house." The form which Luke gives of the
greeting is that which is used in Yiddish at the present time--[Hebrew],
"Peace to you," equivalent to our "good morning." That this is what
underlay the tradition in Matthew is indicated by the fact that he goes on
to say, "If the house is worthy, _your peace_ shall abide upon it; but if
it is unworthy, _your peace_ shall return to you."

The very peculiar Greek used by both Matthew and Luke in the saying about
excommunication (εἴποσιν πᾶν πονηρὸν καθ' ὑμῶν in Mt v, 11, and ἐκβάλωσιν
τὸ ὄνομα ὑμῶν ὡς πονηρὸν in Lk vi, 22) seems to go back to the one Aramaic
phrase for giving one a bad name. In the speech against the Pharisees
Matthew (xxiii, 25) says, "Ye cleanse the outside of the cup and dish but
inwardly they [the cup and platter] are full of greed and baseness." Luke
makes much better sense by reading (xi, 39), "Ye cleanse the outside of
cup and platter, but inwardly ye are full of greed," etc. If it be assumed
that the present tense of the verb "to cleanse" was represented in Aramaic
by the participle (which would be the usual construction), and that the
second person pronoun stood with it in the first clause but was not
repeated in the second (as would also be natural in the Aramaic),
Matthew's change of the verb in the second clause, from the second person
to the third, and his consequent use of "cup and dish" as the subject of
it, are easily explained; since the participle carries in itself no
distinction between second and third person, and the plural form would fit
equally the "ye" and the "they." Instances such as these (I owe them all
to Wellhausen)[91] seem to prove conclusively (Jülicher says "beyond a
doubt") that, not merely an Aramaic oral tradition, but an Aramaic
document lies behind the Greek Q used by Matthew and Luke.


Upon the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke used essentially the same text
of Q, an elaborate treatment of their respective use of that document is
called for to show which of them, in instances where they differ, is to be
charged with the alterations, and to assign the reasons for those
alterations. Two scholars, Harnack in his _Sayings of Jesus_ and Wernle in
his _Synoptische Frage_, have made such an analysis, with the thoroness
characteristic of them. The writer has studied these analyses carefully,
and upon the basis of them and of such study of the texts as they
suggested, made his own analysis. But upon the hypothesis of Q as
originally an Aramaic document, used by Matthew and Luke in Greek
translations going back to different Aramaic texts, such an analysis
becomes superfluous, because superseded by the analysis of Q into the two
recensions, QMt and QLk.


If Q was originally an Aramaic document, used by Matthew and Luke in Greek
translations going back to different copies of the Aramaic original, it is
fair to assume that these two translations would have had different
histories. Q would always be growing, by the aid of oral tradition; and if
Q was written before Mark, there was ample time, say twenty-five years at
least, before it was used by Matthew and Luke, for the two recensions,
circulating in different communities and perhaps originally shaped to suit
the needs of different readers, to acquire many dissimilar features. Not
only would the same saying in many instances become changed to meet the
varying need, or to adapt itself to what was considered a better
tradition, but many things would be included in either recension which
were not included in the other. Matthew will thus have had a recension of
Q which we may designate by the sign QMt, and Luke one which we may call

The following pages represent an attempt to determine the content of Q, as
that is represented in both Matthew and Luke.[92] Of the sections of
Matthew and Luke examined, some are marked QMt, some QLk, and some merely
Q. By this it is not meant that Matthew and Luke each had a document Q,
and besides this a document QMt or QLk, and that they took now from one
and now from the other. But where the wording of Matthew and Luke is
identical, or so closely similar that the variations can be easily
explained as changes made by Matthew or Luke, the material is assigned
simply to Q. But where the variations are too great, 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 Mark,
the material is assigned to QMt and QLk. Reasons for the assignment to QMt
or to QLk instead of to simple Q are given in each case seeming to require
them. The sum of all passages assigned to any form of Q will constitute
the total content of Q, so far as it is contained in both Matthew and
Luke. This total content will be somewhat larger than the content that
could be assigned to Q without the hypothesis of QMt and QLk, since by
this hypothesis many sections will be sufficiently alike to be assigned
to Q (QMt and QLk) which otherwise would have to be ascribed to different




(Mt iii, 7_b_-10; Lk iii, 7_b_-9)

This section is universally ascribed to Q. In Matthew's Gospel it contains
sixty-three words; in Luke's sixty-four. These are identical in the two
Gospels, except for Luke's addition of καὶ at the beginning of his 9th
verse, his plural (καρποὺς) where Matthew has the singular, and his
substitution of ἄρξησθε for Matthew's δόξητε. The parallelism begins in
the middle of the 7th verse of each Gospel; the first part of the verse in
each case evidently being supplied by the evangelist. Matthew says John's
remark was addressed to the Pharisees and Sadducees. With his customary
indifference to class distinctions among the Jews, Luke represents the
words as being addressed to all those who came for baptism. They do not
seem appropriate to candidates for baptism, whether Pharisees, Sadducees,
or others. Luke uses some form of the verb ἄρχω with the infinitive λέγειν
eight times as against Matthew's twice. As it seems here to have no
advantage over δοκέω it might be safe to suppose that the substitution was
made unintentionally, and from the influence of the recollection of
similar usage in other parts of Luke's Gospel. The first half of vs. 7 in
each Gospel should be assigned to the evangelists; the remainder of the
section to Q.


(Mt iii, 11-12; Lk iii, 16-17)

Matthew's vs. 11 and Luke's vs. 16 are closely parallel to Mark i, 7-8.
But they are still more closely parallel with each other, and contain
common deviations from Mark which cannot be explained upon the supposition
that they are taken from the latter. The wording in the two Gospels, for
twenty-six consecutive words, is identical, except for Luke's omission of
καὶ in his vs. 17, and his consequent change of verbs from the finite to
the infinitive mood. This section is universally assigned to Q.


(Mt iv, 3-11; Lk iv, 3-13)

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
specified. These verses are not included here because they seem to the
writer to be taken by Matthew and Luke from Mark and not from Q. The
common avoidance by Matthew and Luke of Mark's statement that Jesus was
"with the wild beasts," and their common substitution of διάβολος for
Mark's σατανᾶς, would point toward their exclusive use of Q and their
avoidance of Mark in these verses. On the other hand, Matthew and Luke use
very different phraseology to express their common idea of the hunger of
Jesus (Luke saying οὐκ ἔφαγεν οὐδὲν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις, καὶ
συντελεσθεισῶν αὐτῶν ἐπείνασεν, while Matthew says καὶ νηστεύσας ἡμέρας
τεσσεράκοντα καὶ τεσσεράκοντα νύκτας, ὕστερον ἐπείνασεν). Matthew agrees
with Mark in six consecutive words (except for the transposition of two of
them) where Luke has a wording of his own. Whereas Mark says that Jesus
was tempted forty days, saying nothing about his hunger, Matthew says he
fasted for forty days and was tempted at the expiration of this time, and
Luke that he fasted forty days and was tempted during that time. 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 Q. Q also of course contained these verses, and they will be
assigned to him when we come to consider the Q material in Mark. In the
rest of the temptation narrative, where Mark has no parallel, there is
great verbal similarity. The enlargement of the Old Testament quotation
may perhaps be ascribed to Matthew. The transposition of Matthew's second
temptation to the third place in Luke seems to spoil the climax in the
narrative; Mr. Streeter (_Oxford Studies_, p. 152) argues that Luke would
not have spoiled so good an arrangement if he had found it in his source.
If this argument were allowed, the section would have to be assigned to
QMt and QLk. The writer does not feel that the divergences are great
enough to necessitate this, and so assigns it to Q.


(Mt v, 3; Lk vi, 20_b_)

Matthew's beatitude is in the third person, Luke's in the second. Matthew
adds "in spirit." If the beatitude stood alone, the changes in it are not
too great to be attributed to Matthew, and the "in spirit" is what might
be expected. 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 QMt and QLk.


(Mt v, 5; Lk vi, 21_b_)

The wording is not at all similar, μακάριοι being the only word in common.
Yet the two beatitudes sound like two versions of the same one. κλαίω is a
Lucan word, used eleven times by Luke in his Gospel, against twice by
Matthew and three times by Mark. γελάω is used twice in Luke's Gospel, and
not elsewhere in the New Testament. Both of these occurrences are in
Luke's "Sermon on the Level Place." These facts, with the context,
indicate a source in Luke's hands partly like, and partly unlike, the
source in Matthew's. The verse is therefore assigned to QMt and QLk.


(Mt v, 6; Lk vi, 21_a_)

Matthew's version is again in the third person and Luke's in the second.
Luke understands the hunger to be literal. Matthew "spiritualizes" by
adding τὴν δικαιοσύνην. Luke adds νῦν, to point the contrast between his
beatitude and the corresponding woe, which Matthew does not have. In spite
of these differences, out of ten words in Matthew's form and six in
Luke's, five words are identical (except for a deviation in personal
ending). Except for the context the verse might be assigned simply to Q;
but it is better ascribed to QMt and QLk.


(Mt v, 11-12; Lk vi, 22-23)

The verbal similarity is close only in a few places; notably in the ὁ
μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (τῷ οὐρανῷ). Out of thirty-five words
in Matthew and fifty-one in Luke, only twelve are identical. Two
considerations prevent the assignment of these verses to two totally
different sources. The first is their contiguity to so much Q material.
The second is the presence in them of two translation variants.[94] The
second of these two verses, at least, therefore goes back to two different
recensions or translations of one original Aramaic document--QMt and QLk.


(Mt v, 13; Lk xiv, 34)

This saying evidently stood in both Mark and Q. Luke follows Mark in καλὸν
οὖν τὸ ἅλα and Q in the rest of his saying. Matthew's form of the saying,
which makes it addressed to the disciples, "Ye are the salt of the earth,"
involves a much greater change than Matthew ever permits himself when he
transcribes the words of Jesus which he finds in Mark. Luke, on the other
hand, could scarcely have found the saying in his source with this
application to the disciples, and have changed it to its much less pointed
and personal form in his own Gospel. The only conclusion possible from a
comparison of Matthew and Luke here is that this saying lay in different
forms in their sources. But since it occurs in the midst of so much Q
material, it is better to assign it to different recensions of Q than to
some other unknown source.


(Mt v, 15; Lk xi, 33)

This is another saying that stood in both Mark and Q. Mark has the saying
in Mk iv, 21. His form of it is the apparently less natural one, "Does
the lamp come in order that it may be put under a bushel?" etc. Weiss
suggests[95] that it has been given this form to make it refer to the
coming of Jesus as the light of the world. Neither Matthew nor Luke has
copied this feature of Mark's saying. By his context Matthew makes the
saying refer, like the saying about salt, directly to the disciples. Luke
has the saying twice: in xi, 33 and viii, 16. In both cases his context
would indicate that he took the saying to refer to the teaching of Jesus.
Matthew says the light is to give light "to all that are in the house."
Luke does not mention the house, but implies it in his statement that
"those who are entering in see the light," this form being found in both
his reports of the saying. Mark says "under the bushel or under the bed";
Matthew, "under the bushel"; Luke once, "in a dish or under the bed," and
a second time, "in a cellar or under the bushel." 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 sources. The same idea in the
conclusion of the saying as it appears in Matthew and Luke, and their
common avoidance of the opening formula which is peculiar to Mark, would
indicate that Matthew and Luke practically forsake Mark in this saying,
and follow their other source. Luke, having a doublet for the saying, may
be assumed to have taken it once from Mark and once from his other source;
but he is evidently much more influenced by his other source than he is by
Mark. The non-Marcan source in which the saying was found by Matthew and
Luke was evidently an allied, but not an identical, one; the saying is
therefore assigned to QMt and QLk.


(Mt v, 18; Lk xvi, 17)

There are twenty-seven words in Matthew's form of this saying; fifteen in
Luke's. Only nine words show any correspondence. Matthew's "until all be
fulfilled" is held by Schmiedel[96] to be a gloss, added, not by the final
editor of Matthew, who did not care for Jewish legalism, but by an earlier
editor. Harnack maintains that it goes back to Jesus, and does not
necessarily mean that the law shall ultimately pass away. In his essay in
the _Oxford Studies_ Hawkins maintains that the section can be made "very
probable" for Q. Considering the wide divergences, the writer would add
that this probability can be established only upon the hypothesis of two
recensions of Q; upon that hypothesis it would be granted by everyone.


(Mt v, 25-26; Lk xii, 58-59)

Luke prefaces this saying with one peculiar to his Gospel: "Why do ye not,
of yourselves, judge what is right?" The close connection of this saying
with the passage here under consideration, 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 QMt and QLk.


(Mt v, 39, 40, 42, 44-48; Lk vi, 27-30, 32, 36)

It is possible to choose out of these verses here and there a few words
which, if they stood alone, would be naturally assigned simply to Q. By
regarding only the words which very closely correspond, this is
accomplished, but with the result that the other words, standing in the
same context and in closest connection, must be assigned to totally
different sources, or ascribed to the invention or alteration of one of
the evangelists. The verbal similarity thruout the section is sometimes
close, sometimes remote. Transpositions are frequent. Where Matthew has
the simile of the rain and sun, Luke has the comparatively weak words
"good to the unthankful and evil." This is a substitution that Luke
certainly would never have made for the strong words of Matthew if these
had stood in his source. The author assigns the section to the two
recensions, QMt and QLk.


(Mt vi, 9-13; Lk xi, 2-4)

This is one of the sections that point most clearly to different
recensions of Q in the hands of Matthew and Luke. It is improbable that
any collection of the sayings of Jesus should have lacked this prayer. It
is equally improbable that Luke could have had it before him in the more
elaborated form of Matthew, and have abridged it to suit himself.
Matthew's more elaborate form, on the other hand, does not sound like the
deliberate alteration of any one author, but like the accumulated
liturgical usage of the Christian community. Luke's introduction to the
prayer is certainly not his own invention, 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 it. Luke's form seems decidedly more
primary. The use in both Gospels of the strange word ἐπιούσιον seems to
carry the two traditions back to one original; but the variations are
certainly greater than can be accounted for by the literary habits of
Matthew and Luke, working upon the same original. In other words, that
original had passed thru a different history before it reached our two
evangelists. The section is assigned to QMt and QLk.


(Mt vi, 19-21; Lk xii, 33-34)

The verbal similarity is not close. Except for the proximity of other Q
material, the section might be assigned to two entirely different sources.
There is, especially, a quite different turn given to the saying in Luke,
from that which it has in Matthew, by the introduction of the words "Sell
your goods and give alms." In spite of Luke's interest in alms-giving, as
disclosed in the Book of Acts, it is hard to credit him with such a
re-wording of his text without some help from his source. But the last
twelve words in the section are identical in the two Gospels, except that
Luke uses the plural form of the pronoun where Matthew uses the singular.
Largely on account of these last twelve words the section is assigned to
QMt and QLk.


(Mt vi, 22-23; Lk xi, 34-35)

Of forty-four words in Matthew and forty in Luke, thirty-two are
identical. The divergences in the use of conjunctions (ὅταν for ἐὰν, e.g.)
and the improvement by condensation of the last sentence are such changes
as might be easily ascribed to Luke. The section may, with reasonable
assurance, be assigned merely to Q.


(Mt vi, 24; Lk xvi, 13)

There are twenty-seven words in this saying according to Matthew,
twenty-eight according to Luke. Luke appears to have been the innovator;
his addition of οἰκέτης improves the sentence in a way often accomplished
by him. With the exception of the presence of this word in Luke and its
absence in Matthew the saying is identical in the two Gospels. It is
therefore assigned simply to Q.


(Mt vi, 25-33; Lk xii, 22-31)

Considering the length of this passage, the verbal similarity is
remarkably close. Out of one hundred and sixty words in Luke and one
hundred and sixty-six in Matthew, about one hundred and fifteen are
identical. Beginning in the middle of Luke's vs. 22, and at the first of
Matthew's vs. 25, there are twenty-six words in Luke which are identical
with the same number of words arranged in identical order, in Matthew;
except that Luke has omitted (or Matthew has supplied) three words,
without affecting the meaning of the passage. Beginning with Matthew's vs.
32 and Luke's vs. 30, there are again twenty-one identical words out of
twenty-four in Luke and thirty-one in Matthew. Matthew may here easily be
credited with the addition of the words which constitute the difference;
for his ὁ οὐράνιος and his καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην are characteristic of him:
the former expression being used by him seven times and not at all by the
other evangelists; the latter, seven times by Matthew, once by Luke, and
not at all by Mark. His addition of πρῶτον in his vs. 33 has a decidedly
secondary sound. The passage may therefore be assigned simply to Q.


(Mt vii, 1-2; Lk vi, 37-38)

Between the beginning and the end of this saying, both of which are alike
in the two Gospels, Luke has an amplification of some length. It is highly
improbable that this amplification is the work of Luke, who is much more
inclined to condense than to enlarge. The Q context in both Gospels, and
the almost exact agreement of the saying, except for the enlargement in
Luke, warrant the assignment to QMt and QLk.


(Mt vii, 3-5; Lk vii, 41-42)

The verbal agreement is very close. Out of sixty-four words in Matthew and
sixty-nine in Luke fifty-six are identical, except for deviation in mode
or number. The greater condensation seems characteristic of Matthew. The
changes do not seem too great to be ascribed to the two evangelists
working on the same source, Q.


(Mt vii, 7-11; Lk xi, 9-13)

The agreement is close, except where Luke in his vs. 12 adds the item of
the egg and the scorpion which has no parallel in Matthew. In spite of the
addition of this verse in Luke, out of eighty words in his version and
seventy-three in Matthew's sixty-two are still identical. Luke's
substitution of "holy spirit" for Matthew's indefinite "good things" is
characterized by Schmiedel as a "deliberate divergence." The same phrase
would hardly describe the addition of vs. 12. According to the principle
here followed, it might seem natural to assign this verse, and so the
whole context, to Luke's recension of Q. But in the whole section, aside
from this verse, there are so few deviations, and these so easily
accounted for on the part either of Matthew or Luke, that the writer
inclines to assign the section simply to Q. Luke's vs. 12 would then be
regarded as a gloss, or an addition of Luke from some source of his own,
perhaps oral. Between this disposal of the matter and the assignment of
the entire section to QMt and QLk there is not much to choose.


(Mt vii, 12; Lk vi, 31)

The last clause of Matthew may be his own addition, or perhaps a formula
common among the Christians. It may have been a gloss, or may have been
found by Matthew in his recension of Q. At all events, it is not like
Matthew to have added it himself; his tendency toward condensation is too
well known. Except for this addition the section is sufficiently alike in
the two Gospels to admit its assignment simply to Q.


(Mt vii, 13-14; Lk xiii, 23-24)

With much resemblance in meaning there is here very little similarity in
wording. Luke's saying is much briefer, and is introduced by a question
addressed to Jesus. 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 abstract. One can hardly speak with any assurance; but considering
the difference of setting, the fact that in Luke the verses we are here
considering are part of a considerably longer speech, and the slight
verbal resemblances, it may be best to assign Matthew's version to Q, and
Luke's to some source of his own, whether oral or written. If assignment
to QMt and QLk is not impossible, it is certainly difficult.


(Mt vii, 16-18; Lk vi, 43-44)

For this saying Matthew has a doublet in xii, 33-35. Mt vii, 20, is also
an exact reproduction of vii, 16, with the particle ἄραγε prefixed. If
Matthew found this saying in two of his sources, it is impossible to say
what the second of these was, for it apparently was not Mark. In Matthew's
second report of the same saying he has used the words "generation of
vipers," which he has in iii, 7, ascribed to John the Baptist. The fact
that both speeches in which the phrase occurs have to do with trees, and
the fact of the repetition, not only of the saying twice in Matthew, but
of the same sentence twice in one report, may perhaps indicate that
Matthew found the saying only in his version of Q, and is himself
responsible for the repetition. Or the saying may have been recorded twice
in Matthew's version of Q, with the variations shown in Matthew's two
citations of it. Upon either hypothesis the form of Mt xii, 35, is much
nearer to Lk vi, 45, than is Mt vii, 19-20, or vss. 16-18. The writer
assigns the section to QMt and QLk.


(Mt vii, 21-23; Lk vi, 46; xiii, 26-27)

Of the first of these three verses in each Gospel, Harnack says it is
"perhaps not derived from Q." 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 Luke. 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 second, a reminiscence of the same source may
be found in the fact that κύριε is used by Matthew in the vocative, where
a more strict construction would require the accusative. The last two
verses of the section Matthew has combined with the first, whereas in Luke
the context for them is quite different. Thru all three verses Luke seems
to have the more primary form. Not only the second person of the verbs,
and the direct address of Jesus to the crowd, but the words, "we have
eaten and drunk in thy presence and thou hast taught in our streets" have
an original sound, whereas Matthew's form, "Many shall say to me in that
day, Lord, we have preached in thy name and in thy name have cast out
demons," would seem rather to come from a time when many men had been
preaching in the name of Jesus. Harnack says that the two sayings are
"quite independent," but that there is "a common source in the
background." This common source in the background might be the
undifferentiated Q, and the immediate sources might be the two recensions
of that document. The general character of the sayings, and the context,
would encourage such an assignment. Since here as in many other places the
version of Matthew seems to indicate adaptation to a later time, but since
the Gospel of Matthew cannot be shown to be later than the Gospel of Luke,
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 hands. The writer therefore
assigns the section to QMt and QLk, 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 source.


(Mt vii, 24-27; Lk vi, 47-49)

Comparison of these sections shows a much slighter verbal agreement
between them than might have been expected from their general agreement in
idea. Even in idea the agreement is not extremely close. Matthew's two
houses are built, respectively, upon the rock and the sand; Luke's are
built, respectively, with and without a foundation, irrespective of the
soil. If Matthew's version be here regarded as the more primary, as is
warranted by the fact of its greater simplicity (Matthew seems here also
to be nearer to the Aramaic, as indicated by his recurrent use of καὶ at
the beginning of a sentence), the reinterpretation and consequent
re-wording shown in Luke's version are altogether too great to be ascribed
to the hand of Luke himself, working upon a source identical with
Matthew's version. Let anyone compare Luke's treatment of the sayings of
Jesus in Mark with the treatment of this saying, which would be required
upon the hypothesis of an identical source before him and Matthew, and he
will feel that that hypothesis cannot be maintained. And yet, in addition
to the general similarity in the sections, there is one other thing that
argues strongly for their inclusion in some form of Q, viz., their
position, as conclusions, respectively, to the Sermon on the Mount, and
the Sermon on the Plain. The writer therefore ascribes them to QMt and


(Mt viii, 5-10; Lk vii, 1-9)

This is the one narrative section almost universally assigned to Q. But in
the first part of the story there is wide divergence. Matthew says the
centurion himself came to Jesus. Luke not only says he did not come, but
explains why he sent messengers instead of coming himself. Burton alleges
that Matthew's omission of the item of the messengers is characteristic of
him, with his tendency to condensation. But that the messengers were not
in the original story, but were added by Luke (or his source) and not
omitted by Matthew, is plain from the fact that the conversation, even in
Luke, is based upon the supposition that the centurion had made his
request in person. In Luke's vss. 3-6, which contain the account of the
sending of the messengers, there are at least five Lucan words ἔντιμος,
παραγενόμενοι, σπουδαίως, μακρὰν, ἀπέχοντος). These occur in the portion
of the story unparalleled in Matthew. But there are also three such Lucan
words in the two following verses, where the story of Luke runs quite
closely parallel to that of Matthew (διὸ, ἠξίωσα, τασσόμενος). The
changing of a detail, even an important detail, in the narrative part of
such a section, especially when contrasted with general faithfulness to
the source in that part containing the words of Jesus, would be
characteristic of Luke. The humility and faith of the centurion are much
enhanced by the change. Yet, as Jülicher remarks, Luke probably did not
invent this item of his story; he may have imported it from an oral
tradition, following Q in the remainder of the story. Even the presence of
the "Lucan" words would not prove the Lucan invention of the sending of
the messengers, since these words may have come from Luke's special source
for this item and not from himself, tho this latter supposition would tell
against the assumption that this special source was an oral one. Of these
Lucan words, ἔντιμος is used a second time by Luke (xiv, 8) in a passage
not paralleled in Matthew; it is not used by him in Acts. Παραγενόμενοι
is used once by Mark, three times by Matthew, eight times by Luke in his
Gospel, and twenty times in the Book of Acts. Σπουδαίως is found here only
in the Gospels, and not in Acts. Μακράν is used once by Matthew, once by
Mark, twice by Luke in his Gospel, and three times in Acts. Ἀπέχοντες (in
the intransitive sense) occurs twice in Matthew, once in Mark, three times
in Luke's Gospel, and not in Acts. Διὸ occurs once in Mark, once in
Matthew, twice in Luke's Gospel, and eight times in Acts. Ἀξιόω is found
in Luke only among the Gospels, and twice in Acts. Τάσσω is found in some
texts of Matthew in this passage, but has probably been assimilated from
Luke. It is found in one other passage in Matthew, in this passage in
Luke, not in Mark, and five times in Acts. These facts cannot be said to
throw much light on whether Luke is here to be charged with the verses in
which these words occur, or whether they may have stood in his source. But
considering the extremely close agreement between Luke's vss. 7_b_-9 and
Matthew's vss. 8_b_-10 (note especially the εἰπὲ λόγῳ, unparalleled
elsewhere), the best conclusion may be that the story stood in Q, much as
it now stands in Matthew, and that Luke, perhaps having heard this other
version of the story, has himself altered the narrative part of it.


(Mt viii, 11-12; Lk xiii, 28-29)

In Matthew these words are interpolated into the story of the centurion's
son; in Luke they occur as part of an eschatological speech. They seem
better in place with Luke than with Matthew. The sentence "There shall be
weeping," etc., is transposed by one evangelist or the other; as it is
used in five other places by Matthew, and as he has probably imported
into the story of the centurion the verses in which it occurs, it is
probable that the transposition is due to him. There is sufficient
divergence in wording between Matthew and Luke to warrant the assignment
of the verses to QMt and QLk.


(Mt viii, 19-22; Lk ix, 57-60)

To these two sayings Matthew and Luke supply respectively their own
introductions. In the first saying, after the introduction, thirty-one
consecutive words are identical, except for Luke's substitution of εἶπεν
for the original λέγει which still appears in Matthew. In the second
saying, after the introduction, the verbal resemblance is close, tho not
so close as in the first saying. The second half of Luke's vs. 60 has a
late sound, and may be attributed either to Luke or his copy of Q. But the
resemblance thruout is close enough to warrant the assignment of the
section simply to Q.


(Mt ix, 37-38; Lk x, 2)

This saying occurs in Matthew's sending out of the twelve and in Luke's
sending out of the seventy. Twenty-one consecutive words are identical
except for the transposition of two words. It is assigned to Q.


(Mt x, 10_c_; Lk x, 7_b_)

Mark and Q both contained accounts of the sending out of the disciples.
This is one of the fragments preserved from Q by Matthew and Luke, but not
found in Mark. It is identical except for the substitution of μισθοῦ for
τροφῆς. The change may be attributed to Luke or his recension of Q; in
this case the change is so slight as to be easily chargeable to Luke; 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
wage. It stood in Q.


(Mt x, 11-13; Lk x, 5-8)

This is one of the best illustrations of the advantages of the hypothesis
of the two recensions of Q. Matthew says "greet the house." Luke preserves
the Aramaic form of that greeting, which was "Peace to this house." But
that this, and not Matthew's indefinite form, was what stood in the
original Q is shown by the fact that Matthew adds, "If the house is
worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is unworthy, let your peace
return to you."[97] Luke has here the phrase "son of peace," similar to
the phrases elsewhere found in his Gospel, "sons of light," "sons of
consolation," "sons of this generation," "sons of the resurrection." These
phrases have an Aramaic sound which we should expect to encounter in
almost any of the Gospels sooner than in Luke's. He certainly never would
have invented them. The translation variants stamp the section as
belonging to QMt and QLk.


(Mt x, 15; Lk x, 12)

The variations are slight. Ἀμὴν might be taken to indicate QMt, but it
might also easily have been omitted by Luke because of its Aramaic tone.
The section may be safely ascribed to Q.


(Mt x, 16_a_; Lk x, 3)

Luke substitutes ἄρνας for Matthew's πρόβατα, thus heightening the
contrast. It may be assigned to Q.


(Mt x, 19-20; Lk xii, 11-12)

Although there is general similarity in idea, there is very little verbal
resemblance here, perhaps not enough to warrant assignment to any common
source, even in differing recensions. Yet the proximity of other Q
material in both Gospels and the general character of the verses will
perhaps make assignment to QMt and QLk more reasonable than any other.


(Mt x, 24-25; Lk vi, 40)

The agreement here is close for a part of the saying; but Matthew adds a
clause about the servant and his lord, and a reference to the Beelzebul
controversy. Whether attributed to Luke or his source, his addition of
κατηρτισμένος may indicate the feeling that the statement as to the
equality of the disciple and his teacher required some qualification. This
would be more strongly felt, however, if Luke had preserved the word
κύριος, which would refer more unmistakably to Jesus. In Luke this section
occurs in the Sermon on the Plain; since Matthew has put much material in
his corresponding Sermon on the Mount which is not in Luke's Sermon on the
Plain, even when he has had to bring this from many other connections, it
is strange that he has left out of that sermon this saying, which stands
in the corresponding discourse in Luke. This is one of the phenomena
difficult of explanation upon the simple hypothesis of Q; since upon that
hypothesis Matthew should have found this saying in the same connection as
that in which Luke found it, and why, so finding it, he not only took
pains to add so much to it, but to transpose it upon the opposite
principle to that which he has followed in the transposition of most other
Q material, is not easy to explain. On these grounds the saying is
ascribed to QMt and QLk.


(Mt x, 26-33; Lk xii, 2-9)

The agreements and variations in this section are precisely such as to
indicate an ultimate common source, but immediate different sources. In
Matthew's vs. 27 and Luke's vs. 3, with many of the same words retained,
the meaning is directly reversed. On the other hand,φοβεῖσθε (φοβηθῆτε)
with ἀπὸ is found here only in the New Testament, and not at all in the
Septuagint. Unless this be ascribed to assimilation, it is a coincidence
too marked to be explained except by the supposition of an ultimate common
source. The same thing is to be said of the phrase ὁμολογήσει ἐν in
Matthew's vs. 32 and Luke's vs. 8. Yet in the midst of the section there
is a passage of twenty or twenty-five words in which there is practically
no verbal coincidence, tho the idea is the same. Luke substitutes "have
not anything else that they can do," for Matthew's phrase "can not kill
the soul"; it has been suggested that this latter was not congenial to
Luke's Greek method of thot. Where Matthew mentions the price of sparrows
as "two for a farthing," Luke specifies it as "five for two farthings."
The section contains no narrative matter. A comparison of the deviations
between Matthew and Luke here, with their agreements with each other in
sections where they are taking over the discourse material of Jesus from
Mark, will show that these deviations are decidedly too great to be
ascribed to the agency of either Matthew or Luke. The passage is therefore
assigned to QMt and QLk.


(Mt x, 34-36; Lk xii, 51-53)

Luke's version seems more elaborated and less original than Matthew's.
Luke certainly would not have substituted the comparatively colorless word
διαμερισμόν for μάχαιραν if this latter had stood in his source. Without
the hypothesis of the two recensions this section would have to be
assigned to totally different, perhaps oral, sources. διαμερίζω is used
once by Mark, and Matthew and Luke have both copied it from him in that
connection. Neither Matthew nor Mark uses the word again; Luke uses it in
five other places in his Gospel, including the section now under
consideration. As he uses it but twice in Acts, it seems more likely to
have been found in his source than to have been here inserted by him. This
would tell strongly against the supposition that Matthew and Luke are here
working over an identical source; in other words, it would remove this
section from simple undifferentiated Q. Only the general character of the
material, its close resemblance in meaning in the two Gospels, and its
proximity in each Gospel to other Q material, can justify its assignment
to QMt and QLk--and then, even, with uncertainty.


(Mt x, 37-39; Lk xiv, 26-27; xvii, 33)

Luke's statement is much stronger, and so presumably older, than
Matthew's. Wellhausen says Matthew has been "refined out of Luke." In
Matthew, the two sayings about taking up the cross, and about finding and
losing one's life, follow each other; in Luke, at this place, they are
separated by more than three chapters. But both Matthew and Luke give both
of these sayings a second time, and the second time the two sayings are
continuous in both, as they also are in Mark, from whom they are taken.
The facts seem therefore to have been that Matthew and Luke each took both
of these sayings from two sources; that in Mark the two sayings occurred
together; that in Luke's recension of Q (at least), they were separated;
that they were probably separated in Matthew's Q also, but he has combined
them according to his habit, helped here by the recollection of the
continuity of the two sayings in Mark. The substitution of "who seeks to
find his soul" for the simpler form "who finds his soul" might easily be
ascribed to Luke; it is in the interest of logicality. But it is quite
unlike Luke to have added from oral tradition, or to have inserted from
any other written source, so much matter of his own as is found in his vs.
26. The section is therefore assigned to QMt and QLk.


(Mt x, 40; Lk x, 16)

Luke has a doublet for this saying in Lk ix, 48, where the form is
slightly more like Matthew's than at this point; but ix, 48, appears to be
taken from Mark, with reminiscence of Q. The saying is also given twice in
the Fourth Gospel, and with the saying just considered constitutes the
total of sayings occurring in all four Gospels. Luke has taken the saying
once from Mark and once from Q. Considering Matthew's partiality to
doublets, the fact that he has the saying only once might be taken to
indicate its absence from his recension of Q. The saying may therefore be
assigned to QLk.


(Mt xi, 2-19; Lk vii, 18-35)

With the exception of the introduction in Luke, this long section may
safely be assigned to Q. The preceding narrative in Matthew has supplied a
warrant for the statement of Jesus about his healings; Luke, not having
led up to the conversation by a similar narrative, inserts the statement
here that "in that hour he healed many sick," etc. After the
introductions, the verbal resemblance is extremely close, considering the
length of the section. Of one hundred and ninety-nine words in Matthew and
two hundred and three in Luke, about one hundred and sixty-eight are


(Mt xi, 20-24; Lk x, 13-15)

This section is practically identical in both Gospels, except for
Matthew's vs. 24 and the last half of vs. 23, which have no parallel in
Luke. They are an elaboration upon the words that precede them, and may be
ascribed to Matthew or an editor. The section may be assigned to Q.


(Mt xi, 25-27; Lk x, 21-22)

The introduction, again, has been supplied by each evangelist, tho it is
not impossible that the introduction given in Matthew may have been taken
from Q. After the introductions, twenty-nine consecutive words are
identical. Again, after Luke's insertion of a few transitional words, the
saying, "All things are given to me of my Father," runs almost, tho not
quite, word for word in the two Gospels. The connecting words in Luke
would seem to indicate that these two sayings were not consecutive in Q.
It is not necessary to have recourse to the recensions here.


(Mt xii, 27-28; Lk xi, 19-20)

These verses occur in the midst of a narrative which Matthew and Luke have
taken from Mark. Mark has no parallel for these verses, and the
resemblance in Matthew and Luke is very close; the saying is in fact
identical except for Luke's use of δακτύλῳ for Matthew's πνεύματι. The
fact that in the succeeding verses Matthew follows Mark practically word
for word, while Luke has a version entirely his own, may perhaps indicate
that the narrative stood in both Mark and Q, Matthew having followed Mark
thruout, except for the verses here considered, and Luke having followed
chiefly Q, with an occasional deference to Mark. It may safely be assigned
to Q.


(Mt xii, 30; Lk xi, 23)

A statement the exact reverse of this occurs in Mk ix, 40, in a different
context. The words here are identical in the two Gospels, the order also
being the same. It stood in Q.


(Mt xii, 38-42; Lk xi, 29-32)

Each evangelist has supplied his own introduction. Matthew's vs. 40 is
probably an interpolation, or at least a late addition. Beginning with
Matthew's vs. 41 and Luke's vs. 32 (the order of Luke's verses has been
reversed, perhaps by error of a scribe, since no motive appears for the
change), there are fifty-three words in Matthew, fifty-five in Luke, and
fifty-three of them are identical. The verses are therefore universally
assigned to Q.


(Mt xii, 43-45; Lk xi, 24-26)

The correspondence here also is very close; out of sixty-two words in
Matthew and fifty-five in Luke, fifty-four are identical. Matthew's
surplus of eight words is accounted for by the addition of a clause not
found in Luke, and probably a later addition in Matthew; it does not
disturb the practical identity thruout the rest of the saying. It
evidently stood in Q.


(Mt xiii, 16-17; Lk x, 23-24)

Luke has supplied his own introduction. Matthew has, as parallel to "the
eyes that see," "the ears that hear." This may be a later addition in
Matthew; or Luke, not caring so much for the Aramaic parallelism as
Matthew does, may have omitted it. Luke has "kings" where Matthew has
"righteous men"; δίκαιος is a favorite word with Matthew; on the other
hand, Luke's use of "kings" may indicate an apologetic intention upon
Luke's part. The saying may be assigned to Q, and the variations charged
jointly to Matthew and Luke.


(Mt xiii, 33; Lk xiii, 20-21)

The introductions in the two Gospels are slightly different. After these,
fourteen consecutive words are alike, the only deviation being Matthew's
use (as always) of τῶν οὐρανῶν where Luke has τοῦ θεοῦ. The parable stood
in Q.


(Mt xv, 14; Lk vi, 39)

This is another instance of a saying which occurs in Luke's Sermon on the
Plain but outside of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. Matthew has apparently
inserted it in the midst of a discourse against the Pharisees, the rest of
which he has taken from Mark. The sayings in Matthew and Luke are not
identical. If the saying stood in Q, and Matthew removed it from its Lucan
connection to its present position in his Gospel, this was certainly a
very unusual procedure with him. The saying is given as a "parable" in
Luke, and has the brevity of the parables that were given in Q, tho not
their usual reference to the kingdom of God. It is hard to think of
Matthew, with his fondness for these brief parables, deliberately omitting
to call the saying by this name when it was so called in his source. On
the whole, however, it seems best to assign the saying to Q, and to charge
Matthew with its displacement.


(Mt xvii, 20; Lk xvii, 6)

The parallel here is not close. But Matthew has a doublet in xxi, 21, and
Mark a similar saying in xi, 22. The saying seems therefore to have been
in both Mark and Q, and was taken by Matthew from both sources and by Luke
from one. The connection of the saying in Luke indicates that he took it
from Q; yet his saying is not the same as Matthew's, in that he
substitutes a sycamore tree for Matthew's mountain, thus greatly weakening
the comparison. The two sayings certainly cannot have been derived by
Matthew and Luke from an identical source. It is only on the ground of
their general logian character that they can be assigned to QMt and QLk.


(Mt xviii, 7; Lk xvii, 1)

The comparison here is complicated by the fact that this saying apparently
stood in both Mark and Q. It is closely, but in reverse order by the two
later evangelists, connected with a saying taken from Mark. It may be
assigned to Q.


(Mt xviii, 12-14; Lk xv, 4-7)

There seems here to be little or no literary relationship. The two
passages appear to be rather different versions of the same parable, which
have come down thru different channels. If it be assumed that Matthew's
version is from Q, there is not enough literary agreement between it and
Luke's to prove the latter to be from any recension of that document.
Considering the larger content of Matthew's recension, and his apparently
greater unwillingness to make omissions from it, it might be safe to
assign this to QMt, but to leave Luke's source for his version
unspecified. At the same time it is well to remember that the parables
stand apparently half-way between the narratives and the sayings, as
regards the willingness of the evangelists to deviate from the wording
found before them. If enough may be allowed for this difference between
parables and sayings, 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 Luke, working on different recensions of an original
Q; and so the passage might be assigned to QMt and QLk--but certainly not
with any confidence.


(Mt xviii, 21-22; Lk xvii, 4)

These might be considered merely as variants of the same original saying.
If the reference to Peter be taken, like some of the other references to
him in Matthew, to be later than the saying itself, the insertion of this
reference in Matthew, whether by Matthew or his source, may have changed
the form of the saying from its original as preserved in Luke. But the
very slight verbal agreement makes any specification of a common literary
source hazardous.


(Mt xix, 28; Lk xxii, 28-30)

The first part of this section varies greatly between Matthew and Luke;
with strong similarity in idea, there is practically no verbal agreement.
The last ten words are almost identical. Matthew inserts the section into
a speech the rest of which is taken from Mark. Luke takes the same speech
from Mark, without making this insertion. The verses occur with him in
quite another context. His vs. 30_a_ is more primary than anything in
Matthew's version. The first part of the section contains too little
agreement to have been worked out of an identical source; the last part
agrees so closely as to indicate an ultimate common source. We therefore
assign the section to QMt and QLk.


(Mt xxiii, 4; Lk xi, 46)

The agreement is slight, but somewhat significant. φορτίον is used only
thrice in the New Testament outside of this passage. This is the chief
linguistic warrant for assigning the passage to QMt and QLk.


(Mt xxiii, 12; Lk xiv, 11)

This proverbial saying is used by Luke in this instance as the conclusion
of a speech about taking the chief seats at a feast. He also uses it in
xviii, 14, as the conclusion to his parable of the Publican and the
Pharisee in the temple. Matthew also uses it in two very different
contexts; here as part of a speech against the Pharisees, and in xviii, 4,
with reference to a child as type of true greatness. Considering these
various usages, the brevity of the saying, and its apparently proverbial
character, it can scarcely be assigned to any form of Q, tho it certainly
cannot be proved not to have been in that document.


(Mt xxiii, 13; Lk xi, 52)

It is possible to regard these rather as variants of the same saying than
as workings over of the same source. Even in the divergences, however,
some striking resemblances are to be noted. Matthew says κλείετε τὴν
βασιλείαν; Luke says ἤρατε τὴν κλεῖδα. These words seem to betray a common
literary source in the background. The idea conveyed by the two phrases is
the same. Matthew says, "Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven before men";
Luke says, "Ye take away the key of knowledge" (of salvation, probably, as
in Lk i, 77). The last part of the saying is still more unmistakably based
upon an ultimate common source. Yet, as I have so often argued with
reference to other and similar sections, to ascribe to either Matthew or
Luke, working upon an identical source, the amount of re-working here
involved, 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 Mark. We therefore assign the section to
QMt and QLk. But such assignment cannot be insisted upon.


(Mt xxiii, 23-26; Lk xi, 39-42)

There is thruout this section a varying degree of verbal agreement. The
sections are very differently placed, Matthew putting them among the
Jerusalem sayings, Luke early in the ministry. What is conclusive evidence
for some form of Q, indeed for the two recensions, is the translation
variant in vss. 26 and 41.[98] The section is thus not merely assigned,
but we may say is demonstrated to belong, to QMt and QLk.


(Mt xxiii, 29-31; Lk xi, 47-48)

There is so little verbal agreement here as to raise the question whether
we have not merely two different traditions of the same saying. What
inclines us to cling to the assignment to QMt and QLk 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 section. The verses are assigned to Q by all five of the
investigators quoted at the beginning of this chapter. 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
recensions. For upon the basis of their treatment of other passages, both
from Q and from Mark, the divergences in this passage are altogether too
great to be assigned directly to Matthew or Luke.


(Mt xxiii, 34-36; Lk xi, 49-51)

The assignment of this section to simple Q, and the ascription of all
divergences to one or the other of the evangelists, would be easier if it
could be shown that either evangelist shows a uniform tendency in the
divergences. But such is not the case. Luke seems more primary, and nearer
to the source, when he quotes the words of the passage from "The Wisdom of
God"; for no evangelist, finding the words ascribed to Jesus in his
source, would take them away from him and ascribe them to anyone else. But
Matthew, or his source, may merely have interpreted the words "The Wisdom
of God" to refer to Jesus. Luke is later than Matthew, where he
substitutes "apostles" for Matthew's "scribes"; but Matthew is secondary
to Luke where he has σταυρώσετε, in apparent reminiscence of the death of
Jesus. He is also secondary in his vs. 34, which seems to reflect the
persecutions of the Christians. But Luke again is secondary in omitting
Matthew's mistaken identification of Zachariah as the son of Barachiah.
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 other. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς and ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου may be
translation variants. Careful comparison of the verbal similarities
indicates unmistakably a common literary source lying in the background;
but a source much worked over before reaching Matthew and Luke.


(Mt xxiii, 37-39; Lk xiii, 34-35)

Tho placed so differently by Matthew and Luke, this section has the
greatest verbal agreement. Out of fifty-six words in Matthew and
fifty-three in Luke, fifty are identical. Luke omits the repetition of one
verb, omits "desolate" and substitutes two particles of his own for four
of Matthew's. Harnack's explanation of Luke's omission of "desolate"[99]
on the ground that the meaning is the same without it does not seem
conclusive. It is better to assume that it was added by Matthew in
deference to Jer xxii, 5. The wording of the section shows so little
deviation between the two Gospels that it may be assigned simply to Q.


(Mt xxiv, 26-27; Lk xvii, 23-24)

There is slight verbal resemblance here, but enough to indicate
unmistakably a literary relationship. QMt and QLk are much more likely
than simple Q.


(Mt xxiv, 28; Lk xvii, 37)

In Matthew, but not in Luke, these words form the conclusion to the words
just considered. The substitution of σῶμα for πτῶμα sounds like an oral
variation; but it may be Luke's way of avoiding a word which he nowhere
uses. The wording is otherwise so close as to warrant assignment to simple


(Mt xxiv, 37-39; Lk xvii, 26-27)

Luke, or his recension of Q, says here, as elsewhere, "the days of the Son
of man," where Matthew says "the parousia of the Son of man." The reason
for this deviation is not obvious, unless the variation was in the source.
We therefore assign the passage to the two recensions.


(Mt xxiv, 40-41; Lk xvii, 34-35)

In Matthew, but not in Luke, these words are immediately connected with
those just discussed. Luke, or his source, wishes to indicate that the
parousia may be in the night, and so adds the words νυκτὶ and κλίνης. But
the arrangement of the verses is in the same order in both Gospels, and
there is strong similarity, especially in vss. 41 and 35. We consider
assignment to QMt and QLk to account most nearly for all the facts.


(Mt xxiv, 43-44; Lk xii, 39-40)

The verbal coincidence here is great. The last fourteen words are exactly
alike in both Gospels, even to their order. It should be assigned to
simple Q.


(Mt xxiv, 45-51; Lk xii, 42-46)

The connection of these sections with the one just considered is the same
in both Gospels. The verbal agreement is equally striking. Out of one
hundred and ten words in Matthew and one hundred and two in Luke,
eighty-two are identical; twenty-six of these occur consecutively and with
no deviation in order. The section may be assigned to Q.


This investigation yields about one hundred and ninety Q verses (in some
instances only parts of verses) in Matthew, paralleled by about one
hundred and eighty Q verses in Luke. The difference in the number of
verses has no significance, being due chiefly to the verses not being
similarly divided in the two Gospels. Of this total, ninety-eight in
Matthew and ninety-four in Luke are ascribed simply to Q. This does not
mean, as has been said before, that Matthew and Luke both had a document
Q, and in addition Matthew had a document QMt and Luke another document
QLk; but merely that Matthew and Luke had two recensions of Q, each of
which had passed thru a history of its own, and had become in many ways
differentiated from the other; and that in certain parts of each recension
such differentiation had not occurred, so that these sections of the two
recensions may still be referred to under the symbol Q. Of the two
recensions, therefore, so far as these reappear in parallels in Matthew
and Luke, 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 evangelists.

If it be asked, 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 sources, and restrict Q to the sections which are
practically identical in the two Gospels--the answer is: this material in
the two gospels seems to betray not merely an oral but a literary
affinity; it is of the same general character as that which is assigned
directly to Q; and almost without exception, in one gospel or the other or
in both, it is inextricably mingled with this.

Thruout this discussion the distinction between narrative material and
sayings-material, and the difference in treatment accorded to these two
kinds of material by Matthew and Luke, must be constantly borne in mind.
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 define. But Sir John Hawkins is surely wrong when he says[100]
that Matthew and Luke need not be expected to adhere more closely to Q
than they do to Mark. For in the sayings of Jesus which they find in Mark,
Matthew and Luke do generally adhere very closely. It is in the narrative
portions of Mark that they permit themselves liberties. But there is
little or no narrative in Q; the only certain instance of narrative being
that of the healing of the centurion's son; and in this instance it is
significant that the deviations between Matthew and Luke are in the
narrative and not in the logian portions. Speaking of each document as a
whole, it should be clear that Q would be followed with very much greater
fidelity than Mark by both Matthew and Luke.

Now the translation variants are proof positive of two Greek translations
of the original Aramaic Q, these two translations having been made from
two texts of the original which betray some divergences or corruptions.
Tho these two Greek translations were thus made from two Aramaic copies,
nevertheless in about half of the matter which Matthew and Luke agree in
taking from these translations no substantial differences had crept in;
but half, also, shows deviations too great to be ascribed to Matthew and
Luke. If all the matter common to Matthew and Luke were identical, or
nearly so, no need would arise for QMt and QLk. If it were all as
dissimilar as half of it is, no place would be left for Q of any sort.
The distinction between Matthew's and Luke's recensions of Q best accounts
alike for the agreements and the divergences.

In the preceding examination the number of Q (including QMt and QLk)
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
(pp. 110-11 and 116-17). This agreement merely indicates that Harnack and
Hawkins have confined their Q material pretty closely to the sections
which show the greatest verbal agreement. 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 themselves, and that they have hampered themselves by not
taking advantage of the fact of the recensions, as guaranteed to us by the
translation variants.



Thus far, examination has been made of only such material as is somewhat
closely duplicated in Matthew and Luke. Examination will now be made of
the sayings that are found in Matthew, unduplicated in Luke, to see
whether any of these may also be assigned, with any great probability, to
Q. In this unduplicated material no data are at hand for distinguishing
QMt from simple Q; but since QMt is the symbol for the copy of Q used by
Matthew, that symbol will be employed here instead of Q.

The criteria for distinguishing Q material in Matthew unduplicated by Luke
are the general character of the material, chiefly its eschatological use
of the phrase "the kingdom of heaven," its Jewish coloring, its antipathy
to the Pharisees, the absence of indications of Matthean invention, and
the proximity to and connection with other material heretofore attributed
to Q or QMt. This last item is not so important in Matthew, on account of
his habit of transposing his Q material; yet within limits it is a
valuable criterion.

Examination will be made of all passages in which there is reason to
suspect the possible presence of Q material. This having been done in the
case of the Gospel of Matthew, a similar examination will be made of the
Gospel of Luke. The results of these two examinations will give us data
for the comparison of Q as used by Matthew and Q as used by Luke. We shall
then be able to say whether the differences between what we have called
QMt and what we have called QLk are too great for the assumption that they
are different recensions of the same ground-document. Matter already
assigned to Q (or QMt or QLk) will not be examined again. As the sayings
reported in each Gospel are examined, in cases where the material is
rejected from QMt or QLk, suggestions will be made as to possible or
probable sources.


(Mt v, 4-5)

Many manuscripts invert the order of these beatitudes. Vs. 4_a_ is a
quotation from Ps xxxvii, 11. Vs. 5 sounds like a reminiscence of Ps
cxxvi, 5, and Isa lxi, 2. The tendency to apply prophecy to Jesus is
especially strong in Matthew; but whether this should be charged to him or
his source remains to be determined. The [Hebrew] of the Hebrew, or the
ἔχρισεν of the Greek, of Isa lxi, 1, would forcibly suggest such
application in this case. Of the Judaistic and the universalistic
tendencies found side by side in Matthew it is probable that the Judaistic
are earlier, and therefore that they belonged in the source; the
universalistic, naturally assumed to be later, will be more easily
attributed to Matthew. Aside from this it is hardly to be assumed that
Matthew invented any beatitudes on his own account. From both these
considerations it is reasonable to conclude that these two beatitudes were
added to Q before it reached Matthew.


(Mt v, 7-10)

For vs. 7 there is no close Old Testament exemplar, tho Joel ii, 13, has
been suggested. The suggestion is the more plausible since the same verse
would also have served as an indirect source of the next beatitude in vs.
8. There is no reason for crediting Matthew with the manufacture of either
of these beatitudes. Vs. 8 may be reminiscent of Ps xxiv, 4; li, 10;
lxxiii, 1, as well as of the verse in Joel. "They shall see God" is
probably used here in an eschatological sense. An expression combining the
ideas and in part the wording of vss. 8 and 9 is found in Heb xii, 14:
Εἰρήνην διώκετε ... οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὸν κύριον. If this is not a
reminiscence of these beatitudes in Matthew, it at least embodies a
similar tradition. The δικαιοσύνης of vs. 10 is peculiar to Matthew among
the Gospels. From its Judaistic coloring it is to be ascribed to Matthew's
Q rather than to the evangelist himself. If I Peter iii, 14, be allowed to
be a direct reference to this beatitude, this will heighten the
probability that all these beatitudes were added to Q before its use by
Matthew. It is not impossible that Matthew found in Q only the beatitudes
now standing in Luke, and that he added these others (also making
correction in those now duplicated in Luke), not inventing these himself,
but possibly taking them from an oral tradition, or from a separate
written source. But this theory seems to the writer to be much more
complicated and less probable than the one here advocated. It is quite out
of the question that Luke should have found these six beatitudes in his Q
and should have omitted them. Yet the beatitudes common to Matthew and
Luke are by all scholars attributed to Q. Harnack is undoubtedly correct
in saying, "The beatitudes certainly circulated in various recensions from
the beginning."[101] The process of alteration and accretion would begin
long before the days of Matthew.


(Mt v, 14)

In the Johannine tradition this saying has become "I am the light of the
world." Like the saying, "Ye are the salt of the earth" (in Mt v, 13), it
emphasizes, as against Luke's version, the direct address of the
beatitudes and the conjoined sayings to the disciples. It probably stood
in Matthew's Q.


(Mt v, 16)

The intervening vs. 15 is found in Luke. With that verse omitted, the
connection between vss. 14 and 16 is improved. I Peter ii, 12, is a
reminiscence, or almost a direct quotation, of vs. 16. Of vss. 13_a_, 14,
and 16 it should be observed that, while they are unduplicated in Luke,
they change the character of all the words in their context from the
character which those words have, so far as they are duplicated, in Luke;
for they make of them no longer general remarks, but words of extremely
earnest exhortation addressed directly to the disciples. It is extremely
unlikely that Matthew should have found the sayings in Q as mere general
remarks, and should himself have given them this character of pointed
exhortation by inserting the words, "Ye are the salt of the earth," "Ye
are the light of the world," etc. But it is equally improbable that Luke
should have found these pointed words in his recension of Q, and should by
their omission have degraded the sayings to the rank of mere general
observations. The best way to save these sayings for Q is by the
hypothesis of the recensions.


(Mt v, 17, 19-24, 27-28)

Concerning the section v, 17-48, Hawkins says, "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 Gospel."[102] Yet it is
to be noted that in the section of which Hawkins makes this statement
there are eleven verses (vss. 18, 25, 26, 32, 39, 40, 42, 44-47) which are
not "found in a single Gospel," but which have very close parallels in
Luke, and would on this latter consideration be assigned to Q. This fact
heightens the probability that the unduplicated verses should also be
assigned to some form of that document. Only those verses are considered
here which have no parallel in Luke.

Thruout these verses there is a strong Judaistic coloring. They may be
compared in this respect with such other New Testament passages as Rom
iii, 31; x, 4; Jas ii, 10; II Pet ii, 14. The words, "till heaven and
earth pass away" at the beginning of vs. 18 do not quite agree with the
words "until all things be fulfilled" at the end of the verse; the latter
words have been suggested by Schmiedel as being a gloss. If, with the two
verses that follow them, they be not such a gloss, they are, says
Schmiedel,[103] not from the final editor, who does not care for Jewish
legalism, but from some earlier editor. In other words, universally
attributed as the section is to Q, these words were not in Luke's version
of that document, and it is inconceivable that Matthew should have added
them. They are part of the accretion that took place in Matthew's
recension of Q before it reached Matthew. Harnack, however, maintains
that there is no inconsistency in attributing the words to Jesus himself.
Vs. 20 illustrates the unchronological placing of the sayings, since it
implies that the break with the pharisees has already occurred. In vss. 21
and 22 is the word ἔνοχος, occurring four times; Matthew uses it in one
other passage where he has taken it from Mark, who uses it twice; but Luke
consistently avoids it, both in his Gospel and in Acts. Unchronological in
their setting are also the words in vss. 23-24; they were evidently spoken
in Jerusalem, not in Galilee. They would not have been added from an oral
tradition, much less invented, in times as late as those of the final
editor of the Gospel.


(Mt v, 29-30)

For this saying there is a doublet in Mt xviii, 8-9, taken from Mk ix,
43-48. Mark may in this passage also have been following Q. That this
saying should have been absent from Luke's recension of Q, while present
in that of both Matthew and Mark, and that it should also, as Dr. Stanton
maintains, have been absent from Luke's copy of Mark, seems rather too
much of a coincidence. But the saying is like several others which Luke
omits because of their strong tincture of asceticism, or because the
instructions in them might be understood in too literal a way. Whether it
was or was not in Luke's recension of Q, its character and connection seem
to indicate its presence in Matthew's recension of that document.


(Mt v, 31)

Like vss. 21, 27, 33, 38, and 43 of this same chapter, this verse quotes
an Old Testament commandment, as introductory to the teaching of Jesus
upon the subject of that command. Since much of the teaching of Jesus upon
these items is duplicated in Luke, but this quotation of the Old Testament
commandment is omitted by him each time, the quotation will be ascribed
either to Matthew or his source. The fact that it is his source, and not
the final editor (who for convenience is all along here called Matthew),
who is responsible for the Judaistic coloring of the Gospel, the
universalistic tendency being attributed to Matthew, inclines us to assign
all these verses in quotation of the commandments to QMt.


(Mt v, 33-37)

This passage has also a strong Judaistic coloring. It is reminiscent of Ps
xlviii, 3. Most students assign it simply to Q. If it stood in Luke's
recension of that document, the same non-Jewish bias which is observable
in many of his omissions of Marcan material would account for his omission
of the saying. It is neither possible nor necessary to prove that these
verses were not in Luke's recension. But considering their character and
their context, it is much more likely that Matthew took them from his
recension of Q than from any other source known to us.


(Mt v, 41)

This sounds like a secondary accretion. It adds little or nothing to the
force of the injunction, and rather interrupts the connection between vss.
40 and 42. It may have been added by Matthew from some source of his own;
but more probably stood in Matthew's Q.


(Mt v, 43)

In this verse and the five others which quote the commandments, the word
ἐρρέθη occurs; it is not used by Mark or Luke, and by Matthew is used only
in these verses. So far as this may be said to throw any light upon the
origin of these verses, it would indicate their presence in Matthew's
recension of Q, rather than their invention or addition by Matthew.


(Mt vi, 1-4)

Dr. Robinson, in his _Study of the Gospels_,[104] maintains, quite
correctly, that Matthew's chap. vi breaks the connection in his Sermon on
the Mount. If it is omitted, the connection is not only better, but is the
same as that of Luke's in his Sermon on the Plain. He also considers that
Mt vi, 7-15, breaks the connection between the verses that immediately
precede and immediately follow them. He therefore concludes that Mt vi,
1-5, 16-18, at one time had a separate existence of its own. This is not
impossible. The disarrangement by the insertion of chap. vi is indeed
obvious. Bacon, in his _Sermon on the Mount_, and Votaw, in his article
under the same title in Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_, bring out the
same composite character of the Sermon as Matthew has it. But much of this
material which Matthew has inserted in his Sermon on the Mount is
duplicated word for word in other connections in Luke, and so is uniformly
accredited to Q. This creates a presumption that the rest of this
interpolated material, especially where it is obviously homogeneous in
character with the Q material generally, was taken by Matthew from his
recension of Q. 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 recension; it is only contended that since Matthew's recension and
Luke's recension are demonstrated to have been different from each other
in certain passages, it is fair to press the argument from this difference
to its reasonable limit, and assume that much if not most of this logian
matter peculiar to Matthew stood before him in his source. In the case of
the verses now before us, however, it seems extremely improbable that Luke
with his interest in alms-giving (see Lk xi, 41; xii, 33) should have
found them in his source and have omitted them.


(Mt vi, 5-8)

This sounds like a "midrash" on the Lord's Prayer. There are several
Matthean words in the passage. Μισθός is used ten times by Matthew as
against once by Mark and thrice in Luke's Gospel. Βατταλογέω is found here
only in the New Testament, and not in the Septuagint. Πολυλογία is found
here only in the New Testament. Εἰσακούω is an infrequent word in the New
Testament, being used only in this passage, in Luke's chap. i, once in
Acts, and twice in the Epistles. Ἀποδίδωμι is used eighteen times by
Matthew; seven of these uses are found in the section xviii, 25-34, and
three in the unduplicated verses vi, 4, 6, 18. It is used once by Mark and
eight times by Luke in his Gospel. These facts are hardly enough to
establish any verdict as to the origin of the section now in question, tho
they would rather look toward Matthew's derivation of it, with its
corresponding sections vi, 1-4, and vi, 16-18, from some written source.
Such being the case, Matthew's recension of Q will certainly fit the
requirements better than any other known document.


(Mt vi, 16-18)

If the Lord's Prayer, which Luke gives in another and better connection,
be omitted from Matthew's chap. vi, we shall have here three consecutive
sections which have very striking literary resemblances; they are the
sections on alms-giving, on prayer, and on fasting. That these should have
found no echo in the Gospel of Luke, if they stood in his source, is
strange; especially considering his peculiar interest in alms-giving and
prayer. As to the literary affinities among these three sections, the use
of μισθὸς, four times, has been noted. The phrase ἀπέχουσιν τὸν μισθὸν
αὐτῶν occurs three times; the longer phrase ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, καὶ ὁ πατήρ σου
ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ἀποδώσει σοι, three times.[105] Quite without these
recurrences of the same formulae, the form and sentiment of the three
sections are so markedly the same as to suggest that they were originally
consecutive, and that they have been taken from one written source. No
more probable source can be suggested than QMt.


(Mt vii, 6)

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 Jesus." A passage somewhat similar
in tone is that occurring in the story of the Canaanitish woman: "it is
not proper to take the bread of the children and give it to the dogs."
Matthew takes this story from Mark; but, significantly, he has omitted one
sentence of Mark's which tones down the Jewish particularism of the
passage, "let the children first be fed." He also inserts in that story
the sentence, not in Mark, "I am not sent except to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel," which corresponds somewhat closely with this statement
concerning the command of Jesus to his disciples, also peculiar to
Matthew, "Into the way of the nations do not go, and into a city of the
Samaritans do not enter; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel." It is only fair to admit that these instances, in which Matthew
heightens, once by insertion and once by omission, the Jewish coloring in
a story taken from Mark, tell against the theory generally advocated by
the writer, that the Judaistic features of Matthew's Gospel are referable
to his source, and the universalistic features to Matthew himself. But, on
the other hand, this vs. 6 has no discernible connection in its present
context, and no reason suggests itself for Matthew's insertion of it,
except his desire to retain what was in his source. This source may have
been a special one, perhaps even an oral one; but considering the
Judaistic character of so many sayings attributed to Matthew's Q, that
recension would also fit this saying.


(Mt vii, 15)

The mention of "the" false prophets, as a class to be avoided, has a late
sound. It is not found elsewhere in the Gospels except in the "little
apocalypse" and in Luke vi, 26. It is not necessarily as late as Matthew,
and may fairly be assigned to his recension of Q.


(Mt vii, 19)

In an earlier place this saying is attributed by both Matthew and Luke to
John the Baptist. In that earlier connection it evidently was taken from
Q. It probably did not occur twice in that document, but was inserted here
by Matthew from memory, being suggested naturally by the context. It
offers no new Q material.


(Mt vii, 20)

This verse is a repetition, with the particle ἄραγε prefixed, of vs. 16.
Vs. 18 is also a repetition in the form of a declarative sentence of what
is said in vs. 17 in the form of a question. The whole speech is
considerably longer than the corresponding speech in Lk vi, 43-44. These
repetitions and duplications suggest a good deal of re-working; but not
the sort of re-working that would be done by Matthew, whose tendency is to
condense instead of to expand. Vs. 20 may be a gloss, tho I am not aware
of any manuscript authority against it. There is no new Q material here.


(Mt vii, 28_a_)

This formula must be considered, as it is also found in five other places
in Matthew (xi, 1; xiii, 53; xix, 1; xxvi, 1). The first six words of the
formula are precisely alike in all five instances, καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε
ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς. In two instances these words are followed by the words
τοὺς λόγους τούτους; in one instance by the words πάντας τοὺς λόγους
τούτους; in another instance by the words τὰς παραβολὰς ταύτας. In these
four instances the formula not only follows a group of sayings, but is
followed by a narrative section; and so apparently marks the transition
from one of Matthew's sources to another. In the fifth instance, however,
the closing words of the formula are διατάσσων τοῖς δώδεκα μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ;
and in this instance the formula does not mark a transition from Q to
Mark, but is followed as it is preceded by Q material. It is generally
argued that since the formula does not occur in either Mark or Luke, and
since the construction ἐγένετο ὅτε does not occur in Matthew outside of
these five passages, but is found twenty-two times in Luke, the formula
was each time taken by Matthew from his source. This source must have been
Matthew's recension of Q, since the formula is always found with Q
material. Considering Matthew's tendency to repeat himself, all that need
be affirmed is that in at least one of the five instances Matthew did find
the formula in Q. It certainly could not have occurred five times, or even
three or four times, in Luke's source, and have been each time omitted by


(Mt viii, 13)

Harnack thinks this verse of Matthew's and the corresponding verse in Luke
(Lk vii, 10) were not in Q, tho the rest of the story was. But the
deviation here is no greater than it is in the earlier part of the story,
in the item of the messengers. Matthew has separated this conclusion of
the story from the body of it by his insertion of Jesus' saying, "Many
shall come from the east and west," which Luke gives in another context
(Lk xiii, 28-29). Luke's conclusion evidently belongs with his version of
the story, for it contains the reference to the messengers who do not
appear in Matthew's version. Some manuscripts give the conclusion to the
story in Matthew in words almost identical with Luke's. If this deviation
in manuscripts suggests that the verse in Matthew may be a gloss, 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 come,"
etc. Chiefly on the ground of the alternative reading in [Hebrew], and the
ease with which a gloss would be suggested to a scribe who had the Lucan
narrative also before him, the writer inclines to the opinion that the
verse is a later addition.


(Mt ix, 13)

There is a duplicate of this quotation in Mt xii, 7. In each instance
Matthew has inserted the quotation into a Marcan narrative. Considering
the fact of this insertion in each case, and the absence of a duplicate in
Luke, the verses may be ascribed to Matthew, perhaps upon the basis of an
oral tradition.


(Mt ix, 27-31)

There is a strong similarity between this story and the story of the
healing of two blind men near Jericho (Mt xx, 29-34). In the latter case
Matthew substitutes the two men for Bartimaeus in the story of Mark and
Luke. The source is apparently a special one, perhaps an oral tradition
influenced by Mk x, 46-52.


(Mt ix, 32-34)

Vs. 34 is a doublet of Mt xii, 24; the latter is from Mk iii, 22, where
Mark also appears to be following Q. Perhaps ix, 27-34, has been inserted
at just this place, in order to warrant the statement of Jesus to John the
Baptist that "the blind see and the deaf hear." It is hardly necessary to
assign it to a special literary source.


(Mt x, 5-8)

These verses have a strong Judaistic coloring: "Into a way of the Gentiles
do not go, and into a city of the Samaritans do not enter," etc. They also
betray the expectation of the early coming of the parousia. These two
items are inconsistent with the invention of these verses by Matthew. They
must have arisen long before Matthew's time. Yet they are imbedded in Q
material. 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 compilation, and in the recension that was finally used
by Matthew. It is interesting to observe that Matthew here makes Jesus
teach his disciples (vs. 7) the same formula which he himself had learned
from John the Baptist.


(Mt x, 16_b_-25, 41-42)

Of the chapter in which this section occurs Mr. Streeter says that Matthew
begins with Mark, adds some Q material parallel to Luke's Q material in
the same connection, then Q material unparalleled, then Q material
paralleled in other connections in Luke, then material from a totally
different part of Mark.[106] The verses enumerated here are not paralleled
in either Mark or Luke. They are not like the verses, for the most part,
which Matthew and Luke agree in taking from Q; and they show marked
difference in some respects from those which we have thus far assigned to
Matthew's recension of Q. In his _Apostolic Age_ Professor James Hardy
Ropes[107] suggests that at least one purpose of the collection of Jesus'
sayings was "to furnish a kind of handbook of missionary practice for
those times." These verses, better almost than any other section out of
the instructions to the disciples, answer this purpose. If they rest upon
words of Jesus spoken at the time he sent out his disciples, they are at
least colored by the needs of Christian missionaries who went out toward
the end of the apostolic age. They betray the conviction that the time of
the parousia is near. As coming from Jesus they contain a prediction so
obviously unfulfilled as to make their later invention and ascription to
him very difficult. On the other hand no words ascribed to him would by
themselves more easily originate in the times of the early Christian
missions. Considering their position here, and giving due weight to
Professor Ropes's suggestion, it seems much more probable that they are
taken by Matthew from some written source than from an oral tradition. If
so, no better source can be posited than Matthew's recension of Q.


(Mt xi, 14)

Like the reference to Elijah in Mk ix, 12, this verse sounds like a
parenthesis. It adds nothing to the context, and rather interrupts than
furthers the matter. If not inserted by Matthew from some unknown,
perhaps oral, source, it may perhaps best be considered as a gloss.


(Mt xi, 15)

This is a proverbial saying occurring seven times in the Gospels (eight
times in the received text); three times in Matthew, twice each in Mark
and Luke. It also occurs eight times in the Apocalypse. Each evangelist
has a form of his own, to which he adheres thruout. The saying sounds here
as if it were intended to drive home what has just been said about Elijah,
and may with propriety be assigned to the same hand as the preceding


(Mt xi, 20)

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 material. Sometimes, as in the case
of the Lord's Prayer, such an introduction is present in Luke and absent
in Matthew. In the present instance Matthew alone has it. 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 introduction. In all
such instances as this the writer sees no difficulty in ascribing the
introductions to the evangelist in whose pages they are found.


(Mt xi, 23_b_-24)

Following the woes, Matthew alone has this statement of the reasons for
their being given. He has a doublet for vs. 24 in x, 15. As this latter
is paralleled by Lk x, 12, it may in that context be assigned to Q; here
it may be assigned either to Matthew or one of his early editors. There is
at least no new Q material here.


(Mt xi, 28-30)

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 him. Yet of the
five scholars quoted in Table II (pp. 110-11), Wellhausen alone attributes
it to Q. The others all attribute the preceding section to Q, but stop at
vs. 27, where the parallelism between Matthew and Luke breaks off. This is
necessary, of course, upon the assumption that nothing should be
attributed to Q except what is thus paralleled. But if anything stood in
Matthew's recension of Q that was not also in Luke's, certainly these
verses stood there. Weiss's remarks concerning them indicate that he has
no reason for assigning them, as he does, to a special source, except the
fact that they do not appear in Luke. He says "Since these words are not
in Luke we have no right to refer them to Q. This is not to say that they
are the work of Matthew; they have been taken from another source, oral or
written."[108] It has been pointed out by Montefiore that these verses are
largely made up of quotations. "The last bit of vs. 29 comes from Jer xi,
7, and the rest is an adapted echo of Sirach li, 23 seq."[109] The
parallel, however, as Montefiore also says, covers vss. 25-27 as well as
those now under consideration. Loisy[110] argues that the words cannot
safely be ascribed to Jesus, but adds, "It may be readily admitted that
the evangelist found them in the collection of Logia."


(Mt xii, 5-7)

This saying occurs, not in the midst of Q material, but as an appendix to
a discussion which Matthew and Luke both take from Mark. The passage seems
to be well attested textually. Considering its context, and its relation
to the material immediately preceding, it seems natural to assign the
verses either to Matthew himself or to some early editor, rather than to
seek a special source for them or to attribute them to Matthew's Q. Vs. 7
has already been considered in connection with ix, 13. If the ἀναιτίους in
this latter verse were singular instead of plural it would certainly be
taken as a reference to the condemnation and death of Jesus; indeed, it
may naturally, tho not with so much assurance, be so taken as it stands.


(Mt xii, 17-21)

This long quotation, occurring as it does in the midst of a Marcan
narrative, may be ascribed either to Matthew or one of his sources; but
there is no evidence that such quotations were part of Q.


(Mt xii, 34_a_)

Γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν is used once by Matthew and Luke in common (Mt iii, 7;
Lk iii, 7) and twice by Matthew alone. The question in which it occurs
here seems to render the statement in vss. 36-37 less justifiable. The
repetition, not only of the one phrase, but of the idea, in the section
might be taken to indicate that this half of a verse is an addition either
by Matthew or by some later hand.


(Mt xii, 36-37)

If Matthew be credited with the insertion of vs. 34_a_, it is not unlikely
that he added these verses also, as a corrective of the impression that
might be drawn from the previous insertion. In character, however, the
verses are similar enough to Q, and might be assigned to Matthew's


(Mt xii, 40)

This verse occurs in a passage concerning the demand for a sign, which
Matthew and Luke have evidently taken from Q. Luke's form of the saying
about Jonah is evidently the original one. Matthew's reference to the
three days spent by Jesus "in the heart of the earth" is _post eventum_,
and even so cannot be early. It may perhaps be taken for a gloss, or it
may have been added by Matthew. It may equally well have been added by
some editor of Q before that document fell into Matthew's hands; there is
nothing to determine, except that the strong resemblance, almost amounting
to identity, between Matthew and Luke in the rest of the passage may
properly incline one toward the assumption of a late addition.


(Mt xiii, 24-30)

This parable, tho it has a Q sound in the first verse, is too long for any
recension of that document. It is better assigned to a special source,
oral or written. The allegorical character of the parable, with its
elaborate interpretation in vss. 36-43, seems to indicate its
comparatively late origin, and it may be based upon Mk iv, 26-29. At all
events it should not be ascribed to Q.


(Mt xiii, 44-52)

In this chapter Matthew has eight parables.[111] The parables of the Sower
and of the Mustard Seed he has taken from Mark. That of the Yeast he and
Luke have taken from Q. That of the Weed in the Field has just been
assigned to some special source. The four in vss. 44-52 we assign to
Matthew's recension of Q. The grounds upon which this assignment is made
are the following: the parables are extremely similar in form and content
to those that admittedly come from Q, as the parable of the Yeast in this
same chapter. They are so brief as to come under the category of "sayings"
rather than of "parables" in the ordinary sense. They are, with one
exception, without allegorical or other interpretation. These facts
establish their general Q character. The parable of the Fish-Net, in vss.
47-50, contains an allegorical interpretation. Vs. 50 also contains the
phrase ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων, which Matthew
employs in five other connections. This phrase occurred at least once in Q
(Mt viii, 12; Lk xiii, 28).

But in spite of a tendency toward repetition which may be observed in
Matthew, it seems hardly fair to charge him with having inserted the
phrase in the other five places where it occurs. It seems strange also
that Matthew should record the parables of the Treasure, the Pearl, and
the Converted Scribe without interpretation, but should himself be
responsible for the interpretation of the parable of the Fish-Net. It is
much more likely that he found the interpretation, with the parable, in
his source.

In these four parables obviously there are two items which most scholars
would agree in calling secondary: the allegorical interpretation of the
parable of the Fish-Net, and the entire parable of the Converted Scribe.
Yet the parables of the Pearl and the Treasure are as primary as any
utterances recorded of Jesus. 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 document.
Their absence from the Gospel of Luke indicates their absence from the
recension in his hands. And the presence in them of these secondary traits
argues their addition to Q at some time after its original compilation.
All these considerations make the assignment of these four little parables
to QMt in a high degree probable.


(Mt xiv, 28-31)

The presence of so much narrative material in this section argues at once
against its derivation from any form of Q. It belongs to a cycle of
Peter-sayings preserved in Matthew alone. The source appears to have been
a special one, very probably oral.


(Mt xv, 22-24)

These verses are an insertion of Matthew's into the story of the
Syrophoenician woman, which he has copied from Mark. It is worthy of note
that thruout the entire story the verbal agreement is much more slight
than is usual in narratives, especially such as contain sayings of Jesus,
taken by Matthew from Mark. Luke has no parallel. Considering the very
slight proportion of narrative, and the great preponderance of
sayings-material, in the section, it would not be strange if it stood in
Q. If it stood in Luke's recension, the attitude of Jesus toward
non-Jewish peoples, as implied in the story, would be sufficient to
account for Luke's omission of it. The sentiment of vs. 24, in particular,
is extremely "primary." It could hardly have been invented and ascribed to
Jesus after his time. Mark's words, "Let the children first be fed," tone
down the excessively Jewish particularism of Matthew's account; even aside
from these words, which are absent from Matthew, Matthew's entire version
of the incident is more primary than Mark's. This may be, and has been,
explained by saying that Mark's story has been worked over by an editor,
subsequent to Matthew's use of his Gospel. But since Mark and Q have been
shown to coincide in a certain amount of material, a simpler explanation
is that they coincided in this story of the Syrophoenician woman; the more
primitive character of Matthew's account is then explained by its
dependence upon Q, which is older than Mark. It cannot be shown to have
been absent from Luke's recension, and its presence there may be probable,
but cannot be demonstrated. It is therefore assigned--but with some
hesitation--to QMt.


(Mt xv, 29-31)

This little summary, like that in Mt iv, 23-25, would naturally be
ascribed to Matthew. It might be regarded as a re-working of Mk vii, 31,
and a substitute in general terms for the story which immediately follows
that verse in Mark.[112] The use by Matthew of such a phrase as τὸν θεὸν
Ἰσραήλ would be explained by the fact that the cures are represented as
being worked outside of Jewish territory. With this explanation the verses
may be ascribed to Matthew.


(Mt xvi, 17-19)

This is another Peter-section inserted in a story taken from Mark. Luke
has the story but not this insertion. The section apparently belongs to
the same cycle of Peter-stories with the incident of the walking on the
water, already considered. It should be ascribed to some special and
undetermined source. The general character of this particular section
would indicate its very late origin.


(Mt xvii, 6-7)

No special source, other at least than oral tradition, is necessary to
account for so slight an addition. Yet considering Matthew's general
tendency to condense, rather than to expand, Mark's narratives, and the
faithfulness with which he has transcribed the rest of this narrative, it
may be easier to regard this insertion as a gloss.


(Mt xviii, 4)

The verse immediately preceding this is found in Mark, but in another
context, from where Matthew has evidently transposed it to this place.
This vs. 4 is found in Matthew alone. A variant of it is found in Mt
xxiii, 12. This latter is closely similar to, but not identical with, the
saying twice given by Luke (Lk xiv, 11; xviii, 14). Considering his
dislike for doublets, the fact that the saying occurs twice in Luke may
naturally be taken to indicate its presence in both Mark and Q. But the
verse under consideration here can be at most but a reminiscence of the
saying which occurs twice in Luke and in Mt xxiii, 12. Considering the
fact that Matthew is here obviously exercising his talent at combination,
the verse should probably be ascribed to his editorial hand.


(Mt xviii, 23-35)

In spite of its reference to the kingdom of Heaven this parable is much
too long for Q, and should be assigned to a special source.


(Mt xix, 10-12)

This saying is appended to a discussion taken from Mark. Considering its
loose connection in the context, it is perhaps safer to assume that it has
been added from some oral authority.


(Mt xx, 1-16)

The parable is too long for Q, tho like the Q parables it has to do with
the kingdom of God. The last verse is an apparently proverbial saying, for
which Matthew has a doublet in xix, 30, and Luke a variant in Lk xiii,


(Mt xxi, 28-32)

Like the other matter in this vicinity peculiar to Matthew, and like the
parables of this length thruout, this parable should be assigned to a
special source.


(Mt xxii, 1-14)

J. Weiss assigns this parable, with Lk xiv, 16-24, to Q. But upon the
principle we have been following the parable is too long for Q. While it
is evidently the same parable as that told in Lk xiv, 16-24, there is
clearly no literary connection between Matthew and Luke here. Both
Wellhausen and Wernle assign it to Q; Harnack and Hawkins to a special
source. This instance brings up the question of what degree of literary
similarity must be present in order to warrant the assumption of literary
connection. No words are identical here except such as had to be to enable
two men to tell the same story.


(Mt xxiii, 2-3, 5, 8-10, 15-22)

Matthew here conflates his Q material with his Marcan material. The matter
is partially duplicated in Luke's chap. xi. The similarities and the
differences between the Matthean and Lucan versions are precisely such
features as have led to the hypothesis of the two recensions. The verses
should be assigned to QMt.


(Mt xxv, 1-46)

The first two of these parables J. Weiss assigns to Q; presumably on the
ground that parallels for them are found in Luke's chaps. xii and xix.
But if Q be extended to include so many such long parables as these, it
loses entirely its character as a collection of "sayings." Moreover, the
parallelism between Matthew's and Luke's versions of these two parables is
extremely slight. The subject-matter is the same, but there is no
indication of dependence upon a common written source. The parable of the
Judgment is peculiar to Matthew. It seems better to assign all three of
these parables to a special source.


(Mt xxvi, 52-54)

This is an insertion of Matthew's in the story which he has taken from
Mark. There is no indication of Q in it.

We have now gone over all the logian sections of Matthew unparalleled in
either Mark or Luke. We have found some of these that ought, in our
judgment, to be assigned to Matthew's recension of Q. This assignment
cannot claim to be anything more than a suggestion; in many instances,
however, it may reach a very high degree of probability; and we have tried
to restrict it to such instances. By saying that a certain section should
be assigned to a "special source," it is not meant that this is one and
the same source for all sections so assigned; but only that these sections
cannot be assigned either to Matthew or to his recension of Q. In a few
instances I have ventured to suggest an oral rather than a written source.
Further comments will be made upon this analysis when a similar study has
been made of the sections peculiar to the Gospel of Luke.



The single tradition of Luke will now be examined with reference to
possible Q material unparalleled in Matthew. Narrative material will not
be considered. As Luke has omitted much more of Mark than Matthew has, and
as he has a much larger amount of non-Marcan material which obviously
bears no sign of having stood in any form of Q, 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 Matthew.


(Lk iii, 10-14)

This section in Luke follows immediately the description of John's
preaching which Luke and Matthew have taken from Q. It is a natural
supposition that it stood in Luke's Q, tho not in Matthew's, just as the
discussion between Jesus and John at the baptism stood in Matthew's but
not in Luke's. But there is one thing which indicates either that it did
not so stand, or that it has been worked over by Luke in a manner peculiar
to him. That is the presence of dialogue. If this dialogue appeared only
in those sayings of Jesus that appear in Luke but not in Matthew, and that
are of a character to have come from any form of Q, we should pick out
this item as a characteristic of the recension used by Luke. But dialogue
is also a characteristic of many of the Lucan parables which could not
under any hypothesis be attributed to Q. In spite of its general
resemblance to the Q matter just preceding, it seems best, therefore, to
attribute this little section to some peculiar Lucan source.


(Lk iv, 16-30)

This is a complete re-working of Marcan material. In his _Synoptische
Tafeln zu den drei älteren Evangelien_, J. Weiss attributes it to a
special source. This assignment is correct, in the sense that there are
sayings of Jesus in the section which Luke would certainly not
manufacture, and which he must therefore have derived from some source. At
all events there is no Q material in the passage.


(Lk v, 1-11)

The same is to be said of this section as has just been said of iv, 16-30.
It is a re-working of Mk i, 16-20. The latter part of vs. 10 has an
especially genuine sound. Ζωγρῶν occurs here only in the Gospels. The
dialogue characteristic of Luke appears here also. With the possible
exception of the latter half of vs. 10, nothing in the section could be
attributed to any form of Q.


(Lk vi, 24-26)

We have here the alternatives of supposing that Luke invented these woes,
that he found them in some altogether different source and inserted them
here in the midst of his Q material, or that they stood, with the
beatitudes, in his recension of Q. Since the beatitudes themselves,
without the woes, show such difference as to preclude Matthew's and Luke's
having drawn them from an identical source, but since they seem, if
anything, to have stood in Q, it seems natural to assign these woes of
Luke's, as we have assigned the beatitudes peculiar to Matthew, to the
recension used by him. The sympathy shown in the Gospel of Luke for the
poor has usually been referred to Luke himself. It may just as well have
been a characteristic of one or more of his sources.


(Lk vii, 29-30)

These two verses are inserted in the midst of Jesus' testimony to John the
Baptist. They have the sound of a purely editorial insertion. On the other
hand, if they were found elsewhere by Luke, his insertion of them in this
place is accounted for by his desire to explain Jesus' saying about John.
A possible hint of a source is found in the presence of δικαιόω. This verb
is found in three other passages that are peculiar to Luke and that are
evidently not from QLk. If not from Luke himself, these verses are from
some special source. But they are only what might be expected from Luke
himself in the way of editorial comment.


(Lk vii, 36-50)

Tho this narrative has considerable resemblance to that in Mk xiv, 3-9,
and Mt xxvi, 6-13, the different placing of the story, and the differences
in the story itself, far outweighing the resemblances, seem to indicate a
special source for it. There is no reason to attribute it, or any saying
in it, to Q.


(Lk ix, 60_b_-63)

This may either be attributed to Luke (or to some later scribe) as an
amplification of the incident just related by both Matthew and Luke from
Q, or may be assumed to have stood in Luke's recension of Q. The two
facts, that such amplification would be quite unlike Luke, as his literary
habits are revealed to us in his treatment of Mark, and that the saying
about the man who has put his hand to the plow has an extremely original
and genuine sound, lead us to the latter alternative.


(Lk x, 17-20)

Tho the existence and mission of a separate band of seventy disciples be
attributed to Luke, he would certainly never have manufactured these
sayings that are connected with their return. The sayings may indeed be
ascribed to a special source; and are so ascribed by those who allow
nothing to Q except the paralleled material. But these sayings are
extremely primary in character, especially vss. 18 and 20; and they are
similar to much Q material. If in Luke's recension of Q the mission of the
disciples was a mission of seventy instead of twelve, Luke will be
relieved of the burden of personal responsibility for the creation of this
mission of the seventy; 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 Mark. It must be admitted that
such conflation is contrary to Luke's habit. The alternatives to this
hypothesis are, either that he invented the mission of the seventy
himself, or that he had before him three accounts of the sending out of
disciples, one by Mark and one in Q, and a third in some unknown source.
This lends probability to the ascription of these sayings to QLk.


(Lk x, 25-28)

Mark has a partial parallel to this section in Mk xii, 28-31, which
Matthew takes from him (Mt xxii, 34-40). Luke's account is evidently not
from Mark, however. Luke may have omitted the Marcan narrative because of
this parallel of it in his own Gospel. The logian material in the section
is of a primary character; the implication that one might inherit eternal
life by merely keeping the commandments is not such as to have been later
invented, and sounds particularly strange in Luke's Gospel. No source is
more probable for it than QLk.


(Lk x, 29-37)

This parable is entirely too long to be ascribed to any form of Q. Its
affinities with others of the long parables peculiar to Luke is such as to
indicate for all of them a special source.


(Lk x, 38-42)

Mr. Streeter[113] suggests a reason why this incident may have been
omitted by Matthew even if it stood in Q. But I can see no reason for
assuming it to have stood in the latter source. It has great affinity with
much other Lucan material which should not be assigned to Q, and is
apparently from a special source.


(Lk xi, 5-8)

This parable is brief enough to have stood in Q. But it does not,
apparently, relate to the kingdom of God, as the undoubted Q parables do.
It is also similar in motive to other Lucan parables assigned to a special


(Lk xi, 27-28)

Wellhausen considers this a variant of Lk viii, 19-21, which latter is
taken from Mark (iii, 31-35). The parallelism is not very close, to say
the least. While a case may be made out for the occurrence of this section
in Q, as is apparently done by Mr. Streeter, it seems better to us to
assign it to a special source of Luke's.


(Lk xi, 36)

If this saying were genuine, it would naturally be assigned to QLk. But
the text is not well attested, and it is perhaps better to regard it as a


(Lk xii, 13-21)

Wernle remarks concerning this section that anyone with a sense for
_Herrenworte_ will recognize at once that vss. 15 and 21 are from Luke and
not from Jesus. Vs. 21 is omitted in some manuscripts. The parable is from
a special source.


(Lk xii, 35-38)

This might almost be considered as a variant of Matthew's parable of the
Ten Virgins. It stands in close connection here with Q material. No more
probable source can be suggested for it than Luke's recension of Q.


(Lk xii, 47-48)

This section, consisting entirely of sayings, and occurring between two
blocks of Q material, is almost universally ascribed to a special source,
simply because it is not paralleled in Matthew. But it is quite
homogeneous with Q. It is, indeed, unlikely that Matthew would have
omitted it if it had stood in his recension of Q; but no better source can
be posited for it than QLk. Of fifteen occurrences of δέρω in the New
Testament, eight are found in Luke's Gospel and in Acts. The three
occurrences in Acts are not indicative, as they are accounted for by the
subject-matter; the five in the Gospel are, except in this passage,
paralleled in Matthew and Mark. While the word is therefore in a sense a
"Lucan" word, there is nothing to indicate that it was not in the source
Luke used.


(Lk xii, 49-50)

These two verses have a very primary sound. The difficulty of them is much
against their invention by Luke or anyone in his time. But if Luke derived
them from any written source, they are exactly such sayings as would have
found a place in his recension of Q.


(Lk xiii, 1-5)

This saying was evidently spoken in Jerusalem, but Luke has placed it
during the journey thither. We may perhaps detect here the beginnings of a
Jerusalem tradition.


(Lk xiii, 6-9)

Like the preceding, the parable is given as part of the conversation on
the Samaritan journey. But it seems to be Luke's version of the story told
by Mark of the cursing of the fig tree; and this latter Mark places in
Jerusalem. This may be taken as another hint of the origin of this section
in a Jerusalem tradition.


(Lk xiii, 31-33)

Mr. Streeter[114] remarks of this section that it is so "un-Lucan in its
rough vigor that it is certainly original"; in other words, that it
certainly stood in Luke's source. This source Mr. Streeter maintains is Q,
not only for this brief section, but for the solid block of Lk ix,
51-xiii, 59 (with the possible exception of the two parables of the Good
Samaritan, the Rich Fool, and perhaps the story of Martha). The passage,
xiii, 1-17, he suggests may have been interpolated into Q before Q came to

The primary character of the section now under consideration cannot be
doubted. The fact that Luke has apparently left his Q material by itself,
instead of mingling it with his Marcan and other matter, would argue for
Mr. Streeter's position. Yet Luke has not altogether followed this general
rule of his; and he has made some very notable transpositions of Marcan
material. This saying, also, is not quite like most of the sayings that
are by common agreement to be ascribed to Q. It is neither a general rule
of conduct, like the sayings in the Sermon on the Mount, nor has it to do
with the kingdom of God, like the brief parables of Q. If Luke inserted
it from another source, his reason for inserting it in just this place may
have been the fact of its closing with the word "Jerusalem." Yet the
lament over Jerusalem which immediately follows is evidently wrongly
placed by Luke, in the midst of his Perean journey. We are inclined to
assign these verses, tho with some uncertainty, to a special source. The
words were apparently spoken neither on the Perean journey (assuming such
a journey to have taken place) nor at its close in Jerusalem, but in


(Lk xiv, 1-6)

The only saying in this section is that paralleled in Lk xiii, 15-16, and
duplicated in Mt xii, 11. The incident is somewhat similar to that
recorded in Mk iii, 1-6; and it is noticeable that Matthew, in taking over
that incident from Mark, inserts in the midst of it this saying of Jesus
about the ox or ass falling into the pit on the Sabbath. If the saying
occurred in Q, Matthew has thus taken it out of its original context and
made it a part of a Marcan story; but he would hardly have done this if it
already, in his copy of Q, constituted part of another and equally good
story. In view of the general character of Q as a collection of "sayings,"
with as little mixture of incident as possible, it seems better to say
that this saying about the ox or ass falling into the pit occurred once in
Q, unconnected, and that Luke found it again in the story before us, in
some other source.


(Lk xiv, 7-11)

This saying may have been manufactured upon the basis of Mk xii, 39 ("they
love the chief seats at feasts," etc). Vs. 11 is the oft-repeated formula
discussed on p. 182. While this and the following section are not
impossible for QLk, it seems better to assign them both to one of Luke's
special sources.


(Lk xiv, 12-14)

This saying of Jesus seems out of place at a dinner to which he had been
invited. The saying itself is not unlike Q. Observing that this saying and
the two just preceding are placed by Luke at feasts given for Jesus, but
that they contain sayings of Jesus either placed elsewhere by Matthew or
not given by him at all, Mr. Streeter is inclined to assign the setting of
these sayings in each case to Luke, and the sayings to Q. This would seem
more justifiable if it were not plain that Luke had, besides his recension
of Q and Mark, at least two or three other sources. One cannot be
categorical on such a matter, and it is possible that this section with
the two preceding should be assigned to QLk.


(Lk xiv, 15-24)

This parable is generally regarded as parallel to Mt xxii, 1-10, and the
two are assigned to Q. But while the two evangelists are evidently
relating the same parable, there is so little verbal resemblance as to
give no proof of a common literary source. Upon the assumption of such a
source, the violence done to it by Matthew or Luke or both in its
transcription is quite beyond belief. If the parable in either Gospel is
assigned to Q, the one in the other should be otherwise assigned. It seems
better to ascribe both of them to special sources. The two versions are
about as unlike as they could well be, and still be versions of the same


(Lk xiv, 28-35)

Here are four detached sayings, the first two similar in meaning. Vs. 28
sounds like a genuine logion, with vss. 29 and 30 added as an explanatory
comment. The same may be said, respectively, of vss. 31 and 32. Vs. 33,
tho beginning with οὕτως, does not seem to fit in this place. Vs. 34_a_ is
from Mark (ix, 50) or influenced by it. Considering the connections, it is
probably best to assign the passage to QLk, with improvements by Luke.


(Lk xv, 1-7)

Mr. Streeter suggests that Luke may have elaborated this parable out of
the saying in Mt xviii, 12-13. Johannes Weiss, as indicated in his
_Synoptische Tafeln zu den drei älteren Evangelien_, seems also to
consider that while the parable as a whole is drawn from one of Luke's
peculiar sources, there is a literary connection between vss. 4-7 and
Matthew's saying. Considering the connection of the parable with the two
that immediately follow, it seems better to assign all three to a common
Lucan source.


(Lk xv, 8-32)

These parables may be assigned without comment to one of Luke's special


(Lk xvi, 1-12)

The composite character of this parable has been asserted by various
writers. Schmiedel[115] suggests that vss. 10-12 have been added by a
later hand. If the parable stops with vs. 9, the meaning of it apparently
is that one should give mammon away; the two following verses seem merely
to inculcate honesty in business matters. Indeed, perhaps the parable
should be considered as ending with vs. 7, and vs. 8 as probably an
editorial comment upon it. In the latter case, the ὁ κύριος of vs. 8
refers to Jesus. This supposition requires the further one that the writer
of vs. 9 has forgotten that vs. 8 is indirect discourse attributed to
Jesus. Vs. 13 is from Q and is duplicated in Mt vi, 24. But there is no
new Q material here.


(Lk xvi, 14-15)

The verses which immediately follow these are from Q. Streeter[116]
inclines to assign vss. 14-15 to the same source. But if vss. 16-18 be
omitted here and placed in some other connection, vss. 14-15 constitute an
excellent introduction to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus which
follows in vss. 19-31. In favor of Mr. Streeter's assignment is the fact
that Q was apparently a collection of sayings neither topically nor
otherwise arranged, and that the four sayings in vss. 15-18 are thus
detached, Matthew having taken the three in vss. 16-18 and "worked them
into appropriate contexts." Of vss. 14 and 15 about all that can be said
is that the latter sounds like Q. Considering Matthew's fondness for
everything that reflects upon the Pharisees, it seems likely that if vs.
15 stood in any form of Q it was in Luke's recension only.


(Lk xvi, 19-31)

This parable seems to show something of the same composite character as is
found in that of the Unjust Steward, the first part having to do with rich
and poor and the second part with believing and unbelieving. There is no Q
material in it.


(Lk xvii, 7-10; xvii, 11-19)

The former of these two sections might conceivably have stood in Luke's
recension of Q; the latter not in any recension. It is better to assign
them both to a special source.


(Lk xvii, 20-21)

This little section certainly has a Q sound. If it stood in Matthew's
recension, reasons may easily be given for his omission of it; he would
not have understood the non-apocalyptic statement, "the kingdom of God is
within [or among] you." But it cannot be proved, at least, that the
section stood in Matthew's Q; therefore if it is assigned to Q at all it
would better be assigned merely to Luke's recension.

Later than this in the Gospel of Luke there is nothing that needs to be
examined for possible Q material. His single tradition from here on
includes the parables of the Unjust Judge, and the Pharisee and the
Publican in the Temple, the story of Zacchaeus, the lament over Jerusalem,
the institution of the Lord's Supper, and a few sections in the story of
the trial, the death, and the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Of these
only one, the lament over Jerusalem, bears any resemblance to the Q
material in general. Professor Burkitt suggests, indeed, that xxii, 15-16,
24-32, and 35-38, may be remnants of Q's account of the passion. We have
seen no reason to suppose that there was such an account in Q. If there
was, there are no signs by which it can be identified in this portion of
Luke's narrative. It is better to assign all this material to a special
source. 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 hands.


In the determination of Q material in the single traditions of Matthew and
Luke on pp. 166-206, the writer has ventured occasionally to suggest a
possible source for such material as is not assigned to any form of Q.

In addition to the sayings-material considered on pp. 166-92, Matthew has
in his single tradition the following narratives: the birth and infancy
sections, chaps. i, ii; the temple tax, xvii, 24-27; the children in the
temple, xxi, 14-16; the death of Judas, xxvii, 3-10; the wife of Pilate,
and Pilate and the crowd, xxvii, 19, 24-25; miracles at the death of
Jesus, xxvii, 51-53; the watch at the grave, xxvii, 62-66; xxviii, 11-15;
the angel rolling away the stone, xxviii, 2-3; the appearances of Jesus to
the women, xxviii, 9-10; to the disciples, xxviii, 16-20.

In addition to the sayings and parables of the single tradition of Luke,
considered on pp. 193-206, that tradition contains the following
narratives: the birth of John the Baptist, the birth and infancy of Jesus,
with the ancestry, chaps. i, ii, iii, 1-38; the miraculous draft of
fishes, v, 4-9; the raising of the widow's son, vii, 11-17; the
ministering women, viii, 1-3; an event in a Samaritan village, ix, 51-56;
the healing of the woman, xiii, 10-17;[117] the ten lepers, xvii, 11-19;
Zacchaeus, xix, 2-10; the trial before Herod, xxiii, 6-12; the thief on
the cross, xxiii, 39-43; the walk to Emmaus, xxiv, 13-35; the appearances
of the risen Jesus, xxiv, 36-53.

Matthew's peculiar material is scattered thru his entire Gospel. He begins
and ends with it. After he reaches the Passion, his peculiar material
becomes unusually abundant. In the twenty-three chapters between the
infancy and the passion, he has only seventeen insertions of peculiar
material. In the three chapters that follow, he has nine. These latter are
of a different sort. In the earlier part of his single tradition, sayings
and parables predominate; here, except for the saying about the legion of
angels, the peculiar material is all narrative.

Luke has likewise distributed his peculiar material thruout his gospel,
and also begins and ends with it. But after his stories of the birth and
childhood, he has, up to his chap. ix, five insertions of peculiar matter.
Four of these are incidents, one is a speech of John the Baptist. With ix,
51, begins his great interpolation. In the less than ten chapters covered
by this he has grouped twenty-five sections of his peculiar material. This
matter has a prevailing character of its own. There are four narratives in
it, three of them being healings. The other twenty-one sections consist of
sayings and parables. If we consider the relative length of the sayings,
the narratives, and parables of this section, we shall see that the whole
is practically a parable section. With the coming of Jesus to Jerusalem,
this material stops. From here on Luke has two brief sayings and one
longer one, five sections of narrative, and no parable, in his single

Whether the source of Matthew's peculiar material was one or more than
one, it suggests itself at once that the birth and infancy stories may
have come from a place by themselves. They have, to a considerable extent,
a vocabulary of their own. Constituting about one twenty-second of the
total matter of Matthew's Gospel, they contain almost one-tenth of the
occurrences of the characteristic words of that Gospel.[118] Even if the
constantly recurring γεννάω of the genealogy be removed, the peculiar
words occur with much more frequency in this birth and infancy section
than in the rest of the Gospel. The force of this fact, however, is
considerably weakened by the peculiar subject-matter of these chapters.

More decisive upon this matter is the general character of the birth and
infancy sections, which is sharply distinguished from that of the body of
the Gospel. This is not due to the presence of the marvelous in these
early chapters, since that is found to some degree throughout, but to the
presence of what may be more distinctly called the legendary element. In
this characteristic it is like some of the material at the end of
Matthew's Gospel. Let one compare the general character of the stories of
the star and the magi, the slaughter of the innocents, and the flight into
Egypt with the story of the opening of the graves and the awakening of the
departed dead, and the angel rolling away the stone from the grave, and
the question will suggest itself, whether Matthew may not have obtained
all these stories from one source.

This suggestion might appear to be seconded by the fact that this
material, which has such a striking family resemblance, is not scattered
thru the body of Matthew's work, but occurs, part of it before he has
reached his junction with Mark and Luke, and the rest of it after he has
parted from them. He not only begins and ends alone, but he begins and
ends with material of a remarkably similar character. This is not enough,
of course, to prove the unity of Matthew's source for the first and last
parts of his single tradition; but it is enough to suggest it.

As to the source of the rest of Matthew's peculiar material, we cannot get
beyond guesswork. Some of it has an extremely genuine sound; for example,
the sayings appended to the Sabbath discussion, "The priests break the
sabbath in the temple and are blameless," etc. (xii, 5-6); the saying
about the angels of the little ones (xviii, 10); the parable of the
Fish-Net, preserving so well the eschatological features of the preaching
of Jesus (xiii, 47-50); the parable of the Two Sons (xxi, 28-31). The
incident of the temple tax (xvii, 24-27) seems to go back for its origin
to a time when the temple was still in existence, and, when it is relieved
of the item of the coin in the fish's mouth (which may easily be a later
addition to the story), seems to bear traces of undoubted genuineness.

The parable of the Laborers who received every man a penny (Mt xx, 1-16)
seems likewise to indicate a time considerably later than that of Jesus; a
time, namely, 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 day." 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 Jesus, or received such a saying as it had been
worked over by the waiting community, to suit the need of the times.

In much the same manner the story of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (XXV,
1-13) seems to come from a period when the church was commonly spoken of
as the bride of Christ, or when Christ was awaited as the coming
bridegroom of the church; this is not necessarily later than the times of
Paul's letter to the Ephesians, and so may be much earlier than Matthew,
but is certainly later than the time of Jesus.

The saying about eunuchs who have made themselves such for the kingdom of
heaven has a harsh sound in the mouth of Jesus; 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 it. We cannot but notice also, as
Wernle has remarked, that the saying seems to be displaced in Matthew,
coming in with extreme inappropriateness between Jesus' insistence upon
the sacredness of marriage and his blessing of the children. It may
bespeak the period of developing asceticism within the church. If it is
not to be assigned to Jesus we cannot fix very closely the date of its

On the whole, we must probably say that some parts of Matthew's tradition,
outside of his infancy section and the stories of the wonders at the
crucifixion, show indications of antiquity and genuineness, while others
arouse our suspicions as to their coming from Jesus, or even from Matthew.


As to whether the source of Luke's single tradition was one or many the
statement in his prologue predisposes us toward the latter supposition.
The difference between the infancy sections and the rest of Luke's
peculiar material, as in the case of Matthew, is marked. Hawkins reckons
one hundred and fifty-one words as characteristic of Luke. Of these,
seventy-seven, or more than half, occur once or more in the first two
chapters, while seventy-four of them are absent from these chapters. These
first two chapters contain about one hundred and thirty-two verses, about
one-ninth of the whole Gospel; yet one-half of the occurrences of Luke's
peculiar words are found here.

A strong Hebraic character is observable in Luke's infancy sections, quite
absent from his other peculiar material. In the twenty-one verses in i,
5-25, καὶ is used many times where Luke's habit elsewhere would lead us to
expect the substitution of δὲ. There are also many Hebraic phrases, such
as πορευόμενοι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς, προβεβηκότες ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις,
μέγας ἐνώπιον κυρίου, and the construction ἐγένετο, thrice used, as the
formula introducing a paragraph. Luke's own hand may be seen in the
introduction of δὲ three times. One of these is in connection with εἶπεν,
which is probably Luke's substitute for the historic present. The
retention of so many Hebraistic and non-Lucan features probably justifies
Jülicher's suggestion of a special (Hebraistic, Aramaic) written source
for these infancy sections. A written and not an oral source is also
indicated in Luke's table of ancestors,[119] especially in its awkward
placing after the baptism. It is quite impossible that Luke is here
drawing upon the same source as in his great interpolation. Even more
decisive in this direction than the vocabulary is the general character of
the material.

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 Luke."[120] He does not expressly say that he includes here the infancy
sections, or whether he refers merely to the great interpolation; in the
absence of such a statement, it may be fair to assume the former. He adds,
"I fully believe, myself, in its Jewish-Christian and Palestinian origin."
But when he adds further, "I can altogether go along with the view that
St. Luke probably collected this material during his two years' stay at
Caesarea (Acts xxiv compared with xxi and xxvii, 1); I could even quite
believe with Harnack, Mr. Streeter, and Dr. Bartlet that his chief
informants were Philip the evangelist and his four daughters," he is open
to the suspicion of being too much influenced by a desire to trace the
tradition back to a definite and authentic source, even where the data do
not warrant it. There is certainly no justification for referring the
infancy stories to Philip and his four daughters (and perhaps, as
suggested above, Dr. Sanday does not mean to do this).

Dr. Sanday further agrees with Dr. Bartlet "that the information derived
in this way probably lay before St. Luke in writing. 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 freshness, precision,
and individual touches which characterize St. Luke could well have been
preserved otherwise than by writing." If Dr. Sanday means that the writing
was done by Luke during his stay in Caesarea, from oral tradition given
him by Philip and his daughters, we are left with the assumption that Luke
kept this written material of his own for fifteen years (probably a good
deal longer) before he incorporated it in his Gospel. This would agree
well with the theory that Luke, as the traveling companion of Paul, kept a
diary of events, which he preserved for a still longer period, until he
finally incorporated it in his Book of Acts. Both these assumptions are
strange upon the face of them; and for those who do not accept the same
authorship for the "we sections" and the rest of Acts (as the present
writer does not), 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
Caesarea, and who do not identify the author of the Third Gospel with the
traveling companion of Paul, Dr. Sanday's statement will not appear

Outside of Luke's infancy sections (and the passion sections which will be
considered in a succeeding paragraph) there is an apparent homogeneity in
much of Luke's single tradition. Luke and Matthew start out in their
attempt to tell the gospel story, each on his own independent line. They
come together at the point where Mark has begun his story. Except for a
few insertions and transpositions they stay together and with Mark up to
Lk ix, 51. Here Luke inserts something more than nine chapters before he
gets back again to Matthew and Mark.

In these more than nine chapters there are some sections which Matthew has
in the earlier part of his Gospel, and little which Mark has;[121] but in
these nine chapters Luke inserts most of the material peculiar to himself,
and by far the greater part of the nine chapters is made up exclusively
of such material. From the end of Luke's infancy section to his great
interpolation there are about one hundred and fourteen verses of
exclusively Lucan material, but in this interpolation there are about one
hundred and seventy verses. The suggestion of these facts, to the effect
that Luke is here employing a source distinct from that which he has used
in his infancy section, and that he is for the most part employing one
source and not several, may be further favored by the fact that when he
comes back to the story told in Mark (and Matthew) he takes that up, not
where he left it, at Mk vi, 41, but at viii, 27; as if he had found it
inconvenient to make his peculiar source here work in with the common


The material of Luke's "great interpolation," after the comparatively
small amount of matter common to Luke and Matthew is subtracted from it,
has a decided homogeneity of its own. It consists of nine sayings, one
incident (the occurrence in the Samaritan village) which might with almost
equal propriety be reckoned as a saying, three healings, all of which have
the appearance of being introduced, not for the sake of the cure, but of
the appended saying, and thirteen parables.

These thirteen parables have not only a striking similarity among
themselves, but an equally striking _dis_similarity to those parables
which Luke has in common with one or both of the other evangelists.
Matthew's parables are usually brief sayings, beginning with the phrase,
"The kingdom of heaven is like," etc. The parables peculiar to Luke (there
are fourteen in all and thirteen of them occur in this section) are
stories rather than parables in the strict sense. Some of them are
introduced by the brief formula, "And he said unto them," or "And he said
to his disciples," etc. Others are given a more definite setting, like the
story of the Good Samaritan, which is introduced as an answer to the
question "Who is my neighbor?" However introduced, they usually contain a
more or less elaborated conclusion, easily distinguished from the parable
proper. Thus in the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asks the lawyer
which of the three men he considers to have been neighbor to him who fell
among the thieves. The lawyer makes his reply, and upon the basis of it
Jesus dismisses him with a word of pointed advice. 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 estate, and closes with the
reflection that whoever has the riches of this world but is not "rich
toward God" is like this man. So the stories of the Lost Sheep and the
Lost Coin are introduced with the statement that the Pharisees objected to
Jesus' eating with "sinners," and close with the statement, "Likewise
there is joy in the presence of the angels of God,"[123] etc.

At least one or two of these parables seem to be provided with more than
one conclusion. The story of the Unjust Judge (xviii, 1-8) is introduced
in vs. 1 as being spoken concerning the necessity of continued prayer. The
story or parable itself then follows in vss. 2-5. Vss. 6-8_a_ give the
conclusion in the words of Jesus, beginning with the words, "And the Lord
said." Then Luke himself, in vs. 8_b_, adds, "But, when the Son of man
cometh will he find the faith in the earth?"[124] The story of the Rich
Man and Lazarus is introduced as a rebuke to the Pharisees (Lk xvi,
14-15), who loved riches and thot well of themselves. The parable as thus
introduced and as answering to this purpose appropriately closes at vs.
25, where Abraham reminds the rich man that he had his good things and
Lazarus his poverty upon the earth, but now their situations are
reversed.[125] What follows in vss. 27-31, tho here given as a
continuation of the same story, has nothing to do with the contrast
between rich and poor, or with heartlessness and pity, but only with
belief and unbelief.

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 account. Thus the story of the Rich Man and
Lazarus is introduced, as just remarked, as a rebuke to the Pharisees, who
loved money and "justified themselves in the sight of men." If it were
allowed to follow immediately upon this, the setting would be appropriate.
But between this introduction, which is peculiar to Luke, and the story
itself, also peculiar to him, there are inserted three verses (xvi, 16-18)
in regard to law and divorce, which quite break the connection. These
interrupting verses, however, are not peculiar to Luke, but are found in
Matthew also.

When all these facts are taken into account it is not surprising that the
hypothesis has risen that the great interpolation, exclusive of the Q
material contained in it, came from a special source.

But the unity of this source is much harder to demonstrate than is the
unity of Q. A considerable amount of the material, aside from the Q
material, in these sections is more or less closely duplicated by Matthew,
and the Perean source or its equivalent in parts must therefore have been
used by him also. 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 it. The assumption that he did so, and the
assignment of the double tradition thruout this portion of Luke, would
require also an entire rearrangement of Q. Burton accepts this
requirement, and, instead of Q, goes back to the Logia as a special source
of Matthew. The fact that some of this material in the so-called Perean
section of Luke may easily be assigned to his own invention, 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 rearrangements, would seem to tell
against the unity of the Perean source, or against the assumption of any
Perean source properly so called, and common to Matthew and Luke. On the
whole the hypothesis of a Perean source does not seem to the writer to
have been substantiated.


Suggestion has been made in connection with a few of the passages
considered on pp. 193-206 as to a possible Jerusalem source. Nothing can
perhaps be said in support of such a hypothesis, except what is suggested
in the analysis on those pages and lies upon the surface of the passages.
Another possible clew to the determination of one of Luke's sources lies
in the material that has to do particularly with women. Compare the
raising of the widow's son and the speech of Jesus referring to the Old
Testament widow; the ministering women, Mary and Martha, and the speech of
the woman about the mother of Jesus. The writer does not consider this (or
the preceding) to be anything more than a suggestion.


The preceding investigations represent the recension of Q used by Matthew
as containing about two hundred and sixty-seven verses, or parts of
verses. Of these ninety-eight are so closely parallel to Luke as to be
marked simply Q. Eighty-nine, paralleled in Luke, 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 Luke, are assigned to
QMt. The recension of Q used by Luke, according to our analysis, contained
about two hundred and thirty-eight verses or parts of verses. Of these,
ninety-four are closely enough paralleled in Matthew to be assigned simply
to Q; eighty-one are paralleled in Matthew, but with such differences as
to suggest different wording in the source; and sixty-three are peculiar
to Luke.

It is not to be assumed that all of Q is reproduced in either Matthew or
Luke. But from the treatment accorded to Mark by Matthew and Luke,
respectively, it is to be expected that Matthew would omit less of the Q
material that lay before him than would Luke; and this presumption is
confirmed by the results obtained. The examination of Luke's material
indicates his command of a larger number of sources aside from Mark and Q
than are apparent in Matthew, and this again agrees with Luke's statement
in his preface. Luke's Gospel is longer than Matthew's, and approaches the
limit apparently convenient in ancient documents.[126] This fact, together
with the greater amount of material he wished to incorporate from other
sources, would further account for Luke's greater omissions from his Q.
Yet there is nothing to prove that Luke's Q, as it was certainly different
in some of its contents, was not also briefer than Matthew's.

It is possible to limit Q strictly to the sections of Matthew and Luke in
which the correspondences are extremely close, to leave the remainder of
their double tradition to unidentified sources, and to make no claims for
Q (QMt and QLk) in the single traditions of Matthew and Luke. This indeed
is the procedure of most scholars. But it has the disadvantages of
ignoring much material in the single traditions which is extremely similar
to the Q material and often stands, in one or both Gospels, in closest
connection with it, 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 document. The
assumption of QMt and QLk, going back to two different translations, from
different copies of the Aramaic original, and undergoing the process of
alteration and accretion in different surroundings before falling into the
hands of Matthew and Luke, best accounts for the agreements, the
divergences, and the peculiar but strongly similar material.

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 other,
ninety-eight in one extremely close in wording (with many verses
absolutely identical) to ninety-four in the other, and eighty verses in
one against sixty-three in the other, unduplicated, but strongly
suggesting by form and content their relationship with the rest, do not
throw any discredit upon the assumption of two recensions (translations)
of one document, but are what would be expected. If the date for the
original Q is to be set as early as the year 60, or even earlier, and its
use by Matthew and Luke be put as late as 85 to 95, the divergences
between Matthew's and Luke's recensions will be further justified.



The accompanying tables of contents of Q material in Matthew, Luke, and
Mark are prepared to facilitate comparison between the evangelists as to
the amount and character of their Q material. They will help to determine
whether QMT and QLK have enough in common, and of such a sort, as to
entitle them still to be regarded as recensions of the same original. They
will also help us toward a determination of the original order of Q. The
division into sections is a somewhat arbitrary one, but has been made as
nearly equal in Matthew and Luke as possible. Title and number are given
to each section in each Gospel, to make the comparative study of contents
and order more easy. Some slight differences may occasionally be detected
between the assignments as they are made here, and as they were made in
the examinations of the double and single traditions. 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


In the subjoined tables of Q material in Matthew and in Luke the
duplicated material is starred. The sections which are identical (or in a
few cases not absolutely but practically so), or in which the deviations
are so slight as easily to be ascribed to the editorial work of Matthew
or Luke, are marked Q. The sections unduplicated, or duplicated but with
deviations too great to be assigned to Matthew or Luke working upon a
similarly worded text, are marked QMt or QLk.



  Sec.|Chap.  Verse|              Subject                      |Source
   *1 |  iii,  7-10|Preaching of the Baptist                   |Q
   *2 |  iii, 11-12|Messianic announcement of the Baptist      |Q
   *3 |   iv,  1-11|The temptation                             |Q
   *4 |    v,  3   |Blessed are the poor in spirit             |QMt
    5 |    v,  4   |Blessed are the meek                       |QMt
    6 |    v,  5   |Blessed are they that mourn                |QMt
   *7 |    v,  6   |Blessed are they that hunger after         |
      |            |    righteousness                          |QMt
    8 |    v,  7   |Blessed are the merciful                   |QMt
    9 |    v,  8   |Blessed are the pure in heart              |QMt
   10 |    v,  9   |Blessed are the peace-makers               |QMt
  *11 |    v, 10-12|Blessed are the persecuted                 |QMt
  *12 |    v, 13   |Ye are the salt of the earth. If the salt, |
      |            |    etc.                                   |QMt
  *13 |    v, 14-16|Light of the world. Candle and bushel      |QMt
  *14 |    v, 17-20|Relation to the law. Except your           |
      |            |    righteousness, etc.                    |QMt
   15 |    v, 21-22|Do not kill. Whoever is angry              |QMt
   16 |    v, 23-24|If thou bring thy gift to the altar        |QMt
  *17 |    v, 25-26|Agree with thine adversary                 |QMt
   18 |    v, 27-28|On adultery and lustfulness                |QMt
   19 |    v, 29-30|If thine eye, hand, offend thee            |QMt
  *20 |    v, 31-32|On divorce                                 |Q (Mk)
   21 |    v, 33-37|On the taking of oaths                     |QMt
  *22 |    v, 38-42|On revenge. Resist not                     |QMt
  *23 |    v, 43-48|Love your enemies                          |QMt
   24 |   vi,  1-4 |On almsgiving                              |QMt
   25 |   vi,  5-8 |On prayer: be not as the hypocrites are    |QMt
  *26 |   vi,  9-13|The Lord's Prayer                          |QMt
  *27 |   vi, 14-15|About forgiveness                          |QMt
   28 |   vi, 16-18|On fasting: not as the hypocrites          |QMt
  *29 |   vi, 19-21|About treasures not on the earth           |QMt
  *30 |   vi, 22-23|The light of the body. If thine eye be     |
      |            |    single                                 |Q
  *31 |   vi, 24   |About serving two masters                  |Q
  *32 |   vi, 25-34|About care                                 |Q
  *33 |  vii,  1-2 |About judging                              |QMt
  *34 |  vii,  3-5 |The mote and the beam                      |Q
   35 |  vii,  6   |Pearls before swine                        |QMt
  *36 |  vii,  7-11|Seeking and finding                        |Q
  *37 |  vii, 12   |The Golden Rule                            |Q
  *38 |  vii, 13-14|The narrow gate                            |QMt
   39 |  vii, 15   |Warnings against false prophets            |QMt
  *40 |  vii, 16-18|By their fruits ye shall know them         |QMt
  *41 |  vii, 21-23|Not everyone that saith, "Lord, Lord"      |QMt
  *42 |  vii, 24-27|House on rock and sand                     |QMt
   43 |  vii, 28a  |And it came to pass when he had finished,  |
      |            |    etc.                                   |QMt
  *44 | viii,  5-10|The centurion's servant healed             |Q
  *45 | viii, 11-12|Many shall come from east and west         |QMt
  *46 | viii, 19-22|Two men who would follow Jesus             |Q
  *47 |   ix, 37-38|The harvest is great, the laborers are few |Q
  *48 |    x,  1   |The commission of the twelve               |Q (Mk)
   49 |    x,  5-6 |Not in way of gentiles. Lost sheep of      |
      |            |    Israel                                 |QMt
  *50 |    x,  7   |Preach the kingdom of heaven at hand       |QMt
   51 |    x,  8   |Heal sick, raise dead; freely ye have      |
      |            |    received                               |QMt
  *52 |    x,  9-10|Instruction as to what to take. Laborer    |
      |            |    and his food                           |Q (Mk)
  *53 |    x, 11-13|Conduct on the way. Greet the house        |Q (Mk)
  *54 |    x, 14   |Whoever does not receive you               |Q (Mk)
  *55 |    x, 15-16|More tolerable for Sodom, I send you       |
      |            |    forth as sheep among wolves            |Q
  *56 |    x, 19-20|Take no thot what ye shall answer          |Q
  *57 |    x, 24   |The disciple not above his teacher         |Q
  *58 |    x, 26-33|Fearless confession. Be not afraid of      |
      |            |    them; things hidden and revealed       |QMt
  *59 |    x, 34-36|Division among relatives                   |QMt
  *60 |    x, 37-39|Conditions of discipleship; saving and     |
      |            |    losing one's soul                      |QMt
  *61 |    x, 40-42|He that receiveth you                      |QMt
  *62 |   xi,  2-6 |The question of the Baptist, and answer    |Q
  *63 |   xi,  7-10|Jesus' testimony to John. Law and          |
      |            |    prophets till John                     |Q
  *64 |   xi, 21-23|Woes upon Galilean cities                  |Q
  *65 |   xi, 25-27|Wise and prudent. All things are given     |
      |            |    unto me                                |Q
   66 |   xi, 28-30|Come unto me, all ye that labor            |QMt
   67 |  xii,  5-7 |The priests blameless; mercy, not sacrifice|QMt
  *68 |  xii, 22-32|The Beelzebul controversy. Blasphemy       |Q (Mk)
  *69 |  xii, 24-35|A good man out of the good treasure of     |
      |            |    his heart                              |Q
  *70 |  xii, 39-40|The sign of Jonah                          |QMt
  *71 |  xii, 41   |The men of Nineveh                         |Q
  *72 |  xii, 42   |Queen of the South                         |Q
  *73 |  xii, 43-45|About backsliding; "empty, swept"          |Q
  *74 | xiii, 12   |Whoso has, to him shall be given           |Q (Mk)
  *75 | xiii, 16-17|Blessed are your eyes                      |QMt
  *76 | xiii, 31-32|Parable of the Mustard Seed                |Q (Mk)
  *77 | xiii, 33   |Parable of the Yeast                       |Q
   78 | xiii, 44   |Parable of Treasure Hid in Field           |QMt
   79 | xiii, 45-46|Parable of the Pearls                      |QMt
   80 | xiii, 47-48|Parable of the Fish-Net                    |QMt
   81 | xiii, 51-52|Pharisee instructed in the kingdom of      |
      |            |    heaven                                 |QMt
  *82 |   xv, 14   |Blind leading the blind                    |Q
  *83 | xvii, 20   |Faith like a grain of mustard seed         |QMt
  *84 |xviii,  6-7 |About offenses                             |Q (Mk)
   85 |xviii, 12-14|Parable of Lost Sheep                      |QMt
  *86 |  xix, 28   |The apostles on twelve thrones             |QMt
  *86a| xxii, 35-38|The great commandment                      |Q (Mk)
   87 |xxiii,  2-3 |Scribes and Pharisees in Moses' seat       |QMt
   88 |xxiii,  4   |They bind heavy burdens                    |QMt
   89 |xxiii,  5   |They broaden their phylacteries            |QMt
   90 |xxiii,  8-10|Be not called rabbi                        |QMt
  *91 |xxiii, 13   |Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven           |QMt
  *92 |xxiii, 15-16|Woes upon Pharisees                        |QMt
  *93 |xxiii, 37-30|Lament over Jerusalem                      |Q
  *94 | xxiv, 26-27|The day of the Son of man                  |QMt
  *95 | xxiv, 28   |Where the body is, there the eagles, etc   |Q
  *96 | xxiv, 37-39|The days of Noah                           |QMt
  *97 | xxiv, 40-41|The one taken, the other left              |QMt
  *98 | xxiv, 42-44|The watching servant                       |Q
  *99 | xxiv, 45-51|The true and false servants                |Q

  * The asterisk indicates Q material in Matthew duplicated in Luke.



  Sec.|Chap. Verse |               Subject                     |Source
   *1 |  iii,  7-9 |Preaching of the Baptist                   |Q
   *2 |  iii, 16-17|Messianic announcement of the Baptist      |Q
   *3 |   iv,  1-13|The temptation                             |Q
   *4 |   vi, 20   |Blessed are ye poor                        |QLk
   *5 |   vi, 21   |Blessed are ye that hunger                 |QLk
   *6 |   vi, 22-23|Blessed are ye when men hate you           |QLk
    7 |   vi, 24-26|Woes upon rich, full, laughing, popular    |QLk
   *7a|   vi, 31   |The Golden Rule                            |Q
   *8 |   vi, 27-36|Love your enemies                          |QLk
   *9 |   vi, 37-38|About judging                              |QLk
  *10 |   vi, 39   |Parable of the Blind Leading the Blind     |Q
  *11 |   vi, 40   |The disciple not above his teacher         |Q
  *12 |   vi, 41-42|The mote and the beam                      |Q
  *13 |   vi, 43-44|Tree known by its fruits                   |QLk
  *14 |   vi, 45   |A good man out of the good treasure of     |
      |            |    his heart                              |Q
  *15 |   vi, 46   |Why call ye me "Lord, Lord"                |QLk
  *16 |   vi, 47-49|House with and without foundation          |QLk
  *17 |  vii,  1-2,|The centurion's servant healed             |Q
      |        7-9 |                                           |
  *18 |  vii, 18,  |Question of John the Baptist and answer    |Q
      |     22-23  |                                           |
  *19 |  vii, 24-28|Jesus' testimony to John                   |Q
      |       31-35|                                           |
  *20 | viii, 16   |Candle and bed (bushel)                    |QLk
  *21 | viii, 17   |Things hidden and revealed                 |QLk
  *22 | viii, 18   |Whoever has, to him shall be given         |Q (Mk)
  *23 |   ix,  1-2 |The mission of the twelve                  |Q (Mk)
  *24 |   ix,  5   |Whoever shall not receive you              |Q (Mk)
  *25 |   ix, 57-60|Two men who would follow Jesus             |Q
   26 |   ix, 61-62|A third; no man putteth his hand to the    |
      |            |    plow                                   |QLk
  *27 |    x,  2   |The harvest is great; the laborers are     |
      |            |    few                                    |Q
  *28 |    x,  3   |I send you forth as lambs among wolves     |Q
  *29 |    x,  4   |Instructions as to what to take            |Q (Mk)
      |  (ix,  3)  |                                           |
  *30 |    x,  5-7 |Conduct on the way; greet the house.       |
      |            |    Laborer worthy of his hire             |Q (Mk)
  *31 |    x,  8-11|Whoever receives, or does not receive, you |Q (Mk)
  *32 |    x, 12   |More tolerable for Sodom                   |Q
  *33 |    x, 13-15|Woes upon Galilean cities                  |Q
  *34 |    x, 16   |He that heareth (receiveth) you            |QLk
      |  (ix, 48)  |                                           |
   35 |    x, 17-20|Satan falling from heaven, names written   |QLk
  *36 |    x, 21-22|Wise and prudent; all things are given unto|
      |            |    me                                     |Q
  *37 |    x, 23-24|Blessed are the eyes that see what you see |QLk
  *38 |    x, 25-28|The great commandment                      |Q (Mk)
  *39 |   xi,  2-4 |The Lord's Prayer                          |QLk
  *40 |   xi,  9-13|Seeking and finding                        |Q
  *41 |   xi, 17-23|Beelzebul controversy                      |Q (Mk)
  *42 |   xi, 24-26|About backsliding; "empty, swept"          |Q
  *43 |   xi, 29-30|The sign of Jonah                          |QLk
  *44 |   xi, 31   |Queen of the South                         |QLk
  *45 |   xi, 32   |The men of Nineveh                         |Q
  *46 |   xi, 34-35|The light of the body. If thine eye be     |
      |            |    single                                 |Q
  *47 |   xi, 39-52|Woes upon Pharisees. Take away the         |
      |            |    key of knowledge                       |QLk
  *48 |  xii,  4-9 |Fearless confession; be not afraid of them |QLk
  *49 |  xii, 10   |Blasphemy against Son of man (Beelzebul    |
      |            |    controversy)                           |Q (Mk)
  *50 |  xii, 11-12|Take no thot what ye shall answer          |QLk
  *51 |  xii, 22-31|About care                                 |Q
   52 |  xii, 32   |Fear not, little flock                     |QLk
  *53 |  xii, 33-34|About treasures, not on the earth          |QLk
   54 |  xii, 35-38|About the necessity for watchfulness       |QLk
  *55 |  xii, 39-40|The watching servant                       |Q
  *56 |  xii, 42-46|The true and false servants                |Q
   57 |  xii, 47-48|Beaten with few stripes or with many       |QLk
   58 |  xii, 49-50|I came to cast fire; I have a baptism      |QLk
  *59 |  xii, 51-53|Division among relatives                   |QLk
   60 |  xii, 54-56|Signs of the time                          |QLk
  *61 |  xii, 57-59|Agree with thine adversary                 |QLk
  *62 | xiii, 18-19|Parable of the Mustard Seed                |Q (Mk)
  *63 | xiii, 20-21|Parable of the Yeast                       |Q
  *64 | xiii, 23-24|The narrow door (gate)                     |QLk
   65 | xiii, 25-27|When the door is shut                      |QLk
  *66 | xiii, 28-29|Many from east and west                    |QLk
  *67 | xiii, 34-25|Lament over Jerusalem                      |Q
   68 |  xiv,  7-11|About taking the chief seats at a feast    |QLk
   69 |  xiv, 12-14|About whom to invite to a feast            |QLk
  *70 |  xiv, 26-27|Conditions of discipleship                 |QLk
   71 |  xiv, 28-30|Man building a tower                       |QLk
   72 |  xiv, 31-33|King going to war                          |QLk
  *73 |  xiv, 34-35|Salt is good. If the salt has lost         |(Mk) QLk
  *73a|  xvi, 13   |About serving two masters                  |Q
  *74 |  xvi, 16   |The law and prophets until John            |Q
  *75 |  xvi, 17   |Relation to the law                        |QLk
  *76 |  xvi, 18   |Divorce                                    |Q (Mk)
  *77 | xvii,  1-2 |Offenses                                   |Q (Mk)
  *78 | xvii,  3-4 |On forgiveness                             |QLk
  *79 | xvii,  5-6 |Faith as a grain of mustard seed           |QLk
   80 | xvii, 20-21|The kingdom cometh not with observation    |QLk
  *81 | xvii, 22-25|The day of the Son of man                  |QLk
  *82 | xvii, 26-27|The days of Noah                           |QLk
   83 | xvii, 28-32|The days of Lot                            |QLk
  *84 | xvii, 33   |Saving and losing one's soul               |Q
  *85 | xvii, 34-35|Two in one bed (field)                     |QLk
  *86 | xvii, 37   |Where the body is, there the eagles, etc.  |Q
   87 |xviii,  1-8 |The parable of the Unjust Judge            |QLk
   88 |  xxi, 34-35|The necessity for watchfulness and prayer  |QLk
   89 | xxii, 30   |Eating and drinking in the kingdom of God; |
      |            |    twelve thrones                         |QLk

  * The asterisk indicates Q material in Luke duplicated in Matthew.

As to the generally homogeneous character of the sections marked Q, there
will be no dispute. Since these are restricted to the passages showing
the very closest parallelism, there can be no question about the propriety
of assigning them to Q. The only question will be as to the assignment of
any unduplicated material to any form of Q, and the assignment of the
duplicated but not closely paralleled sections to QMt and QLk instead of
simply to Q. Reasons have been given[127] for such assignments in each
case. But a few sections may be taken as again illustrating the advantages
of the QMt-QLk hypothesis.


Sections 42 in Matthew and 16 in Luke contain the saying about the house
on the rock and the sand (with and without foundations). These sections
are universally ascribed to Q, both from their general similarity and from
their position in each Gospel as the conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount
(Plain). But the wording is very dissimilar. Only those words are alike
which must necessarily be so if two men were using the same subject as an
illustration; and this is true, not only of the wording, but of the
thought. Those who assign the passage simply to Q are compelled to suppose
that, Matthew representing the original text, Luke has observed that the
correct antithesis is not between a house built on a rock and a house
built on the sand, but between one built with a foundation and one built
without one. So he says nothing about the soil, whether rock or sand, but
says that in one case the man built upon the surface, and that in the
other he digged deep and laid a good foundation. The amount of re-working,
reinterpreting, and re-writing thus required of Luke is wholly
unjustified by any treatment he has accorded to any of the sayings of
Jesus in Mark. It is presumable that he exercised his editorial function
on his recension of Q as he did upon the sayings-material in Mark. 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 source. The assumption of the two recensions therefore
has the advantage of preserving the section for Q, without the
disadvantage of ascribing to Luke a wholly unwarrantable amount of

Sections 4-11 in Matthew and 4-6 in Luke contain their different versions
of the beatitudes. Those who assign indiscriminately to Q all the verses
contained in these sections have to assume that Luke omitted five of the
beatitudes. No reason can be assigned for his doing so, and it is wholly
improbable that he would have deliberately mutilated a passage so
liturgically complete and impressive. The five omitted beatitudes are
additions to the teachings of Jesus, manufactured on the basis of Old
Testament exemplars. But if anything stood in Q, these five beatitudes
stood there, only not in Luke's recension, but in Matthew's.


Those who argue for Luke's omission of so much Q material which (according
to their assumption) stood before him, allege as a precedent his omission
of so much Marcan material, especially of the continuous section Mk vi,
45-viii, 21. It is held by many students that the copy of Mark used by
Luke did not contain this section.[128] 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 Mark. It contains the
doublet of the feeding of the four thousand. Luke avoids doublets as far
as possible. It contains the story of the walking on the sea, a story
similar in many respects to that of the storm at sea which Luke had
already taken from Mark. The dispute about hand-washing and the things
that defile would have no interest for Luke or his gentile readers. The
story of the Canaanitish woman and her difficulties in securing help from
Jesus, and the methods of healing the dumb man, would offend Luke's
non-Jewish sympathies and his artistic sense. The discussion about leaven
he would omit because he had a partial parallel from another source. In
this whole section which Luke omits from Mark there are very few sayings
of Jesus, and those of a character not to please or interest Luke. The
omission of such a section, or of anything else that Luke omits from Mark,
offers no precedent for the omissions he is alleged to have made from Q.

In the preceding table of contents for Q material in Matthew (pp. 222-23),
there are twenty-nine sections for which Luke has no parallel. Five of
these, the omitted beatitudes, have already been discussed. Of the
remaining twenty-four there are a few which, it may be admitted, Luke
might not have cared to include, even if they were in his Q. Such are the
sections on oaths, on fasting, on the blamelessness of the priests, and on
the Pharisee instructed in the kingdom of God--all of a strongly Jewish
character. To these may be added four other brief sections, all from
Matthew's discourse against the Pharisees; especially, the reference to
phylacteries, which would have no meaning for Luke's readers, and the
injunction not to be called "Rabbi." The saying, "Give not that which is
holy unto the dogs [heathen] nor cast your pearls before swine
[unbelievers]," he would hardly have taken if it had stood in his source.
But there are other sections which would particularly have delighted him,
and which it is almost inconceivable that he should have read and omitted.
Such are the sections on alms-giving (a favorite subject with Luke; see Lk
xi, 41; xii, 33); on prayer (a subject which he mentions eighteen times
against Matthew's ten, outside of this passage); the three little parables
of the Treasure Hid in the Field, the Pearls, and the Fish-Net, and the
beautiful saying, so fitted to Luke's universalistic purpose, "Come unto

Much less can any reason be assigned for Matthew's omission of the sixteen
unduplicated sayings ascribed to QLk.[129] Matthew almost invariably
shortens Mark's narratives, and sometimes omits a narrative section, but
practically never omits a saying of Jesus given in Mark. The case of the
third would-be follower of Jesus, with the particularly fine saying, "No
man having put his hand to the plow"; the little parables of the Man
Building a Tower and the King Going to War; the sayings, "I came to cast
fire upon the earth," "I have a baptism to be baptized with," "Fear not,
little flock," would attract Matthew as much as they did Luke, and with
Matthew's almost slavish adherence to Mark in all Mark's sayings-material,
no reason can be given for his omission of them.

If it be asked why these unduplicated sections, which have been assigned
to QMt and QLk, are not assigned simply to special and undetermined
sources, the answer is that all these sections stand more or less closely
connected with Q material, they are strongly similar to the other Q matter
in form and idea, and equally different in form and feeling from the
passages assigned to special sources. They consist, in both Matthew and
Luke, of short parables of the undoubted Q type (cf. the Treasure Hid in
the Field, the Pearls, the Fish-Net, the Unjust Judge) and of short
sayings; whereas the special source or sources (whether of Matthew or
Luke) consist of narratives (the opening chapters of both Gospels, the
Peter-sections in Matthew, the death of Judas in Matthew, Jesus before
Herod in Luke, the watch at the grave in Matthew, the Emmaus incident in
Luke, and the peculiar matter of both Matthew and Luke in their accounts
of the days in Jerusalem) and of story-parables like the Prodigal Son, the
Lost Coin, the Good Samaritan, the Entrusted Money. 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 Luke, and are not so
intended; but they are enough to distinguish the material so assigned from
that assigned to QMt and QLk, and to establish the comparative homogeneity
of this latter material in each case.


The distinction between Q and QMt and QLk is further justified by the
consideration of secondary traits. QMt and QLk represent deviations from,
or additions to, an original Q. Since these deviations and additions would
go back to a very early time, and even when comparatively late might
embody an early tradition, the presence of primary traits in QMt and QLk
need not surprise us.[130] Since Q cannot be proved to be earlier than
60-65, it may also easily contain secondary traits. But since QMt and QLk
are in general later than Q, and presumably represent a later tradition,
we should naturally expect to find in them a larger number of secondary

In the material assigned to Q in Tables IV and V[131] the writer believes
that not many unmistakably secondary traits appear. The messianic
announcement of the Baptist is certainly primary as compared with Mark
predicting Jesus as the fire-judge, contrary to the facts of his life. The
temptation in Q is also primary as compared with Mark, with the exception
of the conversation between Jesus and John in Matthew, which is obviously
secondary and belongs to QMt. Of the sayings, only a few have a secondary
sound. Such are especially those connected with the instructions to the
twelve, which seem to embody some of the experiences, or bespeak some of
the needs, of the early Christian itinerant preachers: "The laborer is
worthy of his hire [or his keep]"; "I send you forth as sheep among
wolves"; "The disciple is not above his master"; "The law and the prophets
prophesied until John"; perhaps also Matthew's long beatitude, "Blessed
are ye when men persecute you," etc.

But by far the most of the secondary traits, and the most unmistakable of
them, are found in the additions to and deviations from the Q tradition
_in QMt and QLk_. Such are the additional beatitudes supplied by Matthew's
Q and made up of Old Testament quotations; the insertion into the
temptation story, in QMt, of the protest of John the Baptist and the
answer of Jesus; the warning against false prophets in Matthew; the speech
about those who say "Lord, Lord"; the prediction of division among
relatives (seemingly answering the condition in which the early church
found itself); the many coming from the east and the west (written in the
days of the expanding church); the sign of Jonah interpreted (in Matthew)
as referring to the resurrection; the parable of the Fish-Net with its
eschatological interpretation; the saying about the twelve apostles on
twelve thrones; and the various sections interpolated, apparently from QMt
and QLk, into Mark's apocalypse.

Closer analysis of particular sections tends to corroborate this
impression of secondary traits as coming not from Q but from the
recensions. For example, the sayings about the light and the bushel and
about the salt that had lost its savor appear to have stood in Q. But from
his own recension of Q, Matthew prefixed to the saying what Luke did not
find in his recension, "Ye are the light of the world," "Ye are the salt
of the earth," two sayings which seem to reflect the exalted estimate of
the apostles in the sub-apostolic age. The Lord's Prayer probably stood in
the original Q much as it is in Luke; Matthew's amplifications, found in
his source, have the liturgical and ecclesiastical coloring that betray
the later time.

So, further, Luke's parable of the Unjust Judge, with its generally Q
sound, but with its pathetic question appended (from Luke's recension),
"Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find the faith on the
earth?" bespeaks the times of persecution when the survival of the new
faith looked problematical. Matthew's "Cast not your pearls before swine,"
"The Pharisee instructed in the kingdom of heaven," "The scribes and
Pharisees in Moses' seat," all from QMt, and Luke's "Rejoice that your
names are written in heaven," his saying about discerning the signs of the
time (of the parousia), his "kingdom cometh not with observation," and his
twice repeated injunction to watchfulness, all from QLk, certainly have a
secondary sound. The presence of so many secondary traits in QMt and QLk
does not prove that the passages so assigned might not be assigned to S or
some other special or undefined source; but many if not all of them being
passages ordinarily assigned simply to Q, the large number of secondary
traits in them does tend to substantiate, in an unlooked-for manner, the
assumption of the two recensions.



In the introduction to his _Beginnings of Gospel History_, Bacon remarks
that the "dependence of Mark upon Q can be demonstrated." Wellhausen says
that "independence [between Mark and Q] is not to be thot of." Streeter,
in _Oxford Studies_, has made the most recent and thoro study of the
relation of Mark and Q, and some of his results have already been utilized
and acknowledged. Even Dr. Sanday, in the introduction to _Oxford
Studies_, confesses himself an unwilling convert to the theory that Mark
was acquainted with, and made some use of, Q. Wellhausen alone, so far as
I know, maintains the apparently untenable position that Q is later than
Mark, and that where the two overlap, Q has used Mark instead of Mark
using Q. 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 Luke; he also allows to Q
much material (e.g., the conversation between John and Jesus at the
baptism) which other scholars, without the hypothesis of QMt and QLk,
ascribe to the hand of Matthew or Luke. Harnack and Wernle maintain the
priority of Q to Mark. Wernle concedes some small use of Q by Mark, and
Harnack thinks Mark was at least "acquainted with" Q.

The discrimination between QMt and QLk 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 respectively.
Assuming that Mark used either the original Q, or as near to the original
of that document as we can yet get, the recensions used by Matthew and
Luke would be perhaps thirty, certainly twenty, years later than that used
by Mark. In the fifty or more verses of Mark that appear to have stood
also in Q, there is nothing that can be shown to be later than the year 70
(the date generally assigned to Mark). There is nothing to suggest that
the author had witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, or the events
immediately leading up to it. The presence of the same material in Mark
and Q is demonstrated by the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark,
or by the deviations of the one or the other of them from the Marcan form
of a saying, in such way as not to admit of explanation except by the
assumption of two sources (Mark and Q) in the hands of Matthew and Luke.
In other words, if Mark did use Q, but if he used the same text of it as
was used by Matthew and Luke, and if the three followed Q with equal
faithfulness, in all such instances Q would fail to appear, since both
Matthew and Luke would appear to be following only Mark. It is therefore
where there are deviations of either Matthew or Luke from Mark in sections
where the other follows Mark closely, or where there are agreements of
Matthew and Luke against Mark in sayings-material, that the presence of Q
behind Mark can be detected.

Upon the hypothesis of Q without QMt or QLk, the argument by which the use
of Q by Mark, as against the use of Mark by Q, was proven, consisted of
picking out the primary and secondary traits in Mark and Q respectively,
and of showing that the primary traits were in Q and the secondary in
Mark. But this was very difficult to do, so long as, e.g., the Peter
incidents peculiar to Matthew, or the conversation during the baptism,
were attributed to Q. For these were indisputably secondary. If the
priority of Mark was to be maintained, all such traits had to be removed
from Q and assigned to the evangelist or to some special source.

Upon the theory now advocated by the writer, these secondary traits are
practically all assigned, not to the original Q, but to QMt or QLk.[132]
But if Mark used any form of Q, it was not QMt or QLk, but some much
simpler, more primary, and doubtless less extended, form. The presence of
secondary traits in QMt and QLk therefore does nothing toward proving the
secondary character of Q in its original form, or in such an early form as
would have been used by Mark. Since nothing can be found in Q which is
either demonstrably or probably later than the date of Mark, the
assumption that Mark used Q may be permitted to stand; and with the
removal of the secondary traits to the recensions, it does not require the
minute analysis which earlier hypotheses made necessary, since there are
no longer any indications militating against Mark's use of Q. What now
remains therefore is to determine as nearly as possible what material
stood in Mark and Q.


In the attempt to determine what material Mark has taken from Q, an effort
will also be made to decide whether Matthew and Luke took the same
material directly from Q, or indirectly from Q thru Mark. The verses which
one or both of them appear to have taken directly from Q (tho these verses
stand also in Mark) will be added to the number of verses already
attributed to Q (or QMt and QLk). We shall thus have before us the
largest possible sum-total of Q material. The tables of contents already
made out for the Q material, as it now stands in Matthew and Luke
respectively,[133] will throw further light upon the propriety or
impropriety of regarding QMt and QLk as recensions of one original
document. The same tables will serve to indicate the probable order of Q,
and the investigation now following will then be used to determine what
acquaintance, if any, Mark had with Q, and what use, if any, he made of
that document.


(Mk i, 7-8)

Matthew and Luke are close to Mark in their wording here, but agree
against him in putting his verses in reverse order and in the addition of
καὶ πυρὶ. They then each add a verse (Mt iii, 12; Lk iii, 17) which has
already been assigned to Q. In each Gospel this verse develops the idea
introduced by the καὶ πυρὶ. The order of Matthew and Luke is here
necessarily, and apparently originally, different from that of Mark, 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 arrangement. In spite therefore of the close agreement of Matthew's
vs. 11 and Luke's vs. 16 with Mark, these verses must be assigned to Q. In
other words, it is probable that here Matthew and Luke are depending
directly upon Q, and not merely indirectly upon him thru Mark.


(Mk i, 9-11)

This section is added to Q by many critics, on the ground of its position
between the preaching of the Baptist and the temptation of Jesus, both
related in Q. The agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are
not, however, frequent or important enough by themselves to suggest this
assignment. On the other hand, 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 Luke. Matthew also represents the voice from heaven
as directed to the crowd, and not to Jesus alone, as do Mark and Luke. In
both these deviations Matthew has an apparently later tradition, and has
preferred to follow his recension of Q. Either Luke's recension here
agreed substantially with Mark's, or else Luke has followed Mark more
closely than Q.


(Mk i, 12-13)

The very brief account in Mark is followed in Matthew and Luke by nine and
eleven verses respectively, which have been already assigned to Q. The
question here is whether Matthew and Luke followed Mark in the first two
verses of their narratives, and after that forsook him for Q, or whether
they followed Q thruout. Matthew and Luke agree in substituting διάβολος
for Mark's σατανᾶς, in the omission of the clause "and was with the wild
beasts," and in placing the temptation in the period of hunger following
the forty days' fast. They apparently followed Q rather than Mark, but
each introduced some changes out of deference to the latter. Mark's
account is similar enough to that of Matthew and Luke to be a brief
extract from Q.


(Mk iii, 20-29)

This Marcan section is duplicated in Mt xii, 24-32, and Lk xi, 15-23; xii,
10. Of these Matthean and Lucan accounts, Mt xii, 26-28, and Lk xi,
18-20, are practically identical, but not paralleled in Mark. In xii, 29,
Matthew follows Mk iii, 27, almost word for word. At the same place Luke
forsakes Mark and deviates widely, tho agreeing closely with Matthew in
the three preceding verses. Matthew's xii, 30, and Luke's xi, 23, are
again unparalleled in Mark, and are evidently from Q. Matthew's vs. 31
again goes back to Mark's vs. 28, but is influenced by his own Q material
in the following verses. The derivation of Mark from Q in this passage is
rendered doubly sure by the facts that the verses seriously interrupt the
connection in Mark, and that the passage here consecutive in Matthew and
Mark is separated in Luke. Matthew is a conflation of Mark and Q. Luke is
apparently Q thruout. Matthew's Marcan and Q material being mixed, it is
impossible to tell whether Matthew's Q was here identical with Luke's or
not. Out of this section there should be added to Q the passages Mt xii,
25, and Lk xi, 17, 21.


(Mk iv, 21-25)

Such detached sayings, unconnected with Mark's narrative, create at once a
presumption of their having been taken from Q. Luke has the first saying
(about the lamp) in two places (viii, 16; xi, 33), indicating that he
found it both in Mark and Q. He also has a duplicate for the second
saying, while the fifth is repeated twice in both Matthew and Luke. Mk iv,
23, is the proverbial saying used twice in both Mark and Luke and three
times in Matthew. There is thus only one of Mark's sayings (iv, 24) which
is not given twice by Matthew or Luke or both. An additional indication of
the occurrence of these verses in Q, and Mark's derivation of them from
that source, is the fact that they are part of a section in Mark which
seriously interrupts his narrative, interposing a private conversation of
Jesus with his disciples between the teaching in the boat and the storm on
the lake. The verses are also given by Matthew in four different chapters,
and by Luke in two, and by both in different order from each other and
from Mark. All five of these Marcan verses, therefore, and their parallels
in Matthew and Luke, should be assigned to Q.


(Mk iv, 30-32)

This parable has a strong resemblance to those already assigned to Q.
Matthew's connection is the same as Mark's; Luke's is different. Luke
agrees with Mark in beginning with a question, tho he omits the second
half of the double question in Mark. Matthew follows Mark, or is strongly
influenced by him in Mt xiii, 32. Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in
the words ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος. According to a suggestion of Wellhausen's,
ἔβαλεν εἰς κῆπον and ἔσπειρεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ may be translation variants. In
the conclusion Matthew and Luke agree much more closely with each other
than with Mark. Except for the influence of Mark at the beginning, Luke
seems to be following Q, while Matthew's parable is a conflation of Q and
Mark. If Mark here rests upon Q, then Matthew is conflating a parable
which Mark drew from Q with the same parable as he (Matthew) found it in
his recension of Q. Complicated as this may seem, Mark's parable is too
closely similar to Luke's to have had any but a Q origin. To Q in Luke
should be added Lk xiii, 18-19; and to Q in Matthew, Mt xiii, 31-32.


(Mk vi, 7-11)

This passage is to be compared with Mt x, 1, 7-8, 9-16, and Lk ix, 1-5; x,
1, 3, 4-7, 9-12 (with considerable rearrangement of order in the verses).
The Marcan material, as it reappears in both Matthew and Luke, is mixed
with much other material from Q. 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 confusion. Matthew (x, 14) and Luke (ix,
5) agree in six words against Mark. In the verb ἐκτινάξετε, Matthew (x,
14) follows Mark against Luke. Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in
saying μήτε ῥάβδον instead of εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον. 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 material. Mark's version might be
considered an excerpt, rather than a copy, of Q. To Q in Matthew may be
added Mt x, 1, 9, 10_ab_, 14; and to Q in Luke, Lk ix, 1, 3, 5; x, 4, 10.


(Mk viii, 12)

On the ground of Matthew's having doublets for this saying (Mt xii, 39;
xvi, 4) and Luke a parallel to it (Lk xi, 29), it may without further
consideration be assigned to Q. The agreement of Matthew and Luke, and the
agreement of Matthew's doublets, in adding "Except the sign of Jonah," may
be taken to indicate the difference here between Mark's Q and the later


(Mk viii, 34-35)

Matthew has doublets for this saying in x, 38-39; xvi, 24-25; Luke in ix,
23-24; xiv, 27; xvii, 33. Matthew and Luke copy the Marcan version with
unusual fidelity thru about forty words. They agree against him in saying
εἴ τις for Mark's ὅστις, in the substitution of a form (tho not the same
form) of the verb ἔρχομαι for ἀκολουθεῖν, and in the employment of a
subjunctive in place of an indicative of the verb ἀπόλλυμι. Luke adds the
phrase "day by day." Considering the remarkably close verbal agreement as
well as the agreement in order, there can be no doubt that Matthew in xvi,
24-25, and Luke in ix, 23-24, are following Mark; their agreements against
him may be explained partly by a desire to correct his style, and partly
by assimilation. The resemblances between the other member of the doublet
in each case, and the saying as here reported in Mark (i.e., between Mt x,
38-39; Lk xiv, 27; xvii, 33, and Mk viii, 34-35), are sufficiently close
to suggest, if not to prove, that Mark's saying was derived by him from Q.
Since these verses have already been assigned to Q in the examination of
the double tradition, they yield no new Q material here.


(Mk viii, 38)

Matthew has a parallel of this saying, and Luke has doublets for it (Mt x,
33; Lk ix, 26; xii, 9). The verse may be assigned to Q.


(Mk ix, 42-48)

Matthew here follows Mark rather closely, except that he adds "Woe to the
world because of offenses," and conflates Mark's two sayings about the
hand and the foot into one. Matthew has doublets for Mk ix, 43, 45-47, in
Mt v, 29-30, and xviii, 8-9. Luke has avoided the doublet, but has a
parallel to Mark's verses in Lk xvii, 1-2. The section may be assigned to
Mark and Q.


(Mk ix, 49-50)

The little saying in vs. 49 is unduplicated in either of the other
Gospels. If any source be suggested for it, nothing more likely than Q
could be suggested. If the saying be assigned to Q, it will be the only Q
saying in Mark not taken over by either Matthew or Luke. Luke agrees in
xiv, 34, with Mark as against Matthew (v, 13), and with Matthew against
Mark in μωρανθῇ, but shows the influence of Mark again in ἀρτυθήσεται.
Either Mark follows Q very loosely, perhaps from memory, or Matthew and
Luke have a different recension.


(Mk x, 11-12)

Matthew has doublets for this saying (Mt v, 32; xix, 9). In the latter
occurrence of the saying in Matthew, the connection is the same as that of
Mark's. It is omitted in that instance by Luke, presumably because it is
part of a controversy with the Pharisees. But doubt is thrown upon the
presence of the saying in Q by the fact that it occurs twice in Mark also,
and may have been taken from him by Matthew in both instances.


(Mk x, 31)

This saying is paralleled in Luke (xiii, 30) and has doublets in Matthew
(xix, 30; xx, 16). It apparently stood in both Mark and Q.


(Mk x, 43-44)

There are doublets for this saying in Mt xx, 26-27, and xxiii, 11, and in
Lk xxii, 26; ix, 48. It probably stood in both Mark and Q, but this again
cannot be proved, since Mark also has the saying twice (ix, 35).


(Mk xi, 23)

There is a parallel for this saying in Lk xvii, 6, and there are doublets
for it in Mt xvii, 20, and xxi, 21. It stood in Mark and Q.


(Mk xii, 38-40)

This section is listed by Mr. Streeter as from Q, because it "looks like a
reminiscence from a long denunciation in Q." This is probably correct, but
the doublets to establish it are lacking.


(Mk xiii, 11)

This saying is paralleled in Mt x, 19, and has doublets in Lk xii, 11-12,
and xxi, 14-15.


In addition to the passages assigned to Q in the preceding investigation,
several are suggested by Streeter and Wernle. Streeter suggests Mk xiii,
15-16; but the doublets in Luke are apparently taken in both instances
from Mark. Streeter thinks that xiii, 28-32, "has a genuine sound"; but
there is nothing more specific to prove its presence in Q. Streeter's
suggestion that Mk i, 2-3, is from Q seems unjustifiable. Vs. 3 is an Old
Testament quotation which Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have in common. If
it stood originally in Mark and is not to be regarded as a later addition,
there is no occasion for the assumption of Q. Vs. 2 could hardly have
stood in its present place when Matthew and Luke used Mark. It occurs in
another connection in Matthew and Luke (Mt xi, 10; Lk vii, 27), and was
probably copied from there into its present place by a later hand.

Wernle's additions to the above Q material in Mark do not seem to be
justified. Some of them, e.g., Mk xi, 14, rest upon making doublets (in
this case Mt xxi, 19, and vii, 7-8) where the wording is not close enough
to warrant them. Others rest upon the general character of the sayings.
The latter is a tempting criterion, and in Matthew and Luke, who
demonstrably make such extensive use of Q, it is more justifiable and has
been used to some extent in the preceding analyses. But in Mark, where Q
is so sparingly and loosely used, it cannot be safely employed aside from
other indications, especially the occurrence of doublets.

The writer believes that the matter listed in the above tabulation is
about all that can at present safely be assigned to Q in Mark. It yields
us, as new Q material in Matthew, sixteen verses, and as new Q material in
Luke, seventeen. 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 Luke.[134] The number of verses in Mark which can be traced
to Q are about fifty. All but sixteen of these verses in Matthew and all
but seventeen in Luke had already been assigned to Q. Only one stands in
Mark alone.



  Sec.|Chap.| Verse |                  Subject                    |Source
    1 |   i,|  7-8  |Messianic announcement of the Baptist        | Q
    2 |   i,| 12-13 |The temptation                               | Q
    3 | iii,| 22-29 |The Beelzebul controversy                    | Q
    4 |  iv,| 21    |The light and the bushel                     | Q
    5 |  iv,| 22    |Things hidden and revealed                   | Q
    6 |  iv,| 24    |With what measure (about judging)            | Q
    7 |  iv,| 25    |Whoever has, to him shall be given           | Q
    8 |  iv,| 30-32 |Parable of the Mustard Seed                  | Q
    9 |  vi,|  7-11 |Mission of the twelve, what to take, conduct |
      |     |       |by the way, if any place does not receive you| Q
   10 |viii,| 12    |A sign refused                               | Q
   11 |viii,| 34,38 |Conditions of discipleship                   | Q
   12 |  ix,| 42    |About offenses                               | Q
   13 |  ix,| 49-50 |Salt is good. If the salt has lost, etc.     | Q
   14 |   x,| 11-12 |About divorce                                | Q
   15 |   x,| 31    |First last and last first                    | Q
   16 |   x,| 43-44 |Whoso would be great among you               | Q
   17 |  xi,| 23    |About faith                                  | Q
   18 | xii,| 38-40 |Against Pharisaism                           | Q
   19 |xiii,| 11    |Take no thot what ye shall say               | Q

The above content being made out for the material common to Mark and Q,
the use of Q by Mark may be permitted to rest upon its general
probability, there being nothing to contradict it or to substantiate the
opposite hypothesis. How closely Mark used Q, whether actually copying
certain passages from him, or merely recalling what he had read or heard
read from Q, cannot be determined, 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 Luke.


The inquiry might perhaps be carried a step farther by a comparison of the
vocabularies of Mark and Q. Hawkins, between the first and second
editions of his _Horae Synopticae_, made a second and more diligent search
for linguistic peculiarities in Q, and declares himself unable to find
any. Harnack, on the contrary, believes he finds some such.

Sentences in Q, according to Harnack, are generally connected by καί, δὲ
being used but seldom. The same is true of Mark. But this only indicates
the comparative nearness of both Mark and Q to the Semitic. The same may
be said of the preponderance of simple verbs in distinction from compound
in both Mark and Q. Ἐὰν is used twice as frequently as εἰ; Mark also
appears to use the former thirty-six times and the latter but fifteen.
This fact seems to have more significance by reason of the other, that
Luke uses one word thirty-two and the other thirty-three times. Matthew,
however, uses ἐὰν exactly twice as often as εἰ. When we remember that all
we have of Q is contained in Matthew and Luke, and only a small portion of
it in Mark, these facts do seem to indicate a preference for ἐὰν over εἰ
as between Mark and Q on the one side and Luke on the other, but between
Mark and Q on the one side and Matthew on the other no such contrast
appears. Mark and Q are here no nearer to each other, or very little, than
either of them is to Matthew.

The particle τε is never found in Q.[135] It occurs five times in Mt and
seven times in Lk, and but once in Mk. Ὡς in temporal clauses seems to be
absent; it is also absent from Matthew, while Luke uses it nineteen times
and Mark but once. Clauses with γίνομαι, frequent in Matthew and Luke, are
absent from Q; they also occur in Mark; but their absence from Q may be
due simply to Q's lack of historical matter. Παρὰ and σὺν are absent; the
first is used about evenly by Mark and Matthew, and more frequently by
Luke; the second, three times by Matthew, five times by Mark, and
twenty-four times by Luke.


These facts do not all point in the same direction. They seem sometimes to
indicate a linguistic affinity between Q and Mark, but this affinity
usually extends to Matthew also. What seems to be proved by them is that
Mark and Q and Matthew all stand nearer to the Semitic than does Luke. But
this is only the obverse of the statement that Luke is the best Grecist.
It throws no light upon the literary relation of Mark and Q. Such literary
relation, in fact, cannot in the strict sense be "proved." It can only be
rendered probable, tho perhaps extremely probable, by the unlikelihood
that Mark and Q should have fifty verses in common without any literary
relationship. Such relationship being assumed, the dependence is on the
side of Mark.



The following tables are intended to throw light upon the probable
original order of Q. They will also facilitate comparison of the Q
material in the two tables of contents given on pp. 222-25. The section
numbers at the left are those in the tables for Matthew and Luke
respectively on those pages. Table VII gives the sections in the order in
which they come in Matthew, with the numbers of the corresponding sections
as they occur in Luke; Table VIII, the sections as they come in Luke, with
numbers of corresponding sections in Matthew. Unduplicated sections are
not listed.

Since Matthew shows everywhere a tendency to group his material into
discourses, it is _a priori_ probable that the original order of the Q
material is to be sought in Luke and not in Matthew. Given this tendency
to combine, reasons are obvious for Matthew's combining, in his Sermon on
the Mount, much matter that Luke has scattered thru his Gospel. But if the
Q material originally stood in such continuous discourses, no motive can
be assigned for Luke's breaking up these discourses and scattering their
material thru so many chapters. The assumption that Matthew has combined,
in his Sermon on the Mount, material which originally was separated as it
still is in Luke, is corroborated by an analysis of that Sermon, which
shows it to be anything but a unity. Much of the material which Matthew
has combined into this Sermon has no duplicate in Luke. There is no means
of telling where in Matthew's Q this unduplicated material stood. 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 QMt, not at the beginning where it now is, but later; and this is also
what we should expect.


    MT  |  LK
   Sec. | Sec.
     1 =   1
     2 =   2
     3 =   3
     4 =   4
     7 =   5
    11 =   6
    12 =  73
    13 =  20
    14 =  75
    17 =  61
    20 =  76
    22 =   8
    23 =   8
    26 =  39
    27 =  78
    29 =  53
    30 =  46
    31 =  73
    32 =  51
    33 =   9
    34 =  12
    36 =  40
    37 =   7
    36 =  64
    40 =  13
    41 =  15
    42 =  16
    44 =  17
    45 =  66
    46 =  25
    47 =  27
    48 =  23
    50 =  23
    52 =  29
    53 =  30
    54 =  24
    54 =  31
    55 =  32
    55 =  28
    56 =  50
    57 =  11
    58 =  48
    58 =  21
    59 =  59
    60 =  70
    60 =  84
    61 =  34
    62 =  18
    63 =  19
    63 =  74
    64 =  33
    65 =  36
    68 =  41
    68 =  49
    69 =  14
    70 =  43
    71 =  45
    72 =  44
    73 =  42
    74 =  22
    75 =  37
    76 =  62
    77 =  63
    82 =  10
    83 =  79
    84 =  77
    86 =  89
    86 =  38
    91 =  47
    92 =  47
    93 =  67
    94 =  81
    95 =  86
    96 =  82
    97 =  92
    98 =  55
    99 =  56


    LK  |  MT
   Sec. | Sec.
    1 =   1
    2 =   2
    3 =   3
    4 =   4
    5 =   7
    6 =  11
   7a =  37
    8 =  22
    8 =  23
    9 =  33
   10 =  82
   11 =  57
   12 =  34
   13 =  40
   14 =  69
   15 =  41
   16 =  42
   17 =  44
   18 =  62
   19 =  63
   20 =  13
   21 =  58
   22 =  74
   23 =  48
   24 =  54
   25 =  46
   27 =  47
   28 =  55
   29 =  52
   30 =  53
   31 =  54
   32 =  55
   33 =  64
   34 =  61
   36 =  65
   37 =  75
   38 =  86
   39 =  26
   40 =  36
   41 =  68
   42 =  73
   43 =  70
   44 =  72
   45 =  71
   46 =  30
   47 =  91
   47 =  92
   48 =  58
   49 =  68
   50 =  56
   51 =  32
   53 =  29
   55 =  98
   56 =  99
   59 =  59
   61 =  17
   62 =  76
   63 =  77
   64 =  38
   66 =  45
   67 =  93
   70 =  60
   73 =  12
  73a =  31
   74 =  63
   75 =  14
   76 =  20
   77 =  84
   78 =  27
   79 =  82
   81 =  94
   82 =  96
   84 =  60
   85 =  17
   86 =  15
   89 =  86

Taking the hint that Luke's order probably represents the original order
of the Q material, we find this supposition confirmed by the present
arrangement. In spite of Matthew's transpositions, the sections in Luke
and Matthew, as grouped in Table IX, still stand in the same _relative_


  Lk   Mt

  1  =  1 The preaching of the Baptist
  2  =  2 The messianic announcement of the Baptist
  3  =  3 The temptation
  4  =  4 Blessed are the poor
  5  =  7 Blessed are ye that hunger
  6  = 11 Blessed are ye when men hate you
  8  = 23 Love your enemies

  13 = 40 Tree known by its fruits
  15 = 41 Why call ye me "Lord, Lord"?
  16 = 42 House on rock and sand (with and without foundation)
  17 = 44 The centurion's servant healed

  18 = 62 Question of John the Baptist, and Jesus' answer
  19 = 63 Jesus' testimony to John

  25 = 46 Two men who would follow Jesus
  27 = 47 The harvest is great, the laborers are few

  29 = 52 Instructions to disciples as to what to take on journey
  30 = 53 Conduct on the way; greet the house
  31 = 54 Whoever receives you, receives you not
  32 = 55 More tolerable for Sodom

  47 = 91 Woes upon the Pharisees
  47 = 92 Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven (take away the key of knowledge)

  55 = 98 The watching servant
  56 = 99 The true and false servants

  62 = 76 Parable of the Mustard Seed
  63 = 77 Parable of the Yeast

  81 = 94 The day of the Son of man
  82 = 96 The days of Noah

Each of these groups--one of seven sections, two of four, and six of two
sections each--probably stood, within itself, in the same order as that in
which we now find it in Matthew and Luke.

The sections grouped in Table X have suffered such slight transpositions
as to make it probable that each of the groups constituted a continuous
passage, probably in the order preserved by Luke.


  Lk   Mt
  21 = 58 Things hidden and revealed
  23 = 48 The mission of the twelve
  24 = 54 Whoever shall not receive you
  25 = 46 Two men who would follow Jesus
  27 = 47 The harvest is great, the laborers are few
  28 = 55 I send you forth as lambs among wolves
  29 = 52 Instructions as to what to take on journey
  30 = 53 Greet the house
  31 = 54 Whoever receives you
  32 = 55 More tolerable for Sodom
  33 = 63 Woes upon Galilean cities
  34 = 61 He that receiveth you receiveth me
  36 = 65 Wise and prudent; all things are given unto me of my Father

  41 = 68 The Beelzebul controversy
  42 = 73 About backsliding, "empty, swept and garnished"
  43 = 70 The sign of Jonah
  44 = 72 Queen of the South
  45 = 71 The men of Nineveh
  49 = 68 Blasphemy against the Son of man

  48 = 58 Fearless confession; be not afraid of them
  50 = 56 Take no thot what ye shall answer

  51 = 32 About care
  53 = 29 About treasures, not on the earth

  81 = 94 The day of the Son of man
  82 = 96 The days of Noah
  85 = 97 The one taken, the other left
  86 = 95 Where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered

There is one other item, which I owe to Mr. Streeter,[136] that strongly
supports the assumption that Luke has preserved the Q material in its most
nearly original form. That is, that Luke allows himself much less liberty
in the rearrangement of Mark's order than does Matthew. 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 (Mk vi, 45-viii, 26), beginning
at that point his great interpolation (Lk ix, 51-xviii, 14), he does not,
after returning to Mark, go back and pick up any single item that he has
omitted. Detached sayings, some brief, and some, like the Beelzebul
controversy, of considerable length, which he places in a different
connection from that in which Mark gives them, can uniformly be shown to
have stood in Q as well as in Mark,[137] and Luke follows Q's order with
Q's wording. In the earlier part of his narrative, Luke does permit
himself some little freedom in deviating from Mark's order; notably in the
imprisonment of John the Baptist, the call of the first disciples, and the
rejection at Nazareth (in each case, apparently, at the expense of some
anachronism). Except for these instances his transpositions of Marcan
material are slight, and usually amount rather to its rearrangement within
a single section than to a genuine change of order in the structure. An
exception to this rule is his passion narrative, where his use of Mark is
greatly influenced by his special source.

Q was apparently a collection of sayings, without chronological framework
or data of any sort. But to the sayings of Jesus there was prefixed a
slight account of the preaching of John the Baptist. This will not seem
strange when it is remembered that Q was a Palestinian document, and that
the cult of John the Baptist long survived the origin of Christianity.
What is not so easy to explain is Q's apparent inclusion of one narrative,
the story of the centurion's servant. It also contained an account of the
sending out of the twelve, but apparently no reference to the passion. The
absence of narratives, or of any chronological hints, would make its
rearrangement easy; perhaps it suffered some derangement at the hands of
those who added the sections peculiar to Matthew's and Luke's recensions
(as it did at the hands of Matthew himself), and who are responsible for
some of the deviations between the two. As Mr. Streeter suggests, if Mark
were lost, we could not, from Matthew and Luke, be sure either of Mark's
content or his order. No more can we of Q. About all that can be said is
that the strong probability is that Luke more nearly than Matthew
reproduces that order.



The positions reached in this study may be gathered up in a few brief

1. Matthew and Luke depend for the structure of their Gospels, and for
practically all of their narrative material, upon Mark.

2. In the order of Marcan material, Matthew and Luke have made such
changes as were desirable from the use to which they wished to put this
matter. Matthew has made fewer omissions, Luke fewer transpositions.

3. The changes which Matthew and Luke have made in the substance or
wording of the Marcan material, including their omissions from it, may be
accounted for by a desire to produce a better literary form, to avoid
statements that offended the growing sentiment of the church, and to adapt
their own narrative to their own public. Some changes must go unaccounted

4. The hypothesis of a more primitive form of Mark in the hands of Matthew
and Luke is not demanded by the facts. Matthew and Luke used substantially
our Mark.

5. Matthew and Luke also used a document Q, whose content, within limits,
is well agreed upon.

6. Various facts, especially translation variants, require the assumption
that this Q was originally an Aramaic document, used by Matthew and Luke
respectively, in two Greek translations that went back to two different
Aramaic texts.[138]

7. This furnishes the clue for the analysis of Q into QMt and QLk, and for
the assignment to these two recensions of Q of much material which has
hitherto been assigned to unknown sources.

8. Mark has some literary dependence upon Q; but the Q which he knew was
an earlier form than those in the hands of Matthew and Luke.

9. The original order of Q is best seen in the order of the Q material
preserved in Luke.




i, 7-8, p. 237.

i, 9-11, pp. 37, 237-38.

i, 12-13, p. 238.

i, 16-20, 21-28, pp. 38, 95.

i, 29-31, pp. 38.

i, 32, p. 100.

i, 32-34, p. 39.

i, 35-38, pp. 39-40.

i, 40-45, p. 41.

ii, 1-12, pp. 41-42.

ii, 9-10, p. 93.

ii, 13-22, p. 42.

ii, 23-28, p. 43.

ii, 25-26, p. 94.

iii, 1-19, pp. 44-45.

iii, 7-8, p. 101.

iii, 20-30, pp. 45, 72-73.

iii, 20-29, pp. 238-39.

iii, 31-iv, 12, p. 45.

iv, 1-33, p. 77.

iv, 13-20, p. 46.

iv, 21-25, p. 47.

iv, 24-25, p. 239.

iv, 30-32, pp. 47, 240.

iv, 35-41, pp. 47-48.

v, 1-20, pp. 48-49.

v. 21-43, pp. 49-50, 72.

vi, 1-6, p. 51.

vi, 6-13, pp. 51-52.

vi, 7-11, p. 241.

vi, 14-16, pp. 52-53.

vi, 17-29, pp. 53-54.

vi, 30-44, pp. 54-55.

vi, 45-52, pp. 55-56.

vi, 45-viii, 26, pp. 92-93.

vi, 53-56, p. 56.

vii, 1-23, pp. 56-57.

vii, 24-30, p. 57.

vii, 32-37, p. 74.

viii, 1-21, p. 57.

viii, 12, p. 241.

viii, 22-26, p. 74.

viii, 27-33, p. 58.

viii, 34-35, pp. 241-42.

viii, 34-ix, 1, pp. 58-59.

viii, 38, p. 242.

ix, 2-13, 59.

ix, 11-13, p. 73.

ix, 14-32, pp. 60-61.

ix, 33-48, p. 61.

ix, 42-48, p. 242.

ix, 49-50, p. 243.

x, 11-12, pp. 61, 243.

x, 13-45, p. 62.

x, 29, pp. 101-2.

x, 31, p. 243.

x, 43-44, p. 244.

x, 46-52, p. 63.

xi, 1-11, p. 63.

xi, 12-14, p. 64.

xi, 20-25, p. 64.

xi, 23, p. 244.

xii, 1-12, p. 65.

xii, 3, pp. 102-3.

xii, 18-27, p. 65.

xii, 28-40, p. 66.

xii, 38-40, p. 244.

xiii, 9-20, p. 66.

xiii, 11, p. 244.

xiii, 24-32, p. 67.

xiv, 1, p. 103.

xiv, 3-9, p. 73.

xiv, 12, pp. 104-5.

xiv, 22-25, p. 68.

xiv, 25, p. 73.

xiv, 28, p. 73.

xiv, 32-54, p. 68.

xiv, 58, p. 73.

xiv, 66-72, p. 69.

xv, 21-32, p. 69.

xv, 42, p. 105.


iii, 7-10, p. 129.

iii, 11-12, p. 130.

iii, 13-17, p. 37.

iv, 3-11, pp. 130-31.

iv, 18-22, pp. 38, 95-96.

iv, 25, p. 101.

v, 3, p. 131.

v, 4-5, p. 167.

v, 5-6, p. 132.

v, 7-10, pp. 167-68.

v, 11-13, pp. 132-33.

v, 14, p. 169.

v, 15, pp. 47, 133-34.

v, 16, p. 169.

v, 17, 19-24, 27-28, pp. 170-71.

v, 18, p. 135.

v, 25-26, p. 135.

v, 29-30, p. 171.

v, 31, pp. 171-72.

v, 31-32, p. 61.

v, 33-37, p. 172.

v, 39-40, pp. 135-36.

v, 41, p. 172.

v, 43, p. 173.

v, 44-48, pp. 135-36.

vi, 1-4, pp. 173-74.

vi, 5-8, p. 174.

vi, 9-13, p. 136.

vi, 16-18, p. 175.

vi, 19-23, p. 137.

vi. 24-33, p. 138.

vii, 1-5, p. 139.

vii, 6, pp. 175-76.

vii, 7-11, pp. 139-40.

vii, 12-14, p. 140.

vii, 15, p. 176.

vii, 16-18, p. 141.

vii, 19-20, p. 177.

vii, 21-23, pp. 141-42.

vii, 24-27, p. 143.

vii, 28, pp. 177-78.

vii, 28-29, p. 38.

viii, 1-4, p. 41.

viii, 5-10, pp. 143-45.

viii, 11-12, pp. 145-46.

viii, 13, pp. 178-79.

viii, 14-15, pp. 38-39.

viii, 16, p. 100.

viii, 16-17, p. 39.

viii, 19-22, p. 146.

ix, 1-8, p. 41.

ix, 5-6, pp. 93-94.

ix, 9-13, p. 42.

ix, 13, p. 179.

ix, 14-17, p. 42.

ix, 18-26, pp. 49-50.

ix, 27-31, p. 179.

ix, 32-34, p. 180.

ix, 35, pp. 51-52.

ix, 37-38, p. 146.

x, 2-4, pp. 44-45.

x, 5-8, p. 180.

x, 10-13, pp. 146-47.

x, 15, p. 147.

x, 16, p. 148.

x, 16-25, pp. 180-81.

x, 19-20, p. 148.

x, 24-25, p. 148.

x, 26-33, pp. 149-50.

x, 34-36, p. 150.

x, 37-39, pp. 150-51.

x, 40, p. 151.

x, 41-42, pp. 180-81.

xi, 2-27, p. 152.

xi, 14, p. 181.

xi, 15, p. 182.

xi, 20, p. 182.

xi, 23-24, pp. 182-83.

xi, 28-30, p. 183.

xii, 1-8, p. 43.

xii, 3-4, p. 94.

xii, 5-7, p. 184.

xii, 9-21, p. 44.

xii, 17-21, p. 184.

xii, 22-37, p. 45.

xii, 27-28, p. 153.

xii, 30, p. 153.

xii, 34, p. 184.

xii, 36-37, p. 185.

xii, 38-42, p. 153.

xii, 40, p. 185.

xii, 43-45, p. 154.

xiii, 16-33, p. 154.

xiii, 18-23, p. 46.

xiii, 24-30, p. 185.

xiii, 44-52, pp. 186-87.

xiii, 53-58, p. 51.

xiv, 1-2, pp. 52-53.

xiv, 3-12, pp. 53-54.

xiv, 13-21, pp. 54-55.

xiv, 22-33, pp. 55-56.

xiv, 28-31, p. 187.

xiv, 34-36, p. 56.

xv, 1-20, p. 56.

xv, 14, p. 155.

xv, 21-28, p. 57.

xv, 22-24, pp. 187-88.

xv, 29-31, pp. 188-89.

xv, 32-39, p. 57.

xvi, 1-12, p. 57.

xvi, 13-23, p. 58.

xvi, 17-19, p. 189.

xvi, 24-28, pp. 58-59.

xvii, 1-8, p. 59.

xvii, 6-7, p. 189.

xvii, 9-13, p. 59.

xvii, 14-23, p. 60.

xviii, 1-5, p. 61.

xviii, 4, pp. 189-90.

xviii, 6-9, p. 61.

xviii, 7, p. 156.

xviii, 12-14, p. 156.

xviii, 21-22, p. 157.

xviii, 23-35, p. 190.

xix, 10-12, p. 190.

xix, 13-15, p. 62.

xix, 16-30, p. 62.

xix, 28, p. 157.

xix, 29, p. 101.

xx, 1-16, p. 190.

xx, 17-28, p. 62.

xx, 29-34, p. 63.

xxi, 1-11, p. 63.

xxi, 18-27, p. 64.

xxi, 33-46, p. 65.

xxi, 28-32, p. 191.

xxi, 35, p. 102.

xxii, 1-14, p. 191.

xxii, 34-40, p. 66.

xxii, 41-46, p. 66.

xxiii, 2-3, p. 191.

xxiii, 4, pp. 157-58.

xxiii, 5, 8-10, p. 191.

xxiii, 12-13, p. 158.

xxiii, 15-22, p. 191.

xxiii, 23-26, p. 159.

xxiii, 29-31, p. 159.

xxiii, 34-36, p. 160.

xxiii, 37-39, p. 161.

xxiv, 9-22, p. 66.

xxiv, 26-28, p. 161.

xxiv, 34-36, p. 67.

xxiv, 37-39, pp. 161-62.

xxiv, 40-41, p. 162.

xxiv, 43-51, p. 162.

xxv, 1-46, pp. 191-92.

xxvi, 2, p. 103.

xxvi, 17, p. 104.

xxvi, 26-29, p. 68.

xxvi, 36-58, p. 68.

xxvi, 52-54, p. 192.

xxvi, 67-68, pp. 104-5.

xxvi, 69-75, p. 69.

xxvii, 32-44, p. 69.

xxvii, 57, p. 105.


iii, 7-9, p. 129.

iii, 10-14, p. 193.

iii, 16-17, p. 130.

iii, 21-22, p. 37.

iv, 3-13, p. 130.

iv, 16-30, pp. 51, 194.

iv, 31-39, p. 38.

iv, 40, p. 100.

iv, 40-43, p. 39.

v, 1-11, pp. 38, 40.

v, 12-26, p. 41.

v, 23-24, pp. 93-94.

v, 27-39, p. 42.

vi, 1-5, p. 43.

vi, 3-4, p. 94.

vi, 6-19, p. 44.

vi, 17, p. 101.

vi, 20, p. 131.

vi, 21, p. 132.

vi, 22-23, pp. 132-33.

vi, 24-26, pp. 194-95.

vi, 27-30, 32-36, p. 135.

vi, 31, p. 140.

vi, 37-38, p. 139.

vi, 38, p. 47.

vi, 39, p. 155.

vi, 40, p. 148.

vi, 43-44, p. 141.

vi, 47-49, p. 143.

vii, 1-9, pp. 143-45.

vii, 18-35, p. 152.

vii, 29-30, p. 195.

vii, 36-50, p. 195.

vii, 41-42, p. 139.

viii, 4-10, p. 45.

viii, 11-15, p. 46.

viii, 16-18, p. 47.

viii, 19-21, p. 45.

viii, 22-25, p. 47.

viii, 26-39, pp. 48-49.

viii, 40-56, pp. 49-50.

ix, 1-6, pp. 51-52.

ix, 7-9, pp. 52-53.

ix, 10-17, pp. 54-55.

ix, 18-22, p. 58.

ix, 23-27, p. 58-59.

ix, 28-36, p. 59.

ix, 37-45, p. 60.

ix, 46-50, p. 61.

ix, 57-60, p. 146.

ix, 60-63, p. 196.

x, 2, p. 146.

x, 3, p. 148.

x, 5-8, p. 147.

x, 12, p. 147.

x, 13-15, p. 152.

x, 16, p. 151.

x, 17-20, p. 196.

x, 21-22, p. 152.

x, 23-24, p. 154.

x, 25-28, pp. 66, 197.

x, 29-37, p. 197.

x, 38-42, p. 197.

xi, 2-4, pp. 136-37.

xi, 5-8, p. 198.

xi, 9-13, pp. 139-40.

xi, 14-23, p. 45.

xi, 19-20, p. 153.

xi, 23, p. 153.

xi, 24-26, p. 154.

xi, 27-28, p. 198.

xi, 29-32, p. 153.

xi, 33, pp. 133-34.

xi, 34-35, pp. 137-38.

xi, 36, p. 198.

xi, 39-42, p. 159.

xi, 47-48, p. 159.

xi, 49-51, p. 160.

xii, 2-9, p. 149.

xii, 11-12, p. 148.

xii, 13-21, p. 198.

xii, 22-31, p. 138.

xii, 33-34, p. 137.

xii, 35-38, p. 198.

xii, 39-40, p. 162.

xii, 42-46, p. 162.

xii, 47-50, p. 199.

xii, 51-53, p. 150.

xii, 58-59, p. 135.

xiii, 1-5, p. 199.

xiii, 6-9, p. 200.

xiii, 18-19, p. 47.

xiii, 20-21, p. 154.

xiii, 23-24, p. 140.

xiii, 26-27, pp. 141-42.

xiii, 28-29, pp. 145-46.

xiii, 31-33, pp. 200-201.

xiii, 34-35, p. 161.

xiv, 1-6, p. 201.

xiv, 7-11, pp. 201-2.

xiv, 11, p. 158.

xiv, 12-24, p. 202.

xiv, 26-27, pp. 150-51.

xiv, 28-35, p. 203.

xiv, 34, p. 133.

xv, 1-7, p. 203.

xv, 4-7, p. 156.

xv, 8-32, p. 203.

xvi, 18, p. 61.

xvi, 1-12, pp. 203-4.

xvi, 14-15, p. 204.

xvi, 17, p. 135.

xvi, 19-31, p. 205.

xvii, 1, p. 156.

xvii, 1-2, p. 61.

xvii, 4, p. 157.

xvii, 6, p. 155.

xvii, 7-19, p. 205.

xvii, 9-13, p. 59.

xvii, 20-21, pp. 205-6.

xvii, 23-24, 26-27, p. 161.

xvii, 26-27, p. 161.

xvii, 33, pp. 150-51.

xvii, 34-35, p. 162.

xvii, 37, p. 161.

xviii, 15-17, p. 62.

xviii, 18-30, p. 62.

xviii, 29, p. 101.

xviii, 31-34, p. 62.

xviii, 35-43, p. 63.

xix, 28-38, p. 63.

xx, 1-8, p. 64.

xx, 9-19, p. 65.

xx, 10, p. 102.

xx, 27-40, p. 65.

xx, 45-47, p. 66.

xxi, 12-24, pp. 66-67.

xxi, 32-33, p. 67.

xxii, 1, pp. 103-4.

xxii, 7, p. 104.

xxii, 15-20, p. 68.

xxii, 28-30, p. 157.

xxii, 39-55, p. 68.

xxii, 56-62, p. 69.

xxiii, 26-43, p. 69.

xxiii, 54, pp. 105-6.


  Abbott, E. A., 90.

  Angels, twelve legions of, 192.

  Arrest of Jesus, 68.

  Assimilation, 91, 92, 242.

  Authority of Jesus questioned, 64-65.

  Bacon. B. W., 65, 108, 173, 234.

  Bartimeus, 63.

  Bartlet, J. V., 60, 108, 212.

  Beatitudes, 131-32.

  Beelzebul controversy, 238-39.

  Birt, 36.

  Blessing of the children, 62.

  Blind leaders, 155.

  Brotherhood of Jesus, 45.

  Burkitt, F. C., 109, 112, 206.

  Burton, 144, 217.

  Calling of the first disciples, 38.

  Canaanitish woman, 57.

  Care, 138.

  Centurion's son, 143-45, 178-79.

  Changes of Matthew and Luke in Marcan narratives, chap. iv.

  Changes of Matthew and Luke in Marcan order, Table I, 24-27.

  "Come unto me," 183.

  Conflation, 191, 240.

  Crucifixion, 69.

  Danger of riches, 62.

  Dependence of Luke upon Matthew, 98, 99.

  Dependence of Matthew upon Luke impossible, 98.

  Detached sayings, 47.

  Disciples, instructions to, 146-51, 180-81.

  Disciples, mission of, 51-52.

  Disciples, return of, 54-55.

  Discipleship, demands of, 58.

  Distress, predictions of, 66-67.

  Doublets, 190, 239, 241-45.

  Elijah, 59.

  Entry into Jerusalem, 63-64.

  Epileptic boy, 60.

  Evil husbandmen, 65.

  Feeding of the five thousand, 54-55.

  Feeding of the four thousand, 57.

  Fig tree cursed, 64.

  Gadarene demoniac, 48, 49.

  Genealogies, 98.

  Gennesaret, 56.

  Gethsemane, 68.

  Golden Rule, 140.

  Goodspeed, E. J., 72.

  Great Commandment, 66, 197.

  Great Omission of Luke, 35, 92, 93.

  Harnack, Adolf, 37, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115.

  --, On content of Q, 108-19 _passim_, 126, 142, 165, 178, 191, 212, 234,

  Hawkins, Sir John, VI, 9, 15, 16, 33, 58, 67, 70, 84, 85, 110, 111, 112,

  -- on content of Q, 108-19 _passim_, 164, 165, 170, 191, 208, 211, 247.

  Healings in the evening, 39.

  Herod, judgment concerning Jesus, 52-53.

  Historic present in Mark, 85.

  Holtzmann, J. H., 214.

  Huck, Adolph, v.

  Infancy section:
    in Luke, 211;
    in Matthew, 208.

  Jairus' daughter, 49-50.

  Jerusalem, lament over, 161.

  Jerusalem narrative, 10.

  Jerusalem tradition, 199-200.

  John the Baptist:
    death of, 53;
    preaching of, 129;
    preaching of, in Luke, 193.

  Jonah, 153, 185.

  Judaistic features in Matthew, 167, 168, 170, 172, 176, 180, 188.

  Jülicher, Adolf, 73, 125, 194, 211.

  Kingdom of Heaven, eschatalogical meaning of, 166.

  Last Supper, 68.

  Leper healed, 41.

  Logia, 97.

  Loisy, A., 73, 183.

  Lord's Prayer, 136-37.

  Lost Sheep, parable of, 156.

  Luke's Great Interpolation, 8-9.

  Luke's Great Omission, 7, 8, 227-228.

    matter peculiar to, 207, 210-18;
    single tradition of, 206-7;
    source peculiar to, 217-18.

    his use of Q, 234-48;
    framework of, in Matthew and Luke, 3-13;
    words peculiar to, 85-87.

  Matthew, matter peculiar to, 207-10;
    not a source for Luke, Robinson Smith's argument on, 100-107;
    single tradition of, 206;
    tendency to condensation, 189;
    messianic proclamation of, 130.

  Montefiore, C. G., 183.

  Motives of Matthew and Luke, 70, 71.

  Mustard Seed, parable of, 47.

  Narrow gate, parable cf, 140.

  Nazareth, preaching in, 51.

  Offences, 61.

  Omission of Marcan material by both Matthew and Luke, 30, 31.

  Omissions of Luke, 32-36.

  Order, deviations in, chap. ii.

  Order of narratives of the Synoptics, chap. ii.

  Oxford Studies, vi.

  Parable of the Sower, 45;
    interpretation of, 46;
    of Treasure, Pearl, Fish-net, Converted Scribe, 186-87.

  Parables peculiar to Luke, 197, 198, 200, 202, 203, 205.

  Parables, purpose of, 45.

  Paralytic healed, 41.

  Parousia, 67, 180.

  Passion narrative, 12, 13.

  Perean source, 214-17.

    calling of, 40, 194;
    confession of messiahship, 58;
    denial of, 69.

  Peter's mother-in-law, 38.

  Petrine strand in Mark, 75-76, 83-84.

  Pharisaic accusation, 45.

  Pharisees, 66, 153, 158, 159, 204.

  Prediction of sufferings, 58, 60, 62.

  Primary and secondary elements in Mark:
    according to von Soden, 74-77;
    according to Wendling, 74-87.

  Primary and secondary traits, 187, 188;
    in Mark and Q, 235;
    in Luke, 200;
    priority of, 3-16.

    existence and content of, 108-20;
    analysis of, by Wellhausen, Wernle, Weiss, Hawkins, and Harnack, 112;
    distribution of, in Matthew, 112-13;
    Mark, overlapping of, 114;
    general agreement as to nucleus in Matthew, 114-15;
    in Luke, content according to Wellhausen, Wernle, Weiss, Hawkins, and
        Harnack, 116-19;
    distribution of in Luke, 119;
    necessity for further extension of, 120;
    originally an Aramaic document, 123-25;
    translation variance, 124, 125;
    analysis into QMt and QLk, 126-65;
    in single tradition of Luke, 193-220;
    in single tradition of Matthew, 166-92;
    original order of, 249-54.

  QMt, QLk:
    meaning of the symbols, 127;
    advantages of the hypothesis, 219, 221-33.

  Resistance and non-resistance, 135-36.

  Retirement of Jesus, 39.

  Ropes, J. H., 181.

  Rördam, T. S., 72.

  Sadducees, 65.

  Sanday, W., 89, 212-13, 219, 234.

  Sanders, H. A., 98.

  Schmeidel, Paul, 46, 67, 73, 135, 139, 170, 175, 203.

  Seats in the Kingdom, 62.

  Secondary traits in Q, QMt, and QLk, 230-33.

  Seeking and finding, 139.

  Sermon on the Mount, sayings from, 133-43, 167-78.

  Seventy, return of the, 196.

  Sign demanded, 57.

  Smith, Robinson, 100, 107 _passim_, 173.

  Soden, von, H. H., 74-84 _passim_.

  Special source of Luke, 197, 201, 202, 203;
    meaning of, 192.

  Stanton, V. H., 112, 171, 228.

  Storm on the lake, 47.

  Streeter, H. B., 114, 131, 180, 197, 198, 200, 202, 203, 204, 212, 234,
        244, 253, 254.

    about rank, 61;
    among relatives, 150.

  Summary and conclusions, 255-56.

  Synagogue at Capernaum, 38.

    I, order of Marcan material in Matthew and Luke, 24-27;
    II, Q material in Matthew according to five scholars, 110, 111;
    III, Q material in Luke according to five scholars, 116-17;
    IV, Q material in Matthew, 222-23;
    V, Q material in Luke, 224-25;
    VI, Q material in Mark, 246;
    VII and VIII, on relative order of Q matter in Matthew and Luke, 250;
    IX, sections in Q material in their order in Matthew and Luke, 251;
    X, sections in Q material, slightly rearranged in order, 252.

  Temptation, 130;
    in Mark and Q, 238.

  Things that defile, 56-57.

  Transfiguration, 59.

  Translation variants, 240.

    in Luke, 70;
    in Mark, 72-74.

  Tree and fruits, 141.

    calling of the 44;
    mission of, in Mark and Q, 241.

  Two foundations, 143.

  Unknown exorcist, 32, 61.

  Ur-Marcus, 72, 88-93.

  Verbal resemblance illustrated, 93-96.

  Vocabulary in Mark and Q, 246-48.

  Votaw, C. W., 173.

  Widow's mite, 32.

  Walk thru the corn, 43.

  Walking on the sea, 55.

  Weiss, B., 108.

  Weiss, J., 46, 110, 111, 112.

  -- on content of Q, 108-10 _passim_, 134, 191, 194.

  Wellhausen, J., 37, 55, 73, 110, 111, 112, 115.

  -- on content of Q, 108-19 _passim_, 133, 150, 183, 191, 198, 234, 240.

  Wendling, E., 74-87, 228.

  Wernle, Paul, vi, 32, 37, 65, 110, 111, 115.

  -- on content of Q, 108-19 _passim_, 191, 198, 210, 234, 244, 245.

  Westcott and Hort, 69.

  Withered hand, 44.

  Yeast, a saying about, 57.


[1] Mohr, Tübingen, 1906, 3d ed. A fourth edition of this valuable book
appeared in 1911, but without important changes.

[2] Cf. Sanders, _Journal of Biblical Literature_, XXXII, 184 ff., for
evidence that this did not stand in the original text of Luke.

[3] This statement may be questioned, as Lk xiii, 18-19 may be considered
parallel to Mk iv, 30-32. At all events Matthew has the passage with Mark.
The matter is complicated by the fact that the parable apparently stood in
both Mark and Q.

[4] Tho Lk xiv, 34_a_ is apparently taken from Mk ix, 50_a_, as against Mt
v, 13_a_.

[5] For discussion of Luke's non-use of Mark thruout the Great
Interpolation, see pp. 16-18; for an elaborate analysis of the sources of
the section, see Hawkins, _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, pp.

[6] see Hawkins, _Horae Synopticae_, pp. 139-41, for other instances.

[7] For an elaborate analysis of the sources of the material in the Great
Interpolation, see Hawkins, _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, pp.

[8] An apparent exception is Lk xiv, 34 = Mk ix, 50; no parallel in
Matthew. Lk xvii, 2 = Mk ix, 42, and Lk x, 27 = Mk xii, 30 should perhaps
be added, but are not so clear.

[9] Chapter and verse for each of these sections being given in the
tabulated arrangement of this same material on pp. 24-27, only such
references are given here as are necessary to help the reader to follow
the analysis at this point.

[10] We do not include here the omission of single words or phrases, or
even occasionally of an entire verse, where it is plain that this is in
the interest of some change or condensation.

[11] See especially the parable of the Weed in the Field (Mt xiii, 24-30),
the Mustard Seed (Mk iv, 30-32; Mt xiii, 31-32; Lk xiii, 18-19), the Sower
(Mt xiii, 1-9; Lk viii, 4-8).

[12] Wernle, _Synoptische Frage_, p. 126.

[13] Thruout this discussion I am greatly indebted to Wernle, as anyone
must be who has read his _Synoptische Frage_.

[14] Wernle includes among these the defense of Jesus in Mk iii, 23-30,
practically duplicated in Lk xi, 17-23. Why not a transposition, rather
than an omission? So considered here.

[15] Wernle, _op. cit._, p. 5.

[16] Yet not always. Cf. his two bands of teachers, his healing of ten
lepers and of one, his two disputes about priority among the disciples,
his three predictions of the passion and two of the resurrection. But cf.
his omission of anointing at Bethany, the barren fig tree, the mocking by
Pilate's soldiers, because of their duplications of his material already
used. See Hawkins, _op. cit._, 69.

[17] Matthew takes no offense at this; for he even adds to it, "I am not
sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

[18] Hawkins, _op. cit._, p. 71. It seems strange that Hawkins' discussion
of the "great omission" contains no reference to Wernle's treatment of the
same subject.

[19] Wernle, _op. cit._, p. 6.

[20] On the size of ancient books, see Sanday, _Oxford Studies_, pp.
25-26; cf. Birt, _Das antike Buchwesen_.

[21] For complete and detailed discussion, see Wernle, Wellhausen,

[22] See pp. 95-96, where the account of the call of the first disciples
is further discussed, and printed in heavy-faced type.

[23] P. 30; see also pp. 95-96, where the account of the calling of the
first disciples is printed in heavy-faced type and is further discussed.

[24] This latter is not the usual word for "bed," but means a _little_
bed--_some_ sort of bed.

[25] Agreement of Matthew and Luke in these two corrections is held to
show Urmarkus. The need of correction is obvious enough, and the
corrections are the natural ones to make. So also Sinaiticus in Mark, with
other authorities.

[26] Some MSS omit this reference in Mark.

[27] P. 21.

[28] See Lk iii, 21; ix, 18, 28, 29; xi, 1.

[29] See pp. 153, 238-39.

[30] _Das älteste Evangelium_, p. 165.

[31] For further discussion of this and the preceding section see pp.

[32] P. 19.

[33] Huck's _Synopse_, pp. 80 and 109, will show the verses belonging
respectively to the two sources.

[34] It is argued later, pp. 234-48, that Mark also is dependent upon Q,
but since he has the Q material in much briefer and more fragmentary form
than Matthew and Luke, his use of Q does not preclude Matthew's and Luke's
preservation of more primary features of the Q tradition.

[35] Wellhausen, _Einleitung_, p. 59.

[36] For further discussion see p. 241.

[37] _Horae Synopticae_, p. 123.

[38] A note on this passage by Professor H. A. Sanders says that this is
Mark's order in B D (k d c) only.

[39] Cf. a similar omission of the address to the waves, p. 48.

[40] See Bartlet, "Sources of St. Luke's Gospel," _Oxford Studies_, p.

[41] I am unable to account for Matthew's addition that Jesus touched the
man's eyes.

[42] See p. 244 for further discussion of the saying as in Mark and Q.

[43] No reason can be given, so far as I know, for Luke's addition of his
xx, 18. Some texts ascribe the same saying to Matthew also.

[44] I think I owe this suggestion to Wernle, but do not find the passage
in his _Synoptische Frage_.

[45] Bacon explains this saying of Mark's to mean that Jahwe is not a god
of the underworld, like Pluto (_Beginnings of Gospel Story_).

[46] Luke (xvii, 34) wishes to suggest that the parousia may occur in the

[47] _Horae Synopticae_, p. 120.

[48] See his study, from which these statements are abridged, in _Oxford
Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, pp. 76-77.

[49] The fact that Matthew agrees much more closely with Mark, in those
sections which are omitted by Luke, is a somewhat curious one, for which I
have seen no sufficient explanation offered. A possible explanation might
be that in these sections no opportunity was offered to later copyists to
assimilate the texts of Matthew and Luke, and thus introduce further
changes from Mark. If the extent of such assimilation could be proved to
be great enough, this explanation would perhaps be sufficient.

[50] See Goodspeed on "The Original Conclusion of Mark's Gospel," in
_American Journal of Theology_, Vol. IX (1905), pp. 484-90; also, Rördam,
_Hibbert Journal_, Vol. III, pp. 769-90, "What Was the Lost End of the
Gospel of Mark?"

[51] See Wellhausen, _Einleitung_, p. 56; Loisy, _Gospel and Church_, p.

[52] This study of von Soden's and Wendling's treatment of Mark appeared
in the _Harvard Theological Review_ for April, 1913.

[53] P. 23.

[54] P. 24.

[55] For reasons which he does not explain, he rearranges the sections.

[56] Von Soden, _Die wichtigsten Fragen_, pp. 38, 39.

[57] _Ibid._, pp. 39, 40.

[58] And still more in his _Entstehung_, too elaborate to be here

[59] Cf. especially the words μυστήριον, μετὰ χαρᾶς λαμβάνειν, διωγμὸς,
ἐπιθυμίαι, καρποφορεῖν, and see Wendling, p. 35, n. 11.

[60] Cf. ii, 20, also the work of the redactor.

[61] Cf. especially v, 2 with i, 23; v, 6, 7, with i, 24; v, 8-13, with i,
25; v, 13, with i, 26; v, 14-17, with i, 27, and see Wendling, p. 11.

[62] In _Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliums_, p. 204, Wendling arranges
the verses from M1 in chaps. xiii and xiv as follows: xiii, 1-2, 33,
28-29, 34-36; xiv, 1-2, 10-11, 3-7, 22-25, 43-46, 48-50, 65. Some minor
differences in analysis, affecting words or clauses, are registered
_ibid._, p. 237.

[63] Hawkins, _Horae Synopticae_, pp. 12-13.

[64] See Hawkins, pp. 144-48.

[65] The seventy-eight does not include parables, where the present is not

[66] See Sanday's essay, in _Oxford Studies_, pp. 21-22.

[67] Turner, _Theological Studies_, January, 1909, p. 175, quoted by

[68] See Hawkins, _Oxford Studies_, pp. 64-66.

[69] Both genealogies may easily be suspected of being later additions. If
Luke's genealogy is a gloss there is no apparent reason why it should not
have been inserted in the appropriate place; cf. Sanders, _Journal of
Biblical Literature_, XXX, 11.

[70] E.g., the verses on Peter and the keys, or on Peter walking on the
water, or the conversation of Jesus with John the Baptist at the time of
Jesus' baptism.

[71] In the _Hibbert Journal_, No. 39, April, 1912, pp. 615-25.

[72] This passage has been already treated in a different connection on p.

[73] Omitted in some manuscripts of Mark.

[74] vii, 28; xi, 1; xiii, 53; xix, 1; xxvi, 1.

[75] Hawkins, _Horae Synopticae_, p. 165.

[76] Wernle, p. 110.

[77] Luke uses it twenty-four times against Matthew's seven and Mark's

[78] P. 617.

[79] Mk xiv, 54.

[80] In xiv, 66.

[81] P. 617.

[82] Lk xxii, 54.

[83] See his note, p. 618.

[84] P. 621. This judgment upon Luke is in striking contrast to that
expressed by Müller, _Zur Synopse_, p. 3: "Wellhausen calls Luke a
"historian." This judgment rests on excellent grounds. We see this at once
in the manner in which Luke has used the text-scaffolding of Mark.
Logical, simple, and transparent considerations have moved him," etc.
Müller's judgment is decidedly the better.

[85] P. 625.

[86] In his _Gospel History and Its Transmission_, and _Earliest Sources
for the Life of Jesus_.

[87] E.g., Stanton: see his _Gospels as Historical Documents_, Part II;
and Robinson: see his _Study of the Gospels_.

[88] Cf. especially the prediction of sufferings connected with the
confession of Peter (Mt xvi, 13-23); the speech about Elijah, connected
with the transfiguration (Mt xvii, 9-13); the speech about true greatness,
connected with the request of the sons of Zebedee (Mt xx, 20-28).

[89] _Oxford Studies_, p. xxii.

[90] Hawkins' list comes from his _Horae Synopticae_. In his essay in
_Oxford Studies_ he assigns a considerably larger content to Q.

[91] _Einleitung_, pp. 16-18.

[92] Effort will be made later to determine the extent of QMt and QLk by

[93] The writer began the following examination with the intention of
assigning to Q only, and rejecting all passages not showing sufficient
agreement to warrant such assignment. He found this task so difficult,
involving the rejection of so many passages which did not apparently
belong to Q but which nevertheless showed unmistakable signs of literary
relation, that he adopted the theory (suggested but not worked out in the
introduction to Bacon's _Beginnings of Gospel Story_) of QMt and QLk.

[94] See Wellhausen's _Einleitung_, p. 36, and pp. 124-25 of this book.

[95] _Das älteste Evangelium_, p. 175.

[96] _Encyclopaedia Biblica_, col. 1864.

[97] See also pp. 124-25.

[98] See the treatment of this passage on p. 124.

[99] See his _Sayings of Jesus_, pp. 30-31.

[100] _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, p. 109.

[101] _Sayings of Jesus_, p. 52.

[102] _Oxford Studies_, p. 133.

[103] _Encyclopedia Biblica_, Vol. II, col. 1864.

[104] P. 78.

[105] Κρυφαίῳ is in vs. 18 substituted for κρυπτῷ used in 4 and 6.

[106] _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, p. 149.

[107] Pp. 40-42.

[108] _Schriften des Neuen Testaments_, I, 324.

[109] _The Synoptic Gospels_, I, 608.

[110] Quoted by Montefiore, I, 610.

[111] Sometimes counted as only seven, the similitude in vs. 52 not being
reckoned as a parable.

[112] So regarded, apparently, by J. Weiss in his _Schriften des Neuen
Testaments_, I, 342.

[113] _Oxford Studies_, p. 192.

[114] _Oxford Studies_, p. 193.

[115] _Encyclopedia Biblica_, col. 1864.

[116] _Oxford Studies_, p. 201.

[117] The healing of a dropsical man (Lk xiv, 1-6), tho a narrative
section, has been considered on p. 201, on account of the sayings in it.

[118] Hawkins, _Horae Synopticae_, p. 9.

[119] Unless this should be regarded as a gloss, which would not so well
account for its awkward position. See Sanders, _Journal of Biblical
Literature_, October, 1913.

[120] _Oxford Studies_, Introductory Essay, pp. xx-xxi.

[121] See pp. 8-9, 16-18.

[122] 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 insufficient.

[123] Why does Luke have _two_ laments over Jerusalem, as well as two
missions of the disciples, especially considering his apparent avoidance
of duplicates?

[124] This last, quite inappropriate alike in the mouth of Jesus and as a
part of his parable, becomes, in the mouth of Luke, a pathetic commentary
upon the difficulty of preserving the Christian faith while waiting for
the long-delayed parousia.

[125] The soliloquy in the parables of Jesus is introduced by Luke alone.
The dialogue, tho more frequent in Luke than in Matthew, is not restricted
to him.

[126] Sanday, _Oxford Studies_, pp. 25-26.

[127] Pp. 129-206.

[128] So Wendling. Stanton also says Mark's connection is better with Mk
vi, 45-vii, 23, omitted.

[129] 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's.

[130] See especially Matthew's "Go not into any way of the gentiles,"
which might be assigned to Q, with obvious reasons for Luke's omission.

[131] Pp. 222-25.

[132] See analyses on pp. 230-33.

[133] Pp. 222-35.

[134] See the reckoning made without inclusion of Marcan Q on pp. 162,

[135] Still according to Harnack.

[136] _Oxford Studies_, p. 146.

[137] See pp. 234-46 for material in Mark and Q.

[138] A note by Professor Sanders says, quite correctly, that "The general
agreement in translation words requires that one of these translations
should have preceeded and influenced the other."



University of Michigan Studies



Size, 22.7 x 15.2 cm. 8o. Bound in cloth

Henry A. Sanders, University of Michigan. Pp. viii+402. $2.50 net.


    1. THE MYTH ABOUT TARPEIA: Professor Henry A. Sanders.

    Professor Walter Dennison, Swarthmore College.

    Mary Gilmore Williams, Mt. Holyoke College.

    Duane Reed Stuart, Princeton University.

    5. THE LOST EPITOME OF LIVY: Professor Henry A. Sanders.

    6. THE PRINCIPALES OF THE EARLY EMPIRE: Professor Joseph H. Drake,
    University of Michigan.

    George H. Allen, University of Cincinnati.

University of Michigan. Pp. xvii+607. $4.00 net.

VOL. III. LATIN PHILOLOGY. Edited by Professor Clarence Linton Meader,
University of Michigan. Pp. viii+290. $2.00 net.

    Parts Sold Separately in Paper Covers:

    Clarence L. Meader. Pp. 1-112. $0.75.

    A. Stewart, Yankton College. Pp. 113-78. $0.40.

    NATURA OF LUCRETIUS. By Dr. Frederick T. Swan. Pp. 179-214. $0.40.

    Henry H. Armstrong, Drury College. Pp. 215-86. $0.40.

VOL. IV. ROMAN HISTORY AND MYTHOLOGY. Edited by Professor Henry A.
Sanders. Pp. viii+427. $2.50 net.

    Parts Sold Separately in Paper Covers:

    Part I. STUDIES IN THE LIFE OF HELIOGABALUS. By Dr. Orma Fitch Butler,
    University of Michigan. Pp. 1-169. $1.25 net.

    Part II. THE MYTH OF HERCULES AT ROME. By Professor John G. Winter,
    University of Michigan. Pp. 171-273. $0.50 net.

    Part III. ROMAN LAW STUDIES IN LIVY. By Professor Alvin E. Evans,
    Washington State College. Pp. 275-354. $0.40 net.

    Woodruff. Pp. 355-424. $0.40 net.

Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio. Pp. xiii+263. $1.30 net.

Size, 28 x 19 cm. 4o.

WHITE GROUND. By Arthur Fairbanks, Director of the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston. With 15 plates, and 57 illustrations in the text. Pp. x+371. Bound
in cloth. $4.00 net.

VARNISH ON A WHITE GROUND. By Arthur Fairbanks. With 41 plates. Pp. x+275.
Bound in cloth. $3.50 net.

Professor Henry A. Sanders, University of Michigan.

    folding plates of pages of the Manuscript in facsimile. Pp. vi+104.
    Paper covers. $1.00.


Professor Henry A. Sanders, University of Michigan.

    Pp. viii+247. Paper covers. $2.00.


William H. Worrell, Hartford Seminary Foundation. (_In Preparation._)


    AL-KHOWARIZMI. With an Introduction, Critical Notes, and an English
    Version. By Professor Louis C. Karpinski, University of Michigan. With
    4 plates showing pages of manuscripts in facsimile, and 25 diagrams in
    the text. (_In Press._)

    English by Professor John G. Winter, University of Michigan. With a
    Foreword by Professor William H. Hobbs. (_In Press._)


    Charles R. Morey, Princeton University. With 13 plates (10 colored)
    and 34 illustrations in the text. Pp. xii+87. Bound in cloth. $2.50.

    Professor Walter Dennison, Swarthmore College. (_In Press._)

with Translation and an Introduction by Professor Richard Gottheil,
Columbia University. (_In Preparation._)


Size 28 x 18.5 cm. 4o. Bound in cloth

VOL. I. THE CIRCULATION AND SLEEP. By Professor John F. Shepard,
University of Michigan. Pp. x+83, with an Atlas of 83 plates, bound
Separately. Text and Atlas, $3.00 net.

B. Ford, University of Michigan. (_In Preparation._)


Size, 22.7 x 15.2 cm. 8o. Bound in cloth

HUMANISTIC STUDIES. Edited by Francis W. Kelsey. Pp. x+396. $1.50.





Handbooks of Archaeology and Antiquities

Edited by PERCY GARDNER, of the University of Oxford, and FRANCIS W.
KELSEY, of the University of Michigan.

The Principles of Greek Art

    By PERCY GARDNER, Litt.D., Lincoln and Merton Professor of Classical
    Archaeology, University of Oxford.

    Makes clear the artistic and psychological principles underlying Greek
    art, especially sculpture, which is treated as a characteristic
    manifestation of the Greek spirit, a development parallel to that of
    Greek literature and religion. While there are many handbooks of Greek
    archaeology, this volume holds a unique place.

    _Illustrated, cloth, $2.25; postpaid, $2.46_

Greek Architecture

    By ALLAN MARQUAND, Ph.D., L.H.D., Professor of Art and Archaeology in
    Princeton University.

    Professor Marquand, in this interesting and scholarly volume, passes
    from the materials of construction to the architectural forms and
    decorations of the buildings of Greece, and, lastly, to its monuments.
    Nearly four hundred illustrations assist the reader in a clear
    understanding of the subject.

    _Cloth, $2.25; postpaid, $2.45_

Greek Sculpture

    By ERNEST A. GARDNER, M.A., Professor of Archaeology in University
    College, London.

    A comprehensive outline of our present knowledge of Greek sculpture,
    distinguishing the different schools and periods, and showing the
    development of each. This volume, fully illustrated, fills an
    important gap and is widely used as a textbook.

    _Cloth, $2.50; postpaid, $2.67_

Greek Constitutional History

    By A. H. J. GREENIDGE, M.A., Late Lecturer in Hertford College and
    Brasenose College, Oxford.

    Most authors in writing of Greek History emphasize the structure of
    the constitutions; Mr. Greenidge lays particular stress upon the
    workings of these constitutions. With this purpose ever in view, he
    treats of the development of Greek public law, distinguishing the
    different types of states as they appear.

    _Cloth, $1.25; postpaid, $1.35_

Greek and Roman Coins

    By G. F. HILL, M.A., of the Department of Coins and Medals in the
    British Museum.

    All the information needed by the beginner in numismatics, or for
    ordinary reference, is here presented. The condensation necessary to
    bring the material within the size of the present volume has in no way
    interfered with its clearness or readableness.

    _Cloth, $2.25; postpaid, $2.38_

Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals

    By E. NORMAN GARDINER, M.A., Sometime Classical Exhibitor of Christ
    Church College, Oxford.

    With over two hundred illustrations from contemporary art, and bright
    descriptive text, this work proves of equal interest to the general
    reader and to the student of the past. Many of the problems with which
    it deals--the place of physical training, games, athletics, in daily
    and national life--will be found as real at the present time as they
    were in the far-off days of Greece.

    _Cloth, $2.50; postpaid, $2.66_

Athens and Its Monuments

    By CHARLES HEALD WELLER, University of Iowa.

    This book embodies the results of many years of study and of direct
    observation during different periods of residence in Athens. It
    presents in concise and readable form a description of the ancient
    city in the light of the most recent investigations. It is profusely
    illustrated with half-tones and line engravings.

    _$4.00 net; postpaid, $4.25_

The Destruction of Ancient Rome

    By RODOLFO LANCIANI, D.C.L., Oxford; LL.D., Harvard; Professor of
    Ancient Topography in the University of Rome.

    Rome, the fate of her buildings and masterpieces of art, is the
    subject of this profusely illustrated volume. Professor Lanciani gives
    us vivid pictures of the Eternal City at the close of the different
    periods of history.

    _Cloth, $1.50; postpaid, $1.63_

Roman Festivals

    By W. WARDE FOWLER, M.A., Fellow and Sub-Rector of Lincoln College,

    This book covers in a concise form almost all phases of the public
    worship of the Roman state, as well as certain ceremonies which,
    strictly speaking, lay outside that public worship. It will be found
    very useful to students of Roman literature and history as well as to
    students of anthropology and the history of religion.

    _Cloth, $1.25; postpaid, $1.37_

Roman Public Life

    By A. H. J. GREENIDGE, M.A., Late Lecturer in Hertford College and
    Brasenose College, Oxford.

    The growth of the Roman constitution and its working during the
    developed Republic and the Principate is the subject which Mr.
    Greenidge here set for himself. All important aspects of public life,
    municipal and provincial, are treated so as to reveal the political
    genius of the Romans in connection with the chief problems of

    _Cloth, $2.50; postpaid, $2.63_

Monuments of the Early Church

    By WALTER LOWRIE, M.A., Rector of St. Paul's Church, Rome.

    Nearly two hundred photographs and drawings of the most representative
    monumental remains of Christian antiquity, accompanied by detailed
    expositions, 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 branches.

    _Cloth, $1.25; postpaid, $1.39_

Monuments of Christian Rome

    By ARTHUR L. FROTHINGHAM, Ph.D., formerly Professor of Archaeology and
    Ancient History in Princeton University.

    "The plan of the volume is simple and admirable. The first part
    comprises a historical sketch; the second, a classification of the
    monuments."--_The Outlook._

    Profusely illustrated.

    _Cloth, $2.25; postpaid, $2.43_

Transcriber's Notes:

Passages in italics are indicated by _italics_.

Passages in bold are indicated by =bold=.

The original text includes Greek and Hebrew characters. For this text
version these letters have been replaced with transliterations.

*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Sources of the Synoptic Gospels" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.