Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
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
_HUMANISTIC SERIES_
VOLUME V
SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC
GOSPELS
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO
ATLANTA · SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN & CO., LIMITED
LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.
TORONTO
SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
BY CARL S. PATTON
FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH
COLUMBUS, OHIO
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND THE ARTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF MICHIGAN, FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
New York
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
LONDON: MACMILLAN & COMPANY, LIMITED
1915
_All Rights Reserved_
COPYRIGHT 1915 BY
CARL S. PATTON
Printed August, 1915
Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
PREFACE
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
farther.
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.
CARL S. PATTON
FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH
COLUMBUS, OHIO
August, 1914
CONTENTS
PART I: GENERALLY ACCEPTED RESULTS OF SYNOPTIC STUDY
CHAPTER I: THE DEPENDENCE OF MATTHEW AND LUKE UPON MARK
PAGE
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
CHAPTER II: THE ORDER OF MARK'S GOSPEL COMPARED WITH THAT OF
MATTHEW AND THAT OF LUKE
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
CHAPTER III: THE OMISSIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE MARCAN
NARRATIVE
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
CHAPTER IV: THE CHANGES OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE NARRATIVE OF
MARK
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
SUMMARY OF MATTHEW'S AND LUKE'S TREATMENT OF THE MARCAN NARRATIVE 70
CHAPTER V: HAVE WE THE GOSPEL OF MARK IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM?
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
CHAPTER VI: USE OF A COMMON DOCUMENT BY MATTHEW AND LUKE
USE OF A COMMON DOCUMENT BY MATTHEW AND LUKE 97
A Recent Attempt to Prove Matthew a Source for Luke 100
CHAPTER VII: THE EXISTENCE AND CONTENT OF Q
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
PART II: ANALYSIS OF Q INTO QMT AND QLK
CHAPTER I: ANALYSIS OF Q
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
CHAPTER II: Q, QMT, AND QLK, IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION
OF MATTHEW AND LUKE
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
CHAPTER III: Q IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW (QMT)
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
CHAPTER IV: Q IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF LUKE (QLK)
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
CHAPTER V: REVIEW OF Q MATERIAL IN MATTHEW, LUKE,
AND MARK
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
CHAPTER VI: DID MARK ALSO USE Q?
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
CHAPTER VII: THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF Q
ORIGINAL ORDER OF Q 249
Table VII 250
Table VIII 250
Table IX 251
Table X 252
CHAPTER VIII: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
PART I
ACCEPTED RESULTS OF SYNOPTIC STUDY
CHAPTER I
THE DEPENDENCE OF MATTHEW AND LUKE UPON MARK
The one universally accepted result of modern study of the synoptic
problem is the dependence of Matthew and Luke upon the Gospel of 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
discussion.
FRAMEWORK OF MARK'S GOSPEL IN MATTHEW AND LUKE--UP TO LUKE'S "GREAT
OMISSION"
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,
17-19).
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
Mount.
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
Luke.
LUKE'S "GREAT OMISSION," AND BEYOND
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.
LUKE'S "GREAT INTERPOLATION": ITS CONTENT
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).
THE JERUSALEM NARRATIVE
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).
THE STORY OF THE PASSION
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.
THE PRIORITY OF MARK
We add here a brief statement of the theory that Mark's Gospel is an
abstract of the Gospels of Matthew and 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
eliminated.
3. Mark contains a large number of otherwise unknown or unliterary words
and phrases. For example, [Greek: schizomenous], i, 10; [Greek: en
pneumati akathartô], i, 23; [Greek: krabattos], ii, 4, and in five other
places; [Greek: epiraptei], ii, 21; [Greek: thygatrion], v, 23; vii, 25;
[Greek: eschatôs echei], v, 23; [Greek: spekoulatôr], vi, 27; [Greek:
symposia symposia], vi, 39; [Greek: eisin tines hôde tôn hestêkotôn], ix,
1; [Greek: heis kata heis], xiv, 19; [Greek: ekperissôs], 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 expressions.
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
Mark.
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 [Greek: kai], where Matthew and Luke have sometimes
[Greek: kai], and sometimes [Greek: de]. 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 natural.
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
items.
LUKE'S GREAT INTERPOLATION: ITS NON-USE OF MARK
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 [Greek: ex holês tês ischyos sou (en holê tê ischyi
sou)] 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
source.
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.
CHAPTER II
THE ORDER OF MARK'S GOSPEL COMPARED WITH THAT OF MATTHEW AND THAT OF LUKE
In the treatment of the framework of the 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.
TABLE I
SHOWING CHANGES MADE BY MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE ORDER OF MARCAN MATERIAL
=========================================================================
| 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.
DEDUCTIONS FROM THE TABLE
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.
CHAPTER III
THE OMISSIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE MARCAN NARRATIVE[10]
OMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH MATTHEW AND LUKE
The omission of the stories of the healing of the deaf-and-dumb man and
the blind man (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
church.
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 [Greek: eis to hieron] may have crept into
the text of Mark after its use by Matthew and Luke (the sense is equally
good without them).
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.
OMISSIONS MADE BY MATTHEW IN THE MARCAN NARRATIVE
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.
OMISSIONS MADE BY LUKE IN THE MARCAN NARRATIVE[14]
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]
CHAPTER IV
THE CHANGES OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE NARRATIVE OF MARK[21]
THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
(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 [Greek: eis metanoian] (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 [Greek: schizomenous], a word not
elsewhere found, with a word common in such connections.
THE CALLING OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES
(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.
JESUS IN THE SYNAGOGUE AT CAPERNAUM
(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 [Greek: en
pneumati akathartô] by the good Greek phrase [Greek: echôn pneuma
daimoniou akathartou]. 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.
THE HEALING OF PETER'S MOTHER-IN-LAW
(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
disciple.
THE HEALINGS IN THE EVENING
(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 [Greek: êphien].
THE RETIREMENT OF JESUS
(Mk i, 35-38; Lk iv, 42-43)
Matthew omits, for reasons already given.[23] Luke avoids Mark's strange
word, [Greek: kômopoleis]. Where Mark says "Simon and those with him,"
Luke says "the crowd," because in Luke's story Simon is not yet a
disciple.
THE CALLING OF PETER
(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 [Greek: deute
opisô mou, kai poiêsô hymas genesthai haleeis anthrôpôn]; Luke says
[Greek: mê phobou; apo tou nyn anthrôpous esê zôgrôn]. 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.
THE HEALING OF THE LEPER
(Mk i, 40-45; Mt viii, 1-4; Lk v, 12-16)
Matthew and Luke both omit Mark's [Greek: embrimêsamenos], 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.
THE HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC
(Mk ii, 1-12; Mt ix, 1-8; Lk v, 17-26)
Both Matthew and Luke have supplied their own introductions. Both
substitute [Greek: eipen] for Mark's [Greek: legei] (Mk ix, 5) (a
correction which Luke invariably makes). Both use substitutes for Mark's
[Greek: krabatton]. Luke avoids Jesus' address to the man as [Greek:
teknon]. 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, [Greek: ti houtos houtôs lalei? blasphêmei;] Luke changes to
[Greek: tis estin hos lalei blasphêmias?] 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 [Greek: krabatton] was, tho he has elsewhere replaced
it by [Greek: klinidion].[24]
THE CALLING OF LEVI (MATTHEW)
(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
[Greek: hoti] 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.
THE QUESTION ABOUT FASTING
(Mk ii, 18-22; Mt ix, 14-17; Lk v, 33-39)
Matthew and Luke avoid Mark's verb [Greek: epiraptei], 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.
THE WALK THRU THE CORN
(Mk ii, 23-28; Mt xii, 1-8; Lk vi, 1-5)
Matthew and Luke avoid Mark's expression [Greek: hodon poiein], 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.
THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND
(Mk iii, 1-6; Mt xii, 9-14; Lk vi, 6-11)
Luke changes Mark's [Greek: sabbasin] to [Greek: sabbatô], 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.
THE CROWD AND THE HEALINGS
(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]
THE CALLING OF THE TWELVE
(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 [Greek: ho adelphos autou
(ton adelphon autou)] 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.
THE PHARISAIC ACCUSATION AND JESUS' DEFENSE
(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
time.[29]
THE TRUE BROTHERHOOD OF JESUS; THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER; THE PURPOSE OF
THE PARABLES
(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 [Greek: auton] 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 [Greek: palin] 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]
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER
(Mk iv, 13-20; Mt xiii, 18-23; Lk viii, 11-15)
Matthew changes Mark's [Greek: Satanas] to [Greek: ho ponêros]. 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 [Greek:
eisporeuomenai] 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.
A GROUP OF DETACHED SAYINGS
(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.
THE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED
(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]
THE STORM ON THE LAKE
(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, [Greek: seismos], for Mark's rare word [Greek:
lailaps]. 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."
THE GADARENE DEMONIAC
(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 [Greek: ho kyrios] (Mk's vs. 19) into [Greek: ho theos],
is not easily explained if Luke understood Mark to refer to Jesus by his
[Greek: ho kyrios]. 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 [Greek: kyrios]. 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.
THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS AND THE WOMAN WITH THE ISSUE OF BLOOD
(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 [Greek: thygatrion]. 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 [Greek: parachrêma] for Mark's
[Greek: euthys]; 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 [Greek: eiselthôn], coming as it does after the
[Greek: elthôn eis tên oikian] 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.
THE INITIAL PREACHING IN NAZARETH
(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.
THE SENDING OUT OF THE DISCIPLES
(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 [Greek: topos] may indicate the latter. The substitution by Matthew
and Luke of [Greek: koniortos] for Mark's [Greek: choun], 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]
THE JUDGMENT OF HEROD CONCERNING JESUS
(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 [Greek: elegon]
for [Greek: elegen] 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 [Greek: elegen]
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 [Greek:
elegon] is the original reading of vs. 14, or that Luke, finding [Greek:
elegen] 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.
THE DEATH OF THE BAPTIST
(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 [Greek: spekoulatôr] in Mark (vi, 27) is
dropped in Matthew.
THE RETURN OF THE DISCIPLES AND THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND
(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,
[Greek: symposia symposia], is omitted by both Matthew and Luke.
THE WALKING ON THE SEA
(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.
THE RETURN TO GENNESARET
(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.
ABOUT THE THINGS THAT DEFILE
(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 [Greek: kai pantes hoi Ioudaioi], 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 [Greek:
korban], omitted by Matthew. In Mark's vs. 19 occurs the phrase [Greek:
katharizôn panta ta brômata]. The construction is loose, the nearest verb
with which the participle can be connected being the [Greek: legei] 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."
THE CANAANITISH WOMAN
(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."
THE FEEDING OF THE FOUR THOUSAND
(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
another.
THE DEMAND FOR A SIGN
(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]
THE SAYING ABOUT YEAST
(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.
THE CONFESSION OF PETER AND THE FIRST PREDICTION OF SUFFERINGS
(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
understand.
THE DEMANDS OF DISCIPLESHIP
(Mk viii, 34-ix, 1; Mt xvi, 24-28; Lk ix, 23-27)
Mark's redundant expression [Greek: opisô akolouthein] is corrected by
each of the others, in a different way. The phrase [Greek: kai tou
euangeliou] 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, [Greek: tines hôde tôn hestêkotôn],[38] each of
the other evangelists corrects in his own way.
THE TRANSFIGURATION
(Mk ix, 2-8; Mt xvii, 1-8; Lk ix, 28-36)
Mark says "he was changed in form" ([Greek: metamorphôthê]), which Luke
improves to "the appearance of his countenance was different" ([Greek: to
eidos tou prosôpou autou heteron]). 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 [Greek: rhabbei] into Greek words, Luke using the [Greek:
epistata] which is peculiar to him.
THE DISCUSSION ABOUT ELIJAH
(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.
THE HEALING OF THE EPILEPTIC BOY
(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.
THE SECOND PREDICTION OF SUFFERINGS
(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
[Greek: ouk êthelen hina tis gnoi] (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_, [Greek: thesthe hymeis eis
ta ôta hymôn tous logous toutous], 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.
THE STRIFE ABOUT RANK
(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.
MINOR PASSAGES
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 [Greek: eipen] for [Greek: legei]. 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; [Greek: anastêsetai,
apoktenousin, emptysousin]. Matthew has added [Greek: kai staurôsai].
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 [Greek: kyrie] for Mark's [Greek: rhabbouni]. They omit his [Greek:
hypage], which seems out of place.[41]
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
story.
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
reference.
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 [Greek: promerimnate], 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 ([Greek:
bdelygma ... hestêkota]), his unusual construction of [Greek: eis ton
agron] meaning "in the field," and his equally strange combination of
words [Greek: esontai gar hai hêmerai ekeinai thlipsis, hoia ou gegonen
toiautê], are all replaced by Matthew and Luke. Luke omits [Greek: ho
anaginôskôn noeitô], 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 [Greek: eutheôs]. 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 [Greek: eutheôs] 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, [Greek:
proaulion] in vs. 68 and [Greek: epibalôn] 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
wording.
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.
SUMMARY ON MATTHEW'S AND LUKE'S TREATMENT OF THE MARCAN NARRATIVE
The manner in which Matthew and Luke have treated the Gospel of Mark has
been brought out in the concrete and detailed examples that have been
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]
CHAPTER V
HAVE WE THE GOSPEL OF MARK IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM?
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
Mark.
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.
DISCUSSION OF THE ANALYSIS OF MARK BY WENDLING AND VON SODEN
Two attempts have recently been made to resolve our Gospel of Mark into
its constituent 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
tradition.
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
influences.[59]
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 [Greek: elegon hoti] 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 [Greek: euangelion] 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.
CONCLUSIONS OF VON SODEN AND WENDLING COMPARED
A tabulation of the results discloses the following agreements and
disagreements between von Soden's Petrine narrative and Wendling's 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.
[Greek: Euangelion] 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.
[Greek: Alalos] 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, [Greek:
mogilalos].) [Greek: Klasma], 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). [Greek: Stachys] 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. [Greek: Ekporeuomai] 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. [Greek: Eisporeuomai] 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. [Greek:
Akathartos], found three times in M1, four in M2, and three in Ev; [Greek:
apo makrothen], three times in M2 and twice in Ev; [Greek: didachê], used
three times by M2 and twice by the redactor, and [Greek: pherô], 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, [Greek: diastellomai], used four times by the redactor in four
different chapters, and not by M1 or M2; and [Greek: ekthamboumai], 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
subject-matter.
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 [Greek: euthys], [Greek: palin], [Greek: polla], [Greek: ouketi],
and [Greek: oupô]. 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
([Greek: palin]) is used ten times by M1, eight times by M2, and nine
times by Ev; the third ([Greek: polla]) is used adverbially three times by
M1, six times by M2, and three times by Ev; the fourth ([Greek: ouketi]),
twice by M1, twice by M2, three times by Ev; the fifth ([Greek: oupô]),
once by M1 and four times by Ev.
Characteristic of Mark also is his use of the imperfects [Greek: elegen]
and [Greek: elegon]. 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.
MATTHEW AND LUKE USED OUR MARK AS A SOURCE
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
Luke.
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.
THE HYPOTHESIS OF A PRIMITIVE MARK SUPERFLUOUS; SIMPLER EXPLANATIONS
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 [Greek: eipen] for
[Greek: legei], or of an occasional [Greek: de] for Mark's invariable and
monotonous [Greek: kai] or the substitution of a common for an uncommon
word (like [Greek: klinê] for [Greek: krabattos]) 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 [Greek: legei]) 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
[Greek: eipen] for [Greek: legei]. In thirty they agree in the use of
[Greek: de] for [Greek: kai]. 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
[Greek: euthys] thirty-four times, five in this section; [Greek: palin]
twenty-six times, five in this section. He is partial to the imperfects
[Greek: elegen] and [Greek: elegon], 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. [Greek: ho estin] 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 [Greek: kai]. 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.
SOME REMARKABLE VERBAL RESEMBLANCES
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: [Greek: =ti= gar =estin| Mk ii, 9-10_a_: [Greek: =ti estin|
eukopôteron, eipein=: | eukopôteron, eipein= |
=aph=ie=ntai | tô paralytikô: =aph=ie=ntai |
sou hai hamartiai, ê | sou hai hamartiai, ê |
eipein: egeire kai= | eipein: egeire kai= |
| aron ton krabbaton |
peripatei? =hina de eidête | sou kai hypage? =hina de eidête |
hoti exousian | hoti exousian |
echei ho hyios tou anthrôpou | echei ho hyios tou anthrôpou |
epi tês gês aphienai | epi tês gês aphienai |
hamartias=, tote legei | hamartias=, legei |
=tô paral=ytikô | =tô paral=ytikô: soi legô, |
=eger=theis =ar=on =sou= | =ege=i=r=e =ar=on ton |
tên klinên kai hypage | krabbaton =sou= kai hypage |
=eis ton oikon sou=.] | =eis ton oikon sou=.] |
Lk v, 23-24: [Greek: =ti estin
eukopôteron, eipein=:
=aph=eô=ntai=
soi =hai hamartiai sou
ê eipein: egeire kai=
peripatei? =hina de eidête
hoti ho hyios tou anthrôpou
exousian echei
epi tês gês aphienai
hamartias=, eipen
=tô paral=elymenô: soi legô,
=ege=i=r=e kai =ar=as to
klinidion =sou= poreuou
=eis ton oikon sou=.]
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, [Greek: hina de eidête], 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
[Greek: gar] in Matthew, the insertion of [Greek: tô paralytikô] in Mark,
and a slightly different form of the verb [Greek: aphiêmi] in Luke. In the
fourth line Luke also inserts [Greek: soi], 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 [Greek: peripatei] for [Greek: hypage],
and two (different) words from the same root for Mark's [Greek:
krabbaton]. Luke has preserved the [Greek: soi legô] which Matthew has
dropped.
Mt xii, 3-4: [Greek: ouk | Mk ii, 25-26: [Greek: oudepote|
=anegnôte= ti =epoiêsen | =anegnôte= ti =epoiêsen |
Daueid, hote epeinasen | Daueid hote= chreian eschen |
kai | kai =epeinasen autos kai |
hoi met' autou?= | hoi met' autou?= |
p=ôs eisêlthen eis ton | p=ôs eisêlthen eis ton |
oikon tou theou= | oikon tou theou= epi |
| Abiathar archiereôs |
=kai tous artous tês | =kai tous artous tês |
protheseôs | protheseôs |
ephagon=, ho =ouk ex=on ên | ephagen=, hous =ouk ex=estin |
autô =phagein= oude =tois= | =phagein ei mê |
met' =aut=ou, =ei mê= | to=u=s hiere=i=s=, kai edôken |
=to=i=s hiere=usin monois?]| kai =tois= syn |
| =aut=ô ousin?] |
Lk vi, 3-4: [Greek: oude touto
=anegnôte= ho =epoiêsen
Daueid= hop=ote epeinasen=
autos =kai=
=hoi met' autou= ontes?
=hôs eisêlthen eis ton
oikon tou theou=
=kai tous artous tês
protheseôs= elaben kai
=ephagen=, kai edôken kai
=tois= met' =aut=ou, hous =ouk
ex=estin =phagein ei mê=
monous =to=u=s hiere=i=s=?]
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,
[Greek: chreian eschen], but Luke retains the [Greek: autos] of Mark which
Matthew has dropped. Luke adds [Greek: ontes], perhaps in deference to
Mark's [Greek: ousin], used in a similar phrase but different connection.
He substitutes [Greek: hôs] for the [Greek: pôs] 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: [Greek: Peripatôn de =para tên
thalassan tês Galilaias eiden= dyo
adelphous, =Simôna= ton legomenon Petron
=kai Andrean ton adelphon au=tou
=ballontas= amphiblêstron =e=is =tê=n =thalass=an;
=êsan gar haleeis. Kai= legei
=autois: deute opisô mou, kai
poiêsô hymas haleeis anthrôpôn=. hoi
de =eutheôs aphentes ta diktya êkolouthêsan
autô. Kai probas= ekeithen
=eiden= allous dyo adelphous,
=Iakôbon ton tou Zebedaiou kai Iôannên
ton adelphon autou, en tô ploiô=
meta Zebedaiou tou patros autôn
=katartizontas ta diktya= autôn; =kai
ekalesen autous=. hoi de (=eutheôs=)
=aphentes t=o =ploi=on kai (=ton patera
autôn=) êkolouthêsan =autô=.]
Mk i, 16-20: [Greek: Kai paragôn =para tên
thalassan tês Galilaias eiden
Simôna
kai Andrean ton adelphon= Simônos
amphi=ballontas e=n =tê thalass=ê;
=êsan gar haleeis. kai= eipen
=autois: deute opisô mou, kai poiêsô
hymas= genesthai =haleeis anthrôpôn=. kai
=euthus aphentes ta diktya êkolouthêsan
autô. Kai probas= oligon
=eiden
Iakôbon ton tou Zebedaiou kai Iôannên
ton adelphon autou=, kai autous =en tô
ploiô
katartizontas ta diktya. kai= (=euthys=)
=ekalesen autous=; kai =aphentes= (=ton patera
autôn=) Zebedaion en =t=ô =ploi=ô meta tôn
misthôtôn apêlthon opisô =aut=ou.]
This passage contains the striking addition of the parenthetical
explanation [Greek: êsan gar haleeis]. 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_ "immediately."
CHAPTER VI
USE OF A COMMON DOCUMENT BY MATTHEW AND LUKE
The document used by Matthew and Luke as the source of their common
non-Marcan material was for some time generally identified with the
"Logia" which Papias says 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
sayings.
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.
A RECENT ATTEMPT TO PROVE MATTHEW A SOURCE FOR LUKE
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 [Greek: Opsias de
genomenês, hote edy ho hêlios]. Of this phrase, Matthew takes the first
three words as they stand. Luke appropriates the remainder, changing into
[Greek: Dynontos de tou hêliou]. 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 phrase.[72]
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 has [Greek: heneken emou
kai heneken tou euangeliou]. Matthew has [Greek: heneka tou emou
onomatos], and Luke [Greek: heineken tês basileias tou theou]. 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 [Greek: euangelion] 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 [Greek: heneken emou], that both Matthew and Luke changed this
phrase as they would, and that the [Greek: heneken tou euangeliou] 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 [Greek: labontes] 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
[Greek: labontes] 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 [Greek: egeneto] 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 [Greek: meta dyo
hêmeras], and substituting his own favorite [Greek: êngizen],[77] and
adding his [Greek: hê legomenê pascha]) 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 ([Greek: edei
thyesthai to pascha]). 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.
CHAPTER VII
THE EXISTENCE AND CONTENT OF Q
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.
DEDUCTIONS FROM THE TABLE
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
table.
TABLE II
MATERIAL FROM Q IN MATTHEW
====================================================================
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
command.
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.
xiii-xxii.
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.
DEDUCTIONS FROM TABLE III
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.
TABLE III
MATERIAL IN LUKE TAKEN FROM Q
=================================================================
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.
THE NECESSITY FOR A FURTHER EXTENSION OF Q
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.
PART II
ANALYSIS OF Q INTO QMT AND QLK
CHAPTER I
THE ANALYSIS OF Q
Q ORIGINALLY AN ARAMAIC DOCUMENT, USED IN GREEK TRANSLATIONS BY MATTHEW
AND LUKE
The starting-point of a further determination of the content of Q is the
fact that Matthew and Luke seem to have taken their duplicate matter from
a Greek 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
[Greek: epiousion] 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, [Greek: katharison prôton to entos
tou potêriou]. Luke reads, [Greek: plên ta enonta dote eleêmosynên]. 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),
[Greek: tous pro hymôn], and Luke's (vi, 23), [Greek: hoi pateres autôn],
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), [Greek:
aspasasthe autên (tên oikian)] Luke reads (x, 5), [Greek: legete: eirênê
tô oikô toutô]. 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 ([Greek: eiposin pan ponêron kath' hymôn] in Mt v, 11, and
[Greek: ekbalôsin to onoma hymôn hôs ponêron] 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.
METHODS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THEIR USE OF Q
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.
THE ANALYSIS OF Q INTO 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
QLk.
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
sources.[93]