CHAPTER II

Q, QMT, AND QLK IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW AND LUKE

THE PREACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

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

This section is universally ascribed to Q. In Matthew's Gospel it contains sixty-three words; in Luke's sixty-four. These are identical in the two Gospels, except for Luke's addition of ?a? at the beginning of his 9th verse, his plural (?a?p???) where Matthew has the singular, and his subst.i.tution of ????s?e for Matthew's d???te. The parallelism begins in the middle of the 7th verse of each Gospel; the first part of the verse in each case evidently being supplied by the evangelist. Matthew says John's remark was addressed to the Pharisees and Sadducees. With his customary indifference to cla.s.s distinctions among the Jews, Luke represents the words as being addressed to all those who came for baptism. They do not seem appropriate to candidates for baptism, whether Pharisees, Sadducees, or others. Luke uses some form of the verb ???? with the infinitive ???e??

eight times as against Matthew's twice. As it seems here to have no advantage over d???? it might be safe to suppose that the subst.i.tution was made unintentionally, and from the influence of the recollection of similar usage in other parts of Luke's Gospel. The first half of vs. 7 in each Gospel should be a.s.signed to the evangelists; the remainder of the section to Q.

THE MESSIANIC PROCLAMATION OF THE BAPTIST

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

Matthew's vs. 11 and Luke's vs. 16 are closely parallel to Mark i, 7-8.

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

THE TEMPTATION

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

The whole story of the temptation as told by Matthew and Luke includes the two verses of each Gospel which immediately precede the section here specified. These verses are not included here because they seem to the writer to be taken by Matthew and Luke from Mark and not from Q. The common avoidance by Matthew and Luke of Mark's statement that Jesus was "with the wild beasts," and their common subst.i.tution of d?????? for Mark's sata???, would point toward their exclusive use of Q and their avoidance of Mark in these verses. On the other hand, Matthew and Luke use very different phraseology to express their common idea of the hunger of Jesus (Luke saying ??? ?fa?e? ??d?? ?? ta?? ???a?? ??e??a??, ?a?

s??te?es?e?s?? a?t?? ?pe??ase?, while Matthew says ?a? ??ste?sa? ???a?

tesse?????ta ?a? tesse?????ta ???ta?, ?ste??? ?pe??ase?). Matthew agrees with Mark in six consecutive words (except for the transposition of two of them) where Luke has a wording of his own. Whereas Mark says that Jesus was tempted forty days, saying nothing about his hunger, Matthew says he fasted for forty days and was tempted at the expiration of this time, and Luke that he fasted forty days and was tempted during that time. The best explanation for these divergences and similarities is that Matthew and Luke take these verses from Mark but correct him freely under the influence of Q. Q also of course contained these verses, and they will be a.s.signed to him when we come to consider the Q material in Mark. In the rest of the temptation narrative, where Mark has no parallel, there is great verbal similarity. The enlargement of the Old Testament quotation may perhaps be ascribed to Matthew. The transposition of Matthew's second temptation to the third place in Luke seems to spoil the climax in the narrative; Mr. Streeter (_Oxford Studies_, p. 152) argues that Luke would not have spoiled so good an arrangement if he had found it in his source.

If this argument were allowed, the section would have to be a.s.signed to QMt and QLk. The writer does not feel that the divergences are great enough to necessitate this, and so a.s.signs it to Q.

"BLESSED ARE THE POOR"

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

Matthew's beat.i.tude is in the third person, Luke's in the second. Matthew adds "in spirit." If the beat.i.tude stood alone, the changes in it are not too great to be attributed to Matthew, and the "in spirit" is what might be expected. But taking it in close connection with much material that could not have stood alike in Matthew's source and in Luke's it is better to a.s.sign it to QMt and QLk.

"BLESSED ARE THEY THAT MOURN"

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

The wording is not at all similar, a?????? being the only word in common.

Yet the two beat.i.tudes sound like two versions of the same one. ??a?? is a Lucan word, used eleven times by Luke in his Gospel, against twice by Matthew and three times by Mark. ?e??? is used twice in Luke's Gospel, and not elsewhere in the New Testament. Both of these occurrences are in Luke's "Sermon on the Level Place." These facts, with the context, indicate a source in Luke's hands partly like, and partly unlike, the source in Matthew's. The verse is therefore a.s.signed to QMt and QLk.

"BLESSED ARE THEY THAT HUNGER"

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

Matthew's version is again in the third person and Luke's in the second.

Luke understands the hunger to be literal. Matthew "spiritualizes" by adding t?? d??a??s????. Luke adds ???, to point the contrast between his beat.i.tude and the corresponding woe, which Matthew does not have. In spite of these differences, out of ten words in Matthew's form and six in Luke's, five words are identical (except for a deviation in personal ending). Except for the context the verse might be a.s.signed simply to Q; but it is better ascribed to QMt and QLk.

"BLESSED ARE THE PERSECUTED"

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

The verbal similarity is close only in a few places; notably in the ?

?s??? ??? p???? ?? t??? ???a???? (t? ???a??). Out of thirty-five words in Matthew and fifty-one in Luke, only twelve are identical. Two considerations prevent the a.s.signment of these verses to two totally different sources. The first is their contiguity to so much Q material.

The second is the presence in them of two translation variants.[94] The second of these two verses, at least, therefore goes back to two different recensions or translations of one original Aramaic doc.u.ment--QMt and QLk.

A SAYING ABOUT SALT

(Mt v, 13; Lk xiv, 34)

This saying evidently stood in both Mark and Q. Luke follows Mark in ?a???

??? t? ??a and Q in the rest of his saying. Matthew's form of the saying, which makes it addressed to the disciples, "Ye are the salt of the earth,"

involves a much greater change than Matthew ever permits himself when he transcribes the words of Jesus which he finds in Mark. Luke, on the other hand, could scarcely have found the saying in his source with this application to the disciples, and have changed it to its much less pointed and personal form in his own Gospel. The only conclusion possible from a comparison of Matthew and Luke here is that this saying lay in different forms in their sources. But since it occurs in the midst of so much Q material, it is better to a.s.sign it to different recensions of Q than to some other unknown source.

A SAYING ABOUT LIGHT

(Mt v, 15; Lk xi, 33)

This is another saying that stood in both Mark and Q. Mark has the saying in Mk iv, 21. His form of it is the apparently less natural one, "Does the lamp come in order that it may be put under a bushel?" etc. Weiss suggests[95] that it has been given this form to make it refer to the coming of Jesus as the light of the world. Neither Matthew nor Luke has copied this feature of Mark's saying. By his context Matthew makes the saying refer, like the saying about salt, directly to the disciples. Luke has the saying twice: in xi, 33 and viii, 16. In both cases his context would indicate that he took the saying to refer to the teaching of Jesus.

Matthew says the light is to give light "to all that are in the house."

Luke does not mention the house, but implies it in his statement that "those who are entering in see the light," this form being found in both his reports of the saying. Mark says "under the bushel or under the bed"; Matthew, "under the bushel"; Luke once, "in a dish or under the bed," and a second time, "in a cellar or under the bushel." Luke's fondness for the same ending in his two uses of the saying can be explained only by the supposition that it so stood in one of his sources. The same idea in the conclusion of the saying as it appears in Matthew and Luke, and their common avoidance of the opening formula which is peculiar to Mark, would indicate that Matthew and Luke practically forsake Mark in this saying, and follow their other source. Luke, having a doublet for the saying, may be a.s.sumed to have taken it once from Mark and once from his other source; but he is evidently much more influenced by his other source than he is by Mark. The non-Marcan source in which the saying was found by Matthew and Luke was evidently an allied, but not an identical, one; the saying is therefore a.s.signed to QMt and QLk.

A SAYING ABOUT THE LAW

(Mt v, 18; Lk xvi, 17)

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

"AGREE WITH THINE ADVERSARY"

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

Luke prefaces this saying with one peculiar to his Gospel: "Why do ye not, of yourselves, judge what is right?" The close connection of this saying with the pa.s.sage here under consideration, and the verbal resemblances and divergences of the sections in Matthew and Luke--twenty-five identical words out of a total of forty-three in Matthew and forty-nine in Luke--warrant their a.s.signment to QMt and QLk.

ABOUT NON-RESISTANCE AND LOVE OF ENEMIES

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

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