This is the one narrative section almost universally a.s.signed to Q. But in the first part of the story there is wide divergence. Matthew says the centurion himself came to Jesus. Luke not only says he did not come, but explains why he sent messengers instead of coming himself. Burton alleges that Matthew's omission of the item of the messengers is characteristic of him, with his tendency to condensation. But that the messengers were not in the original story, but were added by Luke (or his source) and not omitted by Matthew, is plain from the fact that the conversation, even in Luke, is based upon the supposition that the centurion had made his request in person. In Luke's vss. 3-6, which contain the account of the sending of the messengers, there are at least five Lucan words ??t???, pa?a?e??e???, sp??da???, a????, ?p????t??). These occur in the portion of the story unparalleled in Matthew. But there are also three such Lucan words in the two following verses, where the story of Luke runs quite closely parallel to that of Matthew (d??, ????sa, ta.s.s?e???). The changing of a detail, even an important detail, in the narrative part of such a section, especially when contrasted with general faithfulness to the source in that part containing the words of Jesus, would be characteristic of Luke. The humility and faith of the centurion are much enhanced by the change. Yet, as Julicher remarks, Luke probably did not invent this item of his story; he may have imported it from an oral tradition, following Q in the remainder of the story. Even the presence of the "Lucan" words would not prove the Lucan invention of the sending of the messengers, since these words may have come from Luke's special source for this item and not from himself, tho this latter supposition would tell against the a.s.sumption that this special source was an oral one. Of these Lucan words, ??t??? is used a second time by Luke (xiv, 8) in a pa.s.sage not paralleled in Matthew; it is not used by him in Acts. ?a?a?e??e???

is used once by Mark, three times by Matthew, eight times by Luke in his Gospel, and twenty times in the Book of Acts. Sp??da??? is found here only in the Gospels, and not in Acts. ?a???? is used once by Matthew, once by Mark, twice by Luke in his Gospel, and three times in Acts. ?p????te? (in the intransitive sense) occurs twice in Matthew, once in Mark, three times in Luke's Gospel, and not in Acts. ??? occurs once in Mark, once in Matthew, twice in Luke's Gospel, and eight times in Acts. ????? is found in Luke only among the Gospels, and twice in Acts. ??ss? is found in some texts of Matthew in this pa.s.sage, but has probably been a.s.similated from Luke. It is found in one other pa.s.sage in Matthew, in this pa.s.sage in Luke, not in Mark, and five times in Acts. These facts cannot be said to throw much light on whether Luke is here to be charged with the verses in which these words occur, or whether they may have stood in his source. But considering the extremely close agreement between Luke's vss. 7_b_-9 and Matthew's vss. 8_b_-10 (note especially the e?p? ????, unparalleled elsewhere), the best conclusion may be that the story stood in Q, much as it now stands in Matthew, and that Luke, perhaps having heard this other version of the story, has himself altered the narrative part of it.

"MANY SHALL COME FROM EAST AND WEST"

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

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

TWO MEN WHO WOULD FOLLOW JESUS

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

To these two sayings Matthew and Luke supply respectively their own introductions. In the first saying, after the introduction, thirty-one consecutive words are identical, except for Luke's subst.i.tution of e?pe?

for the original ???e? which still appears in Matthew. In the second saying, after the introduction, the verbal resemblance is close, tho not so close as in the first saying. The second half of Luke's vs. 60 has a late sound, and may be attributed either to Luke or his copy of Q. But the resemblance thruout is close enough to warrant the a.s.signment of the section simply to Q.

"THE HARVEST IS GREAT"

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

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

"THE LABORER IS WORTHY OF HIS HIRE"

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

Mark and Q both contained accounts of the sending out of the disciples.

This is one of the fragments preserved from Q by Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. It is identical except for the subst.i.tution of ?s??? for t??f??. The change may be attributed to Luke or his recension of Q; in this case the change is so slight as to be easily chargeable to Luke; it may bespeak a time later than that indicated by Matthew's form--a time when the traveling preachers received not only their food but some slight wage. It stood in Q.

"GREET THE HOUSE"

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

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

"MORE TOLERABLE FOR SODOM"

(Mt x, 15; Lk x, 12)

The variations are slight. ??? might be taken to indicate QMt, but it might also easily have been omitted by Luke because of its Aramaic tone.

The section may be safely ascribed to Q.

"SHEEP AMONG WOLVES"

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

Luke subst.i.tutes ???a? for Matthew's p??ata, thus heightening the contrast. It may be a.s.signed to Q.

HOW TO ACT UNDER PERSECUTION

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

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

THE DISCIPLE AND HIS TEACHER

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

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

EXHORTATION TO FEARLESS CONFESSION

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

The agreements and variations in this section are precisely such as to indicate an ultimate common source, but immediate different sources. In Matthew's vs. 27 and Luke's vs. 3, with many of the same words retained, the meaning is directly reversed. On the other hand,f?e?s?e (f????te) with ?p? is found here only in the New Testament, and not at all in the Septuagint. Unless this be ascribed to a.s.similation, it is a coincidence too marked to be explained except by the supposition of an ultimate common source. The same thing is to be said of the phrase ??????se? ?? in Matthew's vs. 32 and Luke's vs. 8. Yet in the midst of the section there is a pa.s.sage of twenty or twenty-five words in which there is practically no verbal coincidence, tho the idea is the same. Luke subst.i.tutes "have not anything else that they can do," for Matthew's phrase "can not kill the soul"; it has been suggested that this latter was not congenial to Luke's Greek method of thot. Where Matthew mentions the price of sparrows as "two for a farthing," Luke specifies it as "five for two farthings."

The section contains no narrative matter. A comparison of the deviations between Matthew and Luke here, with their agreements with each other in sections where they are taking over the discourse material of Jesus from Mark, will show that these deviations are decidedly too great to be ascribed to the agency of either Matthew or Luke. The pa.s.sage is therefore a.s.signed to QMt and QLk.

STRIFE AMONG RELATIVES

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

Luke's version seems more elaborated and less original than Matthew's.

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

CONDITIONS OF DISCIPLESHIP

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

Luke's statement is much stronger, and so presumably older, than Matthew's. Wellhausen says Matthew has been "refined out of Luke." In Matthew, the two sayings about taking up the cross, and about finding and losing one's life, follow each other; in Luke, at this place, they are separated by more than three chapters. But both Matthew and Luke give both of these sayings a second time, and the second time the two sayings are continuous in both, as they also are in Mark, from whom they are taken.

The facts seem therefore to have been that Matthew and Luke each took both of these sayings from two sources; that in Mark the two sayings occurred together; that in Luke's recension of Q (at least), they were separated; that they were probably separated in Matthew's Q also, but he has combined them according to his habit, helped here by the recollection of the continuity of the two sayings in Mark. The subst.i.tution of "who seeks to find his soul" for the simpler form "who finds his soul" might easily be ascribed to Luke; it is in the interest of logicality. But it is quite unlike Luke to have added from oral tradition, or to have inserted from any other written source, so much matter of his own as is found in his vs.

26. The section is therefore a.s.signed to QMt and QLk.

"HE THAT RECEIVETH YOU"

(Mt x, 40; Lk x, 16)