As to whether the source of Luke's single tradition was one or many the statement in his prologue predisposes us toward the latter supposition.

The difference between the infancy sections and the rest of Luke's peculiar material, as in the case of Matthew, is marked. Hawkins reckons one hundred and fifty-one words as characteristic of Luke. Of these, seventy-seven, or more than half, occur once or more in the first two chapters, while seventy-four of them are absent from these chapters. These first two chapters contain about one hundred and thirty-two verses, about one-ninth of the whole Gospel; yet one-half of the occurrences of Luke's peculiar words are found here.

A strong Hebraic character is observable in Luke's infancy sections, quite absent from his other peculiar material. In the twenty-one verses in i, 5-25, ?a? is used many times where Luke's habit elsewhere would lead us to expect the subst.i.tution of d?. There are also many Hebraic phrases, such as p??e??e??? ?? p?sa?? ta?? ??t??a??, p??e???te? ?? ta?? ???a??, ??a? ???p??? ??????, and the construction ????et?, thrice used, as the formula introducing a paragraph. Luke's own hand may be seen in the introduction of d? three times. One of these is in connection with e?pe?, which is probably Luke's subst.i.tute for the historic present. The retention of so many Hebraistic and non-Lucan features probably justifies Julicher's suggestion of a special (Hebraistic, Aramaic) written source for these infancy sections. A written and not an oral source is also indicated in Luke's table of ancestors,[119] especially in its awkward placing after the baptism. It is quite impossible that Luke is here drawing upon the same source as in his great interpolation. Even more decisive in this direction than the vocabulary is the general character of the material.

Sanday is "especially glad to see the stress that is laid [in certain other essays in the same volume] on the h.o.m.ogeneity of the peculiar matter of Luke."[120] He does not expressly say that he includes here the infancy sections, or whether he refers merely to the great interpolation; in the absence of such a statement, it may be fair to a.s.sume the former. He adds, "I fully believe, myself, in its Jewish-Christian and Palestinian origin."

But when he adds further, "I can altogether go along with the view that St. Luke probably collected this material during his two years' stay at Caesarea (Acts xxiv compared with xxi and xxvii, 1); I could even quite believe with Harnack, Mr. Streeter, and Dr. Bartlet that his chief informants were Philip the evangelist and his four daughters," he is open to the suspicion of being too much influenced by a desire to trace the tradition back to a definite and authentic source, even where the data do not warrant it. There is certainly no justification for referring the infancy stories to Philip and his four daughters (and perhaps, as suggested above, Dr. Sanday does not mean to do this).

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

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

In these more than nine chapters there are some sections which Matthew has in the earlier part of his Gospel, and little which Mark has;[121] but in these nine chapters Luke inserts most of the material peculiar to himself, and by far the greater part of the nine chapters is made up exclusively of such material. From the end of Luke's infancy section to his great interpolation there are about one hundred and fourteen verses of exclusively Lucan material, but in this interpolation there are about one hundred and seventy verses. The suggestion of these facts, to the effect that Luke is here employing a source distinct from that which he has used in his infancy section, and that he is for the most part employing one source and not several, may be further favored by the fact that when he comes back to the story told in Mark (and Matthew) he takes that up, not where he left it, at Mk vi, 41, but at viii, 27; as if he had found it inconvenient to make his peculiar source here work in with the common tradition.[122]

DID LUKE'S GREAT INTERPOLATION ORIGINALLY EXIST AS A SEPARATE DOc.u.mENTARY SOURCE?

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

These thirteen parables have not only a striking similarity among themselves, but an equally striking _dis_similarity to those parables which Luke has in common with one or both of the other evangelists.

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

At least one or two of these parables seem to be provided with more than one conclusion. The story of the Unjust Judge (xviii, 1-8) is introduced in vs. 1 as being spoken concerning the necessity of continued prayer. The story or parable itself then follows in vss. 2-5. Vss. 6-8_a_ give the conclusion in the words of Jesus, beginning with the words, "And the Lord said." Then Luke himself, in vs. 8_b_, adds, "But, when the Son of man cometh will he find the faith in the earth?"[124] The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is introduced as a rebuke to the Pharisees (Lk xvi, 14-15), who loved riches and thot well of themselves. The parable as thus introduced and as answering to this purpose appropriately closes at vs.

25, where Abraham reminds the rich man that he had his good things and Lazarus his poverty upon the earth, but now their situations are reversed.[125] What follows in vss. 27-31, tho here given as a continuation of the same story, has nothing to do with the contrast between rich and poor, or with heartlessness and pity, but only with belief and unbelief.

It may be observed also that the insertion of here and there a few verses that are elsewhere paralleled in Matthew interrupts the otherwise good connection of Luke's peculiar account. Thus the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is introduced, as just remarked, as a rebuke to the Pharisees, who loved money and "justified themselves in the sight of men." If it were allowed to follow immediately upon this, the setting would be appropriate.

But between this introduction, which is peculiar to Luke, and the story itself, also peculiar to him, there are inserted three verses (xvi, 16-18) in regard to law and divorce, which quite break the connection. These interrupting verses, however, are not peculiar to Luke, but are found in Matthew also.

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

But the unity of this source is much harder to demonstrate than is the unity of Q. A considerable amount of the material, aside from the Q material, in these sections is more or less closely duplicated by Matthew, and the Perean source or its equivalent in parts must therefore have been used by him also. Matthew's demonstrated faithfulness to his sources raises serious doubt as to whether he could have known this Perean source and have omitted so much of it. The a.s.sumption that he did so, and the a.s.signment of the double tradition thruout this portion of Luke, would require also an entire rearrangement of Q. Burton accepts this requirement, and, instead of Q, goes back to the Logia as a special source of Matthew. The fact that some of this material in the so-called Perean section of Luke may easily be a.s.signed to his own invention, and that in the larger part of it where he is not duplicated by Matthew his own hand can be clearly seen in additions and rearrangements, would seem to tell against the unity of the Perean source, or against the a.s.sumption of any Perean source properly so called, and common to Matthew and Luke. On the whole the hypothesis of a Perean source does not seem to the writer to have been substantiated.

OTHER POSSIBLE SOURCES FOR MATERIAL PECULIAR TO LUKE

Suggestion has been made in connection with a few of the pa.s.sages considered on pp. 193-206 as to a possible Jerusalem source. Nothing can perhaps be said in support of such a hypothesis, except what is suggested in the a.n.a.lysis on those pages and lies upon the surface of the pa.s.sages.

Another possible clew to the determination of one of Luke's sources lies in the material that has to do particularly with women. Compare the raising of the widow's son and the speech of Jesus referring to the Old Testament widow; the ministering women, Mary and Martha, and the speech of the woman about the mother of Jesus. The writer does not consider this (or the preceding) to be anything more than a suggestion.

CONCLUSIONS REGARDING Q MATERIAL IN THE SINGLE TRADITIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE

The preceding investigations represent the recension of Q used by Matthew as containing about two hundred and sixty-seven verses, or parts of verses. Of these ninety-eight are so closely parallel to Luke as to be marked simply Q. Eighty-nine, paralleled in Luke, but with divergences such as to indicate a different wording in the source that lay before Matthew and Luke and eighty without any parallels in Luke, are a.s.signed to QMt. The recension of Q used by Luke, according to our a.n.a.lysis, contained about two hundred and thirty-eight verses or parts of verses. Of these, ninety-four are closely enough paralleled in Matthew to be a.s.signed simply to Q; eighty-one are paralleled in Matthew, but with such differences as to suggest different wording in the source; and sixty-three are peculiar to Luke.

It is not to be a.s.sumed that all of Q is reproduced in either Matthew or Luke. But from the treatment accorded to Mark by Matthew and Luke, respectively, it is to be expected that Matthew would omit less of the Q material that lay before him than would Luke; and this presumption is confirmed by the results obtained. The examination of Luke's material indicates his command of a larger number of sources aside from Mark and Q than are apparent in Matthew, and this again agrees with Luke's statement in his preface. Luke's Gospel is longer than Matthew's, and approaches the limit apparently convenient in ancient doc.u.ments.[126] This fact, together with the greater amount of material he wished to incorporate from other sources, would further account for Luke's greater omissions from his Q.

Yet there is nothing to prove that Luke's Q, as it was certainly different in some of its contents, was not also briefer than Matthew's.

It is possible to limit Q strictly to the sections of Matthew and Luke in which the correspondences are extremely close, to leave the remainder of their double tradition to unidentified sources, and to make no claims for Q (QMt and QLk) in the single traditions of Matthew and Luke. This indeed is the procedure of most scholars. But it has the disadvantages of ignoring much material in the single traditions which is extremely similar to the Q material and often stands, in one or both Gospels, in closest connection with it, and of leaving without explanation the material which is nearly enough alike to require some common basis but not near enough alike to indicate the use of the same recension of the same doc.u.ment. The a.s.sumption of QMt and QLk, going back to two different translations, from different copies of the Aramaic original, and undergoing the process of alteration and accretion in different surroundings before falling into the hands of Matthew and Luke, best accounts for the agreements, the divergences, and the peculiar but strongly similar material.

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

CHAPTER V

REVIEW OF Q MATERIAL IN MATTHEW, LUKE, AND MARK

The accompanying tables of contents of Q material in Matthew, Luke, and Mark are prepared to facilitate comparison between the evangelists as to the amount and character of their Q material. They will help to determine whether QMT and QLK have enough in common, and of such a sort, as to ent.i.tle them still to be regarded as recensions of the same original. They will also help us toward a determination of the original order of Q. The division into sections is a somewhat arbitrary one, but has been made as nearly equal in Matthew and Luke as possible. t.i.tle and number are given to each section in each Gospel, to make the comparative study of contents and order more easy. Some slight differences may occasionally be detected between the a.s.signments as they are made here, and as they were made in the examinations of the double and single traditions. These will be chiefly due to the necessity of taking the material here in sections instead of in detached verses and will not affect the results heretofore obtained.

CONSIDERATIONS FAVORING a.n.a.lYSIS OF Q INTO QMT AND QLK

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

TABLE IV

CONTENTS OF Q MATERIAL IN MATTHEW

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

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

TABLE V

CONTENTS OF Q MATERIAL IN LUKE

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

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

As to the generally h.o.m.ogeneous character of the sections marked Q, there will be no dispute. Since these are restricted to the pa.s.sages showing the very closest parallelism, there can be no question about the propriety of a.s.signing them to Q. The only question will be as to the a.s.signment of any unduplicated material to any form of Q, and the a.s.signment of the duplicated but not closely paralleled sections to QMt and QLk instead of simply to Q. Reasons have been given[127] for such a.s.signments in each case. But a few sections may be taken as again ill.u.s.trating the advantages of the QMt-QLk hypothesis.

Pa.s.sAGES CLOSELY SIMILAR, YET WITH DIVERGENCES TOO GREAT TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR UPON THE HYPOTHESIS OF AN UNDIFFERENTIATED Q

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

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

WITH MATTHEW'S Q BEFORE HIM, LUKE WOULD NOT HAVE OMITTED SO MUCH OF IT

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

In the preceding table of contents for Q material in Matthew (pp. 222-23), there are twenty-nine sections for which Luke has no parallel. Five of these, the omitted beat.i.tudes, have already been discussed. Of the remaining twenty-four there are a few which, it may be admitted, Luke might not have cared to include, even if they were in his Q. Such are the sections on oaths, on fasting, on the blamelessness of the priests, and on the Pharisee instructed in the kingdom of G.o.d--all of a strongly Jewish character. To these may be added four other brief sections, all from Matthew's discourse against the Pharisees; especially, the reference to phylacteries, which would have no meaning for Luke's readers, and the injunction not to be called "Rabbi." The saying, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs [heathen] nor cast your pearls before swine [unbelievers]," he would hardly have taken if it had stood in his source.

But there are other sections which would particularly have delighted him, and which it is almost inconceivable that he should have read and omitted.

Such are the sections on alms-giving (a favorite subject with Luke; see Lk xi, 41; xii, 33); on prayer (a subject which he mentions eighteen times against Matthew's ten, outside of this pa.s.sage); the three little parables of the Treasure Hid in the Field, the Pearls, and the Fish-Net, and the beautiful saying, so fitted to Luke's universalistic purpose, "Come unto me."