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

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

THE "SECONDARY TRAITS" ARE IN QMt AND QLk, NOT IN Q

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

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

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

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

So, further, Luke's parable of the Unjust Judge, with its generally Q sound, but with its pathetic question appended (from Luke's recension), "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find the faith on the earth?" bespeaks the times of persecution when the survival of the new faith looked problematical. Matthew's "Cast not your pearls before swine,"

"The Pharisee instructed in the kingdom of heaven," "The scribes and Pharisees in Moses' seat," all from QMt, and Luke's "Rejoice that your names are written in heaven," his saying about discerning the signs of the time (of the parousia), his "kingdom cometh not with observation," and his twice repeated injunction to watchfulness, all from QLk, certainly have a secondary sound. The presence of so many secondary traits in QMt and QLk does not prove that the pa.s.sages so a.s.signed might not be a.s.signed to S or some other special or undefined source; but many if not all of them being pa.s.sages ordinarily a.s.signed simply to Q, the large number of secondary traits in them does tend to substantiate, in an unlooked-for manner, the a.s.sumption of the two recensions.

CHAPTER VI

DID MARK ALSO USE Q?

In the introduction to his _Beginnings of Gospel History_, Bacon remarks that the "dependence of Mark upon Q can be demonstrated." Wellhausen says that "independence [between Mark and Q] is not to be thot of." Streeter, in _Oxford Studies_, has made the most recent and thoro study of the relation of Mark and Q, and some of his results have already been utilized and acknowledged. Even Dr. Sanday, in the introduction to _Oxford Studies_, confesses himself an unwilling convert to the theory that Mark was acquainted with, and made some use of, Q. Wellhausen alone, so far as I know, maintains the apparently untenable position that Q is later than Mark, and that where the two overlap, Q has used Mark instead of Mark using Q. His acceptance of this position is partially explained by the fact that he makes no distinction between the original Q and the recensions of it in the hands of Matthew and Luke; he also allows to Q much material (e.g., the conversation between John and Jesus at the baptism) which other scholars, without the hypothesis of QMt and QLk, ascribe to the hand of Matthew or Luke. Harnack and Wernle maintain the priority of Q to Mark. Wernle concedes some small use of Q by Mark, and Harnack thinks Mark was at least "acquainted with" Q.

The discrimination between QMt and QLk and the original Q makes unnecessary a good deal of the work that has heretofore been done toward determining the primary and secondary traits in Mark and Q respectively.

a.s.suming that Mark used either the original Q, or as near to the original of that doc.u.ment as we can yet get, the recensions used by Matthew and Luke would be perhaps thirty, certainly twenty, years later than that used by Mark. In the fifty or more verses of Mark that appear to have stood also in Q, there is nothing that can be shown to be later than the year 70 (the date generally a.s.signed to Mark). There is nothing to suggest that the author had witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, or the events immediately leading up to it. The presence of the same material in Mark and Q is demonstrated by the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, or by the deviations of the one or the other of them from the Marcan form of a saying, in such way as not to admit of explanation except by the a.s.sumption of two sources (Mark and Q) in the hands of Matthew and Luke.

In other words, if Mark did use Q, but if he used the same text of it as was used by Matthew and Luke, and if the three followed Q with equal faithfulness, in all such instances Q would fail to appear, since both Matthew and Luke would appear to be following only Mark. It is therefore where there are deviations of either Matthew or Luke from Mark in sections where the other follows Mark closely, or where there are agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in sayings-material, that the presence of Q behind Mark can be detected.

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

Upon the theory now advocated by the writer, these secondary traits are practically all a.s.signed, not to the original Q, but to QMt or QLk.[132]

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

WHAT MATERIAL DID MARK TAKE FROM Q?

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

THE MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE BAPTIST

(Mk i, 7-8)

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

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

(Mk i, 9-11)

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

THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS

(Mk i, 12-13)

The very brief account in Mark is followed in Matthew and Luke by nine and eleven verses respectively, which have been already a.s.signed to Q. The question here is whether Matthew and Luke followed Mark in the first two verses of their narratives, and after that forsook him for Q, or whether they followed Q thruout. Matthew and Luke agree in subst.i.tuting d??????

for Mark's sata???, in the omission of the clause "and was with the wild beasts," and in placing the temptation in the period of hunger following the forty days' fast. They apparently followed Q rather than Mark, but each introduced some changes out of deference to the latter. Mark's account is similar enough to that of Matthew and Luke to be a brief extract from Q.

THE BEELZEBUL CONTROVERSY

(Mk iii, 20-29)

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

FIVE DETACHED SAYINGS

(Mk iv, 21-25)

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

THE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED

(Mk iv, 30-32)

This parable has a strong resemblance to those already a.s.signed to Q.

Matthew's connection is the same as Mark's; Luke's is different. Luke agrees with Mark in beginning with a question, tho he omits the second half of the double question in Mark. Matthew follows Mark, or is strongly influenced by him in Mt xiii, 32. Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in the words ?? ?a?? ?????p??. According to a suggestion of Wellhausen's, ?a?e? e?? ??p?? and ?spe??e? ?? t? ???? may be translation variants. In the conclusion Matthew and Luke agree much more closely with each other than with Mark. Except for the influence of Mark at the beginning, Luke seems to be following Q, while Matthew's parable is a conflation of Q and Mark. If Mark here rests upon Q, then Matthew is conflating a parable which Mark drew from Q with the same parable as he (Matthew) found it in his recension of Q. Complicated as this may seem, Mark's parable is too closely similar to Luke's to have had any but a Q origin. To Q in Luke should be added Lk xiii, 18-19; and to Q in Matthew, Mt xiii, 31-32.

THE SENDING OUT OF THE TWELVE

(Mk vi, 7-11)

This pa.s.sage is to be compared with Mt x, 1, 7-8, 9-16, and Lk ix, 1-5; x, 1, 3, 4-7, 9-12 (with considerable rearrangement of order in the verses).

The Marcan material, as it reappears in both Matthew and Luke, is mixed with much other material from Q. Luke's addition of a mission of seventy and his division of this Marcan material between that mission and the mission of the twelve add to the confusion. Matthew (x, 14) and Luke (ix, 5) agree in six words against Mark. In the verb ??t????ete, Matthew (x, 14) follows Mark against Luke. Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in saying ?te ??d?? instead of e? ? ??d??. In those parts of Matthew's and Luke's narratives that are not paralleled in Mark there is probably an oral tradition mingled with the Q material. Mark's version might be considered an excerpt, rather than a copy, of Q. To Q in Matthew may be added Mt x, 1, 9, 10_ab_, 14; and to Q in Luke, Lk ix, 1, 3, 5; x, 4, 10.

A SIGN REFUSED

(Mk viii, 12)