On the ground of Matthew's having doublets for this saying (Mt xii, 39; xvi, 4) and Luke a parallel to it (Lk xi, 29), it may without further consideration be a.s.signed to Q. The agreement of Matthew and Luke, and the agreement of Matthew's doublets, in adding "Except the sign of Jonah," may be taken to indicate the difference here between Mark's Q and the later recensions.

"WHOSOEVER WILL FOLLOW ME"

(Mk viii, 34-35)

Matthew has doublets for this saying in x, 38-39; xvi, 24-25; Luke in ix, 23-24; xiv, 27; xvii, 33. Matthew and Luke copy the Marcan version with unusual fidelity thru about forty words. They agree against him in saying e? t?? for Mark's ?st??, in the subst.i.tution of a form (tho not the same form) of the verb ????a? for ???????e??, and in the employment of a subjunctive in place of an indicative of the verb ?p?????. Luke adds the phrase "day by day." Considering the remarkably close verbal agreement as well as the agreement in order, there can be no doubt that Matthew in xvi, 24-25, and Luke in ix, 23-24, are following Mark; their agreements against him may be explained partly by a desire to correct his style, and partly by a.s.similation. The resemblances between the other member of the doublet in each case, and the saying as here reported in Mark (i.e., between Mt x, 38-39; Lk xiv, 27; xvii, 33, and Mk viii, 34-35), are sufficiently close to suggest, if not to prove, that Mark's saying was derived by him from Q.

Since these verses have already been a.s.signed to Q in the examination of the double tradition, they yield no new Q material here.

"WHOEVER IS ASHAMED OF ME"

(Mk viii, 38)

Matthew has a parallel of this saying, and Luke has doublets for it (Mt x, 33; Lk ix, 26; xii, 9). The verse may be a.s.signed to Q.

ABOUT OFFENSES

(Mk ix, 42-48)

Matthew here follows Mark rather closely, except that he adds "Woe to the world because of offenses," and conflates Mark's two sayings about the hand and the foot into one. Matthew has doublets for Mk ix, 43, 45-47, in Mt v, 29-30, and xviii, 8-9. Luke has avoided the doublet, but has a parallel to Mark's verses in Lk xvii, 1-2. The section may be a.s.signed to Mark and Q.

ABOUT SALT

(Mk ix, 49-50)

The little saying in vs. 49 is unduplicated in either of the other Gospels. If any source be suggested for it, nothing more likely than Q could be suggested. If the saying be a.s.signed to Q, it will be the only Q saying in Mark not taken over by either Matthew or Luke. Luke agrees in xiv, 34, with Mark as against Matthew (v, 13), and with Matthew against Mark in ??a???, but shows the influence of Mark again in ??t???seta?.

Either Mark follows Q very loosely, perhaps from memory, or Matthew and Luke have a different recension.

ABOUT DIVORCE

(Mk x, 11-12)

Matthew has doublets for this saying (Mt v, 32; xix, 9). In the latter occurrence of the saying in Matthew, the connection is the same as that of Mark's. It is omitted in that instance by Luke, presumably because it is part of a controversy with the Pharisees. But doubt is thrown upon the presence of the saying in Q by the fact that it occurs twice in Mark also, and may have been taken from him by Matthew in both instances.

THE FIRST WHO SHALL BE LAST

(Mk x, 31)

This saying is paralleled in Luke (xiii, 30) and has doublets in Matthew (xix, 30; xx, 16). It apparently stood in both Mark and Q.

TRUE GREATNESS

(Mk x, 43-44)

There are doublets for this saying in Mt xx, 26-27, and xxiii, 11, and in Lk xxii, 26; ix, 48. It probably stood in both Mark and Q, but this again cannot be proved, since Mark also has the saying twice (ix, 35).

ABOUT FAITH

(Mk xi, 23)

There is a parallel for this saying in Lk xvii, 6, and there are doublets for it in Mt xvii, 20, and xxi, 21. It stood in Mark and Q.

AGAINST THE PHARISEES

(Mk xii, 38-40)

This section is listed by Mr. Streeter as from Q, because it "looks like a reminiscence from a long denunciation in Q." This is probably correct, but the doublets to establish it are lacking.

THE HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKING IN THE DISCIPLES

(Mk xiii, 11)

This saying is paralleled in Mt x, 19, and has doublets in Lk xii, 11-12, and xxi, 14-15.

OTHER MARCAN Pa.s.sAGES CONSIDERED, BUT REJECTED

In addition to the pa.s.sages a.s.signed to Q in the preceding investigation, several are suggested by Streeter and Wernle. Streeter suggests Mk xiii, 15-16; but the doublets in Luke are apparently taken in both instances from Mark. Streeter thinks that xiii, 28-32, "has a genuine sound"; but there is nothing more specific to prove its presence in Q. Streeter's suggestion that Mk i, 2-3, is from Q seems unjustifiable. Vs. 3 is an Old Testament quotation which Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have in common. If it stood originally in Mark and is not to be regarded as a later addition, there is no occasion for the a.s.sumption of Q. Vs. 2 could hardly have stood in its present place when Matthew and Luke used Mark. It occurs in another connection in Matthew and Luke (Mt xi, 10; Lk vii, 27), and was probably copied from there into its present place by a later hand.

Wernle's additions to the above Q material in Mark do not seem to be justified. Some of them, e.g., Mk xi, 14, rest upon making doublets (in this case Mt xxi, 19, and vii, 7-8) where the wording is not close enough to warrant them. Others rest upon the general character of the sayings.

The latter is a tempting criterion, and in Matthew and Luke, who demonstrably make such extensive use of Q, it is more justifiable and has been used to some extent in the preceding a.n.a.lyses. But in Mark, where Q is so sparingly and loosely used, it cannot be safely employed aside from other indications, especially the occurrence of doublets.

The writer believes that the matter listed in the above tabulation is about all that can at present safely be a.s.signed to Q in Mark. It yields us, as new Q material in Matthew, sixteen verses, and as new Q material in Luke, seventeen. This would bring the totals for Q material in Matthew and Luke up to two hundred and eighty-three in Matthew and to two hundred and fifty-five in Luke.[134] The number of verses in Mark which can be traced to Q are about fifty. All but sixteen of these verses in Matthew and all but seventeen in Luke had already been a.s.signed to Q. Only one stands in Mark alone.

TABLE VI

CONTENTS FOR Q MATERIAL IN MARK

----------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec.|Chap.| Verse | Subject |Source ----|-----|-------|---------------------------------------------|------ 1 | i,| 7-8 |Messianic announcement of the Baptist | Q 2 | i,| 12-13 |The temptation | Q 3 | iii,| 22-29 |The Beelzebul controversy | Q 4 | iv,| 21 |The light and the bushel | Q 5 | iv,| 22 |Things hidden and revealed | Q 6 | iv,| 24 |With what measure (about judging) | Q 7 | iv,| 25 |Whoever has, to him shall be given | Q 8 | iv,| 30-32 |Parable of the Mustard Seed | Q 9 | vi,| 7-11 |Mission of the twelve, what to take, conduct | | | |by the way, if any place does not receive you| Q 10 |viii,| 12 |A sign refused | Q 11 |viii,| 34,38 |Conditions of discipleship | Q 12 | ix,| 42 |About offenses | Q 13 | ix,| 49-50 |Salt is good. If the salt has lost, etc. | Q 14 | x,| 11-12 |About divorce | Q 15 | x,| 31 |First last and last first | Q 16 | x,| 43-44 |Whoso would be great among you | Q 17 | xi,| 23 |About faith | Q 18 | xii,| 38-40 |Against Pharisaism | Q 19 |xiii,| 11 |Take no thot what ye shall say | Q -----------------------------------------------------------------------

The above content being made out for the material common to Mark and Q, the use of Q by Mark may be permitted to rest upon its general probability, there being nothing to contradict it or to substantiate the opposite hypothesis. How closely Mark used Q, whether actually copying certain pa.s.sages from him, or merely recalling what he had read or heard read from Q, cannot be determined, since what stood in the text of Q used by Mark is only an inference from what stood in the recensions used by Matthew and Luke.

DO THE VOCABULARY AND STYLE OF MARK AND Q, RESPECTIVELY, THROW ANY LIGHT UPON THEIR LITERARY RELATIONSHIP?

The inquiry might perhaps be carried a step farther by a comparison of the vocabularies of Mark and Q. Hawkins, between the first and second editions of his _Horae Synopticae_, made a second and more diligent search for linguistic peculiarities in Q, and declares himself unable to find any. Harnack, on the contrary, believes he finds some such.

Sentences in Q, according to Harnack, are generally connected by ?a?, d?

being used but seldom. The same is true of Mark. But this only indicates the comparative nearness of both Mark and Q to the Semitic. The same may be said of the preponderance of simple verbs in distinction from compound in both Mark and Q. ??? is used twice as frequently as e?; Mark also appears to use the former thirty-six times and the latter but fifteen.

This fact seems to have more significance by reason of the other, that Luke uses one word thirty-two and the other thirty-three times. Matthew, however, uses ??? exactly twice as often as e?. When we remember that all we have of Q is contained in Matthew and Luke, and only a small portion of it in Mark, these facts do seem to indicate a preference for ??? over e?