2. The agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark can further be accounted for by the hypothesis of a.s.similation. Matthew made certain changes of his own in the wording of Mark; Luke apparently made many more.

The various texts still extant show many efforts of copyists to bring the deviations of Matthew and Luke in small verbal items into an agreement. If this same process went on during the period covered by our earliest ma.n.u.scripts, it is probable that it went on to a much greater extent at an earlier date, before our Gospels had acquired the sacredness which they later came to possess. A fine ill.u.s.tration of this process and its results is to be seen in the Matthean and Lucan versions of the Lord's Prayer, in which the probably original "Let thy Holy Spirit come upon us and purify us," of Luke, has been a.s.similated to "Thy kingdom come," and in many ma.n.u.scripts also to "Thy will be done as in heaven so upon earth," of Matthew. The extent of this sort of a.s.similation can never be determined; but it seems quite sufficient to account for agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark not easily accounted for on other grounds.

A more general reason against the a.s.sumption of an Ur-Marcus in the hands of Matthew and Luke is the comparatively small number and importance of their agreements against Mark, as compared with the very large number of the deviations in which they do not agree, and as compared also with the vastly greater number of instances in which both Matthew and Luke follow Mark faithfully. In other words, if Ur-Marcus differed from our Mark only in those words and phrases in which Matthew and Luke agree against our Mark, then Ur-Marcus was at the most not a different Mark from ours, but only a different copy or text of our Mark. The a.s.sumption of an Ur-Marcus was a natural one for the explanation of the phenomena in question; but it is a c.u.mbersome hypothesis, and insecure; further study seems to discredit it. Matthew and Luke used our Mark, not another.

It has often been suggested that the Marcan material covered by the "great omission" of Luke (Mk vi, 45-viii, 26) was absent from the copy of Mark used by Luke, tho present in that used by Matthew. Reasons for Luke's omission of this long Marcan section have been given, and seem sufficient without the a.s.sumption of its absence from Luke's copy of Mark. But the theory of its absence has also important items directly against it. The section has the general Marcan characteristics. Mark has one hundred and forty-one historic presents; eighteen of them are in this section. He uses e???? thirty-four times, five in this section; p???? twenty-six times, five in this section. He is partial to the imperfects ??e?e? and ??e???, which he uses fifty times (against Matthew's twenty-three and Luke's nine), six times in this section. The same habit of duplicate expression which occurs in other parts of his Gospel appears here. ? ?st?? in the sense of "i.e.," peculiar to Mark among the evangelists, appears here twice (four times elsewhere in the Gospel). Seven out of the nine sections begin with ?a?. The section seems to be too h.o.m.ogeneous with the rest of the book to be from a different hand.[68]

The foregoing considerations seem to render the hypothesis of Ur-Marcus superfluous. The phenomena for which it was designed to account are more easily and naturally explained by other suppositions.

SOME REMARKABLE VERBAL RESEMBLANCES

In the preceding pages sufficient consideration has been given not only to the fact, but to the manner, of the use of Mark by Matthew and Luke.

Visual ill.u.s.tration, by the printing of a few pa.s.sages in different kinds of type may serve to enforce some of the more general facts already brot out. The words (or parts of words) common to the three Synoptics, in the following pa.s.sages, will be printed in heavy-faced type.

Mt ix, 5-6: =t?= ??? =?st?? Mk ii, 9-10_a_: =t? ?st??

e???p?te???, e?pe??=? e???p?te???, e?pe??= =?f=?e=?ta? t? pa?a??t???? =?f=?e=?ta?

s?? a? ?a?t?a?, ? s?? a? ?a?t?a?, ?

e?pe??? ??e??e ?a?= e?pe??? ??e??e ?a?= ???? t?? ???at??

pe??p?te?; =??a d? e?d?te s?? ?a? ?pa?e; =??a d? e?d?te ?t? ????s?a? ?t? ????s?a?

??e? ? ???? t?? ?????p?? ??e? ? ???? t?? ?????p??

?p? t?? ??? ?f???a? ?p? t?? ??? ?f???a?

?a?t?a?=, t?te ???e? ?a?t?a?=, ???e?

=t? pa?a?=?t??? =t? pa?a?=?t???? s?? ????, =??e?=?e?? =??=?? =s??= =??e=?=?=e =??=?? t??

t?? ?????? ?a? ?pa?e ???at?? =s??= ?a? ?pa?e =e?? t?? ????? s??=. =e?? t?? ????? s??=.

Lk v, 23-24: =t? ?st??

e???p?te???, e?pe??=?

=?f=??=?ta?= s?? =a? ?a?t?a? s??

? e?pe??? ??e??e ?a?=

pe??p?te?; =??a d? e?d?te ?t? ? ???? t?? ?????p??

????s?a? ??e?

?p? t?? ??? ?f???a?

?a?t?a?=, e?pe?

=t? pa?a?=e?????? s?? ????, =??e=?=?=e ?a? =??=a? t?

?????d??? =s??= p??e???

=e?? t?? ????? s??=.

Here the evangelists differ each from the other in the words ascribed to Jesus, but when they come to the parenthetic explanation injected into the midst of the sentence, ??a d? e?d?te, etc., they agree exactly, not only in the wording, but in the awkward placing of the clause. The three accounts agree in the first five lines, except for the presence of ??? in Matthew, the insertion of t? pa?a??t??? in Mark, and a slightly different form of the verb ?f??? in Luke. In the fourth line Luke also inserts s??, after which come seven consecutive agreeing words (tho with slight rearrangement in order by Luke). Mark then has a clause of six words which Matthew and Luke omit. The latter agree in subst.i.tuting pe??p?te? for ?pa?e, and two (different) words from the same root for Mark's ???at??.

Luke has preserved the s?? ???? which Matthew has dropped.

Mt xii, 3-4: ??? Mk ii, 25-26: ??d?p?te =??????te= t? =?p???se? =??????te= t? =?p???se?

?a?e?d, ?te ?pe??ase? ?a?e?d, ?te= ??e?a? ?s?e?

?a? ?a? =?pe??ase? a?t?? ?a?

?? et' a?t??;= ?? et' a?t??;= p=?? e?s???e? e?? t?? p=?? e?s???e? e?? t??

????? t?? ?e??= ????? t?? ?e??= ?p?

????a? ????e????

=?a? t??? ??t??? t?? =?a? t??? ??t??? t??

p????se?? p????se??

?fa???=, ? =??? ??=?? ?? ?fa?e?=, ??? =??? ??=est??

a?t? =fa?e??= ??d? =t???= =fa?e?? e? ?

et' =a?t=??, =e? ?= t?=?=? ?e?e=?=?=, ?a? ?d??e?

=t?=?=? ?e?e=?s?? ?????; ?a? =t???= s??

=a?t=? ??s??;

Lk vi, 3-4: ??d? t??t?

=??????te= ? =?p???se?

?a?e?d=, ?p=?te ?pe??ase?= a?t?? =?a?= =?? et' a?t??= ??te?; =?? e?s???e? e?? t??

????? t?? ?e??=

=?a? t??? ??t??? t??

p????se??= ??ae? ?a?

=?fa?e?=, ?a? ?d??e? ?a?

=t???= et' =a?t=??, ??? =???

??=est?? =fa?e?? e? ?= ????? =t?=?=? ?e?e=?=?=;

Few brief pa.s.sages in the triple tradition will better repay study than this. Note that the three introduce their question with three different particles. Matthew and Luke omit the apparently superfluous words of Mark, ??e?a? ?s?e?, but Luke retains the a?t?? of Mark which Matthew has dropped. Luke adds ??te?, perhaps in deference to Mark's ??s??, used in a similar phrase but different connection. He subst.i.tutes ?? for the p?? of Mark and Matthew. Mark and Luke both have the statement that David "gave"

the bread to those that were with him, Luke adding that he "took" it. All three have in conclusion the phrase "to those with him," but each has inserted it in a different place. Matthew follows Mark more closely than does Luke, the latter transposing one or two clauses. Both Matthew and Luke have omitted the reference to Abiathar, either because they (or Luke at least) had no interest in it, or for its historical difficulty. In spite of these changes there is a most remarkable verbal agreement thruout. Except for Mark's superfluous "had need," and his reference to Abiathar, nothing can be found in either account that is not duplicated, practically word for word and almost letter for letter, in one or both of the others.

Mt iv, 18-22: ?e??pat?? d? =pa?? t??

???a.s.sa? t?? Ga???a?a? e?de?= d??

?de?f???, =S???a= t?? ?e??e??? ??t???

=?a? ??d??a? t?? ?de?f?? a?=t??

=?????ta?= ?f???st??? =?=?? =t?=? =???a.s.s=a??

=?sa? ??? ??ee??. ?a?= ???e?

=a?t???? de?te ?p?s? ??, ?a?

p???s? ??? ??ee?? ?????p??=. ??

d? =e????? ?f??te? t? d??t?a ????????sa?

a?t?. ?a? p????= ??e??e?

=e?de?= ?????? d?? ?de?f???, =?????? t?? t?? ?eeda??? ?a? ???????

t?? ?de?f?? a?t??, ?? t? p????= et? ?eeda??? t?? pat??? a?t??

=?ata?t????ta? t? d??t?a= a?t??? =?a?

????ese? a?t???=. ?? d? (=e?????=) =?f??te? t=? =p???=?? ?a? (=t?? pat??a a?t??=) ????????sa? =a?t?=.

Mk i, 16-20: ?a? pa????? =pa?? t??

???a.s.sa? t?? Ga???a?a? e?de?

S???a ?a? ??d??a? t?? ?de?f??= S?????

?f?=?????ta? ?=? =t? ?a??ss=??

=?sa? ??? ??ee??. ?a?= e?pe?

=a?t???? de?te ?p?s? ??, ?a? p???s?

???= ?e??s?a? =??ee?? ?????p??=. ?a?

=e???? ?f??te? t? d??t?a ????????sa?

a?t?. ?a? p????= ??????

=e?de?

?????? t?? t?? ?eeda??? ?a? ???????

t?? ?de?f?? a?t??=, ?a? a?t??? =?? t?

p????

?ata?t????ta? t? d??t?a. ?a?= (=e????=) =????ese? a?t???=? ?a? =?f??te?= (=t?? pat??a a?t??=) ?eeda??? ?? =t=? =p???=? et? t??