^^^^mci 
 
 ^^ 
 
 N to 191R 
 
 L»'visiofl BS?- S^-'i 
 
MATTHEW'S SAYINGS OF JESUS 
 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
 CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 
 
 THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY 
 
 NEW TOBE 
 
 THE J. K. GILL COMPANY 
 
 POBTLANO, OBEBOH 
 
 THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 LONDON AND EDINBUBSH 
 
 THE BIARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA 
 
 TOETO, OSAKA, KYOTO, rUEUOEA, SEHDAI 
 
 THE MISSION BOOK COMPANY 
 
 SUAVSHAI 
 
4>,. 
 
 l!M to !9 
 
 MATTHEW'S SAYINGS 
 OF JESUS 
 
 THE NON-MARKAN COMMON SOURCE OF 
 MATTHEW AND LUKE 
 
 By y 
 
 GEORGE DEWITT CASTOR 
 
 Late Professor of Neiv Testament Literature and Exegesis 
 in the Pacific School of Religion 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 
 
Copyright 1918 By 
 The University or Chicago 
 
 All Rights Reserved 
 
 Published April 1918 
 
 Composed and Printed By 
 
 The University of Chicago Press 
 
 ChicaKC Illinois. U.S.A. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The main argument of this monograph was 
 read in an address before the Society of Biblical 
 Literature and Exegesis, December, 1906, and 
 during the following year was developed in more 
 detail and presented as a Doctor's thesis. In 
 offering it now for publication the writer has made 
 only a few minor changes. This monograph pre- 
 supposes an acquaintance with the main features 
 of the synoptic problem, and can hope to appeal 
 only to those New Testament students who are 
 interested in the Gospels as historical sources. The 
 great difference of opinion existing among scholars 
 regarding the non-Markan common material of 
 Matthew and Luke is sufficient justification for 
 further discussion of the subject. Any real con- 
 tribution toward the solution of this baffling prob- 
 lem is sure to be welcomed. The writer, therefore, 
 in presenting the results of his study can only hope 
 that scholars will find here something worthy of 
 their consideration. Every page will show how 
 dependent he has been on the many who have 
 
vi Preface 
 
 labored in this field, but his especial gratitude is due 
 to Professor Benjamin W. Bacon, Professor Charles 
 F. Kent, and Professor Shirley J. Case for their 
 encouragement and suggestions. 
 
 George D. Castor 
 
 Berkeley, Cal. 
 
POSTSCRIPT 
 
 It has been a great pleasure to have the privilege 
 of seeing through the press the work of my friend 
 and former classmate, Professor Castor, whose 
 promising career was cut short by a tragic accident 
 in the summer of 191 2. At that time his manu- 
 script was in final shape for printing, and it is now 
 published exactly as left by the author at the 
 moment of his untimely death. Regrettable as is 
 the delay in publication, the value of the book is 
 not thereby appreciably impaired. In the mean- 
 time no treatise has appeared rendering Professor 
 Castor's discussion superfluous, nor has the impor- 
 tance of his contribution to scholarly discussion of 
 the synoptic -problem diminished. Students o( the 
 subject will welcome this fresh and vigorous treat- 
 ment of a very perplexing theme. 
 
 Shirley Jackson Case 
 
 University of Chicago 
 March 16, 1918 
 
 Vll 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction by Professor Benjamin W. Bacon i 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. Inferences from Matthew's and Luke's 
 Use of the Source, Mark 7 
 
 II. Literary Study of All the Common 
 Material in Sections 19 
 
 III. The Sequence of Parallel Sections in 
 Matthew and Luke 120 
 
 IV. Unity and Completeness of the Common 
 Material in Matthew and Luke . . . 140 
 
 V. Relation of the Common Source to the 
 Independent Material of Luke . . . 162 
 
 VI. Relation of the Common Source to the 
 
 Independent Material of Matthew . . 182 
 
 VII. Relation of the Common Source to Mark 189 
 
 VIII. The Apostolic Origin of the Common 
 
 Source 208 
 
 IX. Matthew's Sayings of Jesus as Recon- 
 structed 217 
 
 IX 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 No more fascinating problem exists for the stu- 
 dent of the life of Christ than the reconstruction of 
 that primitive document which modern criticism 
 has proved to underHe our Gospels of Matthew 
 and Luke; for such is the necessary source of 
 the elements which these Gospels coincidently 
 add to Mark. 
 
 A century's tireless scrutiny of the interrelation 
 of our three interdependent Gospels issues, we 
 are now assured by many writers, in but one surely 
 established result: Our Matthew and Luke have 
 been framed upon our Mark, transcribing from it 
 their main outline of the story of Jesus. So far as 
 narrative of the ministry is concerned, scarcely 
 any other document seems in their time to have 
 come into serious consideration besides that which 
 earliest tradition pronounced a record of the 
 preaching of Peter. 
 
 This is a result of immense and far-reaching im- 
 portance. But until supplemented by the assur- 
 ance that Matthew and Luke have done this work 
 
2 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 independently we have no guaranty that the non- 
 Markan elements wherein they coincide are not 
 drawn by one from the other, or by both from an 
 indefinite number of sources, oral or written. This 
 second step — the mutual independence of Matthew 
 and Luke — has been made probable by many. 
 Critics point among other things to the utter lack 
 of relation displayed in the opening and closing 
 chapters of Matthew and Luke, each toward the 
 other, and the completely different disposal of 
 their common non-Markan or *' double-tradition" 
 material, which it is now usual to designate "Q.'* 
 To the present writer, however, the probability 
 seems to be carried to the point of real demonstra- 
 tion first in Wernle's comparison in his Synoptische 
 Frage of the treatment of Mark by Matthew and 
 Luke, respectively. The fact established by 
 Wernle that not one probable instance can be 
 shown throughout the material thus employed 
 (including as it does practically the entire Gospel 
 of Mark) wherein either of the later evangeUsts 
 seems to have been influenced in his modifications 
 by the other, adds the capstone to the edifice of the 
 so-called "two-document" theory. 
 
Introduction 3 
 
 On the basis of this presumption that Matthew 
 and Luke are mutually independent, and hence 
 in their coincident supplements to Mark were 
 drawing in the main from a common source, 
 attempts have repeatedly been made to reconstruct 
 it. Results have on the whole been disappointing. 
 The process and the proof are in the main dictated 
 by the conditions of the case. The Mark element 
 must be subtracted on both sides, and the 
 remainder, so far as common to Matthew and 
 Luke, must be scrutinized for evidences of organic 
 unity. The non-Markan remainder is indeed in 
 large part coincident, and this Q element does turn 
 out to be almost wholly of the teaching or dis- 
 course type rather than narrative. This is sup- 
 posed to corroborate an alleged ^'tradition" of 
 Papias of an apostohc compilation of ^'oracles." 
 But Papias has no such * tradition." He merely 
 states that the "oracles" which he proposed to 
 "interpret" are to be found in Matthew in Greek 
 translation. Moreover, the process of reconstruc- 
 tion is complicated by the possible elimination of 
 the narrative elements of Q in the process of sub- 
 tracting Mark; for Mark also may have used the 
 
4 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 same Q source. Furthermore, none of the many 
 reconstructions has in point of fact displayed those 
 evidences of organic unity which would justify the 
 critic in declaring : This is manifestly a single com- 
 position, constructed with a single consistent plan 
 and purpose, and from definable premises and 
 points of view. On the contrary, Wernle feels 
 compelled to set off from Q the opening sections 
 of the reconstructed work, which relate to the 
 Baptist and his preaching and to the baptism and 
 temptation of Jesus as a narrative introduction. 
 He regards this and the story of the centurion's 
 servant as later additions, because their more 
 narrative character seems to differentiate them 
 from the rest of Q, They seem, therefore, to 
 Wernle to fall outside the limits of a compilation of 
 the " oracles." Resch sees so little coherence in the 
 results of his predecessor Wendt as to pronounce 
 them ^'a heap of interesting ruins." Harnack's 
 results are certainly not more coherent. 
 
 Most disappointing of all, that correspondence 
 of the results of criticism with (alleged) ancient 
 tradition which began so promisingly with the dis- 
 course content of Q has failed to meet further expec- 
 tations. Matthew, which on this theory should 
 
Introduction 5 
 
 give evidence in its fundamental structure of an 
 underlying Logia source, is less inclined than 
 Luke to prefer the non-Markan source. Hawkins* 
 indication of Matthew's fivefold division through 
 the formula koI eyevero ore ereXeaev 6 'lirjaovs tovs 
 \6yovs TovTovs, interesting as evidence of the com- 
 piler's ideal, leads upon further scrutiny to the 
 undeniable result that all five of the great dis- 
 courses save the first are constructed on the basis 
 of Mark. Again, the language of Q was certainly 
 neither Hebrew nor Aramaic. Like our own Gos- 
 pels, it has traces of a Semitic original for its ele- 
 ments; but the compilation itself as used by 
 Matthew and Luke was Greek. Finally, there 
 is nothing to indicate for it a connection with 
 Matthew, or indeed with any apostle. The whole 
 identification Q = Papias' Logia thus breaks down 
 entirely. 
 
 Under these circumstances it was unavoidable 
 that scholarly effort should be reconcentrated on 
 the problem. Methods must be perfected, results 
 more minutely scrutinized. Recently Harnack 
 brings to bear upon it all his critical acumen, all 
 his experience as a historian and expert in early 
 Christian literature. The problem is destined to be 
 
6 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 solved, and by the method which more and more 
 in our day is solving the great problems of 
 common interest — the independent co-operation of 
 many workers. 
 
 For the competence of Professor Castor to under- 
 take this intricate task, even though the results of 
 his years of labor were set down too soon after the 
 publication of Harnack's able and elaborate treat- 
 ment to permit employment of it, the work itself 
 gives ample evidence. The reader will not need to 
 be assured of Professor Castor's scholarly spirit, 
 nor of his many years of schooling for his task in the 
 best university training at home and abroad. So 
 far as a former teacher's words can properly aim 
 at more than an honorary function, they must 
 express the sincere conviction that Professor Castor 
 has something of value to say whereby the solu- 
 tion of this vital problem of criticism is really pro- 
 moted. By the co-operation of many thus minded 
 have the triumphs of critical research been achieved 
 in the past. By similar co-operation this para- 
 mount problem of gospel criticism is also destined 
 
 to be solved. ^^ ,,, -r, 
 
 Benjamin W. Bacon 
 
 Yale University 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 INFERENCES FROM MATTHEW'S AND LUKE'S 
 USE OF THE SOURCE, MARK 
 
 Proceeding on the principle that we ought to 
 argue from the better to the less known, before 
 taking up the question of a second source at all we 
 should study the use which Matthew and Luke 
 make of Mark. It is not often that we have such 
 an opportunity to learn the methods of compilers 
 whose work we would investigate. That Matthew 
 and Luke both used Mark in some form not essen- 
 tially different from the present Gospel is one of the 
 assured results of modern criticism.' 
 
 Considering Luke first, the following charac- 
 teristics of his use of Mark are significant for our 
 purpose. His editorial work is not a use of mere 
 scissors and paste; the text of Mark is freely 
 revised, and even in the words of Jesus little care is 
 
 * The evidence for this has nowhere been more convincingly 
 presented than by Ernest DeWitt Burton in Some Principles 
 of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic 
 Problem. 
 
8 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 exercised to preserve the language of Mark.' The 
 changes Luke makes are not only linguistic — he 
 frequently adds his own comments and interpre- 
 tations — but the purpose of such changes is prac- 
 tical and not dogmatic. Again, Mark is seldom 
 combined with other sources, at least not before 
 the Passion narratives. The account of the rejec- 
 tion at Nazareth and the call of the first disciples 
 are the only clear cases, and there little more than a 
 trace of Mark's influence is discernible. Surpris- 
 ingly few changes are made in the order of Mark.^ 
 The few which are made only show that the author's 
 adherence to Mark's order is not due to any special 
 reverence for it, but rather to his general method 
 of using sources. Material foreign to Mark is 
 practically all gathered into two compact groups 
 (6:20 — 8:3; 9:51 — 18:14). Without entering 
 into the problem of Luke's one considerable 
 omission from Mark's account, Mark 6:45 — 8:26, 
 
 * Cf. Luke 5:36-39 with Mark 2:21, 22 and Luke 8:11-15 
 with Mark 4:14-20. In both cases the comparison shows, not 
 two sources, but an interpretation of Mark by Luke. They 
 illustrate how freely at times he changes Mark. 
 
 " Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 7, counts seven changes in 
 order; 3:195.; 4:i6flF.; 5:1 ff.; 6:12-16; 8:19-21; 22:15-20; 
 22:66-71. 
 
Matthew^s and Luke's Use of Mark 9 
 
 we notice that he is inclined to omit matters of 
 merely Jewish interest, as the account of John the 
 Baptist's death, ^ or what might trouble his readers, 
 as Jesus' reproof of Peter. Luke's omissions from 
 Mark with the one exception are easily accounted 
 for. In nine instances^ Luke abandons Mark for a 
 variant account, and two incidents of his great 
 omission (Mark 8:11-13; 8:14-21) are paralleled 
 in his other material. In seven of the total eleven 
 instances the variant account is one which Matthew 
 and Luke have in common. A comparison with 
 Matthew shows that where there are two parallel 
 accounts, one in Mark and the other in that ma- 
 terial which Luke has in common with Matthew 
 alone, he seems to show a preference for the latter. 
 Luke seeks to avoid duplicates, but has not always 
 succeeded. We shall now be prepared to find that 
 Luke changes freely the language of his other source 
 common to Matthew, makes his own editorial 
 additions and interpretations, but holds closely to 
 the order which he finds. He will omit what would 
 
 * Possibly Luke's omission here is also due to better infor- 
 mation. 
 
 'Mark 3:22-30; 4:30-23; 9:42; 9:50; 10:2-12; 10:35-45; 
 11:12-14, 20-32; 12:28-34; 14:3-9- 
 
lo Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 be uninteresting or displeasing to his readers, but, 
 if anything, we shall expect him to be more faith- 
 ful in preserving this other source than in his use 
 of Mark. 
 
 Turning to Matthew, we notice that here there 
 are more sayings of Jesus retained in the language 
 of Mark,* and more similarity throughout in the 
 vocabulary, but in the great majority of cases here, 
 as in Luke, Mark's wording is freely changed. In 
 thought also Matthew adheres more closely to 
 Mark than Luke does, but, like the third evangelist, 
 he adds his own reflections and makes his own 
 adaptations. On the other hand, changes in the 
 order are more frequent in Matthew, and these 
 changes seem due to a desire for more systematic 
 grouping. Again, where Luke would choose be- 
 tween sources Matthew usually combines them. 
 Such combinations are frequent. Jesus' defense 
 against the Beelzebul charge is an excellent passage 
 for studying Matthew's method in weaving variant 
 accounts together. Matthew has twice^ as many 
 
 ' Wemie, pp. ii, 130, counts nine instances in Matt., four in 
 Luke; one is surprised that there are so few. 
 
 " Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 64-87, counts ten in Luke, 
 twenty-two in Matt, 
 
Matthew's and Luke^s Use of Mark ii 
 
 doublets as Luke. Where the third evangelist has 
 a preference for their other common source, the 
 first regularly prefers Mark. This tendency to 
 combine, and closer adherence to Mark, is the most 
 striking difference between the two Gospels, as far 
 as we are concerned. His preference for Mark is 
 probably one reason why Matthew omits so little 
 from that source. The few omissions he does make 
 show that he is influenced by the value of the 
 material for teaching purposes. Judging, then, 
 from Matthew's use of Mark, we shall expect him to 
 be closer to his source in language than Luke, with 
 fewer editorial changes or additions, but with more 
 freedom in order. His tendency toward system- 
 atic arrangement and fondness for combination 
 will naturally have a wider scope in groups of say- 
 ings than in narratives. He will not be likely to 
 omit much that is significant as teaching. On the 
 other hand, Matthew's constant preference for 
 Mark to his other source is always to be kept in 
 mind, qualifying what we have just said. In this 
 connection the conclusion Sir John Hawkins 
 reached in a purely linguistic investigation is 
 valuable: ''It follows therefore that in Matthew 
 
12 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 the characteristic expressions are used with con- 
 siderably more freedom and abundance in the 
 presumably Logian portion than in the presumably 
 Markan; while in Luke they are used a little less 
 freely and abundantly in the presumably Logian 
 than in the presumably Markan portions."^ 
 
 Our examination of the editorial use which 
 Matthew and Luke make of Mark is not altogether 
 encouraging to the student who would reconstruct 
 any other source used by these evangelists. ^*We 
 see clearly enough," says F. C. Burkitt,^ "that we 
 could not have reconstructed the Gospel according 
 to St. Mark out of the other two Synoptic Gospels, 
 although between them nearly all Mark has been 
 incorporated by Matthew and Luke. How futile, 
 therefore, it is to attempt to reconstruct those 
 other literary sources which seem to have been used 
 by Matthew and Luke, but have not been inde- 
 pendently preserved!" Some of the most impor- 
 tant characteristics of Mark, both in literary 
 quality and in subject-matter, have entirely dis- 
 
 ^ Horae SynopUcae, p. 91. Sharman's The Teaching of Jesus 
 about the Future, pp. 5, 9, gives independent support to these 
 summaries of editorial principles. 
 
 ' The Gospel History and Its Transmission y p. 17. 
 
Matthew^s and Luke^s Use of Mark 13 
 
 appeared from Matthew and Luke. These evan- 
 gelists have put their own stamp upon their 
 material. And yet the hope for the reconstruction 
 of a second common source is not so desperate as 
 might be thought. In the first place, we have the 
 source, Mark, to use as a guide in eliminating the 
 editorial work of the evangelists. Again, with 
 Mark before us we can study the remaining com- 
 mon material by itself. It is at least possible that 
 we shall find there a literary resemblance, a com- 
 mon sequence, a unity, and a completeness that 
 will assure us of a single source which we may 
 know in part even if we cannot restore it in detail. 
 Bearing witness to the presence of such evidence 
 is the work of prominent scholars like Wellhausen 
 and Harnack, and they are only two among many. 
 The general character of the non-Markan common 
 material also offers hope; we shall find that it 
 consists largely of sayings of Jesus rather than 
 narrative, and we have a right to expect from the 
 evangelists a closer adherence to their source in 
 what they recognized as words of the Master. 
 
 One must be impressed with the number of 
 verses in the non-Markan common material where 
 
14 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 Matthew and Luke agree verbally. The following 
 verses are practically identical in the two accounts ; 
 only slight changes in a word here and there can 
 be found: 
 
 Matt. 3:7&-io, i2=Luke S'.jb-g, 17 
 7:3-5= 6:41,42 
 
 8:8-10= 7:66-9 
 
 11:36-11, 16-19= 7-19^, 22-28, 31-35 
 8:19-22= 9:57-60^ 
 
 9:37,38= 10:2 
 
 io:i6a= 10:3 
 
 10:15 (=11:24) 11:21-23(1= 10:12-15 
 
 11:256-27= 10:21, 22 
 
 13:17= 10:24 
 
 7:7-11= 11:9-11,13 
 
 12:266-28, 30= 11:186, 19, 20, 23 
 
 12:43-45= 11:24-26 
 
 12:41,42= 11:32,31 
 
 6:22= ii:34a(?) 
 
 10:266,280,30,31= 12:2,40,7 
 
 6:21,25-33= 12:22-31,34 
 
 24:43-51= 12:39,40,42-46 
 
 13:33= 13:20,21 
 
 23:37-39= 13:34,35 
 
 6:24= 16:13 
 
 24:386,390,28= 17:27,376 
 
 This makes a total of seventy-five verses where 
 the agreement is long enough to be measured by 
 sentences. To this we should add the list of 
 
. Matthew* s and Luke^s Use of Mark 15 
 
 striking words and short phrases, common to both 
 Gospels in this material, which is given by Hawkins, 
 Horae Synopticae, pp. 43 ff . This verbal agree- 
 ment becomes very significant when we compare 
 Matthew and Luke in the Markan material. No- 
 where there do we find such extended agreements 
 as here. In all those portions dependent on Mark 
 up to the entrance into Jerusalem, only in the 
 following sixteen verses can the agreement be com- 
 pared with that of the other common material: 
 
 Matt. 8:26, 3, 46= Luke 5:126, 13, 14& 
 
 9:5,6= 
 
 5:23, 24 
 
 9:12 = 
 
 5:31 
 
 9:156= 
 
 9:35^^ 
 
 12:4= 
 
 6:4 
 
 12:8= 
 
 6:5 
 
 9:206= 
 
 8:44a 
 
 13:36,4= 
 
 8:5 
 
 14:196= 
 
 9:16 
 
 16:216, 24, 25= 
 
 9:226, 23, 24 
 
 19:14= 
 
 18:16 
 
 There is almost five times as much of such resem- 
 blance in the non-Markan common material as in 
 the first ten chapters of Mark ; and yet the sections 
 in which that likeness is found do not bulk as 
 large as these ten chapters. Allowing fully the 
 
1 6 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 importance of harmonizing tendencies and the 
 possibilities of accurate oral transmission, we may 
 still say that further language test is not needed; 
 and any theory to fit the facts of the case must 
 recognize that we have here a common written 
 source or sources written in Greek. B. W. Bacon 
 has well said that those who find an oral source 
 here make their oral source the equivalent of a 
 document, since its form is so stereotyped as to 
 make the resemblance of Matthew to Luke closer 
 in the portions not shared by Mark than in the 
 parts taken by each from this admittedly written 
 source. The only alternative is to suppose that 
 Matthew used Luke, or Luke, Matthew. W. C. 
 Allen's attempt in his commentary on Matthew 
 to revive such a theory has hardly been a success. 
 He has thereby raised more problems than he has 
 solved, and is himself compelled to fall back upon 
 the hypothesis of a common source. The com- 
 parison made with Mark ought, furthermore, to 
 give us a practical certainty that this source or 
 sources included more than the seventy-five verses 
 where the verbal agreement is so complete. Even 
 in the sayings of Jesus it is very common for the 
 
Matthew^ s and Luke^s Use of Mark 17 
 
 first and third evangelists to change Mark's 
 words and phrases, but oftentimes while doing 
 this to retain his sentence structure and sequence 
 of thought. We should expect to find the same 
 true in their use of other sources. 
 
 In order to free our discussion of any presup- 
 positions involved in the name employed, we will 
 adopt the German designation Q (Quelle) for this 
 other source or sources, whose character and limits 
 we are trying to define. Wellhausen in his com- 
 mentaries and introduction has most convincingly 
 shown that the material usually assigned to Q 
 is a translation of an Aramaic original. Recent 
 research in Hellenistic Greek modifies the force 
 of some of his arguments, but his conclusions still 
 hold. Semitic scholars also argue that some varia- 
 tions of Matthew and Luke are due to mistransla- 
 tions of the Aramaic. We should recognize that 
 the Aramaic original must for some time have 
 existed side by side with the more widely used 
 Greek copies, and it is not unreasonable to suppose 
 that changes here and there in Greek manuscripts 
 were made by persons familiar with the Aramaic. 
 But there is always a large subjective element 
 
i8 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 in such conjectural misreadings, and the contention 
 is still questionable. Granting, then, the possi- 
 bility of some variations due to the Aramaic 
 original, we must still hold to the fact of a common 
 Greek source. This is recognized by Wellhausen, 
 Einleitung, p. 68. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 LITERARY STUDY OF ALL THE COMMON 
 MATERIAL IN SECTIONS 
 
 The primary object of this detailed examination 
 will be to decide just how much of the common 
 material can with any assurance be attributed to a 
 written source or sources. At the same time an 
 effort will be made to eliminate editorial character- 
 istics, but with the understanding that such 
 elimination does not restore all the special qualities 
 of Q. Luke's order will be used tentatively, 
 because he has proved to be more reliable in 
 retaining the sequence of Mark. 
 
 SECTION I. THE PREACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, 
 MATT. 3:7-12; LUKE 3:7-9, 15-18 
 
 In Luke 3:7^-9; Matt. 3:76-10, 12 we find 
 the first instance of that close verbal resemblance 
 which is extended enough to be conclusive evi- 
 dence that this section belongs to some common 
 source. W. C. Allen in his commentary on 
 Matthew denies this and urges three objections: 
 "(a) the different descriptions of the audience, 
 
 19 
 
20 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 (b) the absence of Luke vss. 10-14 from Matthew, 
 
 (c) the variations in language." Are these points 
 well taken? Luke 3:10-14 readily distinguishes 
 itself from the rest of this passage in the Third 
 Gospel by differences both in language and in 
 thought. While vss. 7-9, 15-18 are full of Semiti- 
 cisms — iroL-qaaTe Kapirovs, ap^rjade, the play on 
 words, Xt^ojj' .... TeKua (abanim .... banim), 
 ou . . . . avTov — vss. 10-14 2,re singularly free 
 from them. These verses reflect the characteristic 
 Lukan emphasis on almsgiving, publicans, and 
 sinners. Luke vss. 15, 18, which are wanting in 
 Matthew, are clearly editorial additions. The con- 
 nection between Matt. 3:10 and 3:11, broken by 
 Luke 3:10-14, is restored by Luke 3:15. The 
 language of both verses is strongly Lukan. 
 
 The introduction, which describes the audience, 
 Luke 3:7a; Matt. 3:7^^, does vary in the two 
 Gospels; but it is noteworthy that it is just such 
 settings in Mark which the first and third evan- 
 gelists most freely change. Matthew is fond of 
 introducing references to the Pharisees and Sad- 
 ducees, but Luke is equally fond of referring to the 
 multitudes. Of the two, the wording of Luke 
 
Study of the Common Material 21 
 
 seems preferable, but what stood in Q must remain 
 doubtful, Harnack^ has very plausibly suggested 
 that the phrase 7ra(ra 17 Treptxwpos rov lopdavov, 
 Luke ^:^', Matt. 3:5, is a fragment of the Q 
 introduction. 
 
 Variations of language are few and easily ex- 
 plained. Luke 3:16; Matt. 3:11 are found also 
 in Mark i : 7-8 and the influence of Mark accounts 
 for the wider difference between Matthew and 
 Luke just here. Luke especially has departed from 
 Q and followed Mark instead. The ev irveviiari 
 ayiLo of this verse may have been taken by both 
 evangelists from Mark. Only irvpl is required 
 by the context, but it is quite possible that Holy 
 Spirit and fire stood together in the source Q. The 
 change of ap^rjade, Luke ^:Sy to dd^rjre, Matt. 3:9, 
 is a "deliberate improvement of an original pre- 
 served by Luke."^ J. H. Moulton also maintains 
 in the Expositor, May, 1909, p. 413, that avva^ai 
 of ^^, Luke 3:17, is an original reading of which 
 avpayayelv of i<*B and avva^eL of Matthew are 
 
 ^ The Sayings of Jesus, p. 41. Quotations from Harnack, 
 unless otherwise stated, are taken from this book. 
 
 » J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Pro- 
 legomena, p. 15. 
 
22 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 alternate and independent corrections. Nowhere 
 in Markan material is a common source so evident 
 behind Matthew and Luke as it is here. 
 
 SECTION 2. THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS, 
 LUKE 4:1-13; MATT. 4:1-11 
 
 In this section we do not find any extended 
 verbal agreement, and yet literary evidence of a 
 common Greek source is not wanting. The only 
 sayings of Jesus here are LXX quotations, and 
 these are alike, except that Matthew has con- 
 tinued the quotation from Deut. 8:3 in vs. 4, and 
 Luke that of Ps. 91:11 in vs. 11. In the quota- 
 tion from Deut. 6:13 both have made the same 
 change in the LXX, adapting it to the context. 
 In Matt. 4:5^, 6; Luke 4:96, 10 the verbal like- 
 ness is striking : koL earrjaep [avrdp] eirl t6 irrepvyiov 
 Tov Upov Kal [Xeyet] aurc? El vlos el tov Qeov, jBoKe 
 ceavTov [eurevdep] k6.to) yeypairraL yap ort .... 
 This use of TrrepvyLov is found elsewhere only in 
 Dan. 9:27. 
 
 It is also significant that the variations can all 
 be readily accounted for. In the introduction of 
 Luke, vs. I has marked Lukan characteristics, and 
 
Study of the Common Material 23 
 
 vs. 2a is influenced by Mark. Matt., vs. la, may 
 also be influenced by Mark. Treipaadijvai is sus- 
 picious because of Matthew's tendency to empha- 
 size the fulfilment of divine purpose. As usual, 
 the introduction of the common source has been 
 freely handled. But Matt., vs. 2, agrees with 
 Luke, vs. 26, against Mark and points at once to 
 its presence. In vs. 11 Matthew has added the 
 reference to the angels from Mark 1:13. The 
 accounts of the temptations themselves differ 
 principally in the order of the second and third 
 temptations. Otherwise, sentence for sentence, 
 clause for clause, the sequence of thought is the 
 same. It is, perhaps, Luke who made the one 
 change for the purpose of bringing the two tempta- 
 tions located in the wilderness together and the 
 one in Jerusalem last. The third evangelist is 
 especially concerned in such orderly sequence of 
 time and place. As Harnack (p. 44) says, no 
 argument can be based on the viraye aarava of 
 Matt. 4: 10, for it may well be an insertion on the 
 basis of Mark 8:33. 
 
 What other differences there are reflect only the 
 characteristics of the editorial work of Matthew 
 
24 Matthew'' s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 and Luke; such as Matthew's addition of irpoaeK- 
 BCiv, vs. 3, and his use of tt^v ayiav irokiv for Jerusa- 
 lem, vs. 5. oLKovfxePTjs , Luke, vs. 5, is a favorite 
 word of that evangehst, as KoafjLov, Matt., vs. 8, is 
 of the other. J. H. Moulton in the Expositor, 
 May, 1909, p. 415, shows good reason for regard- 
 ing Luke's ovK e4)ay€v ovbep, vs. 2, as more origi- 
 nal than Matthew's vqcrrevaas. That Matthew 
 changed the one stone into stones is made probable 
 by his preference for plurals.^ Luke 4:13, which 
 Harnack rejects, strongly resembles Luke 7:1 = 
 Matt. 7:28; 8:5, and may well belong to the 
 source. crvPTeXeo) is not characteristic of Luke, 
 but axpi' Kdipov, which also occurs in Acts 13:11, 
 may be an addition of the evangelist. The omis- 
 sion of this sentence by Matthew is due to the 
 influence of Mark. It ought, however, to be 
 granted that sometimes the reading of one Gospel 
 is as probable as that of the other, and certain 
 features of Q must have disappeared from both 
 accounts. The important point is the demonstra- 
 tion that Matthew and Luke are using a common 
 source here whose tenor can be closely approxi- 
 » W. C. Allen, Matthew, p. 83. 
 
Study of the Common Material 25 
 
 mated. If we compare this narrative with any 
 Markan narrative we find that there is exactly the 
 same sort and degree of resemblance in the 
 Matthew and Luke accounts here which we find 
 there. The theory of a common Greek source 
 furnishes a satisfactory explanation of the resem- 
 blances and differences of the two Gospels in this 
 section, if, indeed, it is not demanded by them. 
 
 SECTION 3. DISCOURSE ON LOVE, THE PRINCIPLE 
 
 OF CONDUCT, LUKE 6:20-49; MATT. 5:1-12, 
 
 38-48; 7:1-5,12,16-21,24-27 
 
 That Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is an 
 editorial composition is all but universally recog- 
 nized. Our investigation of Matthew's use of 
 Mark has led us to anticipate such compilation 
 and also indicates the principles which ought to 
 guide us in an attempt to analyze it. The miracles, 
 which Matthew has gathered together in the 
 eighth and ninth chapters, Luke has retained, for 
 the most part, in their Markan setting. In Hke 
 manner, much of the Matthean Sermon on the 
 Mount is found distributed in Luke. Luke there- 
 fore gives us the objective starting-point which is 
 
26 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 needed in analyzing Matthew here. Little can 
 be said for the view that Luke has divided the 
 longer discourse of Matthew. No example of such 
 division and readjustment can be found anywhere 
 in his Markan material. But, as has already 
 been said, greater freedom in language, and omis- 
 sions and additions, especially of an explanatory, 
 editorial character, are to be anticipated in Luke. 
 With this justification of our point of approach let 
 us now apply the test of Luke 6 : 20-49 ^^ ^^ com- 
 posite discourse of Matthew. 
 
 Passing by the introductions, which are more or 
 less editorial, we notice that the Beatitudes of Luke 
 refer to conditions of life, while those peculiar to 
 Matthew refer to spiritual virtues. Surely, mourn- 
 ing does not belong in the same category with mercy, 
 and persecution, even for righteousness' sake, is 
 not to be desired in the same sense as purity of 
 heart. There are two elements in these Matthean 
 Beatitudes that gain in strength and clarity when 
 they are separated. Matthew has done a great 
 service in emphasizing the religious quality in such 
 words as tttcoxoi and ireiPoopTes y but this does not 
 make the greater originality of Luke's form less 
 
Study of the Common Material 27 
 
 probable. That Matthew has here compiled is 
 further indicated by the transition from the third 
 to the second person in vss. 11, 12. On the other 
 hand, the three woes of Luke 6:24-26 may be 
 editorial amplifications of Luke. Their omission 
 by Matthew, their relation to Luke's special 
 material, the weak on clauses,' and the way they 
 break into the context, separating vs. 23 and vs. 27, 
 support the view that they did not stand in any 
 common source. 
 
 Not only do both the Matthean and the Lukan 
 forms of this discourse begin with the same Beati- 
 tudes, but they close with the same parable, 
 Matt. 7 124-27= Luke 6:47-49. In this epilogue 
 the sequence of thought is exactly the same, and 
 the verbal likeness is far closer than at first sight 
 appears : 
 
 Matt. : Tra% ovv 0(rTi? axovei fiov tovs Xoyovs rovrovs. 
 Luke: ttSs 6 . . . . aKOvcov fiov to>v Xoyiov. 
 
 * The last is especially clumsy. Who are the you and who the 
 their fathers ? A distinction is made in vs. 23 between the dis- 
 ciples and those who persecute them, but these woes cannot be 
 addressed to the disciples, but must be regarded as spoken to the 
 multitudes, and the distinction between you and their fathers 
 then becomes awkward. The false disciples of Jas. 5 : i ff . are 
 in the mind of the editor who added these verses. But this only 
 confirms their secondary character. 
 
28 Matthew^s Sayings oj Jesus 
 
 Matt. : Kttt TTOlCt aUTOVS OflOL(i)6l^(T€TaL dvBpl <l>pOVifJL(^. 
 Luke: KoI TTOLIOV aVTOV<: .... O/AOtOS €(TTIV dvOptOTTQ). 
 
 Matt. I ocTTis <oKo86fJLr)(T€V avTov TTjv oIklov €7rt Trjv iri- 
 
 rpav 
 
 Luke: oIkoBoixovvtl oIklov .... €7rt Tr)v Tvirpav. 
 
 Matt.: KOLi rjXOav ol TTOTa/xol Kal iirvevcav ot ave/xoi Kai 
 Luke: irkYjixfivprfS Se y€VOfi.€vr}<s Trpoaiprj^ev 6 Trorap.6% 
 
 Matt. : Trpoaerretrav t-q oIklo, iKeLvrj, koI .... 
 Luke: ttJ oIklo. iXeivy, Kal .... 
 
 Matt. : Kal TTttS 6 Slkowov fiov TOV)s \oyovs Tovrovs Kal fxrj 
 
 Luke : o Sc dKOvcra^ Kal firj Troiiycras 
 
 Matt.: avTOvs, 6fiOLO}6T^(T€TaL avSpl fi(j)pi3 otTTts (JkoSo- 
 
 Luke: o/moio? cortv dvOpwTrto olKohofir]<ravTi 
 
 Matt. : avTOv Tr]v OLKLav cttI t^v dix/xov, etc. 
 Luke: olKcav iirl rrjv yrjv .... etC. 
 
 The common beginning and ending which we have 
 found is a strong indication that some source, 
 containing not mere fragmentary sayings but a 
 real discourse, stood back of both the accounts, 
 Matthew's and Luke's. This is confirmed by the 
 relation of the whole discourse to the following 
 narrative of the centurion's servant. The con- 
 nection is not easily accounted for in any other 
 
Study of the Common Material 29 
 
 way. Luke 7:1 combines Matt. 7:28 and 8:5; 
 and the cleansing of the leper, Matt. 8:1-1, is 
 generally recognized as an insertion of Matthew 
 from Mark. In this account of the centurion's 
 servant, so closely connected in both Gospels with 
 the preceding sermon, literary evidence again 
 demonstrates the presence of a common source. It 
 is hard to doubt that, wherever Matthew and Luke 
 found this narrative of healing, they also found 
 just before it a discourse of Jesus beginning with 
 the Beatitudes and closing with the parable of the 
 Two Builders. 
 
 Another important consideration is that through- 
 out the common material the sequence is remark- 
 ably alike: 
 
 Matt. 5:3= Luke 6 : 20 
 
 (4= 
 
 .216) 
 
 7:1, 2 = 
 
 37,38 
 
 6= 
 
 21a 
 
 3 = 
 
 41 
 
 11 = 
 
 22 
 
 4,5 = 
 
 42 
 
 12 = 
 
 23 
 
 (12 = 
 
 31) 
 
 39= 
 
 29a 
 
 18 = 
 
 43 
 
 40 = 
 
 30 
 
 19 = 
 
 44 
 
 (44 = 
 
 27, 28) 
 
 22 = 
 
 46 
 
 (45 = 
 
 35^) 
 
 24= 
 
 47, 48a 
 
 46 = 
 
 32 
 
 25 = 
 
 486 
 
 47 = 
 
 ZZ 
 
 26,27 = 
 
 49 
 
 48 = 
 
 36 
 
 
 
30 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 Only four of the twenty-six verses of Matthew 
 stand in a different order from the parallel verses 
 of Luke. The first of these changes is merely 
 the transposition of two sentences, readily explained 
 by Matthew's additions to the Beatitudes. The 
 other three are all related to one point in the dis- 
 course, and that point is just where Matthew 
 returns to the Lukan material. Either the former 
 has added or the latter has omitted; in either 
 case the break in the common order is explained. 
 Such a similarity through twenty-six verses cannot 
 be accidental. The large amount of independent 
 material scattered through Matt., chaps. 5, 6, 7, 
 only makes it the more striking. We note also 
 that there is here the same combination of close 
 verbal resemblance with literary freedom which 
 is usual in Markan material. Imbedded in the 
 discourse as an integral part are 6:41, 42 of Luke 
 and 7:3-5 of Matthew, where the identity of 
 language demands a common source, written in 
 Greek.* t6 /cap0os and 17 boKos are found nowhere 
 else in the New Testament; Sta/QXeTrco, only in 
 Mark 8:25; Karavoeh occurs nowhere else in 
 » See Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 44, 50. 
 
Study of the Common Material 31 
 
 Matthew; such an insertion of words between 
 article and noun as Tr)p 8e ev tw <7c3 6<f)dd\iJL(} 8ok6v 
 occurs only here in Matthew, acfyes eK^aXo) is a 
 Semiticism, peculiar to the common material of 
 Matthew and Luke. This close verbal likeness is 
 not, indeed, maintained throughout, nor should 
 the student of Mark and its parallels be surprised 
 at this, but rather that the evangelists hold so 
 closely to the wording of their source as they do 
 in this non-Markan common material. The evi- 
 dence becomes cumulative that Matthew and Luke 
 preserve this other source far more carefully than 
 they do Mark. 
 
 What, now, shall we say about the large portions 
 of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount which 
 Luke omits? As we remarked at the beginning, 
 those sections which are paralleled by Luke in other 
 contexts can hardly be original here. That he 
 broke the sermon into fragments is too improbable 
 to be supposed. Luke 5:25, 26; 5:31,32; 6:9-14, 
 6:19-34; 7:7-11 are to be regarded as insertions 
 into this context by Matthew. In 7 : 2 1-23 he com- 
 bines the conception of Luke 6:46 ff., which refers 
 to Jesus as a teacher, with Luke 13 : 23 ff., which is 
 
32 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 eschatological and here out of place. Matt. 7:13, 
 14 seems to be related to the same Lukan passage.' 
 The probability is also strong that Matthew has 
 modified Luke 6 : 43-45 to give these verses a prac- 
 tical application to the church problem set forth 
 in 7:15. In 12:33-35 he gives the same passage 
 a different application. This tendency to apply 
 Jesus' sayings to immediate needs is always to be 
 reckoned with.^ That 5:13-16 did not originally 
 belong to the discourse has been sufficiently well 
 shown by Wendt {Die Lehre JesUy I), B. Weiss, 
 and B. W. Bacon {The Sermon on the Mount). 
 That 7:6 is an insertion is generally accepted. 
 
 The comparison of the teaching of Jesus with the 
 Old Testament law in 5:17-38, and with Phari- 
 saic practice in 6:1-8, 16-18, has by nearly all 
 critics been regarded as an omission of Luke, on 
 the ground that these sections were "inapplicable 
 to the Gentiles for whom he wrote. "^ Such 
 extended omissions are not without parallel in 
 Luke's use of Mark; and his motives are frequently 
 
 * This passage is discussed more fully on pp. 96 ff. 
 
 " See further, pp. 61 f. 
 
 5 Votaw, in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, V, 7. 
 
Study oj the Common Material 33 
 
 difficult to determine. This should be granted, 
 but to maintain that these verses were inapplicable 
 to the Gentiles is hardly a satisfactory explanation 
 of their omission here. Only Matt. 5: 18, 19 could 
 be so regarded, but their originality in this context 
 is widely disputed, and 5:18 is in fact preserved 
 by Luke in a different context. B. W. Bacon, 
 while arguing for the omission, makes this acknowl- 
 edgment •} 
 
 It was, indeed, from the standpoint of the historian of 
 Jesus' life and teaching, a disastrous, almost incredible, 
 mutilation to leave out, as our third evangelist has done, 
 all the negative side of the teaching and give nothing but the 
 commandment of ministering love toward all. We can 
 scarcely understand that the five great interpretative antith- 
 eses of the new law of conduct toward men versus the old, 
 Matt. 5:21-48, and the three corresponding antitheses on 
 duty toward God, Matt. 6:1-18, could have been dropped 
 in one form even of the oral tradition. 
 
 If this is so, ought not some more credible 
 hypothesis be sought ? What no one form of the 
 tradition would drop, a separate tradition might 
 preserve. May it not be that Matthew has added 
 from independent sources, rather than that Luke 
 
 * Sermon on the Mount, p. 104. The italics are mine. 
 
34 MaUhew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 has omitted ? All the elements of Matthew's dis- 
 course are of prime historical importance, but the 
 whole is manifestly a composite. These antitheses 
 are among the great sayings of Jesus, but do they 
 not belong by themselves ? They have their own 
 introduction in 5:17 (18, 19), 20, quite distinct 
 from the Beatitudes, and they are complete in 
 themselves. Wellhausen^ has called attention to 
 the fact that just where Matthew takes up the 
 material of the Lukan discourse, in 5:38, the 
 formula of 5:21 ff. becomes improbable. The lex 
 talionis, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, is 
 given in the Old Testament as a rule for judges, not 
 as a principle of general conduct; and so to use it 
 is not exactly fair to Judaism. The viewpoint 
 also seems to shift a little. In this case it is not a 
 standard of inner motives set over against one of 
 external acts, as in the previous antitheses. The 
 same objections apply with even more force to 
 5:43, against which modern Jews have long pro- 
 tested. No such principle is set forth in the Old 
 Testament, nor anywhere else in Jewish literature. 
 The Jews never taught such hatred except toward 
 ' Kom. Matt., in loc. 
 
Study of the Common Material 35 
 
 national and religious foes. There is, therefore, 
 good reason to think that 5:38 and 5:43 are 
 editorial additions by which the separate speeches 
 are woven into one whole. Matt. 5:17 (18, 19), 
 20-24, 27, 28 (29, 30), 33-37; 6:1-8, 16-18 thus 
 becomes a separate discourse, three antitheses of the 
 old and the new law and three antitheses of prin- 
 ciples of conduct. 
 
 Our conclusion, based on the strong linguistic 
 evidence of a common source, the common se- 
 quence, the close organic relation to the material 
 that follows, and the evidence of compilation on 
 Matthew's part is that both evangelists are here 
 using a common source, Q. The exact wording of 
 Q can, of course, never be restored. Judging again 
 from the analogy of Mark, we can only say that 
 these versions give us approximately what stood in 
 the source. Matthew, whom we expect to hold 
 closer in details to his source, has so woven material 
 together that more changes here are necessary. 
 Then, too, there is a poetical parallelism, especially 
 marked in the Lukan form, which, if we may not 
 attribute it to Jesus himself, is certainly more 
 likely to come from a Semitic source than from its 
 
36 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 Greek editor. It is, as we shall see, one of the 
 characteristics of Q. 
 
 Without, therefore, attempting to restore the 
 original text we may still venture to suggest prob- 
 able changes made by the evangelists. If in the 
 Beatitudes Matthew has converted conditions of 
 life into virtues and added others (probably from 
 independent tradition, though their close relation 
 to the Old Testament makes this doubtful), Luke 
 has at least accentuated his interpretation of the 
 Beatitudes as a promise of a reversal in the king- 
 dom of present human conditions by the addition 
 of vvv {his) and Iv eKeivri rrj rjfiepa^ Whether the 
 Son of Man or the personal pronoun is original in 
 the Beatitudes cannot be determined. The term 
 "Son of Man'' is found throughout Q. 
 
 In Matt. 5: 38-48 = Luke 6:27-36 the change in 
 order is due to Matthew's combination of this sec- 
 tion with 5:13-37. Luke 6:29, 30 = Matt. 5:39-42 
 
 * Wellhausen's explanation of the difference between roiis irpb 
 vfiuiv and oi irar^pes avrCou as due to a reading of daqdamaihon 
 for daqdamaikon is one of the most tempting of such suggestions 
 that have been made. But there is good reason for thinking that 
 Toi>j irpb vnuv is simply an addition of Matthew. See Hamack, 
 p. 50. 
 
Study of the Common Material 37 
 
 are separated from the rest to form a contrast 
 with the Old Testament principle of Matt. 5:38; 
 and Luke 5: 356 = Matt. 5:45 is inserted at the 
 point of omission to make a suitable transition. 
 The transference of the Golden Rule, Luke 6 : 3 1 , to 
 Matt. 7 : 12 is because Matthew regards it as a sum- 
 mary of the law, and the whole sermon is to him a 
 discourse on the new law fulfilling the Old Testa- 
 ment law; he therefore places this summary just 
 before the conclusion of the whole. ''For this is 
 the law and the prophets " is his addition and shows 
 his standpoint. 
 
 Luke seems to have generalized Matt. 5 145, con- 
 verting the concrete illustration ''for he maketh his 
 sun to rise on the evil and the good and sendeth rain 
 on the just and the unjust'' to the general state- 
 ment "for he is kind toward the unthankful and 
 evil." Matt. 5:41 may be a further illustration 
 which the first evangelist has added from popular 
 tradition or it may have stood in Q and been 
 omitted by Luke.^ Luke's figure of a robbery in 
 vs. 29 seems simpler and more original than 
 
 * Did. 1:35., which in general is closer to Luke, includes this 
 saying. 
 
38 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 Matthew^s form of a lawsuit in vs. 40. Luke^s 
 additions in vs. 276 are supported by the early 
 Fathers, Did. 1:3 ff.; Just., Ap. 1:15; Didask. 
 5:15, but, like the expansion in vss. 33 fif., are 
 more likely to be Lukan interpretations, oi 
 iifjLapTcoXol is a characteristic Lukan term; if either 
 evangelist has preserved the word of Q, it is 
 Matthew. But reXetos, Matt., vs. 48, reflects later 
 doctrinal views, and ol/crtp/icoj^, Luke, vs. 36, is 
 probably from the original source. This word, 
 not found elsewhere in Luke, fits the context much 
 better than reXetos. The mercifulness of God is 
 also a divine attribute frequently emphasized 
 in the Old Testament, and oiKTipyMv is the LXX 
 translation of rehunij sl word applied regularly to 
 God. 
 
 In Matt. 7 : 1-5 =Luke 5 137-42 it is more likely 
 that the text of Luke has been expanded. The 
 two commonplace proverbs, vss. 39, 40, are found in 
 Matthew in quite different contexts, 15:14, 10:25. 
 It is doubtful whether there is any literary con- 
 nection in this case.' Vs. 38 also, as Wellhausen 
 has suggested, seems overfull. Probable as it is 
 
 ^ These verses are discussed more fully on p. 107. 
 
Study of the Common Material 39 
 
 that we have additions in these verses, it is doubt- 
 ful whether they were made by the third evangelist 
 himself. They may have been added previously. 
 In Matt. 7:16-20; Luke 6:43-45, however, it is 
 Matthew who has changed and applied the saying 
 to the false and true prophets of 7:15.^ Between 
 the two forms of the concluding parables one cannot 
 decide, but Luke's text is more easily explained on 
 the basis of Matthew's than vice versa. Both 
 evangeUsts have probably made some changes. 
 Matthew has expanded 7:28, 29 by adding the 
 idea of Mark 1:22, which he omitted in its Markan 
 connection. 
 
 Most difficult of all is the task of determining 
 what introduction this discourse had in Q. 
 Matthew places the discourse near the beginning 
 of the ministry, but introduces the mountain and 
 the multitudes of Mark 3:7-12. Jesus is described 
 as being on the mountain with his disciples. They 
 are addressed, but the people are down below 
 within hearing. As has often been noticed, the 
 parallel to Moses' giving the law on Mount Sinai 
 is striking. In Luke the discourse is directed to 
 
 ' For the relation of Matt. 7: 21 to Luke 6:46 see pp. 96 S. 
 
40 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 the disciples, 6 : 20, but the presence of the multi- 
 tude is affirmed in 6:17-19; 6:27 (?); 7:1. Jesus 
 is not upon the mountain, but has just come down. 
 It is probable that in Q the disciples were addressed, 
 but it is evident that a much larger company than 
 the Twelve was intended. Both Matthew and 
 Luke sought to give the discourse as large an 
 audience as possible and hence used Mark 3:7-12, 
 but in their own individual ways. If some refer- 
 ence to mountain or hill country also stood in Q, it 
 would still further explain this common use of 
 Mark 3:7-12. 
 
 SECTION 4. COMMENDATION OF A CENTURION 'S 
 FAITH, LUKE 7:1-10; MATT. 8:5-10, 13 
 
 It has already been pointed out that Luke's 
 introduction here, 7:1, combines Matthew's con- 
 clusion to the Sermon on the Mount with his intro- 
 duction to this incident, and that therefore the 
 account of the centurion stood in this same con- 
 nection in Q. The verbal agreement of Matt. 
 8 : 8-10 = Luke 7 : 66-9 necessitates the assumption 
 of a common Greek source here. This verbal 
 agreement includes several striking phrases. The 
 
Study of the Common Material 41 
 
 iKavbs IVa of Matt. 8:8=Luke 7:6 is mentioned by 
 Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 50. elire Xoyw, 
 Matt. 8:8 = Luke 7:7, should also be noted. It 
 occurs only here in the New Testament. Although 
 the two accounts agree so closely in the conversa- 
 tion reported, the preceding narrative is given 
 in very different forms. Matthew's form is more 
 condensed and simpler, but not necessarily more 
 original. That a gentile centurion should send 
 Jewish elders to Jesus is most natural; nor is it 
 strange that he should remain by the bedside 
 instead of coming out himself. Nor again is it 
 absurd that the friends should give his message 
 in his own words; it would only be so if Jesus 
 answered them as if addressing him, but this he 
 does not. There is a respect here for Jewish 
 prejudices which seems primitive. Nothing dis- 
 tinctively Lukan can be found in the standpoint 
 of these additions, nor is there any indication that 
 they were added to magnify the miracle. The 
 theory of an assimilation of this narrative to 
 Mark 5:21-43 does not commend itself. More- 
 over, Matthew's tendency to condense pure nar- 
 ration is established by his use of Mark. It is 
 
42 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 possible, therefore, that Luke is closer to Q despite 
 the nearly unanimous verdict of the critics in 
 favor of Matthew. On a priori grounds we should 
 hardly expect the longer narrative to belong to 
 that source, and it may be that Luke has 
 supplemented Q with information from other 
 sources. 
 
 Matt. 8: II, 12 is an insertion of that evangelist.' 
 Most of the linguistic differences seem due to 
 Luke's literary changes. Luke 7:1a is a Lukan 
 paraphrase for Matt. 7:28a. 'ETretSiJ, eTrXrjpcoaev 
 prjuaTa, eis rds iiKoas are all characteristic of Luke. 
 Matthew is also truer to Q in retaining the term 
 Trats throughout, but Luke has probably given this 
 word its true interpretation. The Hebrew equiva- 
 lent na'^ar (Aram, talya) has the same ambiguity 
 which Trats has. In Luke 7:26 rifieWev TeXevr^Pj 
 65 rjv avT$ evTLfws are, perhaps, additions of Luke; 
 so also oxXw in 7:9. Luke 7 : ^-6a contains several 
 Lukan characteristics. These do not necessarily 
 mean that the verses are a composition of Luke, 
 but they show that he has not preserved his source 
 without, at least, verbal changes. Matt. 8:13 
 
 » See pp. 96 ff. 
 
Study of the Common Material 43 
 
 might seem to be more original than Luke 7 : 10 if 
 we did not find that he changes the text of Mark 
 7:19, 30 in the same way.^ 
 
 SECTION 5. DISCOURSE ON JOHN THE BAPTIST, 
 LUKE 7:18-35; MATT. 11:2-19 
 
 Matt. 11:36-11, 16-19 ^^^ Luke 7:196, 22-28, 
 31-35 are practically identical in language. Only 
 the slightest changes have been made by the 
 editors. More convincing evidence of a common 
 Greek source cannot be asked for. Our only task 
 is to point out such editorial changes as seem prob- 
 able. The introductions. Matt. 11:2, 3=Luke 
 7:18-20, show the usual variations. But there 
 must have stood in the source some reference to 
 John's sending his disciples to Jesus. The ques- 
 tion they ask is John's question, not theirs, Matt. 
 ii:4 = Luke 7:22. Luke 7:21 is certainly an ad- 
 dition of Luke to prepare for the answer of Jesus, 
 7:22. In Matt. 11:4-10 = Luke 7 : 2 2-2 7 the differ- 
 ences are insignificant. Matthew is probably more 
 
 ^ This argument would naturally have no force for those who 
 regard Matthew as more original in 15: 21-28. Hamack may be 
 right in affirming that neither verse stood in Q. The interest to 
 Q is not in the miracle, but in the saying of Jesus. See p. 210. 
 
44 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 original than Luke in ii:86, but Luke gives the 
 true position of ihelv in 7:25, 26. The Semitic 
 original has not the double meaning of the Greek 
 Tt. It was, therefore, the Greek text of the 
 source which Matthew has interpreted differently 
 from Luke. In Luke 7:28 Trpo^^Jriys is either an 
 insertion of Luke, softening the bold assertion, or 
 a gloss/ Both evangelists have made additions 
 after Matt. ii:ii=Luke 7:28. Matthew adds 
 vss. 12-15 qualifying the previous statement that 
 John does not belong to the kingdom. The inser- 
 tion by Matthew of vss. 12, 13 is thus explicable, 
 but that Luke should have omitted this clause 
 here to insert it in 16 : 16 is hard to believe. Matt. 
 11:14 might have been omitted by Luke for the 
 same reason that he leaves out Mark 9 : 9-13. But 
 if vss. 12, 13 are an insertion of Matthew, vs. 14 
 probably is one also. Luke, likewise, has added 
 vss. 29, 30 to form a better transition to the parable 
 which follows. But the contrast in these verses 
 between the pubHcans on the one hand and the 
 
 ^ The position in which D places 7 : 28a is attractive, but has 
 not sufficient textual support. irpoipT^r-qs is omitted from B, a, 
 and other manuscripts. 
 
Study of the Common Material 45 
 
 Pharisees and the scribes on the other is not the 
 point of the parable. In the parable itself the 
 Semitic parallelism is better preserved in Luke 
 than in Matthew . B ut Luke has probably changed 
 eKoypaade to eKKavaare; and apTov, olvov, ttLvtosv are 
 either glosses or additions of Luke. It is Matthew, 
 however, and not Luke, who has changed rlKvoiv 
 to €pyo)v. In the section just after this Matthew 
 puts the woes upon the cities which do not recog- 
 nize the ^'works'' of Jesus, ra 'ipya is likewise 
 introduced by Matthew at the beginning of this 
 section, 11:2. Lagarde's theory that this varia- 
 tion is due to a misreading of the Hebrew 
 original, Wellhausen has shown to be impos- 
 sible.' 
 
 SECTION 6. FOLLOWING JESUS, LUKE 9:57-62; 
 MATT. 8:19-22 
 
 In this section the verbal likeness throughout 
 is such that no one can question the presence of 
 a common Greek source. Matthew has sought 
 to define the tls of Luke 9:57 more closely as a 
 scribe; StSdcr/caXe also is more likely to have been 
 
 * See Matthew, in loc. 
 
46 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 added than omitted. It is hard to decide which 
 Gospel gives the saying in regard to the second 
 follower in the primitive form. In Luke vss. 59, 60 
 are a counterpart to vss. 57, 58, and the develop- 
 ment of thought is clearer. The change, if made by 
 Matthew, can be accounted for by the situation in 
 which Matthew puts these sayings. They are a 
 test of those who would follow Jesus as he is about 
 to cross the lake. In this connection Luke 9:606 
 is out of place and the adaptation of Matthew is 
 understood. This emphasis on preaching the 
 kingdom belongs to Q, not Luke; in the section 
 which followed in Q it is twice referred to.' Even 
 more difficult is the question whether or not Luke 
 9:61,62 are added by Luke or omitted by Matthew. 
 As has been said, the sayings of vss. 57, 58 and of 
 vss. 59, 60 are counterparts, complete in them- 
 selves. The point of what is said to the third 
 would-be follower is nearly the same as that of 
 what is said to the second. But this is hardly 
 sufficient ground for regarding it as an addition. 
 Matthew's context favored condensation, evi- 
 deros is found elsewhere only in Luke 14:35, and 
 'See Luke 10:9, n; Matt. 10:7. 
 
Study of the Common Material 47 
 
 aTroT6.^€(T6aL is found in Luke 14:33,' another 
 passage on the conditions of discipleship probably 
 belonging to Q.^ If this is an addition it is a very 
 old one. 
 
 SECTION 7. COMMISSION TO THE DISCIPLES, 
 LUKE 10:1-12; MATT. 9:35 — IO:i6 
 
 In this section, as in the Sermon on the Mount, 
 problems are created by the conflation which 
 Matthew has made, this time with the parallel 
 account in Mark. Matt. 9:35 is a repetition of 
 4 : 23 = Mark i : 39. Matt. 9 : 36 reflects Mark 6 : 34. 
 With Matt. 9:37 the first evangelist takes up the Q 
 account, and the fact that he puts 10: i = Mark 6: 7 
 after 9:37, 38 = Luke 10:2, where it is entirely 
 out of place, is conclusive evidence that he is here 
 combining his two sources. With 10:5,6 Matthew 
 returns again to Q. This can be regarded as certain, 
 even though these verses are omitted by Luke; 
 the wonder is that even Matthew has retained 
 this prohibition against going among the heathen 
 or Samaritans. Matt. 10:7a is from Luke 10: gb. 
 Matt. 10:8 is an editorial addition of Matthew on 
 
 * Elsewhere only in Mark 6:46; Acts 18:18, 21; II Cor. 2:13. 
 " See pp. 174 f. 
 
48 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 the basis of Jesus' words to John the Baptist in 
 11:5.^ Matt., 10:9, 10 combine features of both 
 sources and show an adaptation to later church 
 problems. Matt. 10:11 is from Mark 6:10, but 
 *' search out who in it is worthy" is added to meet 
 a later church problem. Matt. 10:12, 13 is from 
 Luke 10:5,6; 10:14 from Mark 6:11; 10:15 from 
 Luke 10:12; io:i6a from Luke 10:3. Matt. 10: 
 16b is not found in Luke but it is very possible that 
 Luke objected to this comparison of disciples to 
 serpents and therefore omitted it. 
 
 Turning now to Luke's account of the commis- 
 sion to the disciples, we would regard 10:1 as re- 
 dactional, adapting this section to the situation of 
 9 : 5 1 ff . The number ^ ' seventy ' ' probably replaces 
 the usual *' disciples" of Q. Luke may have 
 found it already added to his source or adopted 
 it from oral tradition. We have already referred 
 to Luke's omission of the prohibition against work- 
 ing among heathen and Samaritans. Its form 
 and position in Matthew would indicate that it 
 followed Luke 10:2. Of the original position of 
 
 ^ J. Weiss in Die Schriften des N.T., in loc, has well presented 
 the secondary character of Matthew throughout this section. 
 
Study of the Common Material 49 
 
 Luke 10:3 we cannot be sure, for it may have been 
 inserted where it is in place of the passage omitted 
 by Luke. The verse is abrupt where it stands, but 
 after Matt. 10 : 6 it would be impossible. No place 
 for this verse would be more appropriate than at the 
 end of the next section, Luke 10:16. Matthew 
 would then have retained it in its original relative 
 position as an introduction to the warnings which 
 he adds here, but have omitted the intervening 
 woes to be used elsewhere, ii:2off. However, 
 we can only conjecture where this originally stood. 
 Luke io:8& reads like a later addition, having in 
 mind the same church problem which Paul en- 
 counters, I Cor. 10:27. With these exceptions 
 Luke no doubt gives us the thought, if not the 
 exact language, of Q. 
 
 Our analysis makes it clear that we are not deal- 
 ing merely with two or three stray verses which 
 Matthew and Luke have in common, but with a 
 connected discourse which both use, Matthew 
 weaving all characteristic passages into Mark, 
 Luke placing the whole side by side with Mark 
 (9:1 ff. = Mark io:iff. = Q). Under these cir- 
 cumstances we should not be surprised if verbal 
 
50 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 resemblances were wanting, but they are not 
 entirely. Matt. 9:37, 38 = Luke 10:2, where 
 the verb eK/3dXXa) for sending reapers into the 
 harvest points to an awkward but accurate Greek 
 translation of an Aramaic appeq;^ and Matt. 10: 
 15= Luke 10:12. vnepa Kplaecos is a characteristic 
 of Matthew. Matt. io:i6a is also identical with 
 Luke 10:3, with the one change of apvos to irpb^ara 
 (or vice versa?). The common use here of ev 
 with the dative /icW after a verb of motion is prob- 
 ably a Semiticism. Therefore, despite the changes 
 which have been made in the editorial use of this 
 material, we can with all confidence assign the 
 section to the common Greek source, Q. 
 
 SECTION 8. WOES ON THE CITIES WHICH FAIL TO 
 RESPOND, LUKE 10:13-16; MATT. 11:20-24 
 
 Even in Matthew, who has inserted other 
 material between, it is evident that this section is 
 a continuation of the last, for he has repeated 
 the introductory sentence of Luke, Luke 10:12 = 
 Matt. 11:24.^ The verbal resemblance here is a 
 conclusive reason for thinking that this stood in Q. 
 
 * Wellhausen, in loc. * For further evidence see p. 125. 
 
Study of the Common Material 51 
 
 Matt. ii:2i-23a = Luke 10:13-15. If Luke gives 
 this section in its original context, then 11:20 and 
 11:236 were added by Matthew in suiting it to a 
 different setting. Luke 10:16 closes the discourse 
 to the disciples; and is original, for the same idea 
 is used by Matthew in his concluding verses, 10: 
 40 ff . But Matthew has preferred the form of this 
 saying which he found in Mark 9:37 and which 
 better suited his purpose. 
 
 SECTION 9. RETURN OF THE DISCIPLES, 
 LUKE 10:17-20 
 
 This section is not found in Matthew and must 
 be considered with the independent material of 
 Luke. See p. 166. 
 
 SECTION 10. JESUS' SELF-REVELATION TO HIS 
 DISCIPLES, LUKE IO:2I, 22; MATT. 11:25-27 
 
 In this section it is only necessary to refer to the 
 close verbal identity which proves that it belongs 
 to Q. Whether the introductory clause of Luke 
 10:21a goes back to his source is questionable. 
 The emphasis on the Holy Spirit sounds Lukan, 
 and Luke is prone to add such clauses. The simple. 
 
52 MaUhew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 colorless sentence of Matt. 11:25^ may be all 
 that stood in Q. Harnack, pp. 272 ff., following 
 the suggestion of Wellhausen, argues at length 
 to show that Kal tIs eariv 6 vios el fxri 6 TraTrjp was 
 not in Q. It is possible that it is an insertion; 
 but the evidence is not convincing. 
 
 SECTION II. THE PROPHETS' DESIRE FOR WHAT 
 
 THE DISCIPLES HAVE SEEN, LUKE 10:23-24; 
 
 MATT. 13:16, 17 
 
 The principal question in this short section con- 
 cerns its original position.' The verbal likeness 
 here is close. Luke has added a characteristic 
 introductory clause, but Matthew has changed 
 ^aaiKels to Skatot. 
 
 SECTION 12. PRAYER, PROMISE TO THE DISCIPLES 
 OF DIVINE HELP, LUKE 11:1-13; MATT. 6:9-15; 
 
 7:7-11 
 
 In Luke 11:1-4; Matt. 6:9-13 one is more 
 impressed with the differences between the Gospels 
 than with their likenesses. This could be explained 
 on the ground that either one or both evangelists 
 might naturally give this prayer in the form which 
 
 * See p. 126. 
 
Study of the Common Material 53 
 
 was known and used in his community. But the 
 stylistic changes of Luke show that he is using 
 some source rather than a formal community 
 prayer/ The use by both evangelists of the un- 
 intelligible word eiTiovaLOP can also be best explained 
 as coming from a common source. Moreover, 
 Matthew contains the same petitions as Luke 
 in the same order; the principal difference is that 
 Matthew's account is much fuller. English and 
 American scholars have as a rule maintained 
 the greater originality of the Matthean form. 
 Votaw's article on ^'The Sermon on the Mount" 
 in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. V, is 
 representative. But, surely, the historical prob- 
 abiHty points the other way. ^'Thy will be done 
 on earth as it is in heaven" is only a further defini- 
 tion of ^'Thy kingdom come." So also *' Deliver 
 us from evil" only states in a positive form what 
 ^'Lead us not into temptation" expresses nega- 
 tively. These clauses amplify, but they add no 
 new element of thought; nor do they contain 
 anything distinctively Jewish which Gentiles would 
 have any reason to omit. The very reverse is 
 ' See Harnack, p. 64. 
 
54 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 nearer the truth. Both petitions are to be ex- 
 plained as interpretative additions due to Hturgical 
 use, and not as Lukan omissions. "Our Father 
 who art in heaven," a characteristic term of later 
 rabbinic Kterature, is found only in one passage of 
 the New Testament outside of Matthew, and that 
 passage is regarded by some as due to Mark's 
 influence, Mark 11:25, 26.' The fact that the 
 term is peculiar to Matthew throws doubt on its 
 use by Jesus. The case is especially strong against 
 its use here. Granting that Jesus might have em- 
 ployed either expression, the fact remains that in 
 his own prayers he said only *^Abba, Father." 
 On this point the testimony of Matthew agrees 
 with that of Mark, Luke, and John. Rom. 8:14, 
 15; Gal. 4:6; I Pet. 1:17 indicate that he taught 
 his disciples when they prayed to address God in 
 the same simple way. 
 
 On the other hand, the Lukan form of this prayer 
 also shows indications of editorial change. t6 
 KaB^ rjnepap is found only in Luke 19:47; Acts 17:4 
 
 * Luke's use of irar^^p 6 i^ oipavov in ii : 13 would seem to show 
 that he was unfamiliar with the Matthean title rather than that 
 he objected to it. Gentile influence cannot account for the dis- 
 appearance of this title outside of Matthew. 
 
Study of the Common Material 55 
 
 and may be an interpretation of that evangelist. 
 Luke 11:4 seems to have been changed by Luke for 
 literary reasons. Matt. 6 : 1 2 is recognized by all as 
 more primitive. The striking term ocfyeCKrinaTa of 
 vs. 12 is changed to TrapairTcofxaTa in vss. 14 and 15. 
 In these verses Matthew is probably appending ma- 
 terial from another source. In Luke's introduction 
 the first clause at least, ^'It came to pass while he 
 was in a certain place praying, when he stopped," 
 has all the earmarks of Lukan editorship, and in- 
 troductions we know were always the most subject 
 to change. The request from the disciples, how- 
 ever, may well have been in the source, for it is 
 there that we find such a strong interest in John 
 the Baptist.^ Harnack has connected the reference 
 to the Baptist here with the Marcion reading of 
 Luke 11:2', which he, as well as Wellhausen, 
 regards as the original text of Luke. Such a con- 
 nection would indicate that the whole introduction 
 is editorial, but the textual evidence for this read- 
 ing of Luke 1 1 : 2 is altogether insufficient. In the 
 only three witnesses which we have, the position 
 wavers. Marcion reads, "Let thy Holy Spirit 
 ^ Note Sees, i and 5. 
 
56 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 come upon us and purify us," instead of the first 
 petition. Gregory of Nyssa and Cod. 700 evv. read 
 it in place of the second.^ Surely the simplest ex- 
 planation of this petition is that, like the Matthean 
 prediction, ^'Thy will be done on earth as it is in 
 heaven," it is another interpretation of the older, 
 more Jewish, ''Thy kingdom come." It is true 
 that this interpretation is consistent with many 
 other changes made by Luke. But this does not 
 justify one in attributing every reference to the 
 Holy Spirit to that evangelist without more trust- 
 worthy witnesses. There is of course no question 
 about this reading having stood in Q. Q must have 
 had ''Thy kingdom come." 
 
 Parables such as Luke 11:5-8, which are not 
 testified to by Matthew, need to be considered 
 in connection with the special material of Luke. 
 See p. 167. 
 
 In Matt. 7 17-11= Luke 11:9-13 we have again 
 that close verbal relationship which we have learned 
 to expect in a large portion of this material. It 
 includes the word hnhdoaei, found nowhere else in 
 Matthew, and dofxara, which is a common word in 
 
 • See Ropes, Agrapha, p. 57. Gregory is followed by Maximus. 
 
' Study of the Common Material 57 
 
 the LXX but nowhere else in the Gospels or Acts. 
 Our greatest difficulty is in the relation of Luke 
 11: II, 12 to Matt. 7:9, 10. The textual evi- 
 dence gives a strong probability to the claim that 
 in Luke 1 1 : 1 1 aprov . . . . 77 /cat is a later harmon- 
 istic insertion; and that, therefore, Luke contained 
 originally only the reference to the fish and the ^gg^ 
 while Matthew had the bread and the fish. Either 
 might have stood in Q, but the fact that stones have 
 already been used in this same figurative way twice 
 in Q^ favors the Matthean form. Luke may have 
 thought that to give a scorpion instead of an egg 
 was much more forceful than stones for bread. 
 In Luke 11 : 13 irvevjia ayiov has been substituted for 
 ayadd. Harnack has argued that this supports the 
 Marcion reading of 11:2, but, as Wellhausen 
 suggests, intead of being a proof it may have been 
 the occasion for the change in 11:2. 
 
 SECTION 13. CALUMNY OF THE PHARISEES, 
 LUKE 11:14-23; MATT 12:22-32 
 
 In this section we have an excellent example 
 of Matthew's method of compilation. No very 
 
 * Matt. 3:9; 4:3; this latter is a close parallel. 
 
58 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 critical examination is necessary to see that 
 Matthew here combines Mark 3:22ff. with 
 Luke ii:i4ff. Passing over the introduction for 
 the present, Matt. 12:256, 26a, 29, 31 (32) are 
 certainly from Mark. Verses 31, 32 are found in 
 an entirely different connection in Luke. There 
 can be no question that Luke 12:10 gives the 
 original setting of this saying in Q. That Matthew 
 should have placed it here is explained by its 
 occurrence here in Mark; but why Luke should 
 omit it here and put it in a different context, if it 
 stood here in Q, is inexplicable. Matthew has 
 been influenced by the form of this saying in Q, 
 as a comparison readily shows. Matt. 12:21, 32 
 combines Q and Mark. 
 
 Matt. 12:246, 25a, 256-28, 30 are taken from 
 Luke's source. In Matt. 12:266-28, 30, the two 
 accounts are almost word for word the same. 
 Matthew has this time even accepted the term 
 * * kingdom of God . ' ' That both employed the prep- 
 osition Iv throughout for the instrument in accord- 
 ance with Semitic usage is noteworthy.' aKopm^et, 
 
 * See J. H. Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greeks Pro- 
 legomena, p. 104. 
 
Study of the Common Material 59 
 
 is found nowhere else in the Synoptics or Acts. 
 The only difference between the two Gospels is in 
 the substitution of wpevfiaTi by Matthew for SaKTvXco. 
 This substitution was probably caused by the intro- 
 duction from Mark of the sin against the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 In both the introduction and the conclusion of 
 this section in Matthew a phenomenon occurs 
 which calls for further explanation. Matthew 
 contains two passages referring to a dumb man 
 and the charge, ''By the prince of demons he 
 casteth forth demons/' 9:32-34; 12:22-24. The 
 passage in chap. 9 is closer to the Lukan parallel 
 of 12: 22-24 than is the reference in this immedi- 
 ate connection. In like manner Matthew's con- 
 clusion, 12:33-35, is parallel to Matt. 7:16-20 
 of the Sermon on the Mount; and here, the 
 second time, it is the passage that has a dif- 
 ferent context which is nearest to the Lukan 
 form of the same saying. Attention ought to be 
 called to the fact that this is no uncommon occur- 
 rence in Matthew. For instance, Mark 3:7-12 is 
 used with great freedom in Matt. 12:15-21, but 
 in Matt. 4:23-25 it is closely followed. Clearly 
 
6o Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 in this case only the one source is used. Just so 
 in the introduction to the sending out of the 
 Twelve, Matthew has repeated what he had in 
 4 123= Mark 1:39; and anticipated Mark 6:34, 
 which is given with greater freedom again in its 
 Markan context, 14:14. Nor can we doubt that 
 he has done the same thing in 10:40, anticipating 
 Mark 9:37, which he there, i8:5 = Mark 9:37, 
 repeats. Matt. 5:29, 30 = 18:8, 9 = Mark 9:43 ff. 
 is a similar case. There is slight ground for assign- 
 ing 5 : 29, 30 to Q; if Luke found this in both Mark 
 and Q he would not have omitted it. Again, 
 Mark 13:96-13 is anticipated in Matt. 10:17-22 
 (23 ?) and repeated freely in 24:9-14, though here 
 there is better ground for arguing that Matthew 
 had access to some source of Mark. What, now, 
 is the most natural explanation of such passages ? 
 They point first of all to Matthew's great familiar- 
 ity with his sources.' He knows them thoroughly 
 and uses them as a master. Again, they emphasize 
 that Matthew's great concern is to make each of 
 
 ^ J. V. Bartlett in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, art. 
 "Matthew," says: "Our Matthew was so familiar with the 
 latter [Mark] as to combine his phrases in memory without a full 
 sense of their actual position in Mark's narrative." 
 
Study of the Common Material 6i 
 
 his main sections as complete as possible; he is 
 not at all afraid of duplication. Duplicates, there- 
 fore, in Matthew do not necessarily mean two 
 sources. 
 
 In Matthew's section on miracles he needed the 
 healing of a dumb man in anticipation of 1 1 : i ff . 
 He remembers that which Q gives in connection 
 with the Beelzebul incident,^ and when he comes 
 to relate the Beelzebul incident itself the same 
 healing is repeated but with some features of 
 the incident, with which he joined it in chap. 9, 
 added. These are added for the purpose of con- 
 trasting the correct estimate of Jesus by the 
 people to this judgment of the Pharisees. Mat- 
 thew is always interested in showing that Jesus' 
 condemnations are restricted to the scribes and 
 Pharisees. 
 
 Is not the same true of Matthew's conclusion, 
 12:33-37? Surely we cannot say that Matthew 
 has two sources, for it is 12:33-37 ^^^ ^^^t 7: 16 ff. 
 which shows the closest literary relationship to 
 Luke, and a comparison of the two Matthean 
 
 ^ Not the healing of Mark 7:31-37, to which 9:32-34 has 
 not the slightest resemblance. So also 9:27-31 is more closely 
 related to Mark 10:46-52 than to Mark 8:22 ff. 
 
62 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 passages reveals an adaptation to different con- 
 texts rather than the use of two sources. Both 
 Matthew and Luke include this parable in the 
 Sermon on the Mount, while only Matthew gives 
 it here. The natural conclusion must be that in 
 common source it belonged to that sermon. 
 Julicher^ argues that only Luke 6 144 = Matt. 7:17 
 stood in the Sermon on the Mount, and that both 
 evangelists independently add to the source por- 
 tions of another anti-pharisaic speech, which 
 Matthew gives a second time in chap. 12. A 
 mere statement of this theory shows its improb- 
 abihty. Jiilicher's reason for this view is that 
 he does not find the close logical connection in the 
 Sermon on the Mount between 6:45 and 6:465., 
 which he regards as necessary. But have we not 
 as close a development of thought as can be 
 asked for? In Matt. 7: 1-5= Luke 6:37-42^ a 
 warning is given, first, in regard to judging 
 others; second, showing the need of examining 
 one's own conduct. Then follows this parable 
 
 ^ Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, p. 127. 
 
 "Here the shorter form of Matthew is preferable; see 
 p. 38. 
 
Study of the Common Material 63 
 
 of the Tree and Its Fruit, emphasizing how all 
 conduct, which naturally includes speech, is an 
 expression of the inner life of the man. In 6:45 
 attention is especially called to speech as revealing 
 the heart or inner life. This is succeeded by a 
 warning to those who merely make professions 
 without taking hold of Jesus' teachings with all 
 their hearts, 6:46 ff. Moreover, even if we did 
 not find a satisfactory succession of ideas here, this 
 would not prove that the author of Q did not. 
 Jiilicher acknowledges that Matt., chap. 12, offers 
 only a doubtful connection, and he has not shown 
 that the form of the parable in chap. 12 is at all 
 superior to that of Luke. Luke 6:43 is certainly 
 more original than Matt. 12:33. Jiilicher's objec- 
 tion to Luke 6 : 446 is hypercritical. In 6 : 45, how- 
 ever, the avTov at the end is an awkward addition 
 which Matthew is correct in omitting. Matt. 
 12:34a, 36, 37 are editorial additions of that evan- 
 gelist. Our conclusion, therefore, is that here, as 
 in the previous instances we have quoted, Mat- 
 thew has used the same material twice. 
 
 Luke seems to have held very closely to his 
 source in this section. Even vs. 16 can hardly have 
 
64 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 been added here by Luke. As Wendt argues, no 
 later editor would have inserted it so long before 
 the incident which it introduces. The Beelzebul 
 charge and the demand for signs were already 
 associated in Q, and to Q vs. i6 must be assigned. 
 Matthew this time does not help us much in 
 determining stylistic changes of Luke. It is 
 possible that Matt. 9:33^ preserves a clause 
 omitted by Luke. 
 
 SECTION 14. THE SEVEN OTHER SPIRITS, 
 LUKE 11:24-26; MATT 12:43-45 
 
 The close verbal identity here from beginning to 
 end leaves no question about this section except 
 its position in Q, which will be discussed later. 
 Whether axoKa^ovTa was added by Matthew or 
 omitted by Luke cannot be decided. If, as good 
 reason will be shown for beheving, the position 
 given to this section by Luke is original, then 
 Matt., vs. 456, is an editorial addition.' Luke ii : 
 27, 28 will be considered with all such material 
 peculiar to Luke. See pp. 167 f. 
 
 ^ See further Julicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, p. 237. 
 
Study of the Common Material 65 
 
 SECTION 15. THE DEMAND FOR A SIGN FROM 
 HEAVEN, LUKE 11:29-36; MATT. 12:38-42 
 
 In this section also we find the usual close 
 verbal resemblance throughout, but here there 
 are a few differences which attract our attention. 
 Neither the introduction of Matthew nor that of 
 Luke is to be regarded as original. Matthew, as 
 usual, makes this a demand of the scribes and 
 Pharisees. Luke introduces the crowds in his 
 characteristic manner. Probably in Q this section 
 followed immediately upon the preceding with no 
 further introduction beyond v/hat was given in 
 Luke 11:16. Luke has omitted the juoixaXts of 
 Matt., vs. 39, as we should expect him to do. tov 
 Trpocf)r)Tov is more likely added by Matthew. It is 
 generally agreed that vs. 40 is a later insertion of 
 Matthew. Wellhausen, who stands almost alone 
 among liberal critics in supporting it, seems in this 
 case at least to be influenced by his prejudice 
 against the source, Q. While the preaching of 
 Jonah is not a sign in the sense meant by Jesus' 
 interrogators, it was a sign which the Ninevites 
 heeded and one which exactly suited the occasion 
 here. Mark and Q are in full harmony. Exactly 
 
66 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 the same truth is taught in Luke 12:54-56/ On 
 the other hand, Luke, who is concerned with a 
 proper historical sequence, has placed Matt., vs. 42, 
 before vs. 41 . There is not sufficient textual evi- 
 dence for omitting vs. 32 from Luke's text. 
 
 The appendix which Luke adds here, 11:33-36, 
 is one of the most puzzling sections in all the 
 Gospels; the worst difficulty is that we cannot 
 know what the true text of Luke is. As it stands 
 in Textus Receptus, vs. 36 is unintelligible. A 
 comparison with other MSS tends to show that 
 our perplexity is caused by a process of harmoni- 
 zation of this with the other similar passages, 
 Mark 4:21, Matt. 5:15, and especially Matt. 6:22, 
 23. The most thorough investigation of these 
 passages has been made by Jiilicher {Die Gleichnis- 
 reden Jesu, II, 98 ff.). He concludes that Luke 
 originally read vss. 2>^, 34a, 36 (in the form of S^' 
 succeeded probably by vs. 35. He thinks that 
 vs. 346 was inserted here from Matt. 6:22, 23 and 
 
 * See pp. 90 fif. 
 
 'Mrs. Lewis translates S^: "Therefore also thy body, when 
 there is in it no lamp that shines, is dark; thus while thy lamp 
 is shining it gives light to thee." This reading is also £ound in the 
 old Latin MSS /, q. 
 
Study of the Common Material 67 
 
 caused the present confusion of the text. But the 
 same line of reasoning which he follows favors 
 the probability that vs. t^t, likewise has slipped 
 from the margin into the text. Just as the inser- 
 tion of vs. 346 preceded all our MSS authorities, so 
 may that of vs. t^t,. As a marginal note it is 
 intelligible, as an integral part of the text it is 
 most difficult. Omitting it, the connection between 
 vss. 32 and 34 is evident. It is improbable that 
 the verse stood in this connection originally in Q. 
 But by whom was it added? The likeness of 
 vs. 33 to Matt. 5: 15 disappears when vtto top ixbhov 
 is recognized as a harmonistic redaction. But its 
 close relation to Luke 8:16 is too striking to be 
 accidental, ds kpvttttjv for the concrete kXlptjs 
 of Luke 8:16 indicates that this is the secondary 
 form. Luke 8:16, itself, is clearly dependent on 
 Mark 4:21. The differences are explained by 
 Mark's clumsy Greek. It is possible that the 
 evangelist himself has introduced this saying in 
 11:33, but such additions resting on mere verbal 
 resemblances are quite foreign to his editorial 
 work, and it therefore seems more likely that, hke 
 vs. 34&, it has slipped from the margin into the text. 
 
68 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus .» 
 
 However that may be, it ought not to be ascribed to 
 Q. After its omission the connection of vss. 32 and 
 34 appears; the people called for a sign; what 
 they needed was an inner light with which to see/ 
 The change from the third to the second person is 
 not surprising. These verses lead naturally to the 
 theme of Luke 11:37 ff. That whole section sets 
 forth the principle of vs. 35. And this is the more 
 significant because Luke's insertion of 11:37, 3^^ 
 would indicate that he failed to see the close rela- 
 tion and so made a new beginning. Surely it is 
 possible that vss. 34^1, 36 (in the form of S^), 35 did 
 follow vs. 32 in Q, and that Matthew has omitted 
 them because they failed to mean anything to him 
 in this connection and he had already twice used the 
 figure of the lamp. Where- the text is so obscure 
 we can do little more than suggest possibilities. 
 If Julicher is correct in his textual restoration of 
 Luke here, then little reason remains for finding 
 any literary relation between Matt. 6:32, 23 and 
 Luke 11:33-36. But if the Texkis Receptus is 
 retained and the unintelligible vs. 36 be omitted as 
 hopelessly corrupt, then either Matthew or Luke 
 
 ' Cf. Luke 12:54-56. 2 See below, pp. 75 f. 
 
Study of the Common Material 69 
 
 has changed the original position of the saying.' 
 Whichever form is retained, the thought in this 
 context is appropriate. 
 
 SECTION 16. WOES ON THE PHARISEES, THE 
 
 SCRIBES, AND THIS ADULTEROUS GENERATION, 
 
 LUKE 11:37-54; MATT., CHAP. 23 
 
 This section belongs really in a class by itself. 
 The confidence with which we have been able to 
 assign all previous sections to Q here must give 
 way to mere probability. The problems are 
 similar to those in the Sermon on the Mount, but 
 much more difficult of solution. What evidence 
 have we that we are dealing here with a common 
 source ? 
 
 In the first place, all of Luke except the setting 
 is paralleled in Matthew, but the divergence is 
 more than usual and the order quite different. 
 Matt. 23:4 closely resembles Luke 11:46 in 
 thought, but the language of the two accounts is 
 not at all ahke. Much can be said for the view 
 that we have here two different translations of the 
 same original. They might even be independent 
 of each other. The differences, however, may be 
 ^ See further, p. 86. 
 
70 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 explained as due to Luke's stylistic changes. His 
 text is much smoother Greek, while one phrase of 
 Matthew is very crude, Seafievco <i>opTLa. It is con- 
 sistent with this that some of the vigor of Matthew 
 is lost in Luke, as the force of the contrast between 
 shoulder and finger. 
 
 Matt. 23:6 not only resembles Luke 11:43 ^^ 
 thought but in language as well. This condemna- 
 tion is found in Mark 12:38, 39 also, but the fact 
 that Matthew and Luke agree here against Mark 
 suggests the possibility of another source. This 
 coincident variation is the more important because, 
 while Luke 20:46 agrees with Mark, Luke 11:43 
 agrees with Matthew against Mark. Nor is it at 
 all like Luke to insert this woe here from Mark 
 and then repeat it in the Markan connection. The 
 possibility at least suggests itself that Matthew 
 and Luke are here dependent on a non-Markan 
 common source and that Matthew has simply 
 added Ti]v TrpoyroKKiaiav ev rots delTrvoLS from Mark. 
 
 Matt. 23 : 13 and Luke 11:52 seem to go back to 
 a common original, yycoa-ecos is certainly a later 
 substitute for the ^aaCkdav of Matthew. This is 
 shown by elarjXdaTe which follows. The fact that 
 
Study of the Common Material 71 
 
 the only other occurrence of yvOxris in the Gospels 
 is in Luke 1:77^ may indicate that the change was 
 made by him. 
 
 In Luke 11 142 = Matt. 23:23 the only clear 
 indication of literary dependence is in the last 
 clause, but this seems due to later harmonistic 
 influence. D omits it in the text of Luke. The 
 clause is probably an insertion of Matthew, show- 
 ing, as it does, the same standpoint as 23:3. 
 Nestle^ finds a variation here due to different read- 
 ings of an Aramaic original. T>i\\ = shabetha, 
 'Rue = shabera. Here again, however, it is possible 
 that the differences between the Gospels are entirely 
 due to the editorial changes of Luke, as Harnack 
 supposes. Further evidence of different trans- 
 lations has been found in Luke 11:39-41 and 
 Matt. 23 : 25,' 26. Besides minor indications Well- 
 hausen calls especial attention to 86t€ eXerjiioawTiv 
 of Luke, which he regards as caused by a misreading 
 of zakki for dakki; but it may be, with more proba- 
 bility, a Lukan editorial change.^ Matt. 23:25 
 
 " Cf. also 12:47, 48. ^ ZNW, 1906, p. 10. 
 
 3 See Luke i2:33 = Matt. 6:19. Probably the whole verse, 
 Luke 11:41, is a Lukan interpretation of the woe. 
 
72 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 and Luke 11:39 ^^e surely closely related, but 
 what relation, if any. Matt. 23 : 26 and Luke 11 140, 
 41 have to each other is hard to determine. 
 
 Matt. 23:27 and Luke 11:44 both contain a 
 comparison to tombs, but the conception of each 
 is so different as to seem independent. Luke has 
 not simply changed Matthew on the ground that 
 whitened sepulchers would be unintelligible to his 
 readers, for Luke 11:44 would be even more so 
 to anyone but a Jew who was familiar with Num. 
 19:15. Matthew's comparison is the more evi- 
 dent, and if any relationship can be assumed at 
 all, this is the secondary form. The change may 
 have been suggested by the preceding woe, to which 
 this seems to have been conformed. Certainly 
 the difference between the two accounts is deep- 
 seated and we may have two variant traditions. 
 
 Matt. 23:29-31 and Luke 11:47, 48 contain the 
 same conception, differently expressed. Luke's 
 form is more epigrammatic and forceful; by build- 
 ing monuments to the prophets, they only complete 
 the works of their fathers and share in their guilt. 
 The implication is that in this as in their religious 
 observances all is mere outward show. The 
 
Study oj the Common Material 73 
 
 thought is not as clear as might be wished 
 in either the Lukan or Matthean version. Matt. 
 22:33 is an editorial insertion, but 23:32 may be 
 original. 
 
 Concluding from these woes that the two gospels 
 have in common, only a possibility is open that they 
 were in Q. Not until we come to Matthew's epi- 
 logue of this discourse do we find a resemblance 
 between the two accounts, such as we have always 
 found before, pointing decidedly to a common 
 Greek source. In Matt. 23:34-36; Luke 11:49- 
 51, while we have not an extended verbal likeness, 
 if we place the two texts side by side we see that 
 both are built upon the same words and sentence 
 structure. 
 
 Matt.: StoL rovTO iSou eyw aTrocrriXXixi 
 
 Luke: Sta tovto koI 17 co^ta ToC Oeov ciTrev aTroo'TeXcii 
 
 Matt.: irpo^ Vju.as Trpo<f>T^Ta^ kol (rot^oiis Koi ypafXfiareLS 
 Luke: eis airovs irpo<fi-t]Ta<s kol aTrooroXovs 
 
 Matt. : ^i avrwv aTTOKTevetTC kol (TTavptaaTeTe, etc. 
 
 Luke: koL ii avriov diroKTevovcTLV. 
 
 Matt.: Kat Siw^cre, etc., OTTWS fXOy i<f>* vfia<; ttSv 
 Luke: '<at iKBLw^ovatv Lva €K^r}Tr]drj 
 
74 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 Matt. : at/ia StKtttov €K\vvv6fJL£vov cTTt tyjs yrji 
 
 Luke: to alfw. ttcivtcdv Toiv Trpof^rjruiv to iK)(vvv6fX€vov 
 
 Luke: o-Trb KaTa(So\rj<; Koafiov airo rrj^ ycveas ravrrjs 
 
 Matt. : OLTTO Tov atfiaros "A/SeX tov SiKaiov lo>5 rov 
 Luke: aTro atf^aros'^A/SeX cws 
 
 Matt.: at/xaros Za;(aptov vlov Bapa;(t'ov ov i<f)Ovev(TaT€ 
 Luke: ai/xaTos Zta^apiov rov aTroXofxivov 
 
 Matt. : ftcra^i) TOV vaov kol tov OvdiacTTn^piov , dfxrjv 
 Luke: fiera^v TOV Ovcnaa-TrjpLOV kol tov olkov, vat 
 
 Matt. : Xeyo) vfuv ^^€t TttVTa TrdvTa inl tyjv yeveavTavTrjv. 
 Luke: Xeyoi vpXv eK^'qrrjdTja-eTaL oltto t^s yeveas TavTrj's. 
 
 That the same text here lies behind both accounts 
 seems certain, and we may add that it was prob- 
 ably a Greek text, though this is more doubtful. 
 Here alone in this discourse can one with some 
 measure of confidence attempt to restore an original 
 form. Matthew, regarding Christ as Wisdom, has 
 put the whole quotation into the mouth of Jesus, 
 and hence changed the third to the second person; 
 and Luke has made his usual changes to improve 
 the literary style. Matthew has also inserted 
 Son of Barachiah and expanded the description 
 of Jewish persecutions, and Luke has changed 
 "wise men and scribes'' to "apostles," 
 
Study of the Common Material 75 
 
 Inasmuch as this paragraph is an integral part 
 of the whole discourse in both accounts, the possi- 
 bility that behind the whole section lies some com- 
 mon source becomes a probability. It is in this 
 section that the problem of the relation which the 
 two accounts have to an Aramaic original forces 
 itself to the front as nowhere else; but even here 
 the evidence for two different translations of such 
 a Semitic original is very slight. At most we need 
 only leave open the possibility of changes made at 
 some time or other from the Aramaic.^ Most of 
 the differences, if not all, can be more readily 
 accounted for on other grounds. 
 
 We shall find further support for the theory that 
 the common source, Q, is the basis of this section 
 in Matthew and Luke as we examine the whole 
 discourse in the connection and sequence of topics 
 in which the two evangelists give it. Luke has 
 prefaced an introduction, which seems to have 
 been suggested by Mark 7:1 ff . Only in the most 
 superficial way does it suit the material which 
 follows. Luke has likewise appended a historical 
 note at the close, 1 1 : 53, 54. When these additions 
 
 * See above, pp. 17 f. 
 
76 Matthew's Sayings oj Jesus 
 
 are omitted, vs. 39 follows naturally enough after 
 vs. 36.' A relationship appears here which is 
 independent of Luke and only obscured by him; 
 and this confirms us in thinking that this section 
 stood here in Q. 
 
 Matthew himself gives a much more elaborate 
 introduction, combining the situation of Mark 
 12:38, 39, two woes of Luke, chap. 11, and some 
 warnings of Jesus to the disciples, found only here. 
 These warnings are so awkwardly inserted in 23: 
 1-3, where the multitudes of Mark, chap. 12, are 
 combined with the disciples, and form such an 
 unsuitable introduction to the woes which follow, 
 that they may safely be regarded as an addition. 
 It might be argued that Luke has omitted Matt. 23 : 
 2, 3 because of their strongly Jewish Christian 
 standpoint, but their kinship to Matt. 5:17-20, in 
 its present composite form, adds to the probability 
 that this is an insertion of the first evangelist. 
 Matthew's introduction is therefore secondary, and 
 there is no reason to doubt that he also found 
 the common material, as we have suggested that 
 Luke did. 
 
 ^ See above, p. 68. 
 
Study of the Common Material 77 
 
 In the woes themselves we find that Luke gives 
 six, three directed against the Pharisees, three 
 against the scribes (''lawyers'^ for *' scribes'' is 
 Lukan). Such a distinction cannot be attributed 
 to the third evangelist himself. It certainly was 
 in the source he used. The three woes directed 
 against the Pharisees are appropriate, as also are 
 the first and last of those against the scribes, 
 but the second woe against the scribes seems 
 too general in its application, and it is note- 
 worthy that the address to the scribes is this time 
 omitted. 
 
 Matthew on the other hand has seven woes, all 
 but one of which are directed against ''scribes 
 and Pharisees, hypocrites"; and that woe, which 
 Luke has placed between the two woes upon the 
 scribes, Matthew has put at the end, and the wis- 
 dom quotation he has made the epilogue of the 
 whole discourse, vss. 29-36. Matthew also gives 
 two woes which are not found in Luke. One of 
 these, vss. 16-22, has a different epithet from the 
 rest of the woes, ''blind guides,"* and reads much 
 more Hke a variant of Matt. 5 : 34 ff., which has been 
 
 * Matt. 15: 14 uses the same epithet. 
 
78 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 converted into a woe, than like the other condemna- 
 tions here addressed to the Pharisees. This has 
 probably been added by Matthew to complete 
 the number seven. The woe of Matt. 23 : 15, how- 
 ever, is entirely appropriate. Its omission by 
 Luke can be readily accounted for. Jewish prose- 
 lyting ceased after the fall of Jerusalem and seems 
 to have declined before then.^ This woe would 
 have no meaning to Luke's readers. The possi- 
 bility suggests itself that we have here the third 
 woe against the scribes, and that Luke found 
 further ground for omitting it because he failed 
 to see that the woe of 11:47 was directed against 
 the multitudes in general and no particular class, 
 and therefore thought he had one too many for the 
 symmetry of the whole. This misunderstanding 
 would explain also why vs. 52 is placed at the 
 end; it served to bind the three woes together, 
 if all were thought of as directed against the 
 scribes. 
 
 This correction in the order of Luke on the basis 
 of Matthew gives us a most tempting solution of 
 the problems of the whole discourse. In Q, Luke 
 
 " See Bousset, Religion des Judentutns, p. 85. 
 
Study of the Common Material 79 
 
 11:39-41 served as the introduction. Three woes 
 upon the Pharisees followed, then three upon the 
 scribes, with a concluding woe upon this generation, 
 which brings us back to the situation of the pre- 
 ceding section on the demand for a sign. "This 
 generation is an evil (and adulterous) generation," 
 Luke 11:29. Luke's only changes in this order 
 we have just explained. 
 
 Matthew has torn the whole section out of 
 its context, fitting it into the situation of Mark, 
 chap. 12. By removing two of the woes to use 
 them in his introduction he has lost the original 
 symmetry of the discourse but retained the plan 
 of having seven woes. The order in which these 
 were put was probably influenced by independent 
 sources. In our discussion above of the woes which 
 both Gospels give, we saw that the differences, in 
 some cases at least, pointed to variant tradition 
 rather than editorial changes. Matt. 23:27, 28 
 reads more like a variant of Luke 1 1 : 44 and in 
 23:26 the change in number and the use of evTos, 
 Iktos for eaccdep, e^ccdep may indicate that in this 
 woe also Matthew is influenced by other sources. 
 The woe of vss. 15-22 is certainly an addition 
 
8o Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 here. The paradoxical vs. 24 reads like a genuine 
 saying of Jesus, but the title ^' blind guides" shows 
 that it is related to vss. 16-22 rather than to the 
 material common to Luke. However, vs. 5 might 
 well have been omitted by Luke as too Jewish in 
 its interest, but it is as easily explained as an 
 addition; it certainly makes the woe too full. The 
 warnings, vss. 2, 3, 76-12, we have already given 
 our reasons for regarding as an insertion. Matt. 
 23: 15 is the only verse of this chapter, peculiar to 
 Matthew, which we should be inclined to ascribe to 
 Q. Whether the variations are all to be explained 
 by Matthew's use of independent sources and 
 Luke's editorial changes cannot be determined. 
 At least no further explanation is necessary. 
 Matthew's independent source (or sources) may 
 itself have been related to Q, probably to the 
 Aramaic original of Q. This would explain the 
 possible variant translations. If it was only one 
 source, it had both woes and warnings, and in 
 like manner Luke 11:37 if. ^s followed by a series 
 of warnings to the disciples, and in this sequence 
 Luke is merely copying Q. 
 
Study of the Common Material 8i 
 
 SECTION 17. WARNING OF DANGERS BEFORE THE 
 
 DISCIPLES WITH ASSURANCES OF GOD's CARE, 
 
 LUKE 12:1-12; MATT. 10:24-33; 12:32 
 
 When we come to this section we tread upon 
 firm ground again. In Matt. 10:266, 28a, 30, 31 
 and Luke 12:2, 4<z, 7 we have that close verbal 
 likeness which is conclusive evidence of a common 
 source. That this source includes practically 
 the whole section is shown by the common sequence 
 
 of ideas: 
 
 Matt., vs. 26 = Luke, vs. 2 
 
 27= 
 
 
 3 
 
 28= 
 
 vss 
 
 .4, 5 
 
 29= 
 
 
 vs. 6 
 
 vss. 30j3i = 
 
 
 7 
 
 vs. 32 = 
 
 
 8 
 
 33 = 
 
 
 9 
 
 That Matthew should omit Luke 12:10 is most 
 natural, for he prefers to use this verse in its 
 Markan connection , Matt .12:31. In Matt .12:31, 
 32 the version of Mark and this of Q are placed 
 side by side. The difficulty of determining the 
 exact meaning of the verse in the Q context may 
 have prompted Matthew to omit it there in the 
 first place. That Luke transferred this sentence 
 from its context in Mark to a position directly 
 
82 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 after 12:9 is impossible to believe. The omission 
 of Luke 12:11, 12 is even more readily accounted 
 for. These verses have just been given in their 
 Markan form, Matt. 10:19, 20 = Mark 13:11. 
 A repetition of the warning in this same discourse 
 would be absurd.' There is no reason to question 
 that Luke 12:2-12 stood in Q. But regarding 
 12:16 we cannot be so sure. The omission by 
 Matthew may be due to the fact that this warning 
 is developed more fully in Mark 8:141?. It is 
 also possible that Luke could have introduced 
 it from there. In itself the former alternative 
 seems the more likely. The objection has been 
 raised that there is no logical connection between 
 i2:i& and 12:2. No doubt the soundest exegesis 
 of this whole section will consider it as a collection 
 of more or less independent sayings, but all are 
 on the general theme of warnings to the disciples. 
 Thus viewed, 12:16 appears as an appropriate 
 introduction connecting these warnings with the 
 preceding woes. Luke 12:16 is as closely related 
 
 * This is a strong indication that Mark 10: 17-22 is not taken 
 from Q, as Bernhard and Johannes Weiss have maintained. If 
 Matthew is here using a source of Mark it is an independent 
 one. 
 
Study of the Common Material 83 
 
 to 12:2 as 12:3 is to 12:4. This value of 12:1b 
 as an introduction to 12:2 ff. favors the view that 
 Luke found it here in his source if, as we shall try- 
 later to show, his sequence here is that of Q.^ The 
 evangehst himself has supplied a historical intro- 
 duction of his own, 12: la, and this shows no con- 
 nection whatever with Mark 8:14 ff. The people 
 who are out of place in vss. 2-12 are probably 
 mentioned to prepare for vs. 15. Matt. 10:24, 25 
 are also doubtful verses. They may have stood 
 here ^n Q and been omitted by Luke, but see 
 further, p. 107. 
 
 Remembering then that Luke 12:1 and Matt. 
 10: 24, 25 are questionable, we may with confidence 
 assign this whole section to Q. But as usual it 
 is a hazardous task choosing an original text from 
 the alternatives of Matthew and Luke. Jiilicher^ 
 has very thoroughly discussed vss. 2 and 3. His 
 discussion shows that Luke 1 2 : 2 is an independent 
 variant of Mark 4:22, and that the text of Matthew 
 in 10:27 is not necessarily more original than that 
 
 * A further argument from the context, if this is the sequence of 
 Q, appears in the condemnation of the Pharisees for hypocrisy in 
 the preceding woes, Luke ii:44 = Matt. 23: 27. 
 
 " See Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, pp. 91-97. 
 
84 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 of Luke 12:3. The change in person may be due 
 to an original first person plural or to an impersonal 
 passive, which both editors interpreted differently. 
 In vss. 4, 5 ( = Matt. 10:28) the differences can, for 
 the most part, be attributed to Lukan changes. 
 The text of Matthew is more pointed and epi- 
 grammatic. In vss. 6, 7 ( = Matt. 10:29-31) also 
 the priority belongs rather to Matthew, though 
 the Lukan price of sparrows seems original and tov 
 irarpos vficov is conceded by all to be secondary. 
 "My Father who is in heaven" is a Matthean 
 expression. Luke's phrase seems more original. 
 It is found also in Luke 15:10, which may belong 
 toQ. 
 
 The significance of vs. 10 in this connection is 
 very obscure. It seems intended to define what 
 is meant by "denying me in the presence of men," 
 which we find in the preceding verse. Possibly 
 it is intended merely to qualify that verse. Well- 
 hausen is probably correct in his emendation of 
 the text here on the basis of D and Marcion.^ 
 Matt. 12:32 also supports the emendation. 
 
 * "Whoever says anything against the Son of Man it shall 
 be forgiven him, but against the Holy Spirit it shall not be for- 
 given." 
 
Study of the Common Material 85 
 
 SECTION 18. INSTRUCTIONS TO SEEK THE KING- 
 DOM AND LEAVE ALL ELSE TO GOD, LUKE 
 12: (13-21) 22-24; MATT. 6:19-34 
 
 The question whether or not Luke 12:13-21 
 belongs to Q will have to be deferred.^ The rela- 
 tion of Luke 12:22-24 to Matt. 6:19-34 is such 
 as to leave no possible doubt in our minds that 
 both evangelists are using a common source. 
 Matt. 6:21, 25-33 shows the closest verbal resem- 
 blance to Luke 12:2 2-3 1,34. The most important 
 difference is that Matthew has placed Luke 12:33, 
 34 at the beginning instead of at the end of the 
 discourse. At least as far as the change in order 
 is concerned Matthew must be responsible for the 
 difference. The reason is apparent. He has 
 placed this section in the Sermon on the Mount 
 just after that contrast between human and divine 
 rewards which he gives in 6:1-18; vss. 19, 20 
 therefore furnish the proper transition to the ma- 
 terial which he here introduces. On the other 
 hand, after Luke 12:21 the Matthean sequence 
 would, if anything, be more appropriate than the 
 order Luke himself gives; and it is not evident that 
 
 * See p. 168. 
 
86 MaUhew*s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 these verses form a better transition to what 
 follows in Luke 12:35. It is interesting to note 
 that Matthew has retained the 5td tovto of Luke 
 12:22, although it is no longer so appropriate in 
 the new context. 
 
 Matt. 6:22, 23 is appropriate in the setting 
 which Matthew has given it here, but, as we have 
 seen, it is equally so in its Lukan context, 1 1 : 34-36 ; 
 and the other changes of Matthew here make it 
 safer to regard the position given to it by Luke 
 as original, rather than this which it has in 
 Matthew. The latter's setting is usually suitable. 
 It is only when he fails to understand a saying that 
 he places it in an awkward context. It is not 
 certain, however, that he is here following the 
 common source at all. The resemblance to Luke 
 may be entirely due to harmonistic redaction.^ 
 Matt. 6:24 fits beautifully into this context of the 
 First Gospel, but for this very reason is the more 
 likely to be an insertion of Matthew. That Luke 
 should remove it to its isolated position in 16: 13 
 then becomes inexplicable. Matt. 6:34 is possibly 
 also an addition of the evangelist, though in this 
 
 * See above, p. 69. 
 
Study of the Common Material 87 
 
 case it is more probable that Luke has omitted 
 instead of Matthew's having added. Luke 12:32 
 is the only verse of Luke which is not found in 
 Matthew as well, and this certainly belonged to Q. 
 In details Matthew is truer to the original than 
 Luke. But "ravens" for "birds of the heaven," 
 and "God" for "Heavenly Father," Luke 12:24, 
 are to be preferred. Luke is also correct in reading 
 "kingdom" without "righteousness" in 12:31. 
 That Matthew is more original in 6: 19-21 is shown 
 by Luke's retention of ovhe arjs 5ta<^€tp€t, despite 
 the fact that he has limited the treasure to money. 
 Luke has interpreted this passage to accord with 
 the teaching of his special material in chap. 16, 
 giving it this definite application. 
 
 SECTION 19. PARABLES TEACHING THE NEED OF 
 
 WATCHFULNESS FOR THE COMING OF THE SON 
 
 OF MAN, LUKE 12:35-48; MATT. 24:42-51 
 
 Luke gives three parables here, two of which 
 are found also in Matthew in practically the same 
 words. Omitting for the present the problem 
 whether that one which is peculiar to Luke was 
 found in Q, we can positively affirm that the other 
 two were found in that source. The verbal 
 
88 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 agreement between 24:43-51 and Luke 12:39, 40, 
 42-46 is conclusive regarding this. In the first 
 of these parables the differences are too insig- 
 nificant to concern us. In the second, however, 
 Luke has applied an interpretation to the parable 
 which has affected the form of its presentation. By 
 the question of Peter which is inserted in 12 : 41 this 
 last parable is given a definite application to the 
 twelve. Special responsibilities rest upon them. 
 It is in accordance with this that hovKos is replaced 
 by oiKovbixos in vs. 42 and avvhovKovs is changed in 
 vs. 45. The two verses which Luke has appended 
 at the close are also placed here because of this 
 interpretation of Luke. They may rest upon some 
 good tradition, but they are an insertion here. 
 Changes made by Matthew are insignificant; 
 <TiTO}ieTpiov is probably more original than Tpotpi} 
 in vs. 45. 
 
 SECTION 20. WARNING OF A PERIOD OF STRIFE AND 
 DISASTER, LUKE 12:49-53; MATT. 10:34-36 
 
 In this short section we cannot be so sure of the 
 presence of Q as we would wish. But Matt. 10:34 
 and Luke 12:51 rest on the same source : 
 
Study of the Common Material 89 
 
 Matt. : M^ vofitcn^e otl "^XOov fSaXetv elprjvrjv 
 
 Luke: Ao/cetre otl eipi^vrjv Trapeyevofxrjv Sovvai 
 
 Matt. : €7rt TYjv yrjv ' ovk ■^\6ov (3aXeLv elp-^VYfv 
 Luke: iv ry yrj ; ov\l Acyo) vfuv 
 
 Matt. : dAXa /xa^atpav 
 Luke: aXA,' rj Sutfiepia-fjiov 
 
 Luke uses more elegant Greek, but Matthew 
 preserves the Semitic paralleHsm and is probably 
 original. Still, the interrogatory form of Luke, 
 8oKeLT€ for nij vonLa-qre, seems to deserve priority (so 
 Harnack) . Matt. 10:35 ^^^ Luke 12:53 certainly 
 are derived from a common source, but since this 
 verse is found in Mic. 7:6 it does not mean so 
 much as it otherwise would. The form of the 
 saying is much more simple and direct in Matthew 
 than in Luke. One can hardly doubt that it is 
 Luke who has expanded. Matthew may also 
 have added vs. 36, the closing clause of Mic. 7:6. 
 That Matthew omits the two verses with which 
 this section begins in Luke can be explained by 
 the context of chap. 10, where the personal note 
 of these verses would be out of place. Matthew 
 likewise omits the reference of Mark 10:38 to 
 
go Matthew^s Sayings oj Jesus 
 
 Christ's baptism of suffering. Has he some repug- 
 nance to this comparison ? 
 
 SECTIONS 21 AND 22. SIGNS OF THE TIMES AND 
 THE NEED OF REPENTANCE, LUKE 12:54-56 
 (matt. i6:2&, 3); THE APPROACHING JUDG- 
 MENT, LUKE 12:57-59; MATT. 5:25, 26 
 
 In Luke 12:54-56 we have a passage which 
 strangely enough has a parallel in many MSS 
 of Matt. 16:1-4, which, moreover, is so different 
 that it cannot be a mere scribal transference from 
 Luke. This would simply be another example 
 of Matthew's general method of inserting Q sayings 
 in a Markan context, if only the MSS gave us 
 sufficient reason for believing that it stood originally 
 in the Gospel of Matthew. Matt. 16: 2 J, 3 is 
 omitted by 5^, B, V, X, 13, 24, 556, 157, Ss. Sc. Jer. 
 (in most MSS), Cop. Orig. They are given by 
 2, 3, C, D, e, a, b (K is wanting here), Jer. (in some 
 MSS), Hil., Vulg., Si.^ The MS authority cer- 
 tainly favors the omission; but where D and the 
 Old Latin cannot be accused of harmonizing, their 
 testimony has weight. Comparing the addition 
 with Luke 12:54-56, the principal difference we 
 * Evidence taken from Zahn, Kom. Mat., in loc. 
 
Study of the Common Material 91 
 
 observe is the change which is made in the weather 
 signs. Those which Luke gives are suitable only 
 to Palestine^ and might readily be changed when 
 the sayings of Jesus were given a wider circle of 
 readers. They would be especially inappropriate 
 in Rome, where many suppose the First Gospel 
 was written. The conclusion in both gospels 
 shows literary relationship: 
 
 Matt. : TO fixv 7rp6<r<t)7rov tov ovpavov 
 
 Luke: to Trpoawirov t^s y^s kol tov ovpavov 
 
 Matt.: yivoxTKCTe SiojcpLveiv, ra 8c a-rjfieLa twv Kaiplov 
 Luke: olBare 8oKLfxd^€Lv^ TOV Kaipov Se tovtov 
 
 Matt. : ov Svvaa-Oe ; 
 
 Luke: ■wtos ovk otSarc SoKi/xa^civ; 
 
 It is hard to believe that the same text does not 
 underlie these variants, ttjs yijs /cat Wellhausen 
 has shown to be an addition in Luke,^ and the 
 other changes look like literary improvements of 
 that evangelist. Such likeness with so much 
 variation and the location which the passage has 
 in Matthew are excellent circumstantial evidence 
 
 * See Plummer, Com. Luke, in loc. 
 'See Kom. Luk., in loc. 
 
92 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 that Matthew himself wrote i6 : 26, 3. If he did not 
 make this insertion in the saying taken here from 
 Mark, someone so Hke him in method did that we 
 cannot tell the difference. But apart from this 
 doubtful testimony of Matthew the fact that it is 
 combined by Luke with a passage which Matthew 
 certainly gives, but not in its original setting, as we 
 shall try to show, supports its claim to a place in 
 Q. Moreover, the teaching of the passage repre- 
 sents exactly the same standpoint that we find 
 in Q, Luke 11:29 ff.; Matt. 12:38 ff. 
 
 It is time now to consider the section which fol- 
 lows in Luke 12:57-59; Matt. 5:25, 26. Despite 
 the very different interpretations which Matthew 
 and Luke put upon this passage, it must be regarded 
 as coming from their common source. Matt. 
 5:26 and Luke 12:59 are almost word for word 
 the same. Luke has merely substituted the more 
 appropriate, better Greek word '\eirrbv for KodpdvTrjv. 
 In Matt. 5:25 and Luke 12:58 the differences 
 are greater, but the same sentence structure appears 
 in both. While a common source seems required, 
 its exact language cannot be restored. TrpaKTcop 
 is no doubt to be preferred to the commonplace 
 
Study of the Common Material 93 
 
 VTTTjpiTrjs ; KaTaavprj and aTnyXXax^at of Luke are both 
 more striking, vigorous terms, but not necessarily- 
 more original. The Latinism 56s epyaalap is very 
 puzzling. If Kohpavrrjv was changed to Xeirrbv, it 
 surely was not the same editor who inserted this 
 phrase, though he might have allowed it to remain 
 if he had it before him. 
 
 Because of its bearing upon the problem raised 
 by the preceding section, the question of the posi- 
 tion of this passage ought perhaps to be discussed 
 in anticipation of what is to be said on this general 
 theme later. The first difficulty is in trying to 
 learn exactly what the saying means. Even 
 Jlilicher's^ discussion is not very illuminating. 
 In its Matthean context he understands it to be a 
 vivid concrete warning to live up to the fifth peti- 
 tion of the Lord's Prayer in its full force. But he 
 recognizes that there is even in the Matthean form 
 of this saying an eschatological tone which is incon- 
 sistent with such an interpretation. In its Lukan 
 context he finds here ^'nur eine bildliche Darstel- 
 lung des biKaiov das dem Urteil der Massen leider 
 bisher fehlt." But obscure as vs. 57 certainly is, 
 
 * See Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, p. 240. 
 
94 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 something more of a connection with what pre- 
 cedes is surely meant. The multitudes are told 
 in the preceding verses, 54-56, to interpret the signs 
 of the times as truly as they interpret the weather 
 signs. The best commentary on this saying is to 
 be found in Luke 11 : 29 ff. (Q). What is going on 
 in their midst, and especially the teaching of Jesus, 
 ought to warn them of the need of repentance. 
 Attention is directed to the judgment of God which 
 threatens them. Verse 57 seems to say that if they 
 examined their own conduct honestly they would 
 learn the same lesson. In their own affairs they 
 recognized the importance of making peace with an 
 adversary before the case progressed so far that 
 reconciliation was impossible. Taking, then, them- 
 selves as an example, they should use as much 
 concern in avoiding God's judgment as they would 
 in escaping the judgment of men. The obscurity 
 of the passage is largely due to the form of the 
 parable. It is given as a command, and the deeper 
 meaning is only implied by the pregnant atxi^v X^7w 
 cot. This is not necessarily against the original- 
 ity of the form here. All of Jesus' parables cannot 
 be conformed to the quiet, calm tone of the *'wise" 
 
Study of the Common Material 95 
 
 man. As it stands, it is not necessary to give an 
 allegorical interpretation to every feature. It can 
 still be a true parable though in this dramatic form. 
 The objections, therefore, which Jiilicher has pre- 
 sented against this Lukan position of Sec. 22 seem 
 exaggerated, and, as he himself acknowledges, 
 the position in Matthew is out of the question. 
 The eschatological tone demands a context differ- 
 ent from that of Matt. 5: 25 but like that of Luke, 
 chap. 12. It is also a recognized fact that Matt., 
 chaps. 5-7, is an editorial composition which raises 
 a natural presumption in favor of the Lukan loca- 
 tion. Now if Sec. 22 belongs in the connection 
 which Luke gives, then we may well believe that 
 Sec. 21 also stood in Q whether or not it stood in 
 Matthew also. 
 
 SECTION 24.^ PARABLES SHOWING THE HIDDEN 
 POWER OF THE KINGDOM, LUKE 13:18-21; 
 MATT. 13:31-33 
 
 These two parables were both found in Q by 
 Matthew and Luke. Luke has retained them 
 practically as they were in the source. Matthew 
 agrees with Luke verbally in the second, but has 
 
 * For Sec. 23, which is found only in Luke, see p. 170. 
 
96 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 combined Q and Mark in the first. In vs. 31, 
 ojLiota idTiv .... KbKK(jo (TLvaweois, 6j^ Xa^chv av- 
 dpoiTTOs . . . . ev TOO ayp(2 (?) avTov, and in vs. 32, 
 hivbpov . . . . ev rots /cXaSots avrov show the in- 
 fluence of Q. 
 
 SECTION 25. DISCOURSE ON THOSE WHO ARE TO 
 
 ENTER THE KINGDOM, LUKE 13:23-30; 
 
 MATT. 7:13, 14, 21-23; 8:11, 12 
 
 What Luke gives in one section is reflected at 
 least in these three different passages of Matthew. 
 Matt. 7:13, 14 is somehow related to Luke 13:23, 
 24. Matt. 7 : 21-23 shows a connection with Luke 
 13:256, 26, 27, and Matt. 8:11, 12 must be closely 
 related to Luke 11:28, 29. In the last case literary 
 evidence of a common source is conclusive. In 
 Matt. 7:21-23 there is clearly a conflation of two 
 conceptions.^ The one is that of the Sermon on the 
 Mount, which condemns those who make pro- 
 fessions and do not carry out the teachings in their 
 lives; and the other is a condemnation of those 
 who claim admittance to the kingdom because 
 of privileges they have enjoyed or powers they 
 
 * See above, p. 29. 
 
Study oj the Common Material 97 
 
 have shown. This latter conception is that of 
 Luke in the section before us. /cupte, which appar- 
 ently means only ^' teacher " in Luke 6 : 46, is escha- 
 tological in Matt. 7:21, as it is in Luke 13:256. 
 The relation between Luke 13:27 and Matt. 7:23 
 is close throughout. In Matthew, however, those 
 rejected base their claim upon the works they 
 have done in the name of Christ; the evangelist 
 still has the false prophets of 7 : 15 in mind. Luke, 
 on the other hand, contrasts the Jews who have had 
 the privilege of being with Jesus, and the Gentiles. 
 The form of Matthew is certainly secondary^ and 
 Luke's connection with 13 : 28, 29 may well be ori- 
 ginal. Inasmuch as this passage is an insertion in 
 Matthew, the probability that it was taken from 
 the Lukan context is increased. It is also impor- 
 tant that a few verses before this, in Matt. 7:13, 
 we have the eiaekdelv Slcl ttjs aTevrjs ttvKtis (Ovpas) 
 of Luke 13 : 24. The rest of Matt. 7 : 13, 14 might 
 be regarded as an adaptation of this saying to the 
 practical precepts of the Sermon on the Mount by 
 combining it with the common Jewish conception 
 of the two ways, the way of life and the way of 
 
 * Note also what is said below, p. 125. 
 
98 MaUhew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 death; but of this there will be more to say pres- 
 ently. That Matt. 7:13, 14, 21, 22 stood in some 
 source independent of their present connection 
 is certain, and, since they can be readily under- 
 stood on the basis that this evangelist had Luke 
 13:23-30 before him (allowing of course for 
 changes on the part of Luke), this gives us our 
 simplest and most natural hypothesis. The one 
 saying of Luke here omitted, 13 : 28, 29, is inserted 
 very aptly in connection with the incident imme- 
 diately following, Matt. 8:11, 12. This theory is 
 also strengthened by the fact that we have in these 
 scattered fragments of Matthew the order of Luke 
 still preserved. 
 
 But while we have good assurance that this 
 section stood in Q, the exact form of Q can only be 
 conjectured. The free use which Matthew has 
 made of this material renders it difficult to eliminate 
 the changes made by Luke. The problem is 
 whether Luke has combined three sayings, only 
 loosely connected in Q, into a closer unity or 
 whether all the changes have been made by 
 Matthew. In favor of the former it may be urged 
 that such loose connection, where the theme 
 
Study of the Common Material 99 
 
 remains the same, is not unknown in Q,' and the 
 separation into three different contexts on the part 
 of Matthew becomes more natural if this was the 
 case. Again attention has been called to the rela- 
 tionship between Luke 13:25, the verse which 
 forms a connecting link in Luke, and Matt. 25: 11, 
 12, the conclusion of the parable of the Ten Virgins. 
 The situation is similar in both cases, the closed 
 door, and some shut out who cry for admittance, 
 almost in the same words, Kupte [Kupte] avoi^ov rujuv. 
 In the reply at least one clause is common to both, 
 ovK oUa vfxas. But in Luke, chap. 13, it is a house- 
 holder and not a bridegroom, nor is there any 
 reference to the feast^ and the virgins. Luke's 
 familiarity with Matthew's parable of the Ten 
 Virgins can by no means be argued from this like- 
 ness, nor, on the other hand, are we justified in 
 arguing, with Wellhausen, that Matthew's parable 
 is only an amplification of this saying. The point 
 of contact is too slight. Still, it remains possible 
 
 * See especially Luke 1 2 : i ff , 
 
 'J. Weiss regards ^y^pdv as such a reference, but it only 
 emphasizes the act of shutting the door according to good 
 Semitic usage. 
 
loo Matthew^ s Sayings oj Jesus 
 
 that Luke has inserted this verse from the situation 
 described in some recension of the parable of the 
 Ten Virgins known to him, thinking that the same 
 situation was impHed here. Such editorial han- 
 dling of material is consistent with Luke's method, 
 as shown elsewhere, and seems, on the whole, an 
 easier explanation than to ascribe all the change to 
 Matthew. The probability then arises that Matt. 
 7:136, 14 is not to be explained on the basis of 
 Luke 13:24, but rather that Luke for the sake of 
 closer connection has changed ttuXt; to Bhpa and 
 generalized 7 : 13&, 14 into 13 : 246. According to 
 this view, Matthew, in his characteristic manner, 
 found in his discourses suitable settings for these 
 more or less independent sayings. But Luke, 
 under the influence of other tradition, gave the 
 sayings a new setting, which bound them into a 
 closer unity.^ 
 
 In Matt. 8:11, 12 and Luke 13:28, 29 it is im- 
 material which gives the true order of the clauses; 
 the sense is the same. The fact that ** there shall 
 
 ^ Wellhausen in his commentary prefers the Lukan form 
 throughout this section. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, I, 130, argues 
 for that of Matthew. See also Harnack, p. 67, and Jiilicher, Die 
 Gteichnisreden Jesu, II, 458. 
 
Study of the Common Material loi 
 
 be weeping and gnashing of teeth" has been 
 adopted by Matthew as a common concluding 
 clause, and that, therefore, he would be more in- 
 clined to treat it in the same way here, is of more 
 weight than all the evidence brought forth by 
 Harnack (p. 56) for the priority of Matthew. 
 Luke has the clause only here. More important 
 is Harnack's suggestion that e/c/JaXXcjueVous and 
 e^eXevaoPTai are not necessarily different transla- 
 tions of appeq. Luke may have made the change 
 with only the Greek e^eKevaovTai before him. 
 Luke 13:30 is an addition of the evangelist. It is 
 not likely that Matthew would have omitted it if 
 it stood in Q.' 
 
 .SECTION 26. LAMENT OVER FORSAKEN JERUSALEM, 
 LUKE 13:34,35; MATT. 23:37-39 
 
 For our present purpose we need only call atten- 
 tion to the close verbal resemblance which shows a 
 common source. eprjfjLos may be regarded as 
 original in the text of Matthew but it does not 
 belong to Q. 
 
 * See further Journal of Biblical Literature, 1906, Part II, 
 pp. 97 ff., article by F. C. Porter. 
 
I02 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 SECTION 27. FEARFUL COST OF DISCIPLESHIP, 
 LUKE 14:25-27 (28-35); MATT. 10:37,38 
 
 No striking verbal likeness is found here but a 
 close similarity in thought and logical sequence, 
 nor are the changes hard to understand. Re- 
 garded by itself alone it would be questionable 
 whether it belonged to Q, but when its position in 
 the two Gospels is considered the probability 
 becomes overwhelming.' In Luke, vs. 25 may well 
 be an editorial introduction, though it is very 
 appropriate here and its omission by Matthew was 
 necessary. Verse 26 seems to have been expanded 
 for the sake of completeness. The Semitic paral- 
 lelism of Matthew supports its claim to priority. 
 But Matthew has changed "is able to be my dis- 
 ciple'^ to "is worthy of me." aftos is a favorite 
 term of Matthew in this discourse, 10:10, 11, 13. 
 On the principle that we should accept the harder 
 reading, ixidel of Luke is preferable to the ^tXwj' 
 .... uTTcp e/xe of Matthew. 
 
 SECTION 28. MISCELLANEOUS SAYINGS 
 
 This group of almost isolated sayings we find 
 in Luke, chaps. 15, 16, 17, interspersed with inde- 
 »Seep. 1 18. 
 
Study of the Common Material 103 
 
 pendent material. In Matthew they are placed 
 in different, usually appropriate, contexts. The 
 degree of resemblance varies. 
 
 The parable of the Sheep, Luke 15:4-7; Matt. 
 18:12, 13, has apparently been adapted by Luke 
 to the situation he has created under the influence 
 of the parable of the Prodigal Son. Matthew, on 
 the other hand, has applied it to the problems of 
 church discipline. Of the two, certainly Luke 
 deserves the priority, for as we have seen Q was 
 deeply concerned in the importance of repentance. 
 No theme occurs there more frequently. But the 
 very fact that Matthew has interpreted it so differ- 
 ently would indicate that Luke 15:7, true to the 
 parable as it is, did not stand in his source. 
 Beneath these differences there is an even more 
 striking likeness; the essential features are the 
 same in both accounts and the ideas are presented 
 in the same sequence. This parable may, there- 
 fore, have stood in Q, but if it did it was in the 
 form which Luke gives rather than that of Matthew, 
 though Luke also has probably made minor linguis- 
 tic changes, such as epi]yL(j3 for opt), and t6 awoKuiKbs 
 for TO Tr\av6)fxepov. 
 
I04 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 God and Mammon, Luke 16:13; Matt. 6:24, 
 is another of this group of sayings; the unmistak- 
 able verbal likeness here shows that it belonged 
 toQ. 
 
 Storming the Kingdom, Luke 16:16; Matt. 11: 
 12, 13, is hardly a saying which would have been 
 long preserved except as it stood in writing. More- 
 over, the very difficulty of understanding it would 
 favor editorial change. Matthew has used it to 
 show that John the Baptist, while not in the king- 
 dom, was still the Elias whose coming would intro- 
 duce it. In Luke no plausible connection with its 
 context has as yet been proposed. The three say- 
 ings of 16:16, 17, 18 seem entirely out of place, 
 though they have a sort of unity in themselves, 
 each correcting a possible misinterpretation of the 
 other. That 16:16 does not mean that the law is 
 no longer of value is shown by 16:17, and 16:18 
 may be regarded as an illustration of the way in 
 which the law is still valid. Harnack has well said 
 that Luke and Matthew probably did not them- 
 selves understand what this saying meant. The 
 form in which Matthew gives it is the more diffi- 
 cult and on this account deserves the preference. 
 
Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 105 
 
 The similar passage in Edujoth viii, 7, quoted by 
 B. W. Bacon in the Expositor^ July, 1902, and by 
 Allen in his commentary on Matthew, indicates 
 how this obscure saying gives to the Baptist the 
 functions of the coming Elias and favors the 
 connection with Matt. 11:14. Luke may have 
 omitted Matt. 11:14 because he failed to see any 
 relation. It is also possible that he objected to the 
 idea. We note that he has omitted Mark 8:9-13. 
 
 Validity of the law, Luke 16:17; Matt. 5:18. 
 This time it is Luke who gives the saying in its 
 harder form. It may be that, as Harnack (p. 56) 
 suggests, this is due to later Hellenistic exaltation of 
 the Old Testament, but the literary evidence does 
 not oppose but favors the priority of Luke. The 
 two ecos av clauses in Matthew cannot possibly be 
 original. The simple, clear statement of Luke is 
 not secondary. Still, such a detail as Iwra Iv rj may 
 have been omitted by him. 
 
 Adultery, Luke 16:18; Matt. 5:32, is also to be 
 compared with Mark 10:11. Here if anywhere 
 in Luke is a case of conflation.^ Retaining the 
 form of Matt. 5:32 as far as possible, he gives 
 
 ^ So Harnack, p. 57. 
 
io6 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 it the sense of Mark io:ii. Of course, iraptKTos 
 \6yov iropvelas is an insertion of Matthew. 
 
 Giving Offense, Luke 17:1, 2; Matt. 18:6, 7. 
 Here we find the conflation on the part of Matthew, 
 as is more usual. Matt. 18:6 follows Mark 9:42, 
 though the expression cru/x^epet aurw tva probably 
 was taken from Q; for Luke's Xuo-treXet aurc? €t, 
 which has essentially the same meaning, is shown 
 to be an editorial change by the r) tva of the second 
 member of the adversative clauses in Luke. 
 Matt. 18:7 adds the thought of Q which was not 
 given in Mark. The first clause is inserted because 
 of the new position. 
 
 Forgiveness, Luke 17:3, 4; Matt. 18:15, 21, 22, 
 comes in both Gospels just after the foregoing 
 passage on giving offense. Literary relationship 
 here is wanting, but the Hkeness of thought is such 
 that when both evangehsts give the saying in the 
 same position a probability arises that this too 
 belonged in Q. Between vss. 15 and 21 Matthew 
 has inserted characteristic material on the theme 
 of Luke 17:3^, which may account in part for the 
 differences. A new introduction for Luke 17:4 
 was thus made necessary. Luke is himself fond of 
 interrogations from the disciples to emphasize 
 
Study of the Common Material 107 
 
 a teaching of Jesus, and it is therefore less probable 
 that he would have omitted the question of Peter, 
 Matt. 18:21, if it stood in Q. Harnack, however, 
 argues for the priority of Matthew because his text 
 is more Semitic. In fact, either form might be 
 original here, but Luke 17:3 is certainly to be 
 preferred to Matt. 18:15. 
 
 Faith, 'Luke 17:5, 6; Matt. 17:205, is inserted 
 by Matthew into a Markan context. There is some 
 literary likeness here: 
 
 Luke: 'Eav t\ryr€ ttiVtiv w? kokkov (rivaTrcws eXcycrc 
 Matt.: *Eav tXV^^ ttlcttlv ws kokkov crtvaTrcws ipcire 
 
 The Markan context of Matthew may be said 
 to favor the change of ''tree" to "mountain." 
 The possibility that this stood in Q is to be allowed. 
 If so, it forms an interesting parallel to Mark 1 1 : 23. 
 Two other sayings may properly be considered 
 here, because we have seen that they cannot be 
 original in the position which Luke gives them, 
 6:39, 40. The very fact that this is the only case 
 where we have found reason for doubting the Lukan 
 setting of a common saying is itself striking. 
 These verses have their parallel in Matt. 15:14; 
 10:25. Matt. 15:12-14 is generally recognized as 
 an insertion into the Markan discourse of 7 : 17-23. 
 
io8 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 If therefore neither evangelist has preserved the 
 original context, the conjecture suggests itself 
 that the parable stood originally in this miscella- 
 neous group of short sayings. Matthew and Luke 
 would then each have given it a different setting. 
 But if, as is probable, this was a current proverb, 
 the verbal likeness between the Gospels can be 
 accounted for without supposing any literary con- 
 nection. As for Luke 6:40; Matt. 10:25, more 
 can be said for the Matthean position. The pas- 
 sage is there in every way appropriate, the con- 
 nection with what follows is satisfactory. Still, if 
 Luke has here taken this saying out of the discourse 
 in which it stood in Q and has transferred it to 
 another, it is the only example of such transposition, 
 not only in this common material but in Mark 
 also. On the other hand, such changes are fre- 
 quent in Matthew and he shows the highest skill 
 in making them. The Sermon on the Mount is a 
 masterpiece of such combination. If any relation 
 is here to be assumed, this saying must also be 
 added to the miscellaneous group of this section. 
 Luke might have inserted an isolated saying into 
 6:40, but he would not have removed it from the 
 
Study of the Common Material 109 
 
 situation of Matt. 10:25 to insert it elsewhere. 
 The question arises again whether any literary- 
 connection at all is to be understood.^ 
 
 Luke 22:28-30; Matt. 19:28 have also been 
 compared and assigned to Q, but no common 
 literary source is here likely, unless this whole 
 passage of Luke be assigned to Q. Objections to 
 that will be considered later .^ 
 
 SECTION 29. THE WHEN AND THE WHERE OF THE 
 
 SON OF man's coming, LUKE 17:20-37; 
 
 MATT. 24:26-28,37-41 
 
 The presence of a common source is borne wit- 
 ness to by the following literary resemblance: 
 
 Luke: koX ipova-tv vfuv, iSov .... iBov , . . . , fJLTj 
 aTTikOyfc. fxrjSk .... 
 
 Matt.: 'Ecu/ .... ctTTwo-iv vfuv, iSov . . . . firj c^cA- 
 Or)T€, .... iSov .... fjit] .... 
 
 Luke: Sxnrep yap 17 dcTTpairr] .... €K , ... ciS 
 .... OVTa>5 t(TTLV 6 vl6<s TOV dv6p(i)7rov. 
 
 Matt.: wcnrep yap y da-rpaTrr) .... drro .... €a>s 
 .... o{)To>9 tarrat .... tov vlov tov dvBp<iiirov. 
 
 ^ It is interesting that another parallel to Matt. 10: 15 is found 
 in John 13:16. 
 
 * See below, pp. 157 f, and 179. 
 
no Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 InMatt. 24:386,39^,40, 28; Luke 17 127, 34, 35, 37 
 the verbal likeness is self-evident. 
 
 Matthew is probably more original in 24:26. 
 The idea of the Messiah hidden in the desert or 
 secret chambers would be intelligible to a Jew 
 but meaningless to gentile readers. Moreover, the 
 Lukan form is found just before this in 17:21 and 
 in Mark 13:21 also. So also in 24:27 Matthew's 
 form is more concrete, but whether 17 irapovaia is 
 original is more doubtful. Matthew alone of the 
 evangelists uses the word. It is found for the first 
 time in his introduction to this discourse, 24:3. 
 In 24 : 40 Matthew is again more true to the original 
 in retaining aypco for k\Ip7]s, the men in the field 
 are compared to the women at the mill. Luke has 
 sacrificed the parallelism in order to introduce 
 the night as well as the day and possibly also to 
 emphasize the closeness of those who are separated. 
 
 A more important question is whether we have 
 sufficient grounds for including in the discourse 
 anything which Luke alone gives. There is 
 certainly an antecedent probability that Matthew, 
 in combining this discourse with Mark, chap. 13, 
 might omit some things which seemed to him imma- 
 
Study of the Common Material iii 
 
 terial. We should expect him to leave out the 
 parallel reference to the days of Lot, which adds 
 nothing to the thought but which is appropriate 
 in Q, whose characteristic it is to present such 
 parallel illustrations. On the other hand, 17:31, 
 32 reads very much as if it were a further reflection 
 on the reference to Lot, influenced possibly by 
 Mark 13:15 fT.^ Luke 17:33 certainly seems to 
 be an addition here. Wendt argues that this is the 
 misplaced Q parallel to Mark 8:35 and that it is 
 found in its true position in Matt. 10:39; but this 
 rests upon the assumption that, because it occurs 
 twice in Matthew and Luke, it must have stood 
 both in Mark and Q. This is untenable.^ Luke 
 17 : 25, as Wellhausen has shown, ^ is very appropri- 
 ate in this context, and 7€^eas Tavr-qs reminds us 
 strongly of the section on a demand for signs, and 
 the conclusion to the woes on the Pharisees and 
 scribes. Matt. 12:38 ff.; chap. 23 (cf. also 11:16). 
 In regard to 17:20, 21 we can hope for nothing 
 
 ' Wellhausen reverses, making 17:31-33 original and 17: 28-30 
 an insertion. 
 
 ^ Other reasons for regarding this verse as secondary are given 
 on p. 203. 
 
 3 See Kom. Luk., in loc. 
 
112 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 conclusive. The saying is independent of what 
 follows, apart from the difference of address, which 
 may be merely editorial. However, it is not 
 unusual for Q to put independent sayings side 
 by side merely because they concern the same 
 general theme. Nor is the omission by Matthew 
 significant. The saying was not so important to 
 him as it is to us today. There is no sufficient 
 reason for denying that this stood in Q, but we can- 
 not positively affirm that it did. The thought of 
 the saying is not unlike that of the parables of the 
 Mustard Seed and the Leaven, Sec. 24. The pro- 
 verbial saying of Matt. 24:28; Luke 17:37 has its 
 true position in Matthew, not Luke. The ques- 
 tion with which Luke introduces it is suspicious. 
 The *' Where, Lord," has been answered in 17 : 23, 24 
 and is inserted here to bring the reader back to 
 the same situation. To Matthew the saying meant 
 either that, as certainly as the vultures gather about 
 the dead body, the disciples will find the Messiah 
 without signs or seeking;^ or, better, that the place 
 will reveal itself as the vultures betray where the 
 corpse is — when the time comes they will know.^ 
 
 "^ So Jiilicher. ' So Wellhausen. 
 
Study of the Common Material 113 
 
 Luke has removed the saying from its context 
 and given it an emphatic position at the end. 
 Can it be because he found some allegorical refer- 
 ence to the eagles in the Roman standard ? 
 
 SECTION 30. THE DUTY OF THE DISCIPLES UNTIL 
 
 THE SON OF MAN COMES, LUKE 19:11-28; 
 
 MATT. 25:14-30 
 
 This parable has taken very different forms 
 in the two Gospels, but the evidence for a common 
 source is only made the more striking thereby, 
 because common features in thought and language 
 are retained where they are no longer appropriate. 
 As JuUcher has shown, 
 
 Luke: Apare cItt' avrov rrjv fxvav kol Sore tw Ta<; SiKa 
 Matt.: Apare ovv citt' avrov to rdXavTov kol 86t€ T(o 
 
 Luke: /xvas tx^vn 
 
 Matt.: €\ovTL Tot SeKtt rdXavTa 
 
 is quite out of place after Luke 19:17, *'Wie 
 kindlich ware der Hinweis auf seinen Besitz von 
 750 Mark wenn er Verwalter einer Provinz ge- 
 worden war."^ In like manner the mention of 
 just three servants in Luke 19:15 ff. after ten are 
 
 * Julicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, p. 493. 
 
114 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 introduced in 19:13 reveals the influence of the 
 common source. Any synopticon makes it clear 
 that we have to do with material having a liter- 
 ary relationship in Matt. 25:24-29; Luke 19:21- 
 24, 26. 
 
 It is evident also that Matthew has adhered 
 more closely to his source than has Luke. The 
 only verse of Matthew which we can be sure is an 
 editorial insertion is vs. 30; but vss. 16-18 are 
 superfluous and may also have been added. The 
 expression *' enter thou into the joy of thy Lord" 
 is most naturally interpreted as a reference to the 
 future messianic hope, but, inasmuch as both 
 evangelists recognize this element, there is no 
 reason for denying that it stood in Q. However, 
 as Jiilicher says, it was only incidental there. ^ 
 
 Luke has converted the householder into an 
 aspirant for the throne. The experience of differ- 
 ent members of the Herodian family undoubtedly 
 suggested this application. Luke intended thereby 
 to set forth the future coming of Christ, emphasiz- 
 ing the delay which will intervene. Verses 11, 12^, 
 14, 15 {\aP6vTa T7]v ^aaCkdav), 17, 19 (the ten and 
 
 «0/>. aV., p. 481. 
 
Study of the Common Material 115 
 
 the five cities), 27, 28 are therefore to be regarded 
 as editorial. There is hardly sufficient reason for 
 saying that Luke has here conflated two parables 
 and for identifying the king here with the king in 
 Matthew's parable of the Wedding Feast, Matt. 
 22:11 ff.' As soon as any attempt was made to 
 allegorize the parables of Jesus, nothing was more 
 natural than to introduce king and kingdom. 
 Luke's account is, however, to be preferred in its 
 use oi^iva iorrhXavTov. Whether in the source the 
 money was distributed equally, or, as Matthew 
 says, "according to the ability of each, " can hardly 
 be decided. Both Jiilicher and Harnack prefer the 
 Matthean form for different reasons. Luke 19:25 
 is one of those interrogations whose insertion is 
 characteristic of Luke. It is surely secondary here. 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 We have now completed the list of passages in 
 which we have sufficient evidence of a written 
 Greek source underlying both Matthew and Luke, 
 allowing of course the probability that either 
 evangelist may preserve some things omitted by 
 
 ' So Hamack, p. 125. 
 
ii6 Matthew* s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 the other. In regard to the parable of the Great 
 Feast, Matt. 22:2-11; Luke 14:16-24, which 
 critics used to assign to this source, the relation 
 there between the two Gospels is not such as would 
 indicate a common written source. All literary 
 resemblance has disappeared. The similarity is 
 just such as we should expect to arise from a com- 
 mon oral tradition. While of course it cannot be 
 categorically denied that this incident stood in 
 Q, we may still venture to assert that it probably 
 did not. 
 
 The following table will summarize the results 
 of the preceding discussion: 
 
 Section 
 
 1. Preaching of John the Baptist 
 
 Luke 3 : 7-9, 16&-1 7 Matt. 3:7-12 
 
 2. Temptation of Jesus 
 
 Luke 4 : 1-13 Matt. 4 : i-i la 
 
 3. Discourse on Love, the Principle of Conduct 
 
 Luke 6:20-23, 27-33, Matt. 5:3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 
 
 35-38, 41-49 39,40; 5:44-48; 7:1-5, 
 
 12, 18, 19, 22, 24-27 
 
 4. Commendation of a Centurion's Faith 
 
 Luke 7:1-10 Matt. 7:28a; 8:5-10, 13 
 
 5. Discourse on John the Baptist 
 
 Luke 7: 18, 19, 22-28,31-35 Matt. 11:2-11, 16-19 
 
Study of the Common Material 117 
 
 Section 
 
 6. Following Jesus 
 
 Luke 9: 57-60 (61, 62) Matt. 8:19-22 
 
 7. Commission to the Disciples (Matthew has here com- 
 
 bined Mark and Q) 
 Luke 10:1-12 Matt. 9:37, 38; 10:5-16 
 
 8. Woes on the Cities Which Fail to Respond 
 
 Luke 10:13-16 Matt. 11:21-24 
 
 (9. Return of the Disciples 
 Luke 10:17-20) 
 
 10. Jesus' Self-Revelation to His Disciples 
 
 Luke 10:21-22 Matt. 11:25-27 
 
 11. Prophets' Desire for What the Disciples Have Seen 
 
 Luke 10:23-24 Matt. 13:16, 17 
 
 12. Prayer, Promise to the Disciples of Divine Help 
 
 Luke 11:1-4 (5-9) , 9-13 Matt. 6 : 9-13 ; 7:7-11 
 
 13. Calumny of the Pharisees (Matthew has here com- 
 
 bined Mark and Q) 
 Luke 11:14-23 Matt. 9:336; 12:22-30 
 
 14. Seven Other Spirits 
 
 Luke 11:24-26 Matt. 12:43-45 
 
 15. Demand for a Sign from Heaven 
 
 Luke 11:29-32, 34a, Matt. 12:38, 39, 41, 42 
 
 35,36 
 
 16. Woes on the Pharisees, the Scribes, and This Genera- 
 
 tion (Matthew has here combined Mark and Q) 
 Luke 11:39-44, 46-54 Matt. 23:4, 6, 13, 15, 23, 
 
 25,27-32,34-36 
 
ii8 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 Section 
 
 17. Warnings of Danger with Assurances of God's Care 
 
 Luke 12:16-12 Matt. 10: (24, 25) 26-33 
 
 18. Instructions to Seek the Kingdom 
 
 Luke 12:22-24 Matt. 6:19-21, 25-34 
 
 19. Parables Teaching Need of Watchfuhiess 
 
 Luke 12: (35-38) 39-46 Matt. 24:42-51 
 
 20. Warning of a Period of Strife and Disaster 
 
 Luke 12: (49, 50) 51-53 Matt. 10:34-36 
 
 21. Signs of the Times and the Need of Repentance 
 
 Luke 12:54-56 Matt. (16:26, 3) 
 
 22. The Approaching Judgment 
 
 Luke 12:57-59 Matt. 5:25, 26 
 
 (23. Call to Repentance 
 Luke 13:1-9) 
 
 24. Parables on the Kingdom 
 
 Luke 13:18-21 Matt. 13:31-33 
 
 25. Discourse on Those Who Are to Enter the Kingdom 
 
 Luke 13:23-29 Matt. 7:13, 14, 21-23; 
 
 8:11, 12 
 
 26. Lament over Forsaken Jerusalem 
 
 Luke 13:34, 35 Matt. 23:37-39 
 
 27. Fearful Cost of Discipleship 
 
 Luke 14:25-27 (28-35) Matt 10:37, 38 
 
 28. Miscellaneous Sayings: 
 
 Lost Sheep 
 Luke 15:4-7 (8-10) Matt. 18:10-14 
 
 God and Mammon 
 Luke 16:13 Matt. 6:24 
 
Study of the Common Material 119 
 
 Section 
 
 Storming the Kingdom 
 Luke 16:16 Matt. 11:12, 13 
 
 Validity of the Law 
 Luke 16:17 Matt. 5:18 
 
 Adultery 
 Luke 16:18 Matt. 5:32 
 
 Giving Offense (Matthew has combined Mark and Q) 
 Luke 17:1, 2 Matt. 18:6, 7 
 
 Forgiveness 
 Luke 17:3, 4 Matt. 18:15, 21 
 
 Faith 
 
 Luke 17:5, 6 Matt. 17:20 
 
 (Luke 17:7-10 Matt. 5:14; 7:6; 13:44- 
 
 46; 18:10) 
 
 29. When and Where of the Son of Man's Coming 
 
 Luke 17: (21, 20) 22-30, Matt. 24:26-28, 37-41 
 34-37 
 
 30. Duty of the Disciples until the Son of Man Comes 
 
 (Luke has here recast the narrative) 
 Luke 19:11-27 Matt. 25:14, 15, 19-29 
 
 The evidence seems sufficient to show that in 
 each of these sections Matthew and Luke are 
 using a common source or sources written in Greek. 
 Some passages found only in one Gospel are here 
 added in parentheses for the sake of completeness. 
 They will be discussed later. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE SEQUENCE OF PARALLEL SECTIONS IN 
 MATTHEW AND LUKE 
 
 Merely to have shown the evidence of a common 
 source in these various sections, which are neces- 
 sarily separated on a somewhat arbitrary basis, is 
 not sufficient. If the contention is really to be 
 maintained that behind this material is a single 
 common source, as behind the Markan material 
 stands the source Mark, the disposal which each 
 evangelist has made of these sections must be 
 satisfactorily explained. 
 
 First, however, attention should be directed to 
 the number of sections which stand in the same 
 sequence in both Gospels: 
 
 Section 
 
 1. Preaching of John the Baptist 
 
 Luke 3:7-17 Matt. 3:7-12 
 
 2. Temptation of Jesus 
 
 Luke 4:1-13 Matt. 4:1-11 
 
 3. Discourse on Love 
 
 Luke 6:20-49 Matt. 5, 7 (in part) 
 
 4. Centurion's Act of Faith 
 
 Luke 7:1-10 Matt. 8:5-13 
 
 120 
 
Sequence of Parallel Sections 121 
 
 Section 
 
 6. Following Jesus 
 
 Luke 9:57-62 Matt. 8:19-22 
 
 7. Commission to the Disciples 
 
 Luke 10:1-12 Matt. 9:37 — 10:16 
 
 8. Woes on Galilean Cities 
 
 Luke 10 : 13-16 Matt. 1 1 : 20-24 
 
 10. Jesus' Self-Revelation 
 
 Luke 10:21, 22 Matt. 11:25-27 
 
 13. Calumny of the Pharisees 
 
 Luke 11:14-23 Matt. 12:22-32 
 
 15. Demand for a Sign from Heaven 
 
 Luke 11:29-36 Matt. 12:38-42 
 
 16. Woes on Pharisees, etc. 
 
 Luke 11:37-54 Matt. 23 (in part) 
 
 26. Lament over Jerusalem 
 
 Luke 13:34, 35 Matt. 23:37-39 
 
 29. When and Where of Son of Man's Coming 
 
 Luke 17:20-37 Matt. 24:26-28, 37:41 
 
 30. Disciples' Duty until Future Coming 
 
 Luke 19:11-28 Matt. 25:14-30 
 
 Two sections of the thirty, Sees. 9 and 23, are of 
 course to be omitted from consideration, because 
 they are found only in Luke. This means that 
 in fourteen out of the twenty-eight sections, com- 
 mon to both Gospels, there is not only a likeness of 
 thought and language, but the sections themselves 
 
122 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 stand in the same relative position. Again, a 
 trace of the Lukan order sometimes remains in 
 Matthew's composite discourses. A striking con- 
 firmation of our theory is found in Matt., chap. lo, 
 for there, evidently, Matthew has gathered together 
 instructions to the disciples which are scattered in 
 Luke through various sections; but Matthew in 
 'Combining them has retained all these sayings in 
 their original sequence : 
 
 Sec. 7 Matt. 9:37 — 10: i6=Luke 10:1-12 
 17 10:26-33 = 12:2-9 
 
 20 10:34-36 = 12:51-53 
 
 27 10-37,38 = 14:25-27 
 
 How significant this is of that evangelist's method 
 of compilation! Sec. 25 is also instructive from 
 this standpoint. Luke 13:23, 24 = Matt. 7:13; 
 Luke 13:26, 27 = Matt. 7:226, 23; Luke 13: 
 28, 29 = Matt. 8:11, 12. The same sequence ap- 
 pears in both Gospels. Such resemblances as 
 these are not accidental; they are a strong con- 
 firmation of the whole theory of a common 
 source Q. 
 
 But there are differences for which we must 
 account. If this material comes from Q either 
 
Sequence oj Parallel Sections 123 
 
 Matthew or Luke has transposed parts of it. If 
 again we call to mind the results of our observation 
 in Markan material, the strong presumption is 
 created that such changes are for the most part due 
 to Matthew. This is sufficient justification for 
 using the sequence of Luke as the basis for further 
 study. 
 
 For differences of sequence within the various 
 sections we need only refer to the detailed dis- 
 cussions which have preceded. But, reviewing to 
 get the data all before us, we found that in Sec. 2 
 Luke had changed the order of one temptation; 
 in Sec. 3 slight changes were made by Matthew; 
 in Sec. 7 the position of Luke 10:3 had been 
 changed by Luke, but Matthew, compiling Mark 
 and Q, had removed 10:7= Luke 10 : 96 and 10 : loh 
 = Luke 10:76; in Sec. 15 Luke had inverted the 
 order of 11:31 and 11:32; in Sec. 16 the original 
 sequence could not be determined with any cer- 
 tainty. Inasmuch as Matthew evidently con- 
 flated here, most of the changes were attributed 
 to him, but the probability has been suggested that 
 Luke inverted the last two woes. In Sec. 18 
 Matthew has changed the position of 6:19-21; 
 
124 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 in Sec. 25 he has inverted 8:11 and 8:12; but in 
 Sec. 29 the Matthean position of 24:28 is to be 
 preferred to that of Luke. Sec. 28 cannot be 
 considered here, for it is not a unit. Reference 
 ought, however, to be made to Luke 12 : 10 and 12 : 
 II, 12. Matthew's position for these sayings is, as 
 we have seen, determined by his preference for 
 Mark. Changes within the various sections were 
 made by both evangehsts for editorial reasons, and 
 when we consider the nature of the material they 
 are surprisingly few. They total only twenty-one 
 verses in material amounting to over two hundred 
 verses. 
 
 Let us turn now to those differences which more 
 immediately concern us here. Where Matthew 
 and Luke do not put common material in the same 
 general context can we depend upon the order of 
 Luke, or must we here also allow for changes made 
 by both evangehsts ? Does Luke divide discourses 
 into fragments or does Matthew combine short 
 sayings and groups of sayings into longer dis- 
 courses ? We know that the latter is true, but it 
 remains to be shown whether this is always the 
 case. 
 
Sequence of Parallel Sections 125 
 
 Wernle^ refers to the saying of Luke 13 : 28, 29, 
 which he says Luke has separated from its context 
 in Sec. 4 and put later because he regarded the 
 words as too sharp against Israel for this early 
 period. Wernle must have forgotten the rejection 
 at Nazareth, which Luke placed at the very begin- 
 ning of the Galilean ministry. On the other hand, 
 the position which Matthew gave this saying is 
 readily understood if he had Sec. 25 before him as 
 it stood in Luke.' 
 
 Sec. 8, Woes on Galilean cities ^ seems to be 
 differently placed in Matthew and Luke, but it is 
 really in the same relative position in both Gospels; 
 the only difference is that Matthew has omitted the 
 return of the disciples which follows it in Luke 
 and inserted Sec. 5, the Discourse on John the 
 Baptist, before it. That Matthew himself read 
 Sec. 8 immediately after Sec. 7 is confirmed by the 
 repetition of the Lukan introductory sentence, 
 Matt. 11:24 = Luke 10:12. Examining this differ- 
 ence from the standpoint of Sec. 5, we come to the 
 same conclusion. Matthew felt constrained to 
 give this section a later context, not only because 
 
 I Die synoptische Frage, p. 89. ' See above, pp. 96 ff. 
 
126 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 it did not properly belong to his miracle chapters 8 
 and 9, but because the reference to the wonderful 
 works of Jesus demanded a later position in a 
 Gospel which pretended to give a record of such 
 works. This argument is supported by the fact 
 that Luke felt the same difficulty, but, instead of 
 changing the position of the section, he prefaced 
 the raising of the widow's son and added a notice 
 of Jesus' other wonderful works editorially. It 
 is true that this discourse might still have come 
 before chap. lo in Matthew as well as after it. 
 The reason why Matthew put it just where he did 
 may be because of the connection he found between 
 11:19 and the woes on the Galilean cities. That 
 wisdom is justified of her works will be revealed in 
 the woes awaiting the cities in which these works 
 were done. 
 
 Sec. II in Luke is an epilogue to Christ's self- 
 revelation, 10:21, 22; in Matthew it is included in 
 the chapter on parables. Luke's omission of it 
 there is supported by Mark. It seems to take the 
 place of Mark 4: 13, praising them instead of blam- 
 ing them. The context given this saying in Luke 
 is surely as appropriate as the one in Matthew, 
 
Sequence of Parallel Sections 127 
 
 and the probability arises that Matthew, because of 
 his insertion of that beautiful saying of Jesus, 
 "Take my yoke upon you," omitted the original 
 conclusion here and added it at the next suitable 
 place. One can hardly believe that Luke would 
 have omitted Matt. 11:28-30 if he had read it 
 here. 
 
 Sec. 12, nearly all critics agree, was not originally 
 a part of the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 
 must have found it somewhere else and combined 
 it with that discourse. No reasonable objection 
 appears why he may not have found it in the posi- 
 tion which it has in Luke. Luke has retained it 
 in its original context; Matthew has woven it into 
 his Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 Sec. 14 Matthew has placed after Sec. 15; 
 Luke, before. Matthew has sought to justify his 
 sequence by the editorial addition of 12:456. 
 Jiilicher,^ seeking for an interpretation of this 
 parable, finds it in its connection with Luke 11 : 23. 
 But even if his interpretation be not accepted, 
 the position of the parable for which he argues is 
 certainly original. He makes it clear that Matthew 
 
 » Op. cit., p. 238. 
 
128 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 is here secondary. Moreover, it is to be noticed 
 that just where this parable appears in Luke, 
 Matthew inserted the sayings from Mark about 
 the sin against the Holy Spirit, and also the parable 
 of the Tree and Its Fruit. This may in part, at 
 least, account for his postponing this parable of the 
 Seven Other Spirits. That he has not found a 
 more appropriate place is only because he did not 
 himself understand it. Our reasons for considering 
 that Matt. 12:33-37 is not original here have 
 already been given.^ In Sec. 15 the two verses 
 of Luke 11:34-36, which Matthew included in 
 the Sermon on the Mount, have already been 
 discussed. As we have seen, it is doubtful whether 
 Matthew in 6 : 22, 23 is following Q at all. If he is, 
 the Lukan context is still the more probable.^ 
 
 Sees. 17, 20, 27 are combined by the first evan- 
 gelist with the other instructions to the disciples in 
 chap. 10; and the discourse on the relation of the 
 kingdom to the world. Sec. 18, belongs properly 
 in the great discourse of chaps. 5-7, as Matthew 
 has conceived it. In all of these sections 
 Matthew's position can be explained on the basis 
 
 * See above, pp. 61 f. ' See p. 66. 
 
Sequence of Parallel Sections 129 
 
 of Luke's, but the context they have in Luke can- 
 not be understood on the basis of the Matthean 
 context. 
 
 Sees. 19 and 29 are combined by Matthew with 
 the corresponding material of Mark. In Luke they 
 are independent of Mark and in all probability 
 preserved in their original sequence. Wernle 
 argues that the separation of Sec. 19 and Sec. 29 
 shows Luke's tendency to scatter sayings of Q. 
 But there is no evidence in the context of Luke 17 : 
 20 if. to indicate that Luke has purposely separated 
 this from 12:35 ff.; ^^d, as we shall try to show, 
 there is a strong probability that in Q between 
 these two sections there stood only material similar 
 in tone. At any rate, Matthew, who is simply 
 inserting this material into appropriate contexts 
 of Mark, gives us no reason for believing that he 
 found a differently arranged text in Q from that 
 of Luke. 
 
 Sees. 21, 22 have already been fully considered.^ 
 There can be no choice between the positions given 
 them by Matthew and Luke. If Sec. 21 stood 
 in Matthew it was conflated with Mark. Sec. 22 
 
 * See pp. 90 ff . 
 
130 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 Matthew has woven into the Sermon on the 
 Mount, where its eschatological tone is out of 
 place. Sec. 24 Matthew has simply inserted into 
 a Markan context from which it is kept independent 
 by Luke. Sec. 25 has already been sufficiently 
 explained.^ No one who grants that Matthew 
 and Luke found this section in Q will question the 
 priority of its position in Luke. The insertion 
 of portions of it into the Sermon on the Mount is 
 surely secondary. 
 
 Sec. 26 is made by Matthew a part of his con- 
 clusion of the woes upon the scribes and Pharisees. 
 Everyone recognizes that it is thoroughly in the 
 spirit of Jesus thus to close the denunciation, but 
 the critic must also recognize that the appropriate- 
 ness of this depends upon the situation in which 
 Matthew placed these woes. This situation, how- 
 ever, comes from Mark and not from Q. His- 
 torically also it is improbable that these woes 
 should have been spoken in Jerusalem at the close 
 of Jesus' ministry when his foes were the priestly 
 authorities more than the Pharisees. It is in the 
 Galilean ministry that the Pharisees are empha- 
 
 * See pp. 96 ff . 
 
Sequence of Parallel Sections 131 
 
 sized. The evidence that Matt. 23:34-36 is a 
 widsom quotation and not a direct word of Jesus, 
 and therefore this saying could not propefly follow 
 it, is, as Harnack shows (p. 169), inconclusive. 
 Still, it adds to the improbabiHty of the Matthean 
 connection. Matthew is no doubt correct in 
 putting this saying during Jesus' sojourn in Jerusa- 
 lem. Luke's independent saying, 19:41, gives 
 us something similar for that period and the saying 
 is surely more appropriate in Jerusalem than else- 
 where. We have here the same phenomenon 
 that has been shown before. Matthew has trans- 
 posed a saying to a suitable Markan context; 
 Luke has left it where it was, but used independent 
 material as an appropriate historical introduction. 
 The author of Q thought only of the teaching and 
 the topical connection between Sec. 25 and Sec. 26.^ 
 There remains only Sec. 28, that group of frag- 
 mentary sayings which we find almost isolated 
 in Luke. This has always been one of the great 
 puzzles of that Gospel, but surely the critic who 
 
 * Geographical references are not given by Q, but if, as we shall 
 try to show, Sec, 23 belongs to that source, we have before this a 
 saying where a Jerusalem background is implied. See further, 
 p. 170. 
 
132 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 suggests that Luke removed these verses from 
 the plausible contexts which they have in Mat- 
 thew only adds to the difficulty. We must try 
 to explain them on the basis of Luke. Matthew's 
 disposal of them is then readily understood. He 
 has only done here what we find he had done 
 everywhere else. 
 
 What is the result of this examination? Does 
 it not fully confirm what we have learned of Luke's 
 habits in investigating Markan material? He 
 adheres closely to the order of topics in his source. 
 In no case have we found evidence that the position 
 he gave a section was secondary to that in Matthew 
 unless the proverbial saying of 6:40 be such an 
 exception.^ If so, it ought to be regarded only as 
 the exception which proves the rule. Proof that 
 the order of Luke is throughout that of the source 
 has not been given, but his priority to Matthew has 
 been made clear, and this establishes a presumption 
 in favor of the Lukan sequence. It has long been 
 recognized that in the study of Matthew's Sermon 
 on the Mount Luke should be made the basis. It 
 is time to appreciate also that in the whole question 
 
 ^ See above, p. 107. 
 
Sequence of Parallel Sections 133 
 
 of their second common source Luke and not 
 Matthew is the key.^ Matthew is of special value 
 in determining the text and details, but of only 
 secondary importance in our search for broader 
 outlines. Even in details Luke has shown unusual 
 care in this source, and Matthew's priority cannot 
 be so frequently assumed as Harnack would make 
 us believe. But Harnack, who in every case 
 where he has any doubt gives the preference to the 
 text of Matthew, himself says, ^'Tendenzen haben 
 also bei Lukas nicht starker gewirkt als bei Mat- 
 thaus, ja sogar etwas schwacher."^ 
 
 That Luke in his two great interpolations, 
 chaps. 6 ff. and 9:51 ff., has inserted Q practically 
 in the order which he found it, has been shown 
 to be a good working hypothesis. Historical sit- 
 uations are created usually by the insertion of 
 foreign material, sometimes by simple editorial 
 notes ; the greater part of the whole source is fitted 
 into the scheme of a last journey to Jerusalem, 
 
 * H. von Soden, J, H. Moulton, and F, C. Burkitt are among 
 those who have recognized this. I regret that I have not had 
 access to the book of Dr. Armitage Robinson, quoted by F. C. 
 Burkitt, The Gospel History and Transmission, p. 131. 
 
 2 See p. 79. The English translation, p. 115, is obscure. 
 
134 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 9:51,53; 10:1; 13:22^; 17:11, but the material 
 itself refuses to conform to such an itinerary. The 
 topical sequence of sayings is also broken by inci- 
 dents in Luke which are not found in Matthew. 
 When we study the relation of Q to the independent 
 material of Luke, we shall find these principles of 
 method abundantly illustrated. The significant 
 thing to us at present is that this method did not 
 involve any serious changes in sequence, so that 
 behind his historical notes the original plan of ar- 
 rangement can still be discerned. It is for this that 
 the modern scholar should be profoundly grateful. 
 From the standpoint of practical usefulness the 
 method of Matthew is much to be preferred. 
 
 How now has Matthew treated his source? 
 Instead of trying to conjecture a context for a 
 group of sayings without any introduction, he 
 always did one of two things — he either fitted them 
 into some context supplied by Mark, Sees, i, 2, 
 3, 6,^ 7, II, 13, 16, 19, 2i(?), 24, 28 (17:20; 18:6, 
 7), 29; or grouped them into a larger discourse, 
 
 * That Sec. 6 should come before the sending out of the dis- 
 ciples is simply due to its position in Q, but that it should come 
 just where it does in 8: 19 is probably because in Jesus' crossing 
 the sea to the other side Matthew found the appropriate situation 
 
Sequence of Parallel Sections 135 
 
 Sees. 12, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28. The other 
 sections, 4, 8, 10, 15, 30, have simply been left 
 where they were in the source. Sees. 5 and 14 
 have had their positions slightly changed, for 
 reasons already given. It is also to be noticed that 
 in carrying out this plan the original sequence was 
 retained as much as possible. In combining with 
 Mark, he very often preserved the order of Q, 
 and we have already shown how he did this in the 
 discourse of chap. 10. Considering the nature of 
 this material, Matthew's method is more natural 
 and appropriate than that of Luke, and to anyone 
 but the modern historian more satisfactory. The 
 plan is carried out with great skill. Wherever 
 Matthew fully understood a passage, the context 
 which he gave it was suitable. This is only to be 
 expected, for the men who wrote the Gospels were 
 all men of ability, not bunglers. We should also 
 remember that this hypothesis, by which we would 
 explain the variations of Matthew and Luke in 
 Q, is in full accord with what we should expect these 
 
 for the offer of the scribe to go with Jesus wherever he went. 
 Luke, however, finds the appropriate situation in Jesus' journey 
 through Samaria to Jerusalem, 9:51. Both evangelists connect 
 it with going upon heathen soil. 
 
136 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 evangelists to do after examining their treatment of 
 Mark. The same principles apply in both cases, 
 though the nature of the material justified Matthew 
 in carrying the principle of regrouping much 
 further in Q than he did in Mark. Indeed, he has 
 made Mark the basis for rearranging Q. 
 
 Only a few years ago Harnack's treatise 
 appeared, and demands fuller consideration from 
 us as the latest attempt by a great scholar to 
 explain these variations on the basis of Matthew. 
 Following Wernle, he begins with Matthew and 
 attributes all variations to Luke which he possibly 
 can. But even he feels compelled to qualify the 
 statement of Wernle that "almost everywhere 
 Matthew has preserved a better text than Luke," 
 with the correction, "doch hatte er hinzufugen 
 mlissen dass sich bei Matthaus einige sehr schwere 
 Eingriffe in den Text finden wie sie sich Lukas nicht 
 erlaubt hat." He accepts, however, the principle 
 of Wernle that in Luke we have an " Umsetzung der 
 Reden in Erzahlungen " and even in the sequence of 
 the sayings makes Matthew his basis. The result is 
 that Sec. 4 of his second chapter is the weakest 
 section in the book. The need of making Luke our 
 
Sequence of Parallel Sections 137 
 
 basis cannot be shown to better advantage than 
 by examining this discussion. 
 
 Harnack recognizes, as everyone must, that 
 up to and including the centurion of Capernaum 
 incident the order is the same. He also notices that 
 the instructions to the disciples are given in the 
 same sequence in both Gospels, though in Luke 
 they are distributed,^ and then he says: "It is at 
 the same time shown that these sections, which are 
 indeed closely allied in the subject-matter, were not 
 at first brought together by Matthew, but that in 
 Q they stood in the same order of succession as 
 that of the First Gospel; for it is clear that Luke 
 also found them in this order. It is noteworthy 
 that this evangelist has distributed them through- 
 out chaps. 9, 10, 12, 14, 17 without altering their 
 order of succession."^ So noteworthy is it, in fact, 
 as to seem impossible. No motive is apparent; 
 it is done from pure arbitrariness. Luke never 
 treated Mark in this way; why should it be 
 assumed that he did so with Q, which he evidently 
 
 * The present writer had already mentioned this likeness in a 
 paper before the Society of Biblical Literature in New York, 
 December, 1906. 
 
 »Seep. 175. 
 
138 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 regarded with even more reverence? On the 
 other hand, how perfectly natural that Matthew 
 should desire to group together all instructions to 
 his disciples, just as he grouped together the 
 miracles of Mark, and that in so doing he should 
 simply add them one to the other in the sequence 
 in which he found them. 
 
 Then Harnack goes on to say that in Q the 
 discourse on John the Baptist followed the send- 
 ing out of the disciples. Why? ^'Because it has 
 been proved that Matthew and not Luke has 
 reproduced the arrangement of the source in 
 (Matt.) chaps. 8-10." The proof in question is 
 that which we have quoted above. The evidence 
 we previously presented for the Lukan position of 
 this discourse in Q is independent of either theory 
 regarding the common sequence of the instructions 
 to the disciples in Matthew and Luke. 
 
 Harnack points to the Lukan sequence of 
 Secs.^ 13, 15, 16, 19, 26, 28 (17:3, 4), 29, 30 (only 
 the last sentence, Luke 19:26, is assigned by him 
 to Q) and maintains that every difference from 
 Matthew in order is due to Luke's changes. Luke 
 
 ^ Hamack's sections are so similar to those used in this dis- 
 cussion that for the sake of convenience the same numbers are 
 used here as elsewhere. His numbers are different. 
 
Sequence oj Parallel Sections 139 
 
 arbitrarily separated the Lament over Jerusalem 
 from the Woes on the Pharisees. It is he who 
 separated Sec. 19 from Sec. 29 and put the sec- 
 ond part first. No attempt is made to say why 
 Luke 17:3, 4 is differently placed. In fact it is 
 acknowledged that the position of the seventeen 
 concluding sayings (according to his arrangement) 
 cannot be explained at all. Besides this, he says 
 of all of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount which 
 Luke has not retained in 6 : 20 ff ., *^ this is hopeless." 
 If he had closed with an explicit confession of fail- 
 ure in the whole attempt, it would certainly have 
 been appropriate. 
 
 While one can never hope to know just why 
 Matthew made each combination with Mark and 
 each regrouping of sayings just as he did, plausible 
 reasons can always be suggested. It is never so 
 hopeless an. inquiry as have been all attempts 
 to find grounds for the transference and division 
 of material which the critics have attributed to 
 Luke. Nor can we always know just why Luke 
 in each case adopted the historical setting which 
 he did; but at least we can show that his treatment 
 of the material is reasonable and natural. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 UNITY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE COMMON 
 MATERIAL IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 
 
 Wendt's reconstruction of Q has been called "A 
 heap of interesting ruins without beginning, with- 
 out ending." Almost as much might be said of 
 the source which Harnack has found. The sem- 
 blance of order which he gives is reached only by- 
 omitting a large portion of the material. Has 
 the Q which we have attempted to reconstruct any 
 self-consistency? Can we imagine its having 
 existed alone ? 
 
 Examining once more these sections in the order 
 which Luke gives them we find that Sees, i and 2 
 form a natural introduction. The resemblance 
 here to Mark at once impresses us. Mark also 
 began with the Baptist and his preaching. The 
 likeness to Mark becomes yet closer when we 
 recognize that the account of the temptation cannot 
 have stood alone. Some reference to the baptism 
 and the voice from heaven must have preceded. 
 But Matthew and Luke have here followed Mark, 
 
 140 
 
Unity of Common Material 141 
 
 so that we can no longer know what account Q 
 gave of the baptism. It is possible that the bap- 
 tismal words, *'Thou art my son, this day have I 
 begotten thee," which are found in the Old Latin 
 MSS of Luke and in so many Church Fathers, are 
 a trace of Q. One naturally asks whether this 
 account of John the Baptist's preaching and of 
 Jesus' baptism and temptation gives an appropriate 
 introduction to a writing which deals primarily with 
 teachings ? While Q in no sense seeks to preserve 
 a chronological order, we shall see that in broad 
 outlines there is a recognition of the sequence the 
 teachings had in Jesus' life. A collection that 
 closed with eschatological teachings might properly 
 start with material attached to the beginning of 
 Jesus' ministry. The purpose which this intro- 
 duction serves is evident: it presents the divine 
 commission and power of the Jesus whose sayings 
 are to be given. Although Sec. i retains the char- 
 acteristics of John the Baptist, its primary interest 
 is in his recognition of Jesus as the Messiah. This 
 recognition is confirmed by the voice from heaven, 
 an account of which must have followed, and also 
 by his conquest of Satan in the temptation scene. 
 
142 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 The intent of the whole is to present Jesus as the 
 Messiah, the divinely authorized teacher. His 
 wonderful works can then be assumed. It is con- 
 sistent with this that he is called Son of Man 
 from the beginning.^ The term is not explained 
 any more than it is in Mark, but, as is not so certain 
 in Mark, in Q it always means the Messiah.^ These 
 sections also have a special interest to Q on their 
 own account. Sec. i is related to Sec. 5, where a 
 special concern in the Baptist is evident. The 
 teaching of the need of repentance here was also 
 something in which Q was deeply interested. In 
 Sees. 8, 15, 21, 22, 23 it is repeatedly emphasized. 
 Likewise the temptation, Sec. 2, showing Jesus' 
 conquest over Satan, prepares for the development 
 of the same theme, which we find later in Sees. 9 
 and 13.^ 
 
 Nowhere in the whole writing is the sequence of 
 thought harder to determine than in the next 
 three sections. Sees. 3 and 4 were surely closely 
 related in Q. Indeed in no place have both 
 
 ^ The title is doubtful in Luke 6: 22, but both evangelists give it 
 in Sec. 5 (Luke 7: 34; Matt. 11 : 19) and it is used freely after that. 
 'Luke 9:58 is hardly an exception. 
 3 For the relation here of Q to Mark see further, p. 190. 
 
Unity of Common Material 143 
 
 evangelists so carefully preserved the connecting 
 link as here, and here is the only geographical 
 setting in the whole source. One's first thought 
 is that there is some historical reminiscence that 
 has been retained. But we cannot think that any 
 such historical connection would be sufficient 
 explanation of its presence here if Q is at all 
 what the rest of the common material would lead 
 us to think it is. Moreover, in Sec. 4 the primary 
 interest is not in the wonderful work of Jesus but 
 in what Jesus says to the centurion. Harnack 
 even thinks that in Q the account of the actual 
 healing was not given.' That Jesus should thus 
 commend a heathen for his faith was a word of 
 the greatest significance to the early church; and 
 it may well be that so full a narrative setting in this 
 one case has been preserved just because of its 
 unique importance. And at least a suggestion can 
 be offered that may indicate some relation in 
 thought to the preceding Sec. 3. 
 
 In considering Sec. 3 we must first free our 
 minds from the composite discourse of Matthew 
 which is most familiar to us. The theme of the 
 
 » See above, p. 42. 
 
144 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 common material here is love, the great principle 
 of conduct. Beatitudes are pronounced upon the 
 humble disciples and they are taught to be kind and 
 sympathetic even toward their enemies; thus 
 they are to become sons of the Most High. Char- 
 ity of judgment is commanded in unqualified 
 terms. Unless they bear such fruitage the true 
 life is not in them. They must not only say 
 * * Lord , Lord , ' ' they must " do " these things . Has 
 it no significance that in immediate connection with 
 this discourse on love and charity of judgment 
 should come the narrative pointing to the high 
 regard which Jesus showed toward the faithful 
 Gentile? As we know, there was not another 
 question so divisive in the early church as this of 
 the Gentiles, none which so called for the exercise 
 of the qualities commanded in the previous section. 
 We are perhaps not justified in saying that that is 
 the only reason Q had for putting this narrative 
 just here, but at least we see that there is eminent 
 appropriateness in this connection. It is also to be 
 noticed that Sec. 5, which follows, takes up another 
 problem of the early church, kindred to that of 
 Sec. 4. 
 
Unity oj Common Material 145 
 
 Attention has just been called to the concern 
 in the Baptist shown in Sec. i. He is there a dis- 
 tinct personality, but, as is clearly seen, one who 
 humbly subordinates himself to the Christ. Sec. 5, 
 likewise, while it dwells upon Jesus' high regard for 
 the Baptist, closes Jesus' estimate of him with the 
 words, ^'yet he that is but little in the Kingdom of 
 God is greater than he"; and then attention is 
 directed to the fact that the Jews treated John in 
 the same way in which they did Jesus. One asks 
 again, What is the meaning of this concern in John 
 the Baptist, this careful definition of his true rela- 
 relation to Jesus ? Do we see here how at a much 
 earlier period than the Fourth Gospel the first 
 disciples met the problem of their own relation 
 to the disciples of the Baptist, and of the use which 
 was made of his name by other Jews as well ? If so, 
 there is great sympathy with the followers of 
 the Baptist and a sense of kinship. 
 
 Jesus' words upon these special problems within 
 the early church are succeeded by a group on 
 the general theme of Jesus' relation to disciples. 
 Sees. 6-12. The disciples here are never limited 
 to the Twelve; they comprise the larger circle of 
 
146 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 followers. Sec. 6 is really a call to service. Fol- 
 lowing Jesus is no easy matter. It means strenuous 
 activity.' Home must be given up, natural duties 
 to kindred must be left behind. To become a 
 disciple one must put his hand to the plow and 
 not look back. Sec. 7 contains Jesus' commission 
 to the disciples as they are sent out to be laborers 
 in the harvest. Their work is identified with 
 Jesus' own work. In Sec. 8 woes are pronounced 
 on the cities which have been the theater of Jesus' 
 work and that of his disciples because of their 
 failure to repent. Although the reasons for includ- 
 ing Sec. 9 in Q have not as yet been presented, why 
 Matthew should omit it is so evident and its close 
 relation to the following section is so convincing 
 that we have added it here for the sake of complete- 
 ness. It may, however, be left out without ma- 
 terially affecting the present discussion. The joy 
 of Jesus in the success of his disciples is expressed — 
 his conquest of Satan is through them being com- 
 pleted. In Sees. 10 and 11 they are assured that, 
 
 * It is doubtful whether 9: 58 can refer to Jesus' poverty; the 
 context implies that he is too busy, not too poor, to abide in a 
 home. Foxes and birds are appropriate because they also lead 
 a wandering life, but even they have a home. 
 
Unity of Common Material 147 
 
 though they are only babes (in contrast to the 
 scribes perhaps), they are learning that knowledge 
 of God which Jesus would bring them. This is 
 that for which the prophets and kings of the past 
 have longed. Sec. 12 is not closely joined with 
 what precedes, but it follows very naturally. A 
 question about prayer is most appropriate after 
 the preceding word of Jesus. Special emphasis 
 is laid upon the power of prayer in the reply. 
 They are assured of divine aid and protection; they 
 do not do their work single-handed. 
 
 The next group of sections, Sees. 13-17, has 
 to do with the opposition which Jesus met, espe- 
 cially from the Pharisees. This opposition vitally 
 concerned the early Palestinian Christians, who 
 themselves had to bear its brunt. It is interesting 
 that the dommant note of all that is said is the 
 prophetic call to repentance. It is this failure 
 to repent which brings upon *'this generation" 
 and its leaders the woes of Jesus. A passionate 
 earnestness is still evident in the words. Q 
 itself must have shared in Paul's yearning for 
 the repentance of Israel, and both only retain 
 some measure of what was a supreme motive 
 
148 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 with Jesus. In Sec. 13 the charge that Jesus 
 cast out demons by the power of the prince of 
 demons is met by Jesus himself. Whether Sec. 14 
 is to be considered as a true parable or has some 
 literal significance is hard to determine. Jtilicher' 
 interprets it as a parable illustrating vs. 23. His 
 explanation is tempting, and yet it seems more 
 natural to think that Q regarded it as a contrast 
 drawn between the healing of Jewish exorcists and 
 that of Jesus; theirs was merely negative, his 
 filled with the Holy Spirit. The demand for a 
 sign, Sec. 15, is met by the assertion that no sign 
 shall be given except the sign of Jonah. The 
 Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah; 
 the Queen of the South journeyed from the ends of 
 the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon. This 
 generation has for its guidance what is greater than 
 the preaching of Jonah or the wisdom of Solomon — 
 Jesus and his message. What they need is not 
 signs, but eyes to see. Then follows Jesus' denun- 
 ciation of the Pharisees and their false piety, of 
 the scribes and their selfish leadership, and of this 
 hardened generation which has no ear for the 
 
 * Die Gieichnisreden Jesu, p. 238. 
 
Unity of Common Material 149 
 
 message of the prophet in their midst. The 
 judgment of God awaits them. 
 
 After this, attention naturally turns again to 
 the disciples, but this time it is words of warning 
 and encouragement which are spoken. Sec. 17 
 warns them of dangers that they must face but 
 assures them of God's care over them. From this 
 section on, attention focuses more and more upon 
 the kingdom and the coming day of the Son of 
 Man. In Sec. 18 the disciples are instructed to 
 seek the kingdom and leave all else to God. " Fear 
 not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure 
 to give you the Kingdom." Then come, Sec. 19, 
 parables urgently emphasizing the need of watch- 
 fulness for the coming of the Son of Man. 
 
 What does the coming of the Son of Man mean ? 
 It means. Sec' 20, the kindling of a terrible fire. 
 Jesus has a fearful baptism with which to be 
 baptized. A period of strife is at hand. It means 
 also, Sees. 21, 22, 23,^ a judgment. It is urged 
 that the interval is very short, and another earnest 
 appeal is made to the people to repent. The 
 
 * Arguments for assigning Sees. 21 and 23 to Q are presented 
 on pp. 169 ff. It is not necessary for present purposes to ascribe 
 them to Q. 
 
150 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 judgment is at hand. What is the kingdom? is 
 asked in Sec. 24, and the answer is that it is some- 
 thing hidden and secret now but it shall be 
 revealed in great power and glory. Who shall share 
 in the kingdom? is the question propounded in 
 Sec. 25. Only those who are worthy, is the reply; 
 and this means that those Israelites who depend 
 upon their relationship to Abraham are to be 
 rejected and to behold Gentiles in their places. 
 Sec. 26 adds a lament over Jerusalem, the people 
 forsaken of God. There is no reference here to the 
 destruction of the city. It is the condemnation 
 of God upon it which is presented. The tender 
 note that can be felt in every word spoken in con- 
 demnation of Isarel ought to be noticed. It is in 
 this connection that the full meaning of Sec. 27 
 to the early Christians appears. To come out from 
 Judaism and be followers of Jesus had literally 
 meant the breaking of home ties, the abandonment, 
 now of father or mother, now of son or daughter. 
 But this they are told is the price Jesus expected 
 them to pay. 
 
 The question where and when the day of the Son 
 of Man is to be is then asked, Sec. 29. But no 
 
Unity of Common Material 151 
 
 answer is given to their questions. All searching 
 for outward signs is condemned. They will know 
 the place when the time comes to know. The 
 whole world will know, for it will be as the Hghtning, 
 visible from the one end of the heavens to the other. 
 They are to be ready at all times, for it will be a 
 day of judgment from which there can be no 
 escape. With Sec. 30 the source Q most appro- 
 priately closes. Their Lord has given his disciples 
 their commission. Let each man do his duty and 
 he shall enter into the joy of his Lord, when he 
 comes in his glory. 
 
 There is left unaccounted for that group of mere 
 fragments. Sec. 28, which Luke has unsuccessfully 
 attempted to adjust to other material here intro- 
 duced. Is this an instance of that phenomenon 
 with which the Old Testament has made us 
 familiar — a group of sayings, too precious to be 
 lost, added at the end of the whole? No other 
 explanation so well fits the facts of the case. What 
 would be more natural than that sayings of Jesus 
 deemed too precious to be lost should be appended 
 at the close of a writing that assumed to give the 
 Lord's teachings! The peculiar conflation we 
 
152 Matthew'' s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 find in chaps. 16 and 17 of Luke is thus satisfactorily 
 explained. In the source this section must then 
 have followed Sec. 30; the position of these sayings 
 in Luke is determined by the other material he has 
 here inserted.^ 
 
 Disregarding then this section, which may 
 properly be looked upon as an appendix, surely we 
 have in this common material of Matthew and 
 Luke something more than a heap of ruins. It 
 has a plan and an intelligible order ; further study 
 of the standpoint of Q may cause us to revise much 
 here presented, but it is hard to see how anyone 
 can question that there is a real consistency and 
 completeness in this material. It must also be 
 borne in mind that Q is only known to us in the 
 versions of Matthew and Luke; and what is most 
 characteristic of the source is just what has been 
 obscured by the later editors. Every effort ought 
 to be made to avoid any forced interpretations, 
 but is there not a plan and sequence here in the 
 material as it stands? There is no need of any 
 scheme of our own contriving; room may freely 
 be left for difference of interpretation. We need 
 
 ^ For the arrangement of this material in Luke see pp. 175 f. 
 
Unity of Common Material 153 
 
 only accept the order of Luke as a reliable witness 
 for the order of his source^ and to omit only what 
 Matthew has omitted.'' Then, and not until then, 
 does the general scheme which we have outlined 
 appear. This shows also that it is not Luke's 
 creation. Luke has tried to convert this topical 
 into a chronological sequence. Some of his in- 
 sertions can be explained in no other way, and the 
 introductory settings that he has supplied point 
 to the same conclusion. 
 
 Have we not now the keystone in place which 
 gives binding force to all the arguments previously 
 presented ? Proof has been given of close literary 
 resemblance in most of the material and striking 
 similarity of thought in all of it. When to this 
 is added a plausible explanation of how the varia- 
 tions in the two versions have arisen and an 
 exposition of the self-consistency and unity of the 
 material, then surely the existence of the source Q 
 can no longer be questioned, and there is good 
 
 ^ And it is necessary only to assume that this is substantially 
 correct. 
 
 ^ Sees. 9 and 23 were added above only for the sake of com- 
 pleteness, because the evidence is so strong that they belong 
 to Q. 
 
154 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 reason to believe that we are on the right way to its 
 reconstruction. 
 
 We have shown that one does not need to add 
 anything to the common material to make it a unit. 
 This is a strong presumption in itself against finding 
 extensive omissions on the part of Matthew or 
 Luke which ought to be added to the source Q. 
 But before discussing the relation of Q to this 
 independent material of Matthew and Luke in 
 detail, there are certain other general considera- 
 tions, favoring the practical completeness of what 
 these evangelists give in common, which should be 
 mentioned. From the start it ought to be remem- 
 bered that in just so far as we expand the limits of 
 this source we increase the difficulty of accounting 
 for its becoming lost as an independent document. 
 And again the great respect which both evangelists 
 show for it is against any considerable omissions. 
 The temptation to so many investigators in this 
 field has been to include in Q more or less of the 
 rich material peculiar to Luke, but it is just in this 
 direction that one needs to be on one's guard. 
 Matthew omits almost nothing from Mark. 
 Would he make such extended omissions from 
 
Unity of Common Material 155 
 
 that source which, it is possible at least, gave his 
 Gospel its name ? It is true that while Luke seems 
 to have shown a higher regard for Q than for 
 Mark, the reverse seems to be the case in respect 
 to Matthew. Nevertheless, the First Gospel has 
 preserved Q very faithfully; this is assured by the 
 close literary relationship between Matthew and 
 Luke in all of this material — much closer than 
 in what they both give from Mark. Another im- 
 portant consideration is that the common material 
 is, as we have tried to show, self-consistent and 
 complete in itself. One needs to add nothing 
 from either Gospel to make it a unit. 
 
 The only serious argument against this which 
 has been presented is that Q includes narratives, 
 that it presupposes a knowledge of the works of 
 Jesus, that it has a historical introduction. It 
 must therefore have been a Gospel rather than a 
 collection of sayings, it is held. All recognize that 
 Q contains narratives, but in every case the narra- 
 tive is subordinated to the teaching. Jesus did 
 not preach a series of sermons which needed only 
 to be collected into a book. The narrative and 
 circumstantial character that clings to some of this 
 
156 Matthew* s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 material is not an evidence of a dramatic historical 
 purpose, but only of its primitive character. Some 
 of the soil still clings to these sayings, showing 
 whence they were dug. If the opposing argument 
 is to have any force it ought to be shown that the 
 narrative material is secondary to the sayings. 
 But there is only one section in which this possi- 
 bility has been cogently suggested, and that is in 
 Sec. 4; and yet if it could be proved in this one 
 case, the great importance attached to the saying 
 here might account for the exception. In truth, 
 however, the grounds for regarding this narrative 
 as a later addition are inconclusive; it furnishes 
 strong indications of its primitive character.* 
 Nowhere else is there the slightest ground for 
 regarding the narrative as secondary. 
 
 It is also true that Q has a historical introduc- 
 tion in Sees, i and 2. A historical introduction 
 might imply a historical conclusion. It is certainly 
 the unexpected to find a primitive Christian writing 
 with so little about the death and resurrection of 
 Jesus. Here there is no mention of the resur- 
 rection and but slight reference to the Passion and 
 
 '^ See above, p. 40. 
 
Unity of Common Material 157 
 
 death. It may be that the death was not even 
 explicitly mentioned. Luke 14: 27 could refer to it 
 only indirectly. Luke 12:49, 5° ^^^ ^T-^S are 
 not in Matthew. But Luke 11:475. and 13:34 
 indicate that Jesus must share the fate of the 
 prophets who have gone before. The shadow of the 
 cross can be observed in all the later sections of Q, 
 but this is only because it is inherent in the ma- 
 terial itself. The only way in which any account 
 of Jesus' death and resurrection can be ascribed 
 to Q is to assign to that source material which 
 Matthew has omitted, for it is evident that 
 Matthew has no primitive source for the Passion 
 and resurrection besides Mark, whom he follows 
 closely. Luke on the other hand certainly has.^ 
 
 F. C. Burkitt in his recent book. The Gospel His- 
 tory and Its Transmission, favors the view that this 
 independent information was obtained from Q, 
 and Harnack allows the possibility but does not 
 approve of it. Both B. Weiss and J. Weiss have 
 long supported this theory. The outstanding 
 objection to it is the fact that not a trace of its 
 
 ^ An alternative possibility, improbable as it is, should be 
 mentioned, i.e., that Mark's account came from Q. The relation 
 of Q to Mark will be considered later. 
 
158 Matthew* s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 influence appears in Matthew. How strange that 
 he should have felt the need of weaving the Q 
 version of the calumny of the Pharisees and of the 
 sending forth of the disciples into the corresponding 
 narrative of Mark, but that when he came to the 
 most important matter of all, the account of the 
 Passion, he should ignore this source entirely! 
 He takes pains to add the few late apocryphal bits 
 of information which come to him but omits all 
 reference to this rich material that Luke is sup- 
 posed to have found in Q. Even a superficial 
 study of the First Gospel ought to make it clear 
 that the only reliable source for the narrative of 
 Jesus' life which that evangelist possesses is Mark.' 
 These outstanding considerations far outweigh 
 all subterranean threads of connection which may 
 be found between this independent material of 
 Luke and Q. In fact, however, no one supporting 
 this view has as yet taken the trouble to point out 
 such threads of connection if there are any. The 
 only resemblance that is apparent is that in Luke 
 22:35-39, where 22:35 seems to be a direct refer- 
 
 ^ The possibility that he had sources of Mark is to be left 
 open; whether Q could be one of such sources will be considered 
 later. 
 
Unity of Common Material 159 
 
 ence to 10:4, but it must be remembered that, if in 
 Luke's source terms different from what Luke had 
 himself previously used had really stood, that evan- 
 gelist would have been constrained to conform them 
 to 9 : 3 or 10 : 4. No theories can be built upon this 
 likeness. Surely the general character of this in- 
 dependent Passion material of Luke is much more 
 closely related to the narratives peculiar to Luke 
 that have preceded than to the common material 
 of Q. Such historical notes as 8:2, 3; 13:31-33 
 seem closely akin. 
 
 It is this lack of any positive foundation which 
 outweighs any expectation one might have that 
 such an account would follow in Q. The evidence 
 of the Gospels themselves opposes it. When also 
 we examine this expectation itself we see that it 
 rests upon slight foundations. Q was not written 
 for missionary purposes. Knowledge of the general 
 outline of Jesus' life was taken for granted. It was 
 written for the benefit of the early Christian com- 
 munity, furnishing them a collection of the teach- 
 ings of Jesus with their special problems and 
 difficulties in mind. While from this standpoint a 
 historical introduction was not necessary, still it was 
 
i6o Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 not inappropriate. Such a collection of Jesus' 
 teachings could very properly begin with a pres- 
 entation of the divine authority and power of the 
 teacher, and this is all we have a right to demand. 
 
 If we may judge anything of the sequence of 
 events in the life of Christ from Mark it is true 
 that there is some recognition of the same sequence 
 in Q also. Q begins with the Baptist, implies a 
 successful ministry culminating in the joy of Jesus 
 at the return of the disciples; then the gradual 
 opposition which developed is set forth. The tone 
 of the sayings grows more and more somber and the 
 later sayings are dominantly eschatological. This 
 is a general trend that we recognize in Mark also 
 and probably rests on real historical remembrance. 
 But again there is no reason why a collection of 
 Jesus' teachings should not preserve in broad 
 outlines the sequence they had in the life of Jesus. 
 
 Such a question as this cannot, however, be 
 decided by general considerations. A closer exam- 
 ination must be made into the special material of 
 Matthew and Luke and its relation to that which 
 they have in common, and the relation of Q to 
 Mark must also be considered. But in view of the 
 
Unity of Common Material i6i 
 
 general arguments which have been presented, 
 we shall not approach these questions from the 
 standpoint of Wendt, who assigned to Q whatever 
 he could not find sufficient reason for putting 
 elsewhere. Good grounds will be demanded for 
 any section to be included in Q besides the com- 
 mon material. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 RELATION OF THE COMMON SOURCE TO THE 
 INDEPENDENT MATERIAL OF LUKE 
 
 What did Luke retain from Q which Matthew 
 omits? In discussing Sec. i we have already 
 seen that 3:io-i6(Z cannot belong to Q, and this 
 may be taken as a typical insertion of Luke added 
 in a characteristic manner. Luke 3:19, 20 may 
 come from some special source of Luke, but it 
 is only a summary of what Mark says in 6:17 ff. 
 The genealogy which follows the account of Jesus ^ 
 baptism could not have stood in the same source 
 that Matthew used. This same argument applies 
 of course to the birth narratives of chaps, i and 2. 
 Wellhausen has given plausible reasons for believ- 
 ing that Luke had a source originally written in 
 Semitic for the material which he combines with 
 Mark's account of the rejection at Nazareth, 
 chap. 4. But there is no reason why this may not 
 have been true of other sources of Luke besides 
 Mark and Q. Some of the most striking Semiti- 
 cisms of Luke are found in chaps, i and 2, which 
 
 162 
 
The Common Source and Luke 163 
 
 Matthew cannot have known. There is not the 
 slightest reason for assigning any part of 4:i6ff. 
 to Q. In this passage there is an interest in the 
 widow and the outcast, Hke that in 3 : 10-15, which 
 we shall find characteristic of Luke. The miracu- 
 lous draught of fishes in chap. 5 has no point of 
 contact with Q. In the Sermon on the Mount, 
 Sec. 3, we have given reasons for regarding 6 : 24-26 
 as an addition of Luke. Whether Luke has made 
 any additions in Sec. 4 is doubtful. This was 
 shown in our previous discussion. Luke 7:11-17 
 would certainly not have been omitted by Matthew 
 if he knew it. Its insertion by Luke, like that of 
 7:21, is readily understood; it prepares the way 
 for 7:22. That Matthew and Luke supply this 
 deficiency in such different ways shows that they 
 are not here following their common source. 
 
 Besides the mere editorial insertions in Sec. 5 
 we have the interesting addition of 7:29, 30. 
 The context shows that they are not original here.' 
 But they might still be a misplaced saying of Q. 
 That this is a genuine word of Jesus is made more 
 probable by the fact that in Matt. 21:32 we have 
 
 ^ See p. 44. 
 
164 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 the same thought; but the entirely different lan- 
 guage in which they express the saying indicates 
 that they found it in no common written source, but 
 rather in common tradition. Luke follows this 
 section with the narrative of the sinful woman at 
 the house of Simon the Pharisee. But it is only in 
 Luke's addition, 7:29, 30, that the contrast is 
 drawn between the outcasts and the Pharisees. 
 It is not found in Q at all, and here again it is the 
 characteristic Lukan type of material. Chapter 8 
 begins with the valuable historical notice about the 
 women who minister to Jesus. But it is Luke and 
 not Q who shows special knowledge of the women 
 followers of Jesus. It is he and not Q who shows 
 himself well informed regarding Herod. ^ 
 
 With 9:51 the second great interpolation of Luke 
 begins. The whole is represented as taking place 
 on a journey to Jerusalem, 9:51-53; 13:22, 33; 
 17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28. Samaria has already 
 been reached in 9:51; in 13:31 they are in the 
 territory of Herod, but they are still passing 
 through the midst of Samaria and Galilee in 17: 11. 
 The next geographical notice, 18:35, places 
 
 * Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, is mentioned. 
 
The Common Source and Luke 165 
 
 Jesus and his disciples at Jericho, where Mark's 
 itinerary is again resumed. The background for 
 this period is vaguely thought to be the general 
 region of southern Galilee and Samaria, and pos- 
 sibly Perea.^ The journey toward Jerusalem 
 seems to be merely an artificial scheme for giving 
 a sort of unity to the whole. Luke found 9: 51-56 
 in some source or tradition and used it as an intro- 
 ductory setting for this Q material, which had no 
 background. Here was a reference to messengers 
 whom Jesus sent before him, 9:52. These were 
 regarded as the disciples mentioned in Q's account 
 of 10 : 1 ff . Disciples were everywhere mentioned 
 in Q in a sense which implied more than the 
 Twelve. Matt. 9:57-62, for which Matthew had 
 found an appropriate setting when Jesus crossed 
 over to the east shore of the Sea of Galilee, Luke 
 regarded as a reference to this momentous journey 
 toward Jerusalem. All that followed in Q was 
 made to fit into this situation. Here and there 
 narratives were added to give the whole section 
 more of a historical tone. The question of the 
 lawyer and the parable of the Good Samaritan, 
 * See below, p. 177. 
 
1 66 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 which really imply a Judean setting, were put here 
 probably because of the reference to the Samaritan; 
 and the visit at the house of Mary and Martha was 
 no doubt put here as a companion piece of the 
 answer to the lawyer. The hearing of the word was 
 thus co-ordinated with works of charity. Neither 
 of these additions, lo : 25-42, stood in the Q 
 which Matthew read. They are here only because 
 of 9:51-56, which provides the Samaritan back- 
 ground. If Q's account of the sending forth of 
 the disciples already had this entirely different 
 setting from that of Mark, chap. 6, it is more 
 probable that Matthew would have left them 
 separate. 
 
 In 10:17-20 Luke gives an account of the re- 
 turn of the disciples, which there is every reason 
 to beUeve stood in Q. Matthew has omitted it 
 because he has added to Q here so much later 
 material having to do with the disciples' mission 
 after the death of Jesus. The account of the 
 return was no longer appropriate. The thought 
 here is closely related to Luke ii:2off. The 
 success of their mission means the overthrow of 
 the kingdom of Satan. 
 
The Common Source and Luke 167 
 
 The parable which Luke has given in the midst 
 of the discourse on prayer also probably stood in Q. 
 Why Matthew should omit it is evident. It has 
 no proper place in the Sermon on the Mount. 
 Wendt's Die Lehre Jesu, p. 99, has pointed out that 
 the very verse of the following saying, which Luke 
 has altered, in its Matthean form seems closely 
 related to this parable. Matt. 7:9, rts eariv ef 
 vfjLcop,^ is the same form of question that we have 
 in Luke 11:5, and bread, the first thing asked for 
 in 7:9, completes the connection with the parable 
 which in Luke precedes. The fact that Luke has 
 here changed the form of the question adds to the 
 significance of this similarity. Another linguistic 
 relation to Q is in the word xP^r^t, found only in 
 Matt. 6:32; Luke 12:30, and twice in Paul. We 
 may therefore with some probabiHty assign this 
 parable to Q and account for Lukan characteristics 
 as due to his stylistic changes. 
 
 Luke's addition of 11:27, 28 is more doubtful. 
 Just as Mark had a passage dealing with Jesus' 
 family immediately after the calumny of the 
 
 * This phrase is found elsewhere, Luke 14:38; 15:4; 17:7; 
 Matt. 12:11. Whether all these passages belong to Q is doubtful. 
 
i68 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 Pharisees, the same might be true of Q. But, on 
 the other hand, not only is the language here 
 strongly Lukan, but the truly feminine interest 
 of the saying belongs to what is most characteristic 
 of the Third Gospel. It is also to be remembered 
 that Luke was familiar with Mark, and under the 
 influence of that Gospel may have inserted this 
 parallel to Mark 3:31-35 in the corresponding 
 context. Mark 3:31-35 itself he had already 
 quoted. However, the possibility may be left open 
 that this saying was in Q and that Matthew in 
 conflating this section with Mark omitted it. 
 
 Additional material is again found in Luke 12: 
 13-21. It consists of two distinct portions, the 
 question in regard to an inheritance, vss. 13, 14, 
 and the parable of the Rich Fool, vss. 16-20. Here 
 again omission by Matthew could be readily under- 
 stood, for he has incorporated the sayings here 
 into the Sermon on the Mount. But there can be 
 no question that the connection between Luke 
 12:12 and 12:22 is as good, if not better, without 
 this long insertion. The application, vs. 15, 
 which is given to the question about inheritances 
 is strictly Lukan' in its interest, and the parable 
 
 ' This does not necessarily mean that the application was not 
 made by Jesus himself. 
 
The Common Source and Luke 169 
 
 which follows belongs to the same group as those 
 which are added in Luke, chap. 16. Furthermore, 
 when the two versions of the sayings that follow 
 are compared, it appears that there also the general 
 principle of Matt. 6:19 is in Luke a concrete, 
 definite rule, "Sell what you have and give alms." 
 This danger of covetousness was to Luke a very 
 threatening one, and he may well have desired to 
 strengthen the force of Jesus' words here by this 
 special material, which undoubtedly rests upon 
 reliable tradition. Surely it is the safer principle 
 to leave sayings that show the characteristic Lukan 
 standpoint to Luke, when the context favors the 
 view that they are an insertion and they have not 
 the support of Matthew. 
 
 Luke 12:35-38 is a parable emphasizing the 
 need of watching, which is not found in Matthew. 
 It has, however, some features related to Matthew's 
 parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins.^ Verse 
 376 here introduces an allegorizing feature which 
 is a favorite of Luke. The messianic meal is 
 
 * Wellhausen and others have made much of this resemblance, 
 but it does not include any of the essential features and is not 
 linguistic. The resemblances which Julicher finds to Mark 1 3 : 33- 
 37 are more interesting. Wellhausen finds in 12:35, «»'o^«^w, 
 a trace of a Semitic original. This would at least indicate that 
 Luke had some written source here. 
 
lyo Matthew'* s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 certainly intended by it. But the fact that this 
 allegorical feature is here so entirely out of place 
 distinguishes the parable itself from Luke's char- 
 acteristic material. Matthew might omit it be- 
 cause of the other parables which he adds in this 
 connection and which to him would be much more 
 significant. 
 
 In 13 : 1-9 Luke has a call to repentance based on 
 two Jerusalem disasters and a parable of a Fig 
 Tree, teaching how short an interval for repentance 
 is left. In the context from Q in which these 
 stand they are most fitting. Luke 12:54-58 is 
 likewise a call to repentance; the same earnest, 
 almost passionate, tone is continued here. The 
 passage is unusually free from Lukan literary 
 changes. It is strikingly Semitic in language, and, 
 what is more important, several of these Semiti- 
 cisms relate it to Q. Ini3:4, €0' ous . . . . avrovSy 
 and in 13 : 9, TroLrjarj Kapirop, remind us strongly of the 
 preaching of John the Baptist on this same theme 
 of repentance. See Matt. 3:12. Compare also 
 Luke 6:43. Even more striking, perhaps, is cxfyeL- 
 XeVat = hayyabh, a term which Luke has avoided in 
 11:4, but which Matthew has retained in 6 : 9 ff . 
 
The Common Source and Luke 171 
 
 This literary evidence in connection with the strik- 
 ing kinship in thought gives us sufficient justifica- 
 tion for regarding it as a part of Q. Possibly the 
 similarity of this parable to Mark's account of the 
 cursing of the fig tree may account for Matthew's 
 omission here. Luke inserts this parable but 
 omits Mark ii:i2ff. Matthew may on similar 
 grounds have chosen to retain Mark 1 1 : 1 2 ff . and 
 to omit this passage. The omission remains, 
 however, difficult to understand. 
 
 Luke 13 : 10-17 is another passage found only in 
 Luke. J. Weiss has argued that Luke could not 
 have inserted it here. It is so entirely out of place, 
 he says, that unless Luke found it already in this 
 context he would certainly have placed it some- 
 where else. But someone did place it here, and it 
 is surely easier to attribute the insertion to one who 
 did not have the original author's sequence of 
 thought in mind than to that author himself. No 
 such inharmonious insertion is found anywhere 
 in the material which both Matthew and Luke con- 
 tain. Narratives are found in Q but the emphasis 
 is upon the teaching; in this narrative the teach- 
 ing is secondary and is not akin to anything we 
 
172 Matthew'' s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 have in the common material. Luke, we have 
 already seen, has broken up the topical sequence 
 here and converted it into a chronological one. 
 Who would be more likely to introduce such a 
 narrative as this ? Moreover, the incident in this 
 connection has its justification to Luke because 
 of what Jesus replies to Herod in 13:32, another 
 passage found only in Luke. 
 
 Luke 13:31-33, to which attention has just been 
 called, is probably also an addition of the evangelist. 
 It converts the merely topical relation of 13:30 to 
 13:34 into a historical one. This insertion is very 
 helpful in showing the purpose and method of 
 Luke's additions. We are also reminded that Luke 
 is the evangelist who seems particularly interested 
 in Herod and best informed concerning him.' 
 
 Throughout chaps. 14, 15, and 16 of Luke the 
 condemnation of the Pharisees and exaltation of 
 the publicans and sinners is the main theme. We 
 would therefore expect to find more of his char- 
 acteristic material here than elsewhere. In 14:1- 
 24 Luke gives a series of three parables preceded 
 
 ^ The saying of Jesus in this passage shows, however, that it is 
 no composition of Luke, but comes from some source or tradition. 
 
The Common Source and Luke 173 
 
 by a healing, all connected as a scene at the table 
 in the house of a Pharisee. The last, the parable of 
 a Great Feast, as has already been said, is so differ- 
 ent in language and development of thought from 
 Matthew's parable on the same theme that a com- 
 mon literary source is improbable/ We have no 
 other example of such freedom in treating the 
 sayings of Q as one must assume to assign these 
 two accounts to that source. What likeness there 
 is, is far more readily accounted for by a common 
 tradition; this there must have been if, as seems 
 true, the parable had an authentic basis. Another 
 resemblance to this insertion of Luke has been 
 found in Matt. 12:11, i2 = Luke 14:5. But the 
 fact that Luke has presented this conception in two 
 different versions, 13:15 and 14:5, and that 
 Matthew is as much like one as the other, would 
 show that it was a widespread traditional saying. 
 The probability remains that we have here not 
 Q material but an insertion of Luke. There is 
 also a parallel to Luke 14:8-11 appended to 
 Matt. 20:28 in Codd. D, 0, Old Latin, Vulg., and 
 
 * The likenesses and differences are fully presented in Hamack, 
 p. 119. 
 
174 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 Syr. Cur. The MSS evidence for this addition is 
 about the same as that which we found for i6:2&> 
 3, but the passage is very clumsily appended and 
 it is more doubtful whether it really belo ngs to 
 Matthew. The resemblance here to Luke is like 
 that which we have found in Matthew's parallels 
 to the rest of this chapter. The language through- 
 out is entirely different. There can hardly be the 
 same literary source behind this passage and 
 Luke 14:8-11; so that whether or not this be 
 regarded as belonging to Matthew, it only con- 
 firms our view that, in this material connected with 
 a feast at the house of a Pharisee, Luke gives us a 
 well-known tradition and is not using any docu- 
 ment known to Matthew. The First Gospel shows 
 familiarity with some of this material but in a 
 form different from that of Luke. 
 
 The two parables of Luke 14: 28-33 ^^e wanting 
 in Matthew. Their connection with the preceding 
 sayings is, as Jiilicher says, '' ausgezeichnet." That 
 Luke should have found these two parables of so 
 little suggestiveness apart from their context and 
 inserted them here shows far more aptness than he 
 has elsewhere displayed in his combinations of 
 
The Common Source and Luke 175 
 
 sayings. He has not Matthew's skill in such read- 
 justment. Nor is it surprising that they are 
 omitted by Matthew. They are mere illustrations, 
 adding nothing to the teaching of 10:37, 38, and 
 they would be very unsuitable for Matthew's 
 already lengthy discourse of chap. 10. And so, 
 despite the fact that we have no literary resem- 
 blances to which to point, it is probable that these 
 verses belong to Q. The section is concluded in 
 Luke by the parable on Salt. Jiilicher^ has given 
 good reasons for regarding 14:34, 35 as the proper 
 conclusion here, and vs. 2>?> ^s only an editorial 
 addition. Matthew already has his version of this 
 parable in 5:13, which is certainly secondary, 
 whether or not it is linguistically dependent upon 
 this passage. 
 
 Luke, chap. 15, continues the condemnation of 
 the Pharisees and emphasizes God's concern for the 
 lost. That Matthew knew the parable of the 
 Prodigal Son and omitted it is almost impossible 
 to believe. But, as we have seen, the parable of the 
 Sheep seems to have been appended to Q and so is 
 found in Matthew also. The question then arises 
 
 * Op. cit., p. 70. 
 
176 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 whether the parable of the Lost Coin, its com- 
 panion piece, was not there. One recognizes that 
 Matthew could not so readily adapt this to the 
 application he has given the preceding parable. 
 It may therefore have been in Q. There is little 
 evidence upon which to decide either way. 
 
 The two parables of Luke, chap. 16, are likewise 
 directed against the Pharisees, and to Luke, at 
 least, they attach a real moral value to poverty. 
 Into this independent material of chaps. 15 and 16 
 Luke has woven several sayings from that mis- 
 cellaneous group with which Q probably closed. 
 It is interesting to compare and see how much more 
 successful Matthew was in this respect. The rest 
 of this group Luke simply adds at the beginning 
 of chap. 17 without any attempt to correlate them. 
 Is 17:7-10 to be included in this group? It is 
 indeed possible. Such a parable Matthew might 
 have passed over, as he certainly did others like it. 
 Nor does it contain any of the characteristics that 
 so readily differentiate special material of Luke. 
 
 Luke 17 : 11-19 is another miracle giving us prac- 
 tically the same geographical setting which we 
 had in 9:515. These indications of a Samaritan 
 
The Common Source and Luke 177 
 
 ministry belong to the peculiarities of Luke. He 
 has very clumsily woven the Q material into the 
 background it gives, and tried to adapt the whole 
 to the framework of Mark. In 18:35 Jesus is in 
 Jericho, which implies that he came south by way 
 of the Jordan and Perea, Mark 10: i. Either Luke 
 shows complete ignorance of the geography here or 
 he understands all the possessions of Herod Antipas, 
 including Perea, under the term "Galilee." In 
 3:1 Herod is called Tetrarch of Galilee. This 
 would explain why Galilee should be mentioned in 
 17:11 after the repeated reference to the journey 
 southward. 
 
 In 18:1-14 are two parables inserted by Luke. 
 The purpose of their insertion here is to show 
 the great need of prayer and faith to hasten the 
 time of the Parousia. The second parable surely 
 had no such significance originally, and neither 
 did the first if we regard vss. 1-5 as giving its primi- 
 tive form. The emphasis in vss. 6-8^ upon the 
 demand for vengeance cannot be attributed to 
 Luke, who, in vs. i and the connection with the 
 following parable, shows that he found its point 
 in the persistent prayer. The eschatological 
 
178 Matthew'' s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 application, therefore, must have been already 
 added in the source where Luke found it. The 
 fact that the preceding section from Q touched 
 upon the theme of the final judgment might 
 suggest that the connection had already been made 
 in Q. But 17:22 ff. is concerned with the coming 
 of Christ in judgment. This parable speaks of the 
 judgment of God. Besides, the judgment is never 
 presented in Q as a time of vengeance upon enemies ; 
 it is always referred to in personal words of warning. 
 If this parable stood in Q it was added by a later 
 hand. What relations it originally had to 11:5-8 
 can no longer be determined. The application of 
 vss. 6-8a is very old, Jewish rather than Christian. 
 Certainly there are few who would be willing to say 
 with Wellhausen that this is the original of the 
 earlier parable. Luke certainly did not find it in 
 connection with 11:5-8. Either it was an early 
 addition here in Q or Luke has inserted it from 
 another source for the reason we gave in the begin- 
 ning. The second parable was probably added 
 by Luke. With 18:15 Luke returns to Mark, whom 
 he follows thenceforth, though he shows acquaint- 
 ance with independent sources. The only pas- 
 
The Common Source and Luke 179 
 
 sage after this which can with any confidence be 
 assigned to Q is the parable of the Pounds, 19 : 12 ff . 
 Luke explains in 19: 11 why he has reserved it for 
 this place. Just as Jesus is about to enter Jerusa- 
 lem gives him the historical setting he desires. 
 
 There is a slight resemblance to Matthew in 
 Luke 22: 306 = Matt. 19:286 and a reference to Q 
 (Luke 10:4) in 22:35. These are, however, of 
 very little weight; the first resemblance can be 
 readily understood without the assumption of a 
 common written source, and Luke would have con- 
 formed 22:35 to 10:4 or 9:3 if it had been different 
 in his source. For the reasons already given we 
 would not assign any of Luke's Passion material 
 toQ. 
 
 In conclusion, we now have found good reason 
 for assigning 10:17-20; 11:5-8; 13:1-9; 14:28-35 
 to Q. To this list three other passages might be 
 added as possibly belonging to Q, 12:35-38; 15:8- 
 10; 17:7-10. Minor additions of Luke con- 
 sidered in the detailed discussions of pp. 19- 119 
 are as follows: a few additions in Luke 6:27 ff.; 
 7:2ff. (?); 9:61,62; 12:16,32,49,50; i3:25(?); 
 17: 20, 21, 25, 28-30. It was left doubtful whether 
 
i8o Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 11:34-36, 12:54-56 are to be regarded as having a 
 parallel in Matthew. The evidence is not equally 
 strong for them all, but they may with some confi- 
 dence be assigned to Q. 
 
 Many insertions have evidently been made into 
 the Q material by Luke. J. Weiss has long 
 championed the view that these had already been 
 added to Q before Luke used it. We have seen 
 that in a few cases such a pre-Lukan addition 
 seemed possible. But if there is anything which 
 may be regarded as characteristic of the third 
 evangelist himself, it is to be found in the manner 
 of insertion and standpoint of this additional 
 material. This is also the conclusion of Wernle, 
 Die synoptische Frage, pp. 83-88. Whether Luke 
 had one or more independent sources is beyond 
 the scope of this discussion. Some of this Lukan 
 material was indirectly known to Matthew. Evi- 
 dently in the time of Luke and Matthew there 
 existed a body of narratives and sayings connected 
 with Jesus which had not been incorporated in 
 Mark or Q. We have seen how there was a 
 tendency to append such additional sayings to Q. 
 The fact, however, that the most careful examina- 
 
The Common Source and Luke i8i 
 
 tion of all later Christian literature has failed to 
 disclose more than a few fragmentary doubtful 
 passages indicates that Matthew and Luke have 
 given us practically all of this extra material then 
 accessible. From this point of view, also, it is 
 improbable that either evangelist made such con- 
 siderable omissions from his sources as many have 
 supposed. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 RELATION OF THE COMMON SOURCE TO THE 
 INDEPENDENT MATERIAL OF MATTHEW 
 
 In our previous study of Matthew and his 
 methods we saw that he has either woven all of 
 his non-Markan material into the narrative of 
 Mark or attached it to one of his great discourses. 
 His method necessitated the frequent transference 
 of sayings from their original sequence. This has 
 made the problem of sources in Matthew much 
 more difficult. When we have not the pa'rallel 
 material of Luke to guide us we have nothing by 
 which to judge except the content of the saying or 
 narrative in question. However, the nature of 
 some of Matthew's independent material is such 
 that we can confidently say that it never stood in 
 Q. The narratives peculiar to Matthew at once 
 differentiate themselves as somewhat legendary, 
 and it is there that the linguistic characteristics 
 of Matthew are most manifest. What Hawkins^ 
 says of chaps, i and 2 applies to all of these narra- 
 
 ^ Hor. Syn., pp. 8, 9. 
 
 182 
 
The Common Source and Matthew 183 
 
 tives. It is very probable that Matthew had no 
 written sources at all for most of them: chaps, i, 2; 
 3:14, 15; 14:28-31; 17:24-27; 21:14-16; 27:3- 
 10, 19, 51&-53, 62-66; 28:2, 3, 9-20. Surely 
 none of these narratives came from Q. 
 
 Some of the additional material of Matthew is 
 merely editorial; this is certainly true of the Old 
 Testament quotations, 4: 13-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 
 13 : 14, 15. Among the editorial additions may also 
 be included those passages in non-Markan contexts 
 in which Matthew has anticipated or repeated 
 sayings and narratives from Mark.^ Matt. 4:23- 
 25 = Mark 3: i7if.; Matt. 5:29, 3o = Mark 9:43 ff.; 
 Matt. 6:14, 15 = Mark 11:25; Matt. 9:27-31 = 
 Mark 10:46-52; Matt. 9:35, 36 = Mark 1:39; 
 Matt. 6:34; io:39-42 = Mark 8:35; 9:37, 41; 
 Matt. ii:i4 = Mark 9:11 ff. Probably 10:17-22 
 (23 ?) is also to be included in this list, though 
 more can be said in this case for the view that 
 Matthew is here using some source of Mark. 
 Matt. 10:39-42 is interesting because it is surely 
 an editorial addition, and not only illustrates 
 Matthew's readiness to use Markan material 
 
 * This has been fully discussed, pp. 58 ff. 
 
184 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 twice but gives us something of the editor's own 
 standpoint. Matthew's strong interest in the later 
 church, its discipline, and organization is here 
 apparent. It is only natural to expect that since 
 Matthew has used passages from Mark in this way, 
 he has used some from Q in like manner. Matt. 
 9:32-34; 12:33-37 have been considered as such 
 Q passages used by Matthew a second time edi- 
 torially. The additions which Matthew has made 
 to the Beatitudes, 5:4, 7-9, may also be merely 
 editorial, but their close relation to the Old Testa- 
 ment and rabbinic teaching is not inconsistent with 
 their being genuine words of Jesus. Moreover, 
 they are not the sort of passages Matthew was 
 accustomed to quote from the Old Testament. It 
 is therefore more likely that they had some basis 
 in tradition. 
 
 Passages showing marked interest in the organi- 
 zation and discipline of the church may also with 
 much probability be assigned to the editor. It does 
 not follow that he composed them ; more probably 
 they rest upon good tradition or special sources. 
 Among these must be included 7:15; 13:24-30, 
 36-43, 51, 52; 16:17-20; 18:17-20; 19:10-12. 
 
The Common Source and Matthew 185 
 
 The parable of the Dragnet, 13 : 47-50, seems to be 
 a companion piece to the parable of the Tares, 
 and belongs to the same source. 
 
 There is another group of passages in Matthew 
 which give the First Gospel its characteristic 
 quality. Their dominant interest is in practical 
 Christian morality and forms of worship. This 
 higher Christian righteousness is contrasted with 
 that of the Pharisees: 5:17 (18, 19), 20-24, 27, 28, 
 33-37'; 6:1-8,16-18; 12:5-7,11,12; 23:2,3,76- 
 12. There can be no doubt that these rest upon 
 genuine words of Jesus, but they are presented from 
 a characteristically Matthean standpoint. It can 
 be argued that these passages were omitted from 
 Q by Luke because his gentile readers would not 
 be interested in them. But they are much more 
 closely related to the preceding group with its 
 strong church interest than to Q. One needs only 
 to separate 5 : 1 7 ff . from the material common to 
 Luke 6 : 20 ff . to see how far different in interest 
 this material is from Q. The woes of chap. 23 
 which are peculiar to Matt. 23:15-22, 24 and 
 15:12-14 seem to be related to this same group. 
 
 * Additions from Q and Mark are evident in 5 : 18, 25, 26, 29-32. 
 
i86 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 All of these passages can with some assurance be 
 denied a place in Q and with them may be included 
 most of the parables peculiar to Matthew. The 
 very fact that Luke gives the parable of 22 : 1-14 in 
 an independent form shows that it did not belong to 
 Q. It is also very hard to believe that Luke would 
 have omitted 21:28-31 had he known it. He has 
 given 21:32 (Luke 7:29, 30) in a different form. 
 As 25:31-46 stands in Matthew it can hardly have 
 belonged to Q. It is much more closely related to 
 Matthew's characteristic material. Matt. 25 : 1-13 
 seems also to be a parable from independent sources 
 which Matthew has added to the group of Sec. 19. 
 It may be that Luke was familiar with it in some 
 variant form.' The possibility that 18:23-35; 
 20:1-16 came from Q cannot be denied, and yet 
 there is very little reason for assigning them to Q 
 if once it is agreed that Matthew had access to 
 some valuable parables which were not given by 
 Mark nor Q. 
 
 More can be said for the parables of the Pearl 
 and the Hidden Treasure, 13:44-46, which have 
 even impressed a critical scholar like Wernle as 
 
 ' See p. 98. 
 
The Common Source and Matthew 187 
 
 belonging to the common material of Matthew and 
 Luke. Why the latter should omit it cannot be 
 said; but then we cannot expect to know every 
 motive which prompted him. Such sayings as 
 5:41; 6: 34; 18:10 might easily have been dropped 
 by Luke; 7:6 (-?); 10:5, 6, 16& would naturally 
 have been omitted by him. Even the Matthean 
 Beatitudes, 5:4, 7, 8-10, might possibly have stood 
 in some other connection in Q, but this is improb- 
 able. Matt. 5:13-16 is an editorial compilation; 
 5 : 13 is a secondary form of Luke 14:34, 35 (Q), and 
 5:15 of Mark 4:21. Matt. 5:14, which is found 
 only here, Matthew certainly found in some source, 
 and, as Harnack suggests, it may have been Q. 
 1 1 : 28-30 is a very puzzling addition of Matthew. 
 It shows none of the special characteristics of that 
 evangelist. The only reasons for denying that it 
 stood in Q are the position which it has, displacing 
 a saying that must have belonged in Q, and the 
 difficulty of imagining why Luke should leave it out. 
 In conclusion, the following sayings may be 
 given a place in Q with more or less probability: 
 5:14,41; 6:34; 7:6(?); 10:5,6,166; 13:44-46; 
 18 : 10. Whether 6 : 22, 23 ; 10 : 24, 25 have parallels 
 
i88 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 in Luke was left doubtful, so that may also be 
 included here. Some of the other parables and 
 such sayings as 5:4, 7, 8-10; 11:28-30 could pos- 
 sibly have stood in Q, but it remains improbable. 
 We ought also to notice how relatively small is 
 the amount of valuable information which Matthew 
 possessed outside of Mark and Q. These are his 
 two great sources. Although the First Gospel 
 contains other important material, it is the Third 
 Gospel which contains the richest body of inde- 
 pendent narrative and teachings. 
 
 The total number of verses from the independent 
 material of Matthew and Luke, which can with 
 any confidence be assigned to Q, does not amount 
 to more than fifty. The omissions of Matthew 
 bulk much larger than those of Luke, but they are 
 mostly illustrative in character and add but little 
 to the teaching. There is a possibility that other 
 sayings and parables also belonged to Q, but in 
 view of the considerations suggested at the begin- 
 ning we do not consider that they were many. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 RELATION OF THE COMMON SOURCE TO MARK 
 
 One other relationship demands consideration. 
 Bernhard Weiss, followed by his son, Johannes 
 Weiss, and by B. W. Bacon in a somewhat different 
 form, argues that Mark was familiar with Q and 
 dependent upon it. Thus these scholars would 
 account for coincident variations of Matthew and 
 Luke in Markan material. On the other hand, 
 Wellhausen has argued for the dependence of Q 
 upon Mark, and jUlicher has agreed with him in so 
 far as to say that in the form which Matthew and 
 Luke knew Q it had been influenced by Mark. Har- 
 nack in his treatise on this subject has cogently 
 argued against the position of Wellhausen and 
 allows only the possibility of an ''indirect"^ rela- 
 tionship between Mark and Q. It is with the first 
 of these positions that we are immediately con- 
 cerned, for these scholars maintain not only that 
 Mark knew Q but that much of the narrative mate- 
 rial of Mark was taken originally from Q. The 
 
 * See p. 226. 
 
 189 
 
igo Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 reconstruction of Q which has here been presented 
 leaves no place for such an expansion into an Ure- 
 vangelium. Fortunately there are some passages 
 that are found in both Mark and Q. Let us 
 examine these points of contact to see what sort of 
 a relationship they presuppose. 
 
 Both Mark and Q began with John the Baptist 
 and his preaching. Part of the account which Q 
 gave was paralleled in Mark, Mark 1:7, 8 = Matt. 
 3:ii=Luke 3:16. The context in Q makes it 
 certain that Matthew and Luke have not simply 
 added this verse from Mark. It stood in some form 
 in Q also. One sentence of Luke is practically the 
 same as that of Mark, but Matthew remains more 
 independent of Mark. Since we know that both 
 Matthew and Luke had access to Mark, they have 
 in all probability been influenced by him, for it is 
 just in this verse that their verbal agreement 
 throughout this section is broken. Hence at this 
 point it is unnecessary to postulate a literary rela- 
 tionship between Mark and Q. The tendency to 
 harmonization is likewise to be reckoned with. 
 This very verse of Mark is conformed more com- 
 pletely to Matthew and Luke in the D, a, ff. texts. 
 
The Common Source and Mark 191 
 
 There must have been a close similarity in thought, 
 but we must remember that this is the one message 
 of the Baptist which would deeply concern all 
 Christians from the beginning. If, as seems 
 probable, "by the Holy Spirit and by fire" in 
 Matthew and Luke is a conflation of Mark and Q, 
 then there was this one considerable difference 
 in thought. Those who make Mark dependent 
 on Q regard it as an editorial change of Mark, but 
 Mark need not have taken it from Q at all. No 
 •immediate relation between Mark and Q can be 
 based on this passage. 
 
 Both Mark and Q also contained an account of 
 the baptism and temptation of Jesus. What Q 
 gave about the baptism can no longer be deter- 
 mined, so that nothing more about the resemblance 
 here can be said except that both must have con- 
 tained some mention of the baptism and baptismal 
 vision. The account of the temptation in Mark 
 implies a knowledge of more than is told. Does it 
 imply a knowledge of Q ? This is affirmed by B . W. 
 Bacon,' who says that the beasts of Mark i : 13 
 are taken from Ps. 91 : 13, the same psalm which is 
 
 ^ Beginnings oj the Gospel Story ^ p. 7. 
 
192 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 quoted in Matt. 4:6. But when we remember that 
 this particular verse of the psalm was not given by 
 Q and it is nowhere even implied in the Q account 
 that Jesus was with wild beasts nor comforted by 
 angels,' it is hard to see how this can be used as evi- 
 dence of dependence on Q. In fact nowhere is the 
 radical difference of the two accounts more mani- 
 fest than just here. The ministering of angels is a 
 temptation in Q (Matt. 4:6; Luke 4: 10, 11) which 
 Jesus repels; in Mark it is apparently the indica- 
 tion of his conquest. Surely Q's account did not 
 lie before Mark, but, as we have said, some other 
 detailed version probably did, and we may con- 
 jecture that Psalm 91 had a larger place in it. 
 It is to be granted that Q's account of this, hke his 
 account of the preaching of John the Baptist, 
 is more primitive and historical than that of 
 Mark. 
 
 A more forceful argument for some relationship 
 between Mark and Q can be found in the fact 
 that both take up these same topics in the same 
 
 ^ Matt. 4:106 is a conflation. 
 
 ' The writer sees no reason to deny that the Q account of the 
 temptation rests on a genuine word of Jesus. 
 
The Common Source and Mark 193 
 
 sequence in their introductions. But, as Harnack 
 has suggested, there is a strong probability that this 
 starting-point was fixed in early catechetical tradi- 
 tion, Acts 1:22 and Luke 1:4. If this likeness in 
 order continued it would be significant, but, being 
 found only at the beginning in material which is 
 really a unit, such great weight cannot be given it. 
 That both Matthew and Luke insert the Q material 
 in the same place in Mark gives no additional value 
 to the argument. They would naturally do so under 
 the circumstances, independently of each other. 
 In the setting Matthew and Luke give Sec. 3 there 
 is also some similarity. Both use Mark 3 : 7 ff . 
 but in such different ways as to show that it is not 
 due to their having the Sermon on the Mount 
 already combined with narrative material of Mark 
 nor to dependence on each other. ^ Such an 
 explanation would create more difficulties than it 
 could solve. In Q the discourse was directed to 
 the disciples and possibly its introduction had 
 some reference to the hill country. Matthew used 
 Mark 3 : 7 ff . merely to bring before the reader 
 the multitudes who then listened to Jesus, and he 
 
 ^ This judgment is confirmed by Allen, Com., p. 70. 
 
194 ' Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 placed the discourse at the beginning of the 
 Galilean ministry as the setting forth of the new 
 law. Luke on the other hand takes the whole 
 situation of Mark 3 : 7 ff . and introduces the dis- 
 course at that point. In no case after this do 
 Matthew and Luke connect Q material with the 
 same Markan context, a very significant fact. 
 
 In the content of the Sermon on the Mount 
 the following parallel to Mark occurs, Matt. 7:2^ = 
 Mark 4 : 24, but surely a similarity in such a short, 
 proverbial saying as this has little, if any, impor- 
 tance. There can be no question of any depend- 
 ence of Mark upon Q in this whole discourse, nor, 
 on the other hand, can the authenticity of the say- 
 ings here attributed to Jesus be reasonably ques- 
 tioned. Mark's summary of Jesus' teaching, 1:15, 
 seems to be merely editorial. B. W. Bacon has 
 also argued that the description of John the Baptist 
 in Sec. 5 underlies the account of Mark i : i ff . 
 Mark certainly implies that he knows more about 
 the Baptist than he tells, and what he knows is 
 consistent with what Q gives in Sec. 5, but this is 
 all that can be said. Mark 1:2 B. W. Bacon 
 understands to be added here from Luke 7:27, and 
 
The Common Source and Mark 195 
 
 he would explain the coincident omission of 
 Matthew and Luke here as due to their use of Q, 
 Mark's source. But the common explanation of 
 this, as a scribal addition, is a very natural one. 
 Of coincident variations in general we shall have 
 more to say later. 
 
 Nowhere is the relation between Mark and Q 
 closer than in the sending forth of the disciples, 
 Mark 6:66-11; Luke 10:1-12, Sec. 7. The 
 directions given to the disciples in the two accounts 
 are in practical agreement. The Q account is 
 fuller, but including all that is found in Mark. 
 Mark's version seems condensed; here also he 
 probably knew more than he told. The exception 
 made of the staff in Mark 6:8 appears to be 
 secondary, and Harnack^ has completely refuted 
 Wellhausen's argument that Q is dependent on 
 Mark in this section. The priority belongs to Q 
 throughout. But this does not estabhsh Mark's 
 use of Q. We have no right to deny that Jesus 
 sent forth his disciples, as both of these sources 
 maintain. The character of the instructions shows 
 their primitiveness, and we must allow some place 
 
 * See pp. 212 ff. 
 
196 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 for the period of oral tradition. A basis in fact 
 and common oral tradition is the natural, simple, 
 and amply sufficient explanation of the two 
 accounts here. 
 
 In Sec. 8 there is one verse which might be 
 regarded as having a parallel in Mark, Luke 10: 16 
 = Mark 9:37. Here again the eirl rco ovbiiaTi ixov 
 of Mark 9:37 favors the priority of Q, but depend- 
 ence of Mark upon Q is very improbable. It is 
 hard to see how two accounts of a common tradition 
 could be more different, if indeed we have here a 
 common tradition. 
 
 The petition of the Lord's Prayer, ^'Forgive us 
 our debts as we forgive our debtors," Matt. 6:12, 
 Sec. 12, is reflected in Mark 11:25, but, whatever 
 Mark's relation to Q may have been there, there is 
 every probability that he was familiar with this 
 prayer.* The distinctive characteristic of this 
 petition in Q is the use of o^etXiJjuara and 60€t- 
 XeVat; these, however, do not appear in Mark. 
 
 The only other extended likeness between Mark 
 and Q besides the one of Sec. 7 is that which we 
 
 • Wellhausen's arguments for denying that this prayer is a 
 genuine word of Jesus are arbitrary. 
 
The Common Source and Mark 197 
 
 find in Sec. 13. But here any dependence of the 
 one account on the other is impossible; the differ- 
 ences are too fundamental. The charge itself is 
 not the same in both accounts. In Mark, Jesus is 
 accused of being a demoniac, possessed with Beelze- 
 bul; in Q it is only said that he drives out demons 
 by the power of Beelzebul. The first argument of 
 Jesus in reply is substantially the same in both, but 
 the method of presentation is very different. The 
 second argument of Q is not found in Mark. The 
 third argument is much changed in Mark. Q's pres- 
 entation makes laxvporepos avrov, God. The King- 
 dom of God is contrasted with that of Beelzebul. 
 In Mark, as we should expect from the form of the 
 charge in 3:22, it is Christ who is opposed to 
 Beelzebul. Q here, as usual, deserves the priority, 
 but is it not more probable that the difference arose 
 in the early tradition than that Mark used the 
 account of Q and changed it?^ Q concluded its 
 account here with the parable of the Seven Other 
 Spirits; Mark with the saying about the unforgiv- 
 able sin. This Markan saying, 3:28-30, has its 
 
 ^ Harnack is correct in saying that Luke 11:23 and Mark 9 : 40 
 have no relation to each other. See p. 221. 
 
igS Matthew* s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 parallel in Luke 12 : lo, Q. The difference between 
 the two accounts here (Mark has "sons of men'* 
 and Q has the "Son of Man") is easier to under- 
 stand on the basis of a common Aramaic text or 
 tradition. There is no possible reason for thinking 
 that Mark is dependent on the Greek Q. Further- 
 more, there can be little question that where the 
 difference is so great as it is here, the use of a com- 
 mon tradition is more probable than any mere 
 translation change. If now this section as a whole 
 is considered, the impression that Mark and Q 
 are two independent embodiments of early apos- 
 tolic tradition grows into a conviction. 
 
 The demand for a sign, Sec. 15, which was surely 
 made more than once in the life of Jesus, is also 
 mentioned in Mark 8:11-13. The accounts are 
 entirely independent; each preserves authentic 
 features omitted by the other.' 
 
 In Sec. 16, Luke 11:43 is a close parallel to 
 Mark 12:386, 39a. If, as most scholars hold, this 
 is merely borrowed from Mark by both Matthew 
 and Luke, then it would not belong to Q at all. 
 
 ^ There is little reason to believe that Luke 1 1 : 33 stood in Q 
 at all. See p. 66. 
 
The Common Source and Mark 199 
 
 But the coincident variation, occurring in the way 
 it does, makes it more probable that the verse 
 stood in Q also. This is not surprising; we 
 should expect some point of contact in two inde- 
 pendent accounts of Jesus' condemnation of the 
 Pharisees. 
 
 In Sec. 17, Luke 12:16 resembles Mark 8:15. 
 Whether this verse stood in Q is very doubtful,' 
 but there is a possibility that it did, and it should 
 be included in the list of points of contact. There is 
 also an interesting likeness between Luke 12:3 = 
 Matt. 10:27 and Mark 4:22, but here the differ- 
 ence in form is marked. Another point of contact 
 here is found in Luke 12:8, 9 = Mark 8:38a, and 
 yet how different they are! The likeness between 
 Luke 12:11, 12 and Mark 13:11 is closer. 
 
 Jiilicher^ has called attention to the relation of 
 Luke 12:35-38, Sec. 19, to Mark 13:33-37. He 
 wishes especially to emphasize the fact that Luke 
 here is not dependent upon Mark, but he also says 
 of Mark, "dass er gerade unsern Matthaus und 
 unsern Lukas benutzt hatte ist nicht erweislich." 
 Q does deserve the priority here, as we have seen 
 
 * See above, p. 81. ^ Op. cit., pp. 169 f. 
 
200 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 to be regularly the case, but no literary relation- 
 ship can be maintained. 
 
 The cursing of the fig tree, Mark ii: 12-14, has 
 often been considered as a later development of the 
 parable of the Fig Tree, Luke 13:6-9, Sec. 23. 
 This is very possible, but are we to suppose that 
 Mark with this parable before him deliberately 
 changed it into the miracle of 1 1 : 1 2 if . ? Surely 
 no such theory can command any wide acceptance 
 today. The trustworthiness of the evangelists has 
 been too firmly established. Anyone who will 
 agree with us that this section belongs to Q must 
 grant that here, at least, they are independent of 
 each other. Whatever relation there may be 
 between the parable of Luke and the miracle of 
 Mark belongs to the period of oral tradition. 
 
 The parable of the Mustard Seed is given by 
 both Q, Sec. 24, and Mark 4 : 30-32. Mark empha- 
 sizes its being the smallest of seeds. Q speaks of 
 its becoming a tree and of the birds resting on its 
 branches. The expression rd Trereiva tov ovpavov 
 is only found here in Mark. This is the only 
 parable where the likeness between the two sources 
 is noticeable, and here we find nothing convincing. 
 
The Common Source and Mark 201 
 
 It is probable that if Mark had known Q he would 
 have retained the reference to the tree just as 
 Matthew did. On the other hand, Q would cer- 
 tainly have mentioned the small size of the mustard 
 seed if he had had Mark before him. 
 
 In Sec. 27, if we accept the parables here of Luke 
 as belonging to Q, Luke 14:34, 35 is the same 
 saying which we find in Mark 9:49, 50. The 
 application of the saying in Q is more appropriate 
 and more likely to be original than that of Mark, 
 but this is all that can be said. Another saying 
 here which both give is Luke 14 127 = Mark 8:34. 
 The likeness in this case is close. 
 
 The saying about marriage in Sec. 28 is given 
 a suitable setting in Mark but is isolated in Q. 
 In our discussion of this saying we followed the 
 suggestion of' Harnack and accepted the form of 
 Matthew, omitting the clause, "saving for the 
 cause of fornication," as that which originally 
 stood in Q. Harnack^ has argued that this form 
 is preferable to that of Mark. He considers that 
 the connection between Mark 10: 1-9 and 10: 10-12 
 is only literary. Mark 10:10 does indeed seem to 
 
 ^ See p. 199. 
 
202 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 be a very mechanical connecting link, but between 
 the two forms of the saying it is hard to decide; 
 either might be original. The thought is prac- 
 tically the same. Both Q and Mark 9:42 also have 
 a saying of Jesus on giving offense; the thought 
 is again the same but the expression so different 
 that Matthew can place the two side by side, 
 Matt. 18:6, 7. There is another similarity in 
 idea between Luke 17:5, 6 and Mark 11:23, but 
 here the differences far outweigh any likeness. 
 
 The eschatological passage of Q, Sec. 29, forms 
 a striking contrast to that of Mark; the whole 
 standpoint is entirely different. An answer to the 
 question, when the Son of Man is to come, is 
 refused in Q, but in Mark it is answered in full 
 apocalyptic detail. J. Weiss' has argued that 
 Mark 13: 14-20 is dependent upon Luke 17:31-32. 
 His principal reason is that the whole tenor of Mark, 
 chap. 13, implies a world-catastrophe indeed; in 
 13 : 24 ff . it is necessary so to regard it. However, 
 it is a commonplace of all apocalyptic literature to 
 confuse the national with the cosmological stand- 
 point, and that is the true explanation of Mark 
 
 I Das dlteste Evangelium, in loc. 
 
The Common Source and Mark 203 
 
 here. His sources cannot be determined by such 
 discrepancies. This saying is an integral part of 
 Mark's apocalyptic description and that descrip- 
 tion is not based on Q. Besides, these very verses 
 of Luke may not have stood in Q; we have con- 
 sidered them as a later addition.^ So 17:33 also 
 we are inclined to regard as a later insertion. The 
 connection in which Matt. 10:39 gives this same 
 verse inclines one strongly to think he simply 
 borrows it from Mark. Matt. 10:38 stood in 
 both Q and Mark. In its Markan context it is 
 followed by the verse in question. Its introduc- 
 tion by Matthew at this point is thus readily 
 explained. This is confirmed by the fact that in 
 the following verses Matthew is certainly following 
 Mark; 10:40 is based on Mark 9:37, and 10:41,42 
 is a practical- application of Mark 9:41. We can- 
 not be so sure that Luke is simply quoting Mark, 
 but the probability is strong. However, one 
 might grant that this stood in Q and include it 
 among the common sayings. 
 
 There is one more of these short sayings which is 
 found in both sources, Matt. 25:29, Sec. 30, and 
 
 ' See pp. 109 ff. 
 
204 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 Mark 4 : 25. It is very appropriate where it stands 
 in Q but is in a miscellaneous collection in Mark. 
 This, however, does not show that he found it in Q. 
 Of the twenty-six points of contact between Q 
 and Mark, nineteen are short proverbial sayings, 
 practically independent in themselves; material 
 upon which it is most difficult to base any argu- 
 ment for a common source. Besides, of these one 
 is generally regarded as a gloss, Mark 1:2; two 
 others probably did not stand in Q, Mark 4:21 and 
 8:35. The differences in seven cases are very 
 marked: 9:37; 3:28-30; 4:22; 2>:2,^a; 9:42; 10:11, 
 12; 1 1 : 23. This leaves only nine instances in which 
 there is a likeness of form as well as any similarity 
 of thought. But to these nine ought to be added 
 the parable of the Mustard Seed. We found also 
 that in three cases where there is a connection in 
 thought, a comparison of the two accounts shows 
 that Mark must be using another source, 1:12, 13; 
 3:22 ff.; 11:12-14. We also noticed how radically 
 different are the two sources in Mark, chap. 13, 
 and Luke, chap. 17. If Mark knew these four 
 sections of Q in an independent form, it is probable 
 that he did other portions of Q also. And one 
 
The Common Source and Mark 205 
 
 cannot help wondering how Mark ever came to 
 omit the miraculous healing of the centurion's 
 servant if he was familiar with Q. We can readily 
 see why he should omit teachings, but not why he 
 should leave out such a miracle. Surely no argu- 
 ment for a dependence of Mark upon Q can be 
 based upon any resemblances, which may be 
 traced, of Mark to the other common material of 
 Matthew and Luke. It has been a common prac- 
 tice to assign to Q passages in Matthew which 
 are duplicates of Markan sayings, such as Matt. 5 : 
 29, 30, but, as we have seen, duplicates in Matthew 
 do not necessarily mean that he has access to two 
 sources, and certainly no argument for a depend- 
 ence of Mark on Q can be based upon them. 
 
 However, those who have maintained such 
 dependence have not argued from the standpoint 
 of Q but from that of Mark. The theory has its 
 main support in the problems connected with the 
 use which Matthew and Luke make of Mark, 
 and especially their coincident agreements against 
 Mark. In fact only this last consideration can 
 possibly concern us, for Q is a source common to 
 Matthew and Luke, and only evidence which may 
 
2o6 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 point to such a common source has weight. Both 
 Hawkins and Wernle, two most careful investi- 
 gators, have explained these variations on other 
 grounds. Allen in his recent commentary on 
 Matthew sums up the probable explanations as 
 being: (i) independent revision by Matthew and 
 Luke along the same lines, causing many agree- 
 ments against Mark; (2) textual correction of 
 Mark; (3) harmonistic revision of Matthew and 
 Luke; (4) Luke's use of Matthew. This last 
 explanation hardly deserves any answer after the 
 comprehensive reply of Wernle.' Allen would do 
 far better to expand his second line of argument and 
 recognize that the textual corrections of Mark in 
 the first century would be very different from those 
 which we can trace through the existing manu- 
 scripts. They probably included the omission or 
 correction of some Semiticisms, and may well 
 explain the apparent priority of Matthew in such 
 passages as the account of the Syrophoenician 
 woman. Later change in Mark, combined with 
 the other lines of argument, seems to us in every 
 way the most satisfactory explanation of the 
 phenomena that confront us in the use which 
 
 * Op. cit., pp. 4S-6i. 
 
The Common Source and Mark 207 
 
 Matthew and Luke make of Mark. It is more 
 in accord with the incidental character of the 
 common variations which are so well distributed 
 over the whole Gospel. We therefore hold that 
 Mark did not use Q, though such an *' indirect '^ 
 relation as that of which Harnack speaks is possible. 
 But there is not need of assuming even such a 
 relation as that, if one grants that there really was 
 a reliable oral tradition in the apostolic church 
 from which both sources drew. This will account 
 for all the phenomena of their relationship. When 
 once the position is accepted that Mark was not 
 dependent on Q, then the main support for any 
 attempt to assign to Q portions of the Markan 
 material is gone. It is true that, as we have sup- 
 posed in the case of the account of the baptismal 
 vision, both Matthew and Luke might in other 
 cases prefer the form of Mark to that of Q, and so 
 omit Q. But, as Wernle points out, so different 
 is the character of the two sources that there is 
 little, if anything, which with any probability 
 could be assigned to Q, and for want of more posi- 
 tive evidence it is surely safer to hold to the Q, 
 about which we know. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC ORIGIN OF THE COMMON 
 SOURCE 
 
 Can the source Q have come from one of the 
 twelve disciples ? Is there anything in this pres- 
 entation of the person of Jesus or of his teaching 
 which makes it historically impossible to assign it 
 to such an author? As we have reconstructed 
 this source, in content it is not essentially different 
 from that which is presented by Harnack, and with 
 the estimate^ that he has placed upon this material 
 we find ourselves in practical agreement. 
 
 Q is a collection of sayings, written originally 
 
 in Aramaic. These sayings are adapted to the 
 
 needs of the early Palestinian church. The source 
 
 Q was written before, but probably not long before, 
 
 Mark. As Harnack has said, the independence of 
 
 Mark from Q is against such a supposition. The 
 
 accommodation in Q of Jesus' teaching to the 
 
 needs of the early church is primarily a matter 
 
 of arrangement and selection. No "tendencies" 
 
 * See pp. 246 S. 
 
 208 
 
Apostolic Origin of Common Source 209 
 
 can be observed. The author is very conserva- 
 tive in his treatment of this body of tradition. 
 
 The conception of the person of Jesus here is the 
 same which we find in the speech of Peter, Acts 2 : 
 14-36. The great questions which we associate 
 with Paul are not raised. Jesus is the Messiah. 
 The author prefaces a historical introduction to 
 make this clear. Jesus is more than a prophet; 
 John was the last of the prophets. As the Messiah, 
 the Son, Jesus has brought the disciples a new 
 revelation of God. Jesus is presented as the Mes- 
 siah already in his earthly life, but his Kingship in 
 its power and glory is to be revealed hereafter. 
 Just so the kingdom is a hidden force now, to be 
 seen in its glory later.^ 
 
 Nothing is more striking in this source than the 
 way in which -the kingdom and future coming are 
 stripped of their apocalyptical features and made 
 ethical in their bearing. The future coming is 
 primarily a call to repentance. All interrogations^ 
 
 * See Luke 7:28; 11:20; 13:18-21; 13:29, 
 
 'This generation and its leaders are condemned in forceful 
 terms, but not as enemies; behind these condemnations is the 
 earnest, sympathetic note, calling upon them to repent while 
 there is time. 
 
210 Matthew* s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 as to the when and where are repelled. The 
 kingdom itself is a "Gabe" rather than an "Auf- 
 gabe, " but the two cannot be separated. The 
 task which is laid upon the disciples has likeness 
 to the Father as its aim — this is the solid rock 
 upon which to build. Jesus gives them the knowl- 
 edge of the Father that makes this possible. But 
 what is the kingdom ? It is the heavenly treasure/ 
 it is the entrance into the joy of their Lord.^ As 
 Kaftan has said, defining "kingdom" in the 
 teaching of Jesus, " Gerichtigkeit ist ein Ubung in 
 Gott, und das Segen, das Reich, ist in dem Leben in 
 Gott." There is an inner relationship here which 
 is fundamental. In regard to the ethical standards 
 here presented, we can do no better than to quote 
 the words of Harnack: "Taken as a whole, we 
 have here our Lord's own rule of life and all his 
 promises — a summary of genuine ordinances trans- 
 forming the life such as is not to be found elsewhere 
 in the Gospel." 
 
 The Gentiles are recognized in Q. Great im- 
 portance is given to Jesus' approval of the cen- 
 turion's faith. But the standpoint of Q is readily 
 
 » See Matt. 6: 19-21. * See Matt. 25: 21, 23. 
 
Apostolic Origin of Common Source 211 
 
 observed when, after the words "From the East 
 and the West they shall come and sit at the 
 table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the 
 Kingdom of God," it puts the lament over Jerusa- 
 lem, forsaken of God. It was to the "lost sheep of 
 the house of Israel" that Jesus came. Yet here 
 again there is every reason to believe that this was 
 also the position of Jesus himself. The kingdom 
 is open to all, but the human interest is in the 
 Israelite. 
 
 Great stress is laid in Q upon the severe demands 
 Jesus makes of his disciples. They are to be perse- 
 cuted and tried; they are warned not to be afraid 
 of those who can only kill the body. Home ties are 
 to be broken; they must bear the cross of Christ. 
 Everyone must count the cost. Over against these 
 things it is not an earthly but a heavenly hope 
 which is offered. Possibly the emphasis here may 
 be due to conditions in the time of the author, 
 but the supporting testimony of Mark shows 
 that these teachings had a large place in the life 
 of Jesus. 
 
 If this is a fair presentation of the position taken 
 by the source Q, does it not support the claim of a 
 
212 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 primitive, apostolic origin for this source ? Har- 
 nack is very careful in his statement; he says: 
 
 There is a strong balance of probability that Q is a work 
 of St. Matthew; but more cannot be said. It is useless to 
 discuss the historical and psychological question whether 
 one of the Twelve could have composed such a compilation as 
 Q; convincing reasons for or against cannot be discovered. 
 From the so-called charge to the Apostles we can only con- 
 clude that behind the written record there stands the mem- 
 ory of an apostolic listener. 
 
 This much, at least, must be granted.^ Harnack 
 has shown that the estimate of Wellhausen is 
 untenable.^ 
 
 Furthermore, this conclusion finds confirmation 
 in the external evidence. Thus far in our discus- 
 sion the attempt has been made to let the Gospels 
 speak for themselves. No presuppositions have 
 been introduced, not consciously at least, from 
 without. Relying solely upon this internal evi- 
 dence, we have sought to reconstruct the source 
 demanded by the phenomena observed in the 
 non-Markan material common to Matthew and 
 Luke. We may now properly ask what relation 
 this source bears to Papias' statement regarding 
 
 * See p. 249. ^ See pp. 136 ff. 
 
Apostolic Origin of Common Source 213 
 
 the logia of Matthew, which Eusebius quoted, 
 HisL, III, 39. 
 
 B. W. Bacon has carefully discussed this passage 
 in the article "Logia " in Hastings' Dictionary of the 
 Gospels. He presents the view, now commonly 
 held, that in this quotation Papias himself referred 
 to the canonical Matthew, and he has also made 
 it clear that ra Xoyca could not have been the title 
 of a first-century collection of Jesus' sayings. This 
 term. Bacon goes on to argue, was substituted by 
 Papias for an earlier \6yoL. Aoyot was the term 
 employed by Papias' authority. This is possible. 
 But we must remember that the emphasis here is 
 not upon TOL \6yLa. What Papias has been told 
 is not that Matthew wrote the logia, but that he 
 wrote in Hebrew, and everyone interpreted as he 
 was able. One must therefore be careful in basing 
 broad conclusions on this term. Moreover, if it 
 could be shown that the title of the writing intended 
 by Papias' authority included the term Xoyta or 
 \oyoi, it would still be a question what sort of a 
 writing was thereby implied. At any rate, it 
 would be entirely appropriate to the source which 
 we have attempted to reconstruct. But this 
 
214 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 leads only into the region of conjecture. Papias, 
 himself, knew nothing about the content of this 
 Hebrew, or more probably Aramaic, writing of 
 which he speaks. He has supposed the canonical 
 Matthew to be one of its translations. But he 
 did have good authority for believing that there 
 had been some Semitic writing associated with the 
 Apostle Matthew, and that this writing was some- 
 how connected with the First Gospel. 
 
 This testimony, which is confirmed by the 
 unanimous tradition of the early church, has its 
 strongest basis in the very title of the Gospel. 
 It can be no mere arbitrary choice which has asso- 
 ciated this Gospel with the obscure disciple 
 Matthew. In view of such evidence, there is a 
 strong probability that some part at least of the 
 Gospel rests upon the authority of Matthew. 
 Now if from the Gospel we subtract the source 
 Mark and the source Q, there is nothing left which 
 could have such a large place in the early tradition. 
 There are, indeed, several valuable parables and 
 some important teachings, but no fundamental, 
 primitive source of any length can be constructed 
 
Apostolic Origin of Common Source 215 
 
 out of them. The First Gospel is a combination of 
 the source Q with Mark, to which the editor has 
 added what other scattered material he has been 
 able to find. It is also to be noticed that this is 
 true of Matthew in a sense in which it cannot be 
 said of Luke. There also Mark and Q are funda- 
 mental sources, but Luke has other sources which 
 he, at times at least, even prefers to Mark. This 
 is certainly the case in the Passion narratives. 
 Again, while Luke has practically retained the 
 sequence of Q, he has as far as possible trans- 
 formed it from a collection of sayings to a narra- 
 tive; Matthew, on the other hand, despite the 
 complete readjustment of the material into new 
 groups, has still retained the dominant interest and 
 form of Q. . If now the tradition of the church, 
 whose primitiveness is guaranteed, not only by the 
 testimony of Papias, but by the title of the Gospel, 
 associates the First Gospel with a Hebrew writing 
 by the disciple Matthew, and this tradition cannot 
 have its justification in that Gospel as we have it, 
 we naturally look to the source Q for the writing of 
 the disciple. Furthermore, this conclusion, to 
 
2i6 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 which the external evidence points, only confirms 
 the impression that the source itself makes upon us. 
 This mutual support of external and internal 
 evidence is our justification for entithng the non- 
 Markan common source of Matthew and Luke, 
 "Matthew's Sayings of Jesus." 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 MATTHEW'S SAYINGS OF JESUS AS 
 RECONSTRUCTED 
 
 In any such reconstruction of a source as has 
 been attempted in this thesis, much must be left 
 doubtful. We can never hope to restore the exact 
 wording of Matthew's Sayings of Jesus. Certain 
 passages of Matthew and Luke may or may not 
 have belonged to this source. Detailed results are 
 here presented merely as a basis for future discus- 
 sion. By having the material before him as a 
 unit the reader will be better able to judge the 
 cogency of many of the arguments which have 
 been urged. 
 
 SECTION I 
 
 Matt. 3:7-10; Luke 3:7-9. — (John said to the 
 multitudes who came out to be baptized of him), 
 You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee 
 from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore 
 fruit worthy of repentance, and do not attempt^ 
 to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for 
 
 » Greek, dp^rjade. 
 
 217 
 
2i8 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 our father, for I say to you that God can of these 
 stones raise up children to Abraham. Even now 
 the axe is laid at the root of the trees; every tree, 
 therefore, which does not bear fruit is hewn down 
 and cast into the fire. 
 
 Matt. 3:11, 12; Luke 3:i6&, 17. — I baptize 
 you with water, but he who comes after me is 
 mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to 
 bear. He shall baptize you (with the Holy Spirit 
 and) with fire; his winnowing shovel is in his hand 
 to thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor, and to 
 gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he 
 will burn up with unquenchable fire.^ 
 
 SECTION 2 
 
 Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13. — (Jesus was led 
 up into the wilderness by the spirit to be tempted 
 by the devil); and he ate nothing forty days and 
 forty nights, and when they were completed he 
 hungered. The devil said to him. If thou art the 
 Son of God, command that this stone become 
 bread. He answered and said. It is written, 
 
 * It is necessary to assume that some account of the baptism of 
 Jesus directly followed this, introducing Jesus himself to the 
 reader. See p. 140. 
 
Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 219 
 
 Man shall not live by bread alone. Then the 
 devil took him to Jerusalem, and set him on the 
 pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, If thou 
 art the Son of God, cast thyself down; for it is 
 written, He shall give his angels charge concerning 
 thee, and, on their hands they shall bear thee up 
 lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus 
 answered and said to him. It is also written. Thou 
 shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again the devil 
 took him to a very high mountain, and showed 
 him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 
 and said to him, All these things will I give thee, 
 if thou wilt worship before me. Jesus answered 
 and said to him. It is written. Thou shalt worship 
 the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve. 
 And when the devil had completed every tempta- 
 tion, he departed from him. 
 
 SECTION 3 
 
 Matt. 5:1 ff.; Luke 6:20-23. — (And he lifted 
 up his eyes on his disciples and said:)^ Blessed are 
 
 * The introduction to this discourse which stood in Q cannot 
 be restored. Luke, however, certainly stands closer to the com- 
 mon source. "Disciples" here as elsewhere in Q means the 
 larger circle of followers, not the Twelve exclusively. 
 
220 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 ye poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God. Blessed 
 are ye hungry, for ye shall be filled. Blessed are 
 ye who weep, for ye shall laugh. Blessed are 
 ye when they shall reproach you and persecute you 
 and say all manner of evil against you for my sake. 
 Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your 
 reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the 
 prophets who were before you. 
 
 Matt. 5:39 ff.; Luke 6:27-36. — I say to you 
 who hear. Love your enemies,^ and pray for those 
 who despitefuUy use you. Whoever smites you 
 on one cheek turn to him the other also. And if 
 anyone would take away thy cloak, let him have 
 thy coat also.^ Give to him who asks of thee; 
 and from him who would borrow of thee turn not 
 thou away. And as ye would that men should do 
 to you do ye also to them likewise. And if ye 
 love those who love you, what reward have ye? 
 Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye 
 salute your brethen only what do ye more than 
 
 * Luke's addition here may have stood in Q: "Do good to 
 those who hate you, bless those who curse you." 
 
 2 Matthew here adds another illustration, "And whoever shall 
 compel thee to go one mile, go with him two." 
 
Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 221 
 
 others ? do not even the Gentiles the same ?^ But 
 love your enemies, and your reward shall be 
 great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High;* 
 for he causeth his sun to shine on the evil and 
 the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the 
 unjust. Be ye therefore merciful as your Father 
 is merciful. 
 
 Matt. 7:1 ff.; Luke 6:37-49. — And judge not 
 and ye shall not be judged; for with what judgment 
 ye judge ye shall be judged, and with what measure 
 ye mete it shall be measured to you. Wherefore 
 beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's 
 eye but regardest not the beam that is in thine own 
 eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let 
 me cast the mote out of thine eye; and behold, 
 the beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, 
 first cast the beam out of thine own eye and then 
 shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy 
 brother's eye. For there is no good tree that 
 
 ^ Luke seems here to have expanded his source, interpreting 
 it very appropriately. 
 
 " Harnack thinks that rod varphs vfiQv stood in Q, but without 
 Matthew's addition, rod iv ovpavois, which hardly suits the 
 context. 
 
222 Matthew* s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 beareth corrupt fruit, nor again a corrupt tree 
 that beareth good fruit. For each tree is known by 
 its own fruit. For of thorns they do not gather 
 figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. 
 The good man out of the good treasure of his heart 
 bringeth forth that which is good, and the evil man 
 out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is 
 evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the 
 mouth speaketh. 
 
 Why do ye call me. Lord, Lord, and do not the 
 things which I say? Everyone who heareth my 
 words and doeth them, I will show you whom he is 
 like. He is like a man who built his house upon 
 the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods 
 came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house; 
 and it fell not, for it had been founded upon the 
 rock. And everyone who heareth these my words 
 and doeth them not is like a man who built his 
 house upon the sand. And the rain descended, 
 and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat 
 upon that house; and it fell, and great was the 
 fall thereof. 
 
 And it came to pass, when he finished his words, 
 he went to Capernaum. 
 
Matthew* s Sayings of Jesus 223 
 
 SECTION 4 
 
 Matt. 8:5-10, 13; Luke 7:1-10. — ^A certain 
 centurion's servant was sick.^ (When he heard 
 concerning Jesus, he sent to him elders of the 
 Jews, asking him to come and save his servant. 
 They came to Jesus and^ besought him, saying. He 
 is worthy that thou shouldest do this for him; 
 for he loves our nation and he built the synagogue 
 for us. And Jesus went with them. And then, 
 when he was not far from the house, the centurion 
 sent friends,) saying, Lord,^ I am not worthy that 
 thou shouldest come under my roof;"* but only 
 say the word and my servant shall be healed. For 
 I myself am a man under authority with soldiers 
 under me; and I say to this one, Go, and he goes; 
 
 ' Matthew defines the disease as irapoKvTiKbs, but this term 
 seems to be very loosely employed in the First Gospel, and with- 
 out the support of Luke cannot be credited to Q. 
 
 2 tf-TTouSafws is not a characteristic Lukan term: it occurs only 
 here in Luke or Acts, but it may well have been added by the 
 evangelist for dramatic effect. 
 
 3 Luke adds, "Trouble not thyself." But Matthew seems to 
 have preserved this speech of the centurion very carefully. 
 
 4 Luke adds, "Wlierefore neither deemed I myself worthy to 
 come to thee." This attributes to faith what was more probably 
 due to respect for Jewish prejudices. 
 
224 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 and to another, Come and he comes; and to my 
 servant, Do this, and he does it. When Jesus 
 heard, he marvelled, and said to those who followed. 
 Verily,^ I say to you, I have not found so great 
 faith, no, not in Israel. And they who were sent, 
 returning to the house, found the servant whole.^ 
 
 SECTION 5 
 
 Matt. 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35. — John^ sum- 
 moned two of his disciples and sent them to the 
 Lord, saying, Art thou he that cometh or look we 
 for another ? And he answered and said to them, 
 Go and tell John the things which ye hear and see: 
 the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, 
 the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the 
 dead are raised, and the poor have good tidings 
 preached to them. And blessed is he, who shall 
 find no occasion of stumbling in me. 
 
 » ifi-ffv seems to have been avoided by Luke. He frequently 
 omits it from Mark. 
 
 ' This last verse may not have been in Q. 
 
 5 Hamack accepts Matthew's introduction in 11:2. But 
 the reference to John's being in prison preparing for the narrative 
 of Mark 6:17-29, and the phrase tA ip-ya rod xpt^'^'O" are cer- 
 tainly editorial, icjpioi of Luke preserves the characteristic Q 
 designation of Jesus. 
 
Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 225 
 
 As these went their way, he began to say to the 
 multitudes concerning John, What went ye out 
 into the wilderness to behold? a reed shaken by 
 the wind? But what went ye out to see? a 
 man clothed in soft raiment? Behold they who 
 wear soft raiment are in king's houses. But what 
 went ye out to see ? a prophet ? Yea, I say to you, 
 and much more than a prophet. This is he of 
 whom it is written, Behold I send my messenger 
 before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before 
 thee. Verily, I say to you. Among those who are 
 born of women tjiere hath not arisen a greater than 
 John; yet he that is least in the Kingdom of God 
 is greater than he. 
 
 To what shall I liken this generation ? and what 
 is it like ? It is like children sitting in the market 
 places, who call to their fellows and say. We piped 
 to you and ye did not dance; we wailed and ye did 
 not mourn. For John came neither eating nor 
 drinking, and ye say, He hath a demon. The Son 
 of Man came eating and drinking, and ye say. 
 Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a 
 friend of pubHcans and sinners! But wisdom is 
 justified of her children. 
 
226 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 SECTION 6 
 
 Matt. 8:19-22; Luke 9:57-62. — One came and 
 said to him : I will follow thee wherever thou goest. 
 And Jesus said to him, The foxes have holes, and 
 the birds of the heaven have nests, but the Son 
 of Man hath not where to lay his head. And he 
 said to another. Follow me. But he said. Permit 
 me first to go and bury my father. He said to him, 
 Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but go 
 thou and proclaim^ the Kingdom of God. (An- 
 other also said,^ I will follow thee. Lord: but first 
 permit me to bid farewell to those who are at my 
 house. Jesus said to him. No man, having put his 
 hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the 
 Kingdom of God.) 
 
 SECTION 7 
 
 Matt. 9:35 — 10:15; Luke 10:2-12. — (Jesus) 
 said to his disciples. The harvest is plenteous, but 
 the laborers are few. Pray ye, therefore, the 
 Lord of the harvest that he send forth laborers 
 
 I 5ia77 AXw is probably a Lukan substitute for the more com- 
 mon KTjpiaau. 
 
 ^ This third saying is not given by Matthew, and may not have 
 stood in Q; but see p. 46. 
 
Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 227 
 
 into his harvest. And Jesus sent (them)^ forth 
 and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of 
 the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the 
 Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of the 
 house of Israel. Carry no purse, no wallet, no 
 shoes, and salute no one by the way. As ye enter 
 a house, first say. Peace be to this house. And if 
 a son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon 
 him, but if not, it shall return to you. Remain in 
 that house, eating and drinking what things they 
 give you; for the laborer is worthy of his hire. 
 Go not from house to house. And into whatever 
 city ye enter and they receive you, heal the sick 
 therein and say to them, The Kingdom of God is 
 come nigh you. But into whatever city ye enter, 
 and they receive you not, go out into its streets and 
 say, Even the dust from your city which cleaves 
 to our feet we wipe off against you; nevertheless, 
 know this, that the Kingdom of God is nigh. I 
 say to you. It shall be more tolerable in that day 
 for Sodom,^ than for that city. 
 
 * Matthew here has substituted "these twelve," defining the 
 more general "disciples" of Q in accordance with Mark, chap. 6. 
 
 '"Sodom" alone makes the comparison more pointed, but 
 Matthew, as we might expect, has given the full Old Testament 
 reference, "the land of Sodom and Gomorrah." 
 
228 Matthew's Sayings oj Jesus 
 
 SECTION 8 
 
 Matt. 11:21-23; 10:16; Luke 10:13-16, 3. — 
 Woe to thee, Chorazin! Woe to thee, Bethsaida! 
 for if in Tyre and Sidon the mighty works had been 
 done, which were done in you, they would have 
 repented long ago in sack-cloth and ashes. But 
 it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the 
 judgment than for you. And thou, Capernaum, 
 shalt thou be exalted to heaven? to Hades shalt 
 thou be cast down. He who heareth you heareth 
 me, and he who rejecteth you rejecteth me, and 
 he who rejecteth me rejecteth him who sent me.' 
 Go your way! Behold I send you as sheep in the 
 midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents 
 and harmless as doves. 
 
 SECTION 9 
 
 Luke 10:17-20. — And^ the (disciples) returned 
 with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject 
 to us in thy name. He said to them, I beheld 
 Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. Behold I 
 
 * See pp. 50 f . for the insertion of this verse here. 
 
 ' It is to be remembered that in this section we have no parallel 
 in Matthew by which we might eliminate minor variations of 
 Luke. 
 
Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 229 
 
 have given you authority to tread on serpents and 
 scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and 
 nothing shall in any wise hurt you. But in this 
 rejoice not, that the spirits are subject to you ; but 
 rejoice rather that your names are written in 
 heaven. 
 
 SECTION 10 
 
 Matt. 11:25-27; Luke 10:21-22. — At that 
 time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O 
 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst 
 conceal these things from the wise and prudent, 
 and reveal them to babes. Yea, Father, for so it 
 was well-pleasing before thee. All things were 
 delivered to me by my Father, and no one knoweth 
 the Son except the Father, neither knoweth anyone 
 the Father except the Son and he to whom the 
 Son willeth to reveal him. 
 
 SECTION II 
 
 Matt. 13:16, 17; Luke 10:23, 24. — (And he 
 said) Blessed are the eyes which see what ye see. 
 Verily I say to you that many prophets and kings 
 desired to see what ye see and saw not, and to hear 
 what ye hear and heard not. 
 
230 Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 SECTION 12 
 
 Matt. 6:9-12; Luke 11:1-4. — C)ne of his dis- 
 ciples said to him, Lord, teach us to pray, as 
 John also taught his disciples. And he said to 
 them. When ye pray, say. Father, hallowed be thy 
 name; thy Kingdom come; give us this day our 
 daily bread; and forgive us our debts, as we also 
 have forgiven our debtors; and lead us not into 
 temptation. 
 
 Luke II : 5-8. — ^And he said to them. Who of you 
 shall have a friend and shall go to him at midnight 
 and say to him. Friend, lend me three loaves, for a 
 friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and 
 I have nothing to set before him. And he from 
 within shall answer and say, Trouble me not; 
 the door is now shut, and my children are with 
 me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee ? (Verily) 
 I say to you. Though he will not rise and give 
 him because he is his friend, yet because of his 
 importunity he will arise and give him as many 
 as he needeth. 
 
 Matt. 7:7-11; Luke 11:9-13. — And I say to 
 you. Ask and it shall be given you; seek and ye 
 shall find; knock and it shall be opened to you. 
 
Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 231 
 
 For every one who asketh receiveth, and he who 
 seeketh findeth, and to him who knocketh it shall 
 be opened. Or what man is there of you, who, if 
 his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a 
 stone ? Or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him 
 a serpent ? If therefore ye who are evil know how 
 to give good gifts to your children, how much more 
 shall your heavenly Father give good things to those 
 who ask him. 
 
 SECTION 13 
 
 Matt. 12:22-30; Luke 11:14-23. — ^And he 
 was casting out a demon, which was dumb.^ And 
 it came to pass that, when the demon went out, the 
 dumb man spoke. (And the multitudes were 
 amazed and said, It was never so seen in Israel.^) 
 But some of them said. By Beelzebul, the prince 
 of demons, he casts out demons. Others, trying 
 him, asked of him a sign from heaven. He, know- 
 ing their thoughts, said to them. Every kingdom 
 divided against itself is brought to desolation, and 
 
 * The Semitic idiom in this introduction of Luke, *ca2 auxA, 
 shows that he here preserves Q. 
 
 "This sentence is added from Matt. 9:33 and may belong 
 to Q. 
 
232 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 house falleth upon house. If Satan also is divided 
 against himself, how shall his kingdom stand ? for 
 ye say that by Beelzebul I cast out demons. If I 
 cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your 
 sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be 
 your judges. But if I by the finger of God cast 
 out demons, then is the Kingdom of God come 
 upon you. When the strong man fully armed 
 guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace; 
 but when one stronger than he comes and conquers 
 him, he takes his armor wherein he trusted, and 
 distributes his spoils. He who is not with me is 
 against me, and he who gathereth not with me 
 scattereth. 
 
 SECTION 14 
 
 Matt. 12:43-45; Luke 11:24-26. — When the 
 unclean spirit has come out from the man, he 
 passeth through waterless places seeking rest and 
 findeth it not. And he saith, I will return to my 
 house whence I came out. He cometh and findeth 
 it swept and garnished. Then he goeth and taketh 
 with him seven spirits more evil than himself; 
 and they enter in and dwell there; and the last 
 state of the man becometh worse than the first. 
 
Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 233 
 
 SECTION 15 
 
 Matt. 12:39-42; Luke 11:29-36. — (And he 
 said), An evil and adulterous generation seeketh 
 a sign, and no sign shall be given to it but the sign 
 of Jonah. For even as Jonah became a sign to the 
 Ninevites, so shall also the Son of Man be to this 
 generation. The men of Nineveh shall stand up 
 in the judgment with this generation and condemn 
 it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; 
 and behold what is greater than Jonah is here. 
 The queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment 
 with this generation and condemn it; for she 
 came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom 
 of Solomon; and behold what is greater than 
 Solomon is here. 
 
 The lamp of the body is thine eye.^ As therefore 
 
 thy body, when it hath not a bright lamp, is dark, 
 
 so when the lamp shineth, it giveth thee Hght. 
 
 Look therefore whether the light that is in thee be 
 
 not darkness. 
 
 SECTION 16 
 
 Matt. 23:4ff.; Luke 11:39-52. — And the Lord 
 said. Now ye Pharisees cleanse the outside of the 
 » The emended text of Jiilicher is here used. 
 
234 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 cup and the platter, but your inward part is full of 
 extortion and wickedness. Ye foolish ones, did not 
 he who made the outside make the inside also?^ 
 But woe to you Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and 
 anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier 
 matters of the law — ^justice, and mercy, and faith. 
 Woe to you Pharisees! for ye love the chief seats 
 in the synagogues and the greetings in the market 
 places. Woe to you (Pharisees)! for ye are as 
 sepulchres which appear not, and the men who 
 walk over them know it not. 
 
 And he said. Woe to you scribes also! For ye 
 bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's 
 shoulders; but you yourselves will not move them 
 with your finger. Woe to you scribes!^ for ye 
 compass the sea and the dry land to make one 
 proselyte; and when he becomes so, ye make him 
 twofold more a son of Gehenna than yourselves. 
 Woe to you scribes! for ye shut the Kingdom 
 of God against men. You yourselves do not 
 
 ^ Luke 1 1 : 41 has been omitted in the text. What, if anything, 
 stood here in Q can no longer be determined. Matt. 23:26 
 seems to follow some other source, and Luke 11:41 in its present 
 form cannot be original. 
 
 ' Luke 1 1 : 45 may have stood in Q. 
 
Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 235 
 
 enter, neither do ye permit those who come to 
 enter. 
 
 (And he said), Woe to you, for ye build the 
 sepulchres of the prophets and your fathers killed 
 them. So ye are witnesses and sharers in the 
 works of your fathers. For they killed them and 
 ye build their sepulchres. Therefore, also, the 
 Wisdom of God said, I will send them prophets 
 and wise men and scribes, and some of them they 
 shall kill and persecute; that the blood of all the 
 prophets which has been shed upon the earth may 
 come upon this generation, from the blood of Abel 
 to the blood of Zachariah, who was slain between 
 the altar and the sanctuary. Verily I say to you, 
 it shall be required of this generation. 
 
 SECTION 17 
 Matt. 10:24-33; 12:32; Luke 12:1-12. — 
 And he said to his disciples. Beware^ of the leaven 
 
 ^ It may be that Matthew instead of Luke preserves here what 
 originally stood in Q. "A disciple is not above his teacher, 
 neither a servant above his master. It is sufficient for the dis- 
 ciple that he become as his teacher, and the servant as his lord. 
 If they called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more 
 those of his household!" 
 
236 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy.' There is 
 nothing covered which shall not be revealed, and 
 hidden which shall not be known. What was said 
 in the darkness shall be heard in the light, and 
 what was heard in the ear shall be proclaimed upon 
 the housetops. And fear not those who kill the 
 body but cannot kill the soul. Fear rather him 
 who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. 
 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies ? and not 
 one of them shall fall to the ground without God. 
 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 
 Fear not therefore; ye are of more value than 
 many sparrows. Every one who shall confess me 
 before men, him shall also the Son of Man' confess 
 before the angels of God. He who denieth me 
 before men shall be denied before the angels of 
 God. And whoever saith anything against the 
 Son of Man, it shall be fogriven him; but against 
 the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven. And when 
 they bring you before the synagogues, and the 
 rulers, and the authorities, be not anxious how or 
 what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say; for 
 
 » Matthew here has "I" for "Son of Man." This may be 
 original. 
 
Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 237 
 
 the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that hour what 
 ye ought to say. 
 
 SECTION 18 
 
 Matt. 6:19-21, 25-34; Luke 12:22-34. — He 
 said to his disciples, Therefore I say to you. Be 
 not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat; nor 
 for your body, what ye shall wear. Is not the life 
 more than the food and the body than the raiment ? 
 Behold the ravens, that they sow not, neither do 
 they reap nor gather into barns; and God feedeth 
 them. Are not ye of much more value than they ? 
 Who of you by being anxious can add one cubit to 
 the measure of his life ? And why are ye anxious 
 about raiment? Consider the lilies, how they 
 grow; they toil not, neither do they spin. But I 
 say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory 
 was arrayed like one of these. If God doth thus 
 clothe the grass, which is in the field to-day and 
 to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much 
 more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Be not 
 therefore anxious, saying. What shall we eat ? or, 
 What shall we drink ? or. Wherewithal shall we be 
 clothed? For all these things the Gentiles seek; 
 for your Father knoweth that ye need these things. 
 
238 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 But seek his kingdom and these things shall be 
 added to you.^ Fear not, little flock, for it is your 
 Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. 
 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, 
 where moth and rust consume, and where thieves 
 break through and steal. But lay up for your- 
 selves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do 
 not consume, and where thieves do not break 
 through and steal. For where your treasure is, 
 there your heart will be also. 
 
 SECTION 19 
 Matt. 24:42-51; Luke 12:35-46. — Let your 
 loins be girded and your lamps be burning; and 
 be ye yourselves like men waiting for their lord, 
 when he shall return from the marriage feast; 
 that, when he cometh and knocketh, they may 
 immediately open to him. Blessed are those 
 servants, whom their lord when he cometh shall 
 find watching. And if he shall come in the second 
 watch, and if in the third watch, and shall find 
 them so, blessed are they. 
 
 * Matthew adds, "Therefore be not anxious for the morrow, for 
 the morrow will be anxious for itself; sufficient for the day is the 
 evil thereof." This probably stood in Q, but it is hard to think 
 that it was there in exactly the same context. 
 
Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 239 
 
 Know this, that if the master of the house had 
 known in what watch the thief was coming, he 
 would have watched and he would not have per- 
 mitted his house to be broken through. Therefore 
 be ye also ready, for in an hour when ye think not 
 the Son of Man cometh. 
 
 Who then is the faithful and prudent servant, 
 whom his lord hath placed over his household to 
 give them their portion of food in due season? 
 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he 
 cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say to you, 
 that he will place him over all his possessions. But 
 if that servant saith in his heart. My lord delayeth, 
 and shall begin to beat his fellow-servants, and shall 
 eat and drink with the drunken; the lord of that 
 servant shall come on a day when he expecteth him 
 not, and at an hour when he knoweth not, and 
 shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion 
 with the unfaithful. 
 
 SECTION 20 
 
 Matt. 10:34-36; Luke 12:51-53. — I came to 
 
 send fire upon the earth, and how I wish that it 
 
 were already kindled! I have a baptism to be 
 
 baptized with, and how I am straitened until it be 
 
240 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 accomplished ! Think ye that I came to send peace 
 upon the earth ? I came not to send peace but a 
 sword. For I came to set a man against his father, 
 and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter- 
 in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's 
 foes shall be those of his own household.^ 
 
 SECTIONS 21 AND 22 
 
 Matt. 16:2, 3; 5:25, 26; Luke 12:54-59.— 
 And he said to the multitudes. When ye see a cloud 
 rising in the west, straightway ye say, A shower 
 is coming, and so it cometh to pass. And when ye 
 see a south wind blowing, ye say. There will be 
 a scorching heat, and it cometh to pass. Ye 
 hypocrites, ye knov/ how to judge the face of the 
 heaven, but can ye not judge the signs of the times ? 
 And why even of yourselves judge ye not what is 
 right ? Agree with thine adversary quickly, while 
 thou art with him in the way, lest haply the 
 adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge 
 deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee 
 into prison. Verily I say to thee. Thou shalt not 
 come out thence, till thou payest the last farthing. 
 
 * This last clause may be a Matthean addition from Mic. 7 : 6. 
 
Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 241 
 
 SECTION 23 
 
 Luke 13:1-9. — Certain ones^ told him of the 
 Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with 
 their sacrifices. And he answered and said to them, 
 Think ye that these Galileans were sinners above 
 all the Galileans, because they have suffered these 
 things? I tell you, Nay; but except ye repent, 
 ye all shall likewise perish. Or those eighteen 
 upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed, 
 think ye that they were offenders above all the 
 men who dwell in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay; 
 but except ye repent, ye all shall likewise perish. 
 And he spoke this parable. A certain man had a 
 fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking 
 fruit thereon and he found none. He said to the 
 vine dresser, Behold these three years I come seek- 
 ing fruit on this fig tree, and find none; cut it 
 down; why doth it also cumber the ground ? But 
 he answered and said to him. Lord, let it alone this 
 year also, till I shall dig about it and dung it; and 
 if it bear fruit henceforth, well; but if not, thou 
 shalt cut it down. 
 
 * The introductory sentence of Q can only be conjectured. 
 
242 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 SECTION 24 
 
 Matt. 13:31-33; Luke 13:18-21. — And he said, 
 
 What is the Kingdom of God like, and to what 
 
 shall I compare it ? It is like a grain of mustard 
 
 seed, which a man took and cast into his field; 
 
 and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the 
 
 heaven lodged in the branches thereof. And 
 
 again he said. To what shall I liken the Kingdom 
 
 of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took 
 
 and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all 
 
 leavened. 
 
 SECTION 25 
 
 Matt. 7 : 13, 14; Luke 13 : 23, 24. (And one said 
 to him, Lord, are they few that are saved ?)' He 
 said to them. Enter in by the narrow gate: for 
 broad and wide is the way which leadeth to destruc- 
 tion, and many are they who enter thereby; for 
 narrow is the gate and straitened the way wliich 
 leadeth to life, and few are they who find it. 
 
 Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 13:25-27. — Many shall 
 say to me in that day. Lord, did we not eat before 
 thee, and drink, and didst thou not teach in our 
 streets ? Then shall I confess to them, I tell you, 
 
 ' This introductory question may not have stood in Q. 
 
Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 243 
 
 I know not whence you are, depart from me, all ye 
 who work iniquity. 
 
 Matt. 8:11, 12; Luke 13:28, 29. — There shall 
 be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see 
 Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets 
 in the Kingdom of God, and yourselves cast out. 
 And they shall come from the east and west and 
 shall sit in the Kingdom of God. 
 
 SECTION 26 
 Matt. 23:37-39; Luke 13:34, 35.— Jerusalem, 
 Jerusalem, who slayeth the prophets and stoneth 
 those who are sent to her ! how often would I have 
 gathered thy children together, as a hen ga there th 
 her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 
 Behold your house is forsaken. For I say to you, 
 ye shall not see me henceforth until ye shall say, 
 Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord. 
 
 SECTION 27 
 Matt. 10:37-39; Luke 14:25-35. — He said to 
 the multitudes,' Whoever doth not hate^ his 
 
 ^ Luke has probably expanded here to suit his context. 
 
 » Matthew has "love more than me," which, though probably 
 not original, is a correct interpretation of the stronger term of 
 Luke. 
 
244 Matlhew^s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 father and mother cannot be my disciple, and who- 
 ever doth not hate^ his son and daughter cannot be 
 my disciple, and whoever doth not take his cross 
 and follow after me, cannot be my disciple. Who 
 of you, wishing to build a tower, doth not first 
 sit down and count the cost, whether he have where- 
 with to complete it? Lest when he hath laid a 
 foundation and is unable to finish, all who behold 
 begin to mock him, saying, This man began to 
 build and could not finish. Or what king, going 
 to engage in war with another king, will not first 
 sit down and take counsel whether he is able with 
 ten thousand to meet one who cometh against him 
 with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other 
 is yet far off, he sendeth an embassy and asketh 
 conditions of peace. Salt is good, but if even the 
 salt hath lost its savor, wherewith shall it be 
 seasoned. It is fit neither for the land nor for 
 the dunghill; men cast it out. 
 
 SECTION 28 
 
 Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-10. — ^And he told 
 them this parable, saying, What man of you, if he 
 have a hundred sheep and one of them go astray, 
 
 *See footnote 2, page 243. 
 
Matthew^s Sayings of Jesus 245 
 
 will not leave the ninety and nine on the hills, and 
 go and seek the one which hath strayed ? And if 
 he happen to find it he layeth it on his shoulders 
 rejoicing. And when he cometh home, calleth his 
 friends and neighbors, saying to them, Rejoice 
 with me, for I have found my sheep which went 
 astray. 
 
 Or what woman, if she have ten pieces of silver, 
 if she lose one piece, doth not light a lamp, and 
 sweep the house, and seek diligently until she find 
 it? And when she findeth it, she calleth her 
 friends and neighbors, saying. Rejoice with me, 
 for I have found the piece which I lost. 
 
 Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13. — No one can serve 
 two masters: for either he will hate the one and 
 love the other; or he will hold to the one and 
 despise the - other. Ye cannot serve God and 
 Mammon. 
 
 Matt. 11:12, 13; Luke 16: 16. — All the prophets 
 and the law prophesied until John ; from that time 
 until now the Kingdom of God suffereth violence, 
 and men of violence take it by force. And if you 
 are wilHng to receive it, he is Elias who is about to 
 come. 
 
246 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:17. — It is easier for 
 heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or 
 tittle of the law to fall. 
 
 Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18. — Everyone who 
 putteth away his wife maketh her an adulteress, 
 and whoever shall marry her who is put away com- 
 mitteth adultery. 
 
 Matt. 18:6, 7; Luke 17:1, 2. — It is impossible 
 but that occasions of stumbling should come, but 
 woe to him through whom they come. It were 
 profitable for him that a millstone should be hanged 
 about his neck, and he should be thrown into the 
 sea, rather than that he should cause one of these 
 little ones to stumble. 
 
 Matt. 18:15, 21, 22; Luke 17:3, 4. — Take heed 
 to yourselves; if your brother sin rebuke him, 
 and if he repent forgive him. And if he sin 
 against thee seven times a day and seven times 
 turn again to thee saying, I repent; thou shalt 
 forgive him. 
 
 Matt. 17:20; Luke 17:5, 6. — If ye had faith 
 as a grain of mustard seed, ye would say to this 
 sycamore. Be thou rooted up, and be thou planted 
 in the sea; and it would obey you. 
 
Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 247 
 
 (Luke 17 : 7-10 possibly belongs among these mis- 
 cellaneous sayings. Matt. 5:14; 7:6; 13:44-46; 
 18:10 may be taken from Q, but their original 
 position cannot be recovered.) 
 
 SECTION 29 
 
 Matt. 24:26-28; Luke 17:20-25. — (They asked 
 him/ saying, When cometh the Kingdom of God ? 
 He answered them and said, The Kingdom of God 
 cometh not with observation; neither shall they 
 say, Behold here or there, for behold the Kingdom 
 of God is in your midst.^) And he said to his 
 disciples, The days wall come when ye shall desire 
 to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and ye 
 shall see it not. And they will say to you. Behold 
 he is in the wilderness; go not forth. Behold he 
 is in the inner chambers; believe it not. For as 
 the lightning cometh out from the east and is seen 
 even to the west, so shall the Son of Man be in his 
 day. Wherever the carcase is, there will the 
 vultures be gathered together. But first it is 
 
 »Luke reads here, "Being asked by the Pharisees." But it 
 is doubtful whether this was the introduction which stood in Q. 
 
 »0r, "within you." 
 
248 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 
 
 necessary that he suffer many things and be re- 
 jected of this generation. 
 
 Matt. 24:37-41; Luke 17:26-37. — And just as 
 it came to pass in the days of Noah, so shall it be 
 also in the days of the Son of Man. For as in the 
 days before the flood they were eating and drink- 
 ing, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day 
 Noah entered the ark, and they knew not until 
 the flood came and took them all; so shall it be on 
 the day when the Son of Man appeareth. Like- 
 wise^ even as in the days of Lot, they bought 
 and sold, they planted and builded until that day 
 when Lot went out of Sodom, and they knew not 
 until it rained fire and brimstone from heaven 
 and destroyed them all, so shall it be in the day 
 when the Son of Man appeareth. There shall be 
 two men in the field; the one is taken and the one 
 is left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; 
 one is taken and one is left. 
 
 SECTION 30 
 
 Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-28. — (And he 
 said), It is as when a man going into a far country 
 
 * A conjectural restoration of the Q text has here been 
 attempted, on the basis of the Matthean parallel for the first 
 comparison. 
 
Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 249 
 
 called his own servants, and delivered to them his 
 goods. And to one he gave five pounds, to another 
 two, to another one, to each according to his ability. 
 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh 
 and maketh a reckoning with them. And he who 
 received the five pounds came and brought five 
 other pounds, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst to me 
 five pounds; behold I have gained five other 
 pounds. His lord said to him, Well done, good 
 servant, thou hast been faithful over a few things, 
 I will set thee over many things; enter thou into 
 the joy of thy lord. And he also who received the 
 two pounds came and said. Lord, thou deUveredst 
 to me two pounds, behold, I have gained two 
 other pounds. His lord said to him, Well done, 
 good servant, thou hast been faithful over a few 
 things, I will set thee over many things; enter thou 
 into the joy. of thy lord. But he who had received 
 the one pound came and said. Lord, I knew thee, 
 that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou didst 
 not sow, gathering where thou didst not scatter; 
 and I was afraid and went away and hid thy 
 talent in the earth. Behold thou hast thine own. 
 And his lord answered and said to him, Thou 
 wicked servant, thou knewest that I reap where 
 
250 Matthew^ s Sayings of Jesus 
 
 I did not sow, that I gather where I did not scatter; 
 thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to 
 the bankers, and I at my coming should have 
 required it with interest. Take ye away therefore 
 from him the pound, and give it to him who hath 
 ten pounds. For to everyone who hath shall be 
 given, but from him who hath not, even that 
 which he hath shall be taken away. 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 Kpl*'* 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f)