Sayings of Jesus, Harnack

Crown Theological Library
si;9
.'.
v..
CROWN THEOLOGICAL
LIBRARY
HARNACK'S THE SAYINGS OF JESUS
iêh) ^Testament ^tubies

II
THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

THE SECOND SOURCE OF ST. MATTHEW AND ST. LUKE
BY
ADOLF HARNACK
PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN
TRANSLATED BY
THE REV.
J.
R.
WILKINSON, M.A.
LATE SCHOLAR OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD RECTOR OF WINFORD

;
or THE
OF ic--'?^-
UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK
PUTNAM'S SONS LONDON: WILLIAMS & NORGATE

:
G.
P.
1908
y^
'
.'>
T-'
^'
Â
'
'^
Printed by Ballantyne ^r' Co. Limited Tavistock Street, London
PREFACE
In the following pages an attempt is made to determine exactly the second source of St. Matthew and St.
Luke (Q) both

and
in regard to its extent and its contents, to estimate its value both in itself and relatively
I have been moved to to the Gospel of St. Mark. and to these investigations by Wellpublish complete " " Introduction to the First Three hausen's Gospels The attitude of opposition I am driven to (1905).
adopt towards an important result of Wellhausen's researches, does not detract from my high appreciation
of the merit of this work.
supplementary observation which I have made
may serve as an additional proof of the unity of the In St. Matthew are found about 112 words, source Q.
and in
St. Luke (without the Acts) about 261, which occur in these gospels and do not occur elsewhere in Now of these 373 words, the the New Testament.
reconstructed text of
at the most 16
i.e.
Q given on pp. 127 ff. contains 13 (12) from St. Matthew (^/3ia<TTii?f
evvoeiv,
^P^X^y
oiKTLa,
otârefj/
[iyKpvTTTeiv^,
iwra,
vocrcrlov,
oiKiaKog,
paiTLCeiv),
and 3
;
TrXarJ?, irapo^lg^ irapo/uLOiateiVf from St. Luke (a.'Tro/uLda-crea-Oai, âX-
XdvTioVj Kopa^) yet it is questionable whether three of these really belong to Q. That it is thus possible
to construct the fairly extensive text of Q without making a further demand than of 12 to 16 words upoD
187679
vi
PREFACE
and
the copious and distinctive vocabularies of St. Matthew St. Luke, is a welcome additional proof of the
distinct individuality of Q.
On
the other hand, the
variety of the stylistic, rhetorical, and poetic forms in which the discourses and sayings in Q are thus seen to
be
cast, is
no argument against
its
distinctive
unity,
but even serves to confirm our confidence in the individuality as well as in the genuineness and originality
of this source. the following investigation I have correctly defined the limits and have justly estimated the value
If in
of Q, I have only given fresh utterance to the longestablished judgment of competent scholars, though it
hoped that I have established it upon a more secure foundation than that upon which it has rested No words of mine are needed to explain hitherto. for our knowledge of the history of means this what
is
to be
And yet one can scarcely hope that there our Lord. will be an end of wild hypotheses in regard to that
The temptation to confine one's gaze to history. isolated details, and to view these as reflected in the
distorting
mirror
of
prepossession
and
prejudice,
is
without deep and reverent study of

cease.
tradition,
too
great for us to expect that these strivings will ever

I offer my hearty thanks to my friend Professor von Dobschiitz for the active and kindlv interest which he
has devoted to this undertaking of mine while passing through the press.
Berlin, 8tA December^ 1906.
it
was
A. H.
CONTENTS
Introduction
PAGE ix
CHAPTER
The Analysis and Textual Investigation OF THE NoN-MaRKAN SECTIONS COMMON TO St. Matthew and St. Luke
I.
The
sections almost verbally identical
...
.
II.
The sections where the differences are greater Appendix. The sections where the differences are very great
40
118
........
CHAPTER
II
St.
Linguistic and Historical Investigation OF the non-Markan Sections common to

St.
Matthew and
Luke
(Q)
127
L The
II. (a)
text
Substantives Vocabulary (Verbs p. 147 ff. and Adjectives, lh2 f. Prepositions, Ibl f.)
;
. ;
147
159
(b)
III.
Grammar and
style
.
The formal
characteristics of the subject-matter
163 172
IV.
The order
of the sections
V. Can
we
is
discover any trace of
in the
matter that
182
peculiar to St. Matthew or to St. Luke, or in indirect Evangelic tradition ?

.
.
vii
viii
CONTENTS
PAGE
VI.
The
essential characteristics of the contents of Q.
A
St.
comparison
of
with
the
Gospel
of
Mark
193
YII. The origin and historical value of Appendix. Translation of Q
....
.
246 253
Excursus
St.
I.
St.
Matt.
xi.
25-27
(St.
Luke
x. 21, 22)
and
272
Matt.
xi. 28,
29
at ,the
Excursus II. The Yoice from Heaven (St. Luke iii. 22)
Baptism
310 315
Index to the reconstructed text of Q
INTRODUCTION
The
St.
sections which are common to St. Matthew and Luke, excluding those which they share with St. Mark, are, as is well known, very considerable both
They amount altogether Luke and twoThe researches elevenths of the text of St. Matthew.^ of very many scholars have led them to the unanimous conclusion that neither St. Matthew nor St. Luke have copied the one from the other, and that these sections
in
number and
content.
to about one-sixth of the text of St.
are thus dependent upon either one or several connnon The former alternative is generally preferred, sources.
and rightly so and yet one does not thereby conceal from oneself the possibility that it may well have been otherwise, and that in regard to many points of detail and many passages there is still room for the hypothesis of several written sources and even of depend;
In this connection a great ence upon oral tradition. number of other questions arise which cannot be
passed by.
1.
Is it
The most important are the following: not possible that after the publication of the
1 Here of course difficulties begin at once. It is not always a simple matter to determine the limits of these sections ; different opinions may be held as to the origin of the doublets which are found both in St. Matthew and St. Luke and in regard to a few
;
important sections, it must remain doubtful whether they are not mutually dependent upon a much earlier source, which is thus not identical with the main source.
iz
INTRODUCTION
gospel of St. Luke and St. Matthew the one was so much corrected from the other ^ that the task of
settling the text of the source has
difficult ?
been rendered very

use
it
2.
Did
St.
recension of
Matthew and St. Luke Q ? Or did the former use
the same
in one
?
form
Q ^ &c.) (Q \ existed in Aramaic, did one or both of the evangelists pay attention to this Aramaic original,^ and occasionally make use of it ?
(Q 1),
the latter in another
3. If
Q\
first
4. Since it is a priori probable that neither of the two evangelists quite exhausted the contents of the source, in which of them is it best reproduced both in regard to extent and arrangement? and which of
the passages that are transmitted to us by only one of our authorities belong nevertheless to the source ?
5. Judging from the investigation of those sections which may be with certainty assigned to the source, are we to regard Q as a collection of sayings or a And is it possible that the answer to "gospel"? this question may afford us a principle by which we may decide whether doubtful sections belong or do not belong to} the source? Or, if this question cannot be answered, is it not hopeless to attempt to determine
the extent of
Q?
These problems, so numerous and of such intense importance, seem to render it so difficult to answer the question What is Q ? that one can easily under:
stand a person of sceptical mind refusing to concern

Compare, for instance, Blass's reconstruction of the text of (" Evang. sec. Matth. 1901 "). 2 It is quite certain that in general both used one and the same Greek translation.
St.
^
Matthew
INTRODUCTION
himself with
it.
xi
Yet, on the other hand, such scepti-
cism
of
only permissible when there is distinct proof hopelessness of all attempts to solve the But no proof of such a kind has as yet question.
is
the
It is true that Q has been much been produced. written about and investigated by Weiss, Holtzmann,
Wendt, and Wernle, and by other scholars following their lead, last of all by Wellhausen though it is devoted been has more attention much how strange has as no work Mark but St. to yet appeared which Such a work ought takes into account all the details.
in the first place to confine itself with rigorous exclusiveness to the non-Markan passages which are
common
to St. Matthew and St. Luke; to subject these to a thorough investigation from the point of view of grammar, style, and literary criticism in
a firm standgeneral, and after having thus gained If definite results may be deduced. see what to point,
such an investigation fails of its aim that shown that nothing connected or distinctive
is, if it is
from the study of the passages in question then it follows that Q vanishes as a tangible entity, indeed
disappears altogether, and accordingly that the problem of the relationship between St. Matthew and
St.
is
evolved
parts which are not covered by The necessary to be insoluble. declared St. and be discourses of would that the this consequence narratives contained in these portions of the gospels
in those
Luke
Mark
is
(whether in sections of greater or smaller extent) would have to be dealt with each by itself.
Up
settlement
to the present, however, there has been no final in of the preliminary textual question
xii
INTRODUCTION
which of the two gospels do these sections appear in more original form ? If we seek counsel among the critics we only meet with unconvincing statements, that both evangelists allowed themselves to make numerous changes and revisions of the text, while it is usually added that on the whole more trust is to be placed in St. Luke than in St. Matthew.^ One
their
seeks in vain for a proof of this thesis, in so far as its

feeble character at all permits of one, and even the question which at once suggests itself What are then
the points of view and the principles in accordance with which St. Matthew and St. Luke have respecis tively corrected the source ? propounded a single critic. The situation here is the
by scarcely same as in
the case of a dozen other important problems of the men soar away into sublime criticism of the gospels the of " the discussions
:
concerning meaning Kingdom " Son of " of God," the Man," Messiahship," &c., and " occupy themselves with investigations into the history
of religion," and with problems of genuineness, in the " " criticism (as if the critic were inhigher light of
spired with absolute knowledge of historical matters " from some secret source) ; while the " lower problems,
whose treatment involves real scavenger''s labour in which one is almost choked with dust, are passed by on the other side. Or where this is not the case, the
investigation is still never carried far enough; it breaks off prematurely, and the critic rests satisfied
with work only half done.

^
Hence the wretched plight
Wernle forms an exception. This scholar has shown that apart from some instances of severe revision the text appears in a more trustworthy form in St. Matthew. His work on Q is quite excellent
but not detailed enough.
INTRODUCTION
in
xiii
which the criticism of the gospels finds itself in and indeed has always found itself^ with the exception of the work of a few critics, and apart from the Markan problem, which has been treated with
these days,
scientific
thoroughness.
But even in the case of the Markan problem much important work remains to be accomplished by the
This wretched state of affairs is apparent above all in the case who are compelled to take their knowledge of the criticism of the New Testament at second-hand, or have condemned themof those
selves to this unassuming intellectual position. They are like reeds swaying with the blasts of the most extreme and mutually exclusive hypotheses, and find everything in this connection which is offered
*
them " very worthy of consideration." To-day they are ready to was no such person as Jesus, while yesterday they regarded Him as a neurotic visionary, shown to be such with convincing force by His own words, if only these are rightly interpreted, which words by the way have been excellently transmitted by To-morrow He has become for them an Essene, as may tradition. be proved likewise from His own words and yet the day before yesterday none of these words were His own and perhaps on the very same day it was accounted correct to regard Him as belonging to some Greek sect of esoteric Gnostics a sect which still remains to be discovered, and which with its symbols and sacraments represented a religion of a chaotic and retrograde character, nay, exercised
believe that there
; ;
a beneficial influence upon the development of culture. Or rather, He was an anarchist monk like Tolstoi or, still better, a genuine Buddhist, who had, however, come under the influence of ideas originating in ancient Babylon, Persia, Egypt, and Greece or, better still, He was the eponymous hero of the mildly revolutionary and moderately radical fourth estate in the capital of the Roman world. It is evident, forsooth, that he may possibly have been all of
; ;
these things, and may be assumed to have been one of them. If therefore one only keeps hold of all these reins, naturally with a loose hand, one is shielded from the reproach of not being up to
date, and this is more important by far than the knowledge of the facts themselves, which indeed do not so much concern us, seeing that in this twentieth century we must of course wean ourselves
from a contemptible dependence upon history in matters of
religion.
xiv
INTRODUCTION
"lower"" criticism, and remarkably little is to be found in our books on the question of the relation"The problem of the ship of Q to St. Mark. and St. Mark must literary relationship between Q
at
and needs thorough inIt is indeed most extraordinary, to use vestigation. only a mild expression, that such an investigation up to the present has never been set on foot" '' Einleitung in die drei ersten Evan(Wellhausen, The last remark is scarcely correct; s. 73). gelien,"
least
be
propounded
several
scholars
have occupied themselves with the

is
problem.
theless
But Wellhausen's astonishment

justifiable.
never-
quite
If
the
criticism
of
the
gospels had been carried on methodically, so that each scholar stood as it were upon the shoulders of his predecessor, this cardinal problem would neces-
have been thoroughly discussed long ago, the whole material for discussion would have been set in order, and the definite and final conclusion would
sarily
have been drawn. Instead of this everything is still enveloped in a cloud of uncertainty, and amid the dearth of preliminary studies of a connected and scientific character, we can easily understand how it has come to pass that Wellhausen has produced a solution of the problem which has this merit, that by its very paradox it has summoned theologians to descend from the airy heights of their critical
speculations
and to gird themselves for strenuous labour as hewers in the mines of knowledge. In the following treatise I begin by ascertaining the relatively original text of the sections which are
exclusively
common
to St.
Matthew and
St.
Luke, and
INTRODUCTION
xv
by deducing at the same time the points of view and the principles according to which each of the two evangehsts has worked that is, has edited the hypo-
thetical
common
source.
Before coming to a conclusion

I
as
to the most approximately original text of St.

St.
Matthew and
Mark,
have thoroughly worked
through the texts adopted by Blass, Wellhausen, and I others, together with the editions of older scholars.
have convinced myself anew of a fact that I had already learned at the time of my studies on the text of the Acts namely, that Blass has assigned far too great
weight to the testimony of the important Codex D with its satellites, as well as to the isolated readings of other authorities (Chrysostom !). In my opinion, even
Wellhausen goes too
far
in this direction.
Neither
can I recognise that the text of St. Luke has had the subsequent influence upon the text of St. Matthew which Blass supposes indeed, as compared with him, I
;
keep much more closely to the text of Westcott and Hort. As is well known, the sections of St. Matthew and St. Luke which concern us are of such a character
that a very considerable portion of them occurs in in the two gospels, while practically verbal similarity
another (very small) portion shows variations which are so great as to compel us to doubt whether it is
even possible to accept in their case the hypothesis of a common immediate source (vide p. v). In between lies the great mass of the remaining sections, which
show more or
less
numerous and important
variants.
The first group has the great advantage in that from it we are enabled to draw conclusions of the highest
xvi
INTRODUCTION
I have therefore divided the material probability. into three parts, and I shall first consider those sec-
tions in
which the differences between
St.
Matthew
Equipped
and
St.
Luke are comparatively very
slight.
with the results of this investigation, I shall proceed to the examination of the second group, in which I shall then, the differences are more numerous.
only after the fashion of an appendix, deal with those sections in which the difference is so great that one must seriously doubt whether they belong to Q.
They
include only one saying and two parables.
OF-T
V
CHAPTER
I
THE ANALYSIS AND THE TEXTUAL INVESTIGATION OF THE NON-MARK AN SECTIONS COMMON TO ST. MATTHEW AND ST. LUKE (Q).
St.
Matt.
iii.
7^
Vepvr^-
St.
Luke
iii.
7^
8, 9, 17.
fxara
vjuLiv
i'îovcoi', tl<s
(pvyeiv
vireSeiêv airo rrjg

;
lueWoucrr]^
TTOLYicraTe
opyrj^
(8)
ovv
Kapirov aîov
(9) KOI
fXYj
KapTTOvg a^LOv<i
iv eavroi'i pro-
Tt]9 /ULCTaVOLag'
S6PrjT Xiyeiv ev kavTol^'

IT are
apî]a6e
pa
e^ô/ULev
top 'A/5-
bably wanting
[Svvarog
paajLL'
Xeyco yap vfxiv on Svvarai 6 Oeog k toov XlOccv

TOVTcov
eyeipai rcKva
?]
tw
Se
rj
'AfipadiuL.
(10)
fjSr]
6 S'e
Kai
a^Lvt] Trpo^ TJ]v /o/âi'
twv
ovv
SevSpcov
oei
KiTaf
fXr]
nrav
VOpOV
irOLOVV
KapiTOV
19
KoXoV^ eKKOTTTeTai Kal

TTvp
^
^dWerai.
(12)
because it is wanting in Syr. Sin., and between " fruitful and unfruitful." But St. Luke has the Syr. Sin. by itself is too weak an authority. word, and logic ought not to have the casting vote. Besides Ka\6)>
Ka\6v,
Wellhausen omits
because the contrast
lies
could easily
fall
out of the text after Kapir6v.

Tf]
OV TO TTTVOV iv
avTOv,
Koi.
X^^P^
-s
dXcopa
SiaKaOapiei rrjv avTOv Kai avvaêi
avTov (tov) SiaKaOapni

Kai crvvayayeiv (?)
TOV
CTLTOV
avTOv
\
19
If
Triv
aTToOyjKijp^
TO Se
'^\
a-)(ypov
avTOv pr. perhaps wanting, avTou sec. certain, cnro6if}Kr]v
KaTaKavcrei irvpi aa-êa-Tio.
(avTov)
Verse 11
there and
it
= Luke iii. 16) stands also in St. Mark; ( in Q it had essentially the same form in Q
ran as follows:
eyud fxev vjmag
âirTlYw
6
vSaTi âiTTuQjt)
vjuLOLi
(with-
v vSaTi
efV
fxeTavoiav
out
Se
oiTLcrco
/ulov
ip-)(^6juLV09
in St.
and efV /uLCTau.), as Mark. The remain-
lar-ûpoTepo?
fjiov
ecrTtVf
ou
ovK
eijuu
Uavog Ta
'
viro^rj-
ing variants in St. Luke are likewise due to the influence of the
ayicy
is
/maTa
vjULci^
/BacrTaa-aL
auro?
Markan text,
âTTTLcreL ev TrvevjuLaTi
very doubtful.
ayi(p KOI TTvpl.
St.
The few variants are easily explained almost always Luke appears as the evangelist who has altered the
;
He has substituted the plural Kapirovg original text. for the not very logical singular ; he has replaced fixtj
favourite phrase of his) S6^t]T by lULr] ap^rjcrOe (a he has improved the construction by the infinitive and instead of the more pregnant ex(SiaKaOapai),^
;
is not quite certain. J. H. Moulton ("A Grammar of Greek," 1906, p. 15) thinks, on the contrary, that dp^rjade is more original, because it is a Semitic idiom (so also Dalman and Wernle) but it is frequently found in St. Luke even where he is independent of Q, and seems to have been used by him purposely
^
Yet this
N.
T.
(in imitation).
'
It is
St,
with
point.
questionable whether St. Luke wrote awayayeiv, or avpdêi Matthew the authorities are evenly balanced on this
;
At
all events, avpdêi
stood in Q.
INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT

pression, "his
in verse
wheat into the barn," he has inserted " the wheat into his barn."" the smoother phrase,
10
is
Km
to give more flexibility to the construction, as in the case of St. Matt, The style is also improved xxiv. 28, and elsewhere. the of vSari (without iv) at the beginning. placing by
St.
added by
Luke
Probably the reading Svyarog is original in St. Luke, but it was substituted for the reading of the source by the evangelist himself. In St. Matthew and St. Mark it is never used of a person see, however, St. Luke i. 49 xiv. 31 xxiv. 19, and four passages in the
;
Acts.
St.
e/?
Luke perhaps wrote

airoOrjKriv.
(TvvaêL
We
;
Kai top juev airov cannot be certain that

:
eU jULerdvoiav belonged to Q yet it is very probable that it stood in the source, for its absence in St. Luke is not decisive, seeing that St. Luke follows the text
Mark ; and seeing, moreover, that /uLerdvota does not occur in St. Matthew except in this section from Q, it is not probable that that evangelist added it of his own initiative. (On the other hand, in other
of St. passages juLerdiôia is purposely added by St. Luke; here however it could the more easily fall out of the
text, seeing that it has
no corresponding antithesis in The end of the verse as it the following clause.) stood in Q can no longer be restored with certainty.
In St.
Mark
the text ran iv TrpevjuaTi dyiw;
in
St.
Matthew, dyio) koi Trvpi; in St. ]l.uke, both cases Syr. Sin. gives the v TTvevjuiaTt Kal irvpl (in words in the reverse order). It is therefore most proiv TrvevjuiaTi
bable that
covered
read ev
Trvpi,
by succeeding develop iv irvevfxaTi dyicp.
the
for this phrase only is clauses which do not

St.
Matt.
[ecTTfj^]
vi.
21
ottov
= St. Luke
34, 35 31.
vjULcov.
;
xii.
34;
;
xi.
yap
(Tov,
Qj^craupo^
xvi.
(TOV
13
xii.
22-
[euTaij Kai rj (TOV. (22) 6 \v-)(yo^ KapSia TOV (TOOjUaTOg ecTTiv 6 6(pCKcl
uaAjULog.
For
both times
(tov after
^
Probably
r
.
6(p0aXju6^ pr.
eav ovv
fj
o o(p-
OTav o
>
T
f]
aTTAOf?
Kai
OaXjUiog (TOV
aTrXovg,
(TOV
bXov
Se
OAOV
eirav
TO
(TCOJUa
(pCOTClVOV
ecTTai
(23)
<TOv
eav
6
2,
eCTTLV
6(p9a\jULO^
irovtjpos
oXoV TO
(TCOJUia
(TOV (TKOTeL-
vov ecTTai.
ei
ovv to
(pax;
ocpOaXjuLog KaL TO (Tcojixa (TOV (om. 6A.) (tkottcl ovv kcTTai om.
JULrj
(tov
om.
TO
V (TOL (TKOTO<S CaTLVy
TO
to
<pC09
TO (TKOTOg
ovSe]^ oiKeTrj^
(TKOTO'i iTOorov!
(24) ovê)^
Kvploi'S
TTOcrov
om.
SvvaTai
Xevciv
'
Svcrl
rj
Sov-
yap
tov
kvo<s
^/
tov
eva
juLicrrjarei
Kai
cTepov
ayainqG'eL,
av6e^Tai
Kai
TOV
TpOV
Kot
KUTa-
(ppovrjcreL'
ov ^vvaarOe Oeca
juLajuLcova,
vixlvîJ.r}
SovXeveiv
(25 )^f a toGto

fiepifj-vaTe
t
Xeyci)
th ^^X^
'
vfjLCOv
VJULCOV
om.
TL (payr]T, jULrjSe Tip (TWfxaTi ^ > \ t n ^ f VfXWV TL VOV(T)](TU OVyj^

t}
vjucov
om.
'^vyji
irXelov ecTTiv t>/?

crcojuLa
Tpo(p^g Koi TO
evSv/uLaTog ;
"vlâre
ef9
tov
(26)
e/x/3Xe-
KaTavoY](TaTe
Ta
TreTeiva
tov
Tovg
KopaKag
ovpavov, OTL ov (Tireipovcriv ovSe ovSe 6t]piôv(riv

(Tvvayov<Tiv
e/j
without TOV out ovpavov OVTQ 019 OVK

ecTTiv TajULetov ovSe aTToOijKtj
a7ro^^//ca?,

Kai o
iraTrjp
vjulcov
o ovpavio^
ov-^
vjmei^
;
Kai 6
Oeo^ (om.
TTOcrcf)
v. 6.
ovp.)
Toecpei
avra'
avTOvg'
vfjL,
juaWov
;
jmaWov Sia(pepT
<5e
avroov
6ia(p.
TOdv TTCTeivcov
e^ viixwv jmepiiUL(27) t/? vwv ovvaTaL irpoG-deivai eiri

Tvjv
rjkLKiav
;
auTOu
koi
irepl
irrjyyv
va
(28)
evSv-
va om.
In place of verse
fxaTO'i TL iuLpifj.vaT ;
Kara-
28
/maOere
7rftJ9
ra KpLva tov aypov

ov kottiwclv
eXa^^fcrrof ovvaarOe, tl irepl twv Xof/ULepijULvaTe ;
OVV ovSe
avâvovcriv'
TTcov
KaTavorj-
ouSe vrjOouariv (29) Xe-yo) ê v/iiiv OTi ouoe ZjOAOjULOOI^ V

Tracri]
(TaT
VYjOeL
T Kptva, 7rC09 OUTC ovT vcpaLvei'
rn
L
So^y]
o)?
avrov
eV
irepie-
OTi
om.
v
(BaXero
(SO)
tovtwp,
ayp(f TOV X'^P'
Se TOV
aypov
yOpTOV TOV ovTa Kai dYjiJiepov
TOV ovTa
(j^juepov
avpiov eU KXi/Savov jBaXXofACvov 6 Oeo^ OVTCOg ajUL<plVVVCTLV,

VJULag,
/UitJ
ov
TToWcp jULoXXoV
TTOcrw for ov ttoXX.
oXiyOTTKTTOL ; (31) OVV IUipi/UiV^(Tr]T Xe<paycojuLv ;

\}
Kai
VJUL619 /mrj
yovTS' TL
TTLCOjuLev ;
r}
rt
Kai tl TL ^r]TiT (payr]T 7rii]T, KOI juLt] [JieTewpiCeade

(for verse 31)
tl
TrepiâXco-
jiieOa ;
(32)
6
iravTa
yap
TavTa yap (iravTo)

T. 'iOvt)
TovTa
olSev
TCI eOv>] eiriCtiTOvcnv'
TOV
oe
KOCrjULOV
o.
yap
a iraTt^p v/ncov
vjUL.
iraT. oioev
TOV' OVpaVLO^ OTi XpiiC^'^^

Tcov airavTbiv.
(33) X^TelTe
jSacriXeLav
(without 6 ovp.) a'TravTwv om. TrXrjv ^*]t.

T.j5acr.auT0i^( without TTjOto-
irpcoTOV Tr]v
Ka\ Tfjv SiKaiocrvvrjv avTOV, Kai
Tov and
k.
t. SiKaLocr.)
TavTa iravTa
vjullv.
irpocr-
iravTa om.
TeOr](7Tai

The
variants in St. Luke, in so far as they are of
stylistic character,
wanting in the gospels but occurs several times in St. Paul), also in the three instances where St. Luke removes the rhetorical question for the sake of smoothness (a correction which, as
readings (corrections in style). in the case of a-Koirei {orKoirelv is
appear throughout as secondary This is especially clear
he makes in other places), also in the oiKertjg (wanting in the gospels but occurring in Acts x. 7 ; Rom. xiv. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii. 18), in Karavoware (constantly used by St. Luke)
we
shall see,
pedantic addition of
twice substituted for eya/3Xe\|Aa(7^6 eig and for the unusual word KaraimdOere, in ttoVo) prefixed to /naXXov, in TToVft) for ov ttoXXw, in the koi which is added, as
so often, in verses 22, 23, in oi^ ovk ecrriv rajuL. ovSe airoOijKr] (improvement in style), in the feeble moral
reflection el ovv ovSe Svuaa-Qe (to \a-)(j.(Trov eXd-^îcTTOv is in the New Testament exclusively confined to
St.
Luke, vide
in
17) TL Trepl twv absence of eva with

xix.
addition to this passage xvi. 10; also the Xoittcov juLcpiiavaTe ]
is
7rrj-)Qjv
probably secondary;
v/jOei
likewise the sentence
ttco^
ovre
oure vcpaivei, for
to be unessential; avâvovcri, appeared
and
vdyalvei is
stylistic
verse
\oi7ra,
28,
Matthew Luke has replaced "clothing" by ra while in St. Matthew verse 31, he omits it
improvement upon
St.
kotticoo-iv.
In St.
altogether ; it was evidently a matter of less anxiety In the same to him than to the native of Palestine.
the somewhat feeble jur] the strenuous prohibition by IULpi/uiV)](Tr]T Xeyovre^ Koi vfjLeh (one of the few cases where St. Luke has
passage
he
has
replaced
the pronoun
when
it
is
wanting in
St.
Matthew)

/jirj
St.
in
and thus leads up to the ^tjreire of ^r]TiT, Matthew verse 33 (Ctjreiv is much more frequent St. Luke than in St. Matthew) again irXi'iv is inserted
;
by him
(it is
found
five
times in St. Matthew, fifteen

/mrj
times in St. Luke).
The phrase
jULerecopll^cG-Oe
is
singular both in St. Luke and in the New Testament. No certain interpretation can be given of the phrase as found here (it occurs in Philo, Sirach, Plutarch, and " be not the medical authors). It may mean either or "seek not after high things," or high-minded,"
"be not covetous," or "be not driven hither and If the word stood in Q it is not thither (by cares)." without significance for determining the plane of
culture of the first translator of the source
is
;
but
it
much more probable
that St.
Luke
inserted
it
is
it in
place of TL
Trepi/SaXciojuLeOa.
In this case
to be
taken in the same general sense as the phrase prerl irep) twv Xoittcov /ULepijuvare, viously inserted by him On the other hand, the text of St. Luke is, as it seems,
:
to be preferred where the phraseology
is
;
less biblical
and
thus where he reads tov^ 6 Oeo? (for 6 irarrjp v/mcov 6 KOpaKag, ovp.), Ta Kpiva (without tov ay pod) and ev aypw tov yoprov in the omission of 6 (for T. ^. T.
liturgical
St.
than that of
Matthew
aypou), ovpdvio? (with irarijp), in the expression rd iOvrj rod koctjulou (t k6(t/ul. is unnecessary in the language of the Bible), in the omission of Trpwrov and rrjv SiKaioavvtjv.
.
some authorities for the an element in the gospel proclamation of the synoptists is found And yet Ta Trereivd tov ovpavov only in St. Matthew.
Upwrov
indeed
text of St.
is wanting Matthew, and
in
SiKaioavvt] as
is
perhaps to be preferred to
Toh
KopaKa^,
for St.
Luke
uses this expression also in the parable of the Mustard Seed {vide infra) and in ix. 58. He may have pre-
more specific word in this passage, because of the specific word {ja Kplm) which follows.
ferred to use a
Tov
KOG-juLov
may
also
have been added by

St.
St.
Luke.
Luke
vi.
St.
Matt.
\va
(b
vii.
jarj
1:
M;;
42;
ev
xi.
9-13;
. .
vi.
37, 38, 41, 31.

/.
Kpivere,
KpiOrjre.
Kai ov stands for

(p
.
Kpi/ULan KpLvere KpSriarecrOe, Kai ev

(h
(2)
yap
Kpidrjarecrde kou
jULerpcp
Oi](TTai
VJULIV.
jULerpeiTe /JLerprj(3) Tl Se
the thought is developed in a quite dif-
wanting
ferent way.
ev
wanting.
/SXeTreig
to Kapcbog to
ê
ev
Tcp
ev
avTijuLeTpr]Oi](TeTai
Tw
ScbOaXjuLw
Ti]V
TOV aSeXcpov
arw
Tt]v
(TOV,
ce ooK.
Tr}V ev
r.
6(p6aXjULO)
SoKov ov KQTaJ/
voeig
(4)
ttco?
epei^
tw
TTO)?
(without
rj)
Svva(Tai
aSeX<pa)
<tov'
a<p(i eK/SaXoo
Xeyeiv
(TOV
aSeXcpe, a(peg
TO Kapcpog
jiiov
TOV o(pOa\r]
orov,
KOI iSov
SoKog
TO Kapcpo^ TO ev r. d0O. avT09 T. ev r. 6(pOaXjuip

(T.
ev TO)
o(pOa\iuL(t)
arov ; (5)
ooKOv ov /BXeTTcov;
T.
VTTOKpiTa, 7c/3aXe irpwTov

K
SoKOV, Kol
cK/BaXeiv
TOV OChOaXjULOV (TOV TrjV TOTe Sia/3X\îg
SoKOV eK T. (TOV O(p0.

T. T.
e/f/3.
TO
Kap(po<f
eK
tov
Kclpcjyos
TO
ev
arov
ScpOaXjULov
(TOV
. .
TOV
(7)
aSeXcpov
Koi.
0(pO.
T.
aSeXcp.
aiTeiTe,
SoO)](T6TaL
V/ULIV
^TjTeiTe,
Kai evp-âreTC KpoveTe

avoiyrjcreTai
vjuliv.
kqi
(8) 7ra?
avoi^QyjcrcTai ?
ap 6 aiTwv yap
Xa/alSa vei, Kai
INVESTIGATION OF THE
(9)
civIT are
TEXT
KpovovTi avoiyrjarerai.
tj
Ti?
eCTTlV
eh
V/ULCOV
TLva oe e^
f/z.
t.
OV OpCOTTOg,
aiTJ](Tl
Ikf]
O fÔ?
pa
/mtj
airijo-ei
vlos
avTOv
apTOV,
avTip
;
XlQov
t]
lÔvv,
7riS(Jci(Ti
(10)
fxt]
Kai
avTw
crei
eiTLOwareL ;
/mrj
avrl LyQvo<s 6(piv t] Kai aiT)']eTriScocrei
i-vuvv
IxOv
aiT7]crei,
o(hiv
el
wov,
avrip
eTTiowcreL iSwc
avrw
(11)
ovv
(TKOpiTLOV ;
f/xef? TTOvrjpoi
ovreg o'lSare
SiSovai
TTOCCp
lor ovTe^ 01 virapyovTes for
[SojULara]
TOL<S
ayaOa
VJULWV,
TCKVOIS
/jLoXXov
v
irarrip
vjulwv
vjxwv wanting.
TOig
ovpavoh
airovcriv
S-Jocrei
ovpavov
irvevfjia
ay aO a to is
(12)
ol
6e\>] re
ft
avTOV ;
eav
V/ULtV
dyiov for ayaOa

Ka\
iravTa ovv
lua
bcra
TTOLCCXTLV
KaOcos OeXere
ovTcog Kai vjueis
v/iieig avOpcoTTOi, OL/TO)? TTOieire avToig ovTog

'
KQi
om.
yap
perhaps
ovros
.
o/xoicoy after auror?.

.
.
eCTTlV 6 V0JUL09 Kai ol TTjOO(prJTai.
'JTpocprjrai
wanting.
see at once that in matters of style closely by St. Matthew ; this
Here again we
Q
is
is
represented more
e.g.,
very plain,
in the case of Iva
>
Ka\ ov, of iravra
ovv ocra eav
and of ovreg > virapyôvreg is a favourite word with St. Luke). 'Ev w {v7rap-)(Lv must be judged original yap KpLjuLan Kpivere KpiOi'jcrecrOe the parallelism with what follows was disturbed by St.
Kai KaOcog,
;
>
lAike, because
(viz.
he inserted clauses parallel to

Kai
jut]
Kplvere
Ka\
fjirj
KaraSiKaêre
ov
/urj
KaraSiKaa-OrJTe'
Kai
SoOtja-erai
aTToXvere,
v/uLiv
Kai
airoXvOijcrecrOe
SlSoTe,
KaXov luirpov
ireiriea- iêvov cea-aXeu/jLcvov
virepeK^vV'
10

Q
is
vojiievov Soocrovariv etV
from a
vocative
tov koXttov vjulwp, perhaps derived which varied from the Q of St. Matthew).
certainly interpolated
'ASeXche
is
by
St.
St.
Luke; the
wanting in
it is
St.
Matthew and
Mark
on
the other hand
very frequent in the Acts; the vocative singular occurs also in Acts xxi. 20. The Lukan variant to St. Matt. vii. 9, 10 (" egg and " scor""'
pion"
for
"loaf" and "stone," and
in reverse order)
is
problematical. natural sound
is perhaps influenced by a Greek proverb or he possessed another recension of Q. He manifestly improves the text by replacing avOpcowo^ and o uio? avrov by "father" and "son" (the text which Wellhausen prefers is scarcely the right one A serious alteration rig comes from St. Matthew).
;
The text St. Luke
of
St.
Matthew has a more
in the sense
is
effected
by
St.
Luke's substitution of
irvevjj.a dykov for ayaOa, his preference for this conception is well known. The text of St. Matthew is subject to objection in
only two passages.

ovpavov (vide
6 irarrjp with his
vjllwv
He
has replaced 6 irarrjo 6 eP

usual phrase,
in
St.
Luke xi. 16) by his ev roh ovpai/oi^, and

:
accordance
to the
" Golden Rule " the sentence
own purpose and aim he has added

For this
is
the
Law
and the Prophets."

St.
Matt.
viii.
19
koi
St.
Luke
eh
it
ix.
5760.
ttooelTrev
TTpoareXOoop ek eiirev avrw'

aKoXovO/jcro)
airep-)(yi.
ypa/uLjULarevg
creXO.
ypa/ULju.
om.
oiSacTKaXe,
Ti^
po^ avrov
SiSdaKoXe
croi
birov eav
Kai
ai
om,
GLirev
(20)
'Itjo-ov^'
Xiyet
aXoo-
avTcp
INVESTIGATION OF
TTCKeg (pcoXeovg eyov(jLv Kai
TO,
THE TEXT
11
TreTeiva
tov
o
ovpavov
oe
i/io?
KaTa(TKr]vu)(Tig,
TOV avOpCOTTOV OVK ^l TTOV T^r K(pa\r]v KXivrj, (21)

Tpo^
elirev
Se
rcov
iuiaO>]TWP
eLirev Oe oe TT/OOC
^^
rf
'
avTW
Kvpie, eiTLTpk-
XovOei
ttô? TOOV' cTcpov QKO6 Se elirev juLoi.
fJioi irpo)Tov KOI Od'âi TOV iraTepa /ulov. (22) 6 Se 'lr](Tovg \eyeL
ylfov
aTTcXOeiv
Kvpie
om.
ctTreX-
avTW' aKoXovOei
acbeg roi'?
jiioi,
Kai
Q6vTi{-Ta) without koi cLirev Se aura) (without o 'I.) KOI om. add. OLKoX.
. .
.
veKpov^
Oayâi
crv
oe aTreXOcov
iSacriXeiav
oiayyeWe
tov
Oeov
TOU? kavToov vcKpovs.
Tt]v
post VCKpOVg,
The
viii.
Lukan
is
text
(corresponding
to
so
St.
Matt,
better,
2122)
it
is
certainly clearer
original.
and
far
but
St.
scarcely
it
As
the text runs in
would have absolutely compelled a to begin the passage with the comwriter thoughtful mand of Jesus, cLKoXovOei /moi. But the ek ypa/uL/maTev<s of St. Matthew must be omitted (St. Matthew,
Matthew,
verse
21
of
;
itself
shows that
it
is
a thoughtless
interpolation
Blass indeed strikes
it
out of the text,
but on
in verses
insufficient
grounds).
T(jdv iuLaOt]Tcov,
as well as the
We must also omit two vocatives of respect

in verse 22.
19 and 21, and 6
'lijcrovg
The
historic present of St. Matthew is to be retained ; St. Luke has altered it almost everywhere (also irpo^ with accusative in place of the simple dative, as well
as the participle in place of the infinitive or the finite The concluding addition verb belong to his style).
12
in
St.

Luke can
scarcely
SiayyeWeiv occurs again in the

Acts xxi. 26 from the LXX)
in
(also
;
have stood in Q, for (1) New Testament only in Rom. ix. 17 in a quotation
(2) the ciKoXovOei juoi
which
is
antici-
pated
in
St.
Luke
required
substitute,
which
naturally had to be more emphatic than the simple

cLKoXovOeiu,
St.
Matt.
ix.
37
rore
St.
Luke
Se
x. 2.
Xeyei Toig /aaOrjTais avTOv' o juev OepicriuLO^ ttoXu?, ol

Se
eXeyev
irpo^ avrovf
ipydrai
ovv
oXiyoi'
(38)
Kvpiou
SeyÔrjTC
tov
Tov
OepicrjuLod otto)?
cii
eKJSaXu
epyara^ eKJSaXu
epyara^
avTOu,
tov
Oepicr/uiov
The introduction Toh imaOrjraig avrov.

order
k/3.
ipy.
rore
:
Q
in
ran simply
St.
Matthew
is
Xiyei avroig or gives the original

:
often
inserted
by
St.
Matthew.
St.
Matt.
yap
10^ aîog t?? Tpo(pfJ9 epyaTt]^

X.
St.
Luke
x. 7^.
tov
/ulictOov
avTOv.
The labourer
but also
is
worthy not
so
thinks St.
in
St.
Luke
only of his food, of his hire the

;
Matthew. Seeing, however, original how short the saying is, it must remain questionable whether we are justified in assigning it to the
lies
source.

St.
Xe-yo)
13
Matt.
vjULiV
X.
15
ajurjv
St.
Luke
x. 12.
a/zî/
om.
avcKTorepov
ôS6fxoi<; iv rt] tjfxepa eKeivr]
ecTTai yii ôSo/uloov koi ev

fjLOppodv
Vo*]
aveKTorepov
ecrrai.
rjfxepa
Kpicrem
The order of the words is changed by St. Luke. The words ev r. ^/jl. ck. are not quite certain either
in
wording or position, yet they must not be struck out, seeing that they correspond to the words of St. Matthew, while they are not interpolated from We cannot determine whether Q had that gospel.
v
ril^pa
Kpla-eod^
(so
four
times in
St.
ev
Matthew,
t^ Vl^^p^
wanting in the other evangelists), or

eKelvu (so, viz. in the sense of the twice in St. Luke, twice in St.
of Judgment, Matthew, once in " in the St. Mark). Perhaps the source read simply between decide 2. k. T. It is difficult to yT] Day." more is the former The or simply HoSo/moig. prob" land," never occurs in St. Luke's gospel, able, as yrj =
Day
and
in the
Acts only in the speech of

X.
St.
Stephen.
8.
St.
Matt.
16*: iSov
vfia<i
o)?
St.
Luke
x.
vTrdyere
iyui)
eyu)
aTToa-reWco
add. ante lôv^

apva^,
om.
TTpoâra
ev fMeaw Xvkcov,
virdyere is an addition nect verse 3 with verse 2.
of St. Luke in order to conis often struck out
eyu)
Luke the by is more refined).

St.
;
original
word was Trpofiara

rest,
{apva<s
For the
the remarks
made
It
is
Matt. x. 10^ ^PPty ^^^^ Îso. upon questionable whether the saying belongs to Q.
St.
14
St.

Matt.
ecTTiv
X.
26
ovSev
St.
Luke
xii. 2.
Se for
yap
o
Kai
KKa\vjuijuLvov
yap
a-vyKeKoXvjUjuipov
ovK
KpviTTOV
a7roKa\v(pO?j(rTai, o ov yvcocrO}]-
crerai.
St.
them
St.
Luke prefers composite words, for simple words.

Matt.
t\
and
substitutes
xi.
</
(7V
St.
Luke
vii.
20, 22-28;
p-^0JULV09,tJ
;
GTCpOV TTpOO"Kal
xvi. 16.
aXXov
o
-
SoKcojuev
(4)
airoKpi'Irjar.
Oeig 6 'Irjcrovg elirev avTo7<s*
om.
eiirare
TTopeuOevTeg airayyeiXare iooavvrj a aKovere Kai pAeTrere*
10êre
Kai rjKovaaTe
(5) Tv(p\o] irovdLV Kai ')(0)\ot

Kai
ava^Xi'
TrepiTra-
Kai
om.
Kai
Tovcriv, XeirpoL
rat
Kai
Km )(pol
KaOapl'tovaKOvovciu,
Kai
Kai
veKpoL
eyeipovrai
om.
Kou
om. om.
TTToo-ôi
evayyeXiôvrai'
ejuLoi,
(6) KOI jmaKapiog ecrriv o?

civ
jULr]
(TKavSaXiG-0^ ev
(7)TOVT0t)V Se TTopevo/ULcvoov fjpâro 6 'Irjcrovg Xeyeiv T0?9 o-)ôig irepl 'looavvov

TL e^rjXOaTe et? Triv
eptjjuLOv
aireXOoi lOVTOdv oe S'e T.

X(i3v Îcoavv,
'lijcr.
ayye^
6
fjpP.
om.
Trpog. r. o)(X.
Oeacraa-Oai;
aue/uiou
KuXajuop viro
(8)
iSeip ;
iluLarioi^
I
craXevojuLevov;
aXXa
t/
i^^XOare
ev
avOpLcirov
/uaXaKoig
add.
tjjULCpiecriiievov ;
iSov
ol tol
Oi ev ijuaTiarjuLa} evSoû) koi
jxaXaKa (popovpre^ ev roi^
Tpvcpu
vwap-ôvres
[<^fct-

oucoi^ Tcov âa-i\i(jt)v.
15
(9)
yovT^
eiCTLv,
?]
ev Toii /SacriXeioig
loeiv;
oXXa
TL e^r]\OaT
irpO'
v/uliv,
pal Xeyo) (p^rrjv iSciv;
7rpo(p7]Ttjv;
Kai irepicraroTepov irpocpriTov. (10) ovTO's ecTTiv Trepl
ou ycypaTTTai*
iSov eyu)
cyci)
om.
aTTOCTTeWco Tov ayye\ov /JLOV irpo 'TrpocraoTTOv

(TOV,
b?
Karaa-Kevacrei
(TOV
ejuLTrpocraiULr]v
Trjv
ooov
ovK
Oev aov,
vjuLiv,
(11)
\eyco
ev
IUiôi)v
ajuLi]v
om.
iyyjyepTai
yvvt]TOi<i yvvaiKOdv iJ.elYwv
ev
yew. yvv.
'l(ji)av.
'IcoaVVOV
TOV âTTTlCTTOV'
ev
rrj
(om. T.
/SaTTT.) ovSelg ecTTiv
Se
fxiKporepo^
ecTTiv,
r^fxepcov
jSacriXeKx tociv ovpavoov /melôov
TOV Oeov
avTOv
Toov
(12) airo
^Yooavvov
eft)?
Se
TOV âTTTlCTTOV
ri
apTi
BacriXeia
tcov
Koi.
ovpavcov
/SiacTTal
12 and 13 are in rever. 12 runs airo TOTe rj /BaariXeia tov

vers.
verse order
/Sia^cTai,
Oeov ev ay yeXiTeTai, Kal Tra?

e/9
apiraYovcriv
Trai/re?
avTi]v.
(13)
avTtjv ^KxTeTai.
vojULO^ K.
yap
vojiMO^
ol
KOI 6
7rpo(pf]Tai 'Icodvvov eft)9
ol
Trpocp. IJ-e-î
7rpO(j)^TV(TaV,
e7rpo(pi^Tev(Tav
om.
In the majority of cases there

that here St. Luke's recension
(for the omission
ayur/i/,
is
no need of proof
;
is
of
x.
e-yw,
cf.
everywhere secondary St. Matt. x. 16 of
accordingly St. Matthew's recension is to be preferred in the neutral cases (with the exception of 6 hjcrovs occurring Ta twice).
cf. St.
Matt.
15)
OF THE
UNiVL
TY
^
)
16
juLoXaKa

;
is an awkward expression which (j)opovvTg offended St. Luke*'s sense of style rpud)^ is a word which is wanting elsewhere in the gospels, and there-
fore
The
nrost probably to be ascribed to St. Luke. present in verse 4 is changed by St. Luke into
is
the more correct aorist. Ovk eyrjyeprai sounded to him too un-Hellenic. His tov Oeov in the place of What St. Twu ovpavcov may alone be original. Matthew (Q) reads in verses 12 and 13 was as difficult for him to understand as for us. It is certain that
Matthew, in distinction from St. Luke, has in the main preserved the original version note particularly because is a favourite word (og apri, evayyeXi^ca-Qai
St.
is
with
St.
Luke.
KOI
Also
pojuLos
the
is
unusual
;
order
irag
eig
of
ol
TTpocprjrai
original
avTrjv
PiaCeTai
an attempt to explain the words of St. Matthew (Q). Are we then to suppose that St. Luke, who here everywhere shows himself to be less original than St. Matthew, is right in placing verse 13 before " verse 12, and in inferring " continued unto (in his " the Law and the John unto rendering Prophets ") " for " prophesied unto ? It is in his favour that his
order of the sentences
St.
is
more natural than that of

?
Matthew.
St.
But does
16
:
this decide the question
Matt.
xi.
tlvl ê
X.
St.
Luke
vii.
31-35;
(f.
ojUiOi(jO(TOt}
Trjv
yeveau Tav-
13-15, 21, 22. odv

T.
Se)
Tr]v ;
ojULola
(ttlv iraiSloig
Tov^ apQpcoTTOvg
OJULOLOL
eiO'LV
KaOrjjUL.
yVa^
TOL^ V
KaOt]jULi'OL^
IT
poa(puivovvTa
v Toiq ayopal^, tol^ ere-
raurr]'} kqi tlvl eLcriv bjnoioi;

TTaiS.
poig (17) XeyovcTLV rjvX^koi ovk aajmev vjuliv
ayop.
KaL
irpoacpoo-
vovcTLv aX\}]\oLg
XeyovTeg*

Kcu
17
ovK
CKoyâaOe.
'looduvr]^
ttlvcov,
(18)
/m/jre
eKXavcrare
eXyjXvOev
TiCTT//?]
jUL7]Te
^jXOev
ecrOicov
yap
'Icoavv. [o /5a7r-
/ULijre
Kai
eê/.
juLyjre
eaOcov
aprov
Xe-
Xeyoucriv
Saijmoviov
TTivwv olvov
(19) ^]\0P 6 vlog Tov avCrOl(JOP KOI TTIVCOV^ OpCOTTOV Kai Xeyouariv ISov
TTog
yeTe
eXrjXvQev
avOpco-
Xey ere
(piX. reX.
(payoi
Kai
oivoTrorrjg^
TeXcovcov
TcciXcov.
Kai ajmap(piXo^ Ka\ r] eSiKaicoOi]

to3v
\epy(j)V
?
arocpia
airo
iravTcov tcov
TKV(iOV ?]
aUT^9.
(701,
TeKvcov
avrri'S,
(21) oval
K'Vj
XojOa-
ova\
1
(TOL,
fiOO)
î^Qcra'tâv
Kai Zjiowvl at
eyev)]Ot](Tav
OTi
ev 1
eyivovTO
yevoixevai
at
ev
SwdjuLeig
vjmiv,
iraXai
onrooip
ttXi^v
av
ev
oraKKO)
Kai
jULTev67]arav.
e-yo) vixiv^
(22)
vpi>
KaOyjjULevoL fierevotjcrav
Xe-yct) v/uLiv
Kai JLiocovi
om.
(ev
aveKTOTcpov
Kpiaeco^ au,
r]
ecrrai ev
^jmepa
Kpicrei)
Tn
vjuliv.
(23) Kai
jj-r}
K.a(papvaoviuL,
eoog
(x)<;
TOV
ovpavov
eco^ v>^(joQy](jY] ;
. .
aoov
KaTa/Bi/BacrOijcrr]
Kara/^tjcn].
(25) ev CKeivo)
tw
Kaipcp
ev
avTt]
Tij
copa
rjyaX-
aTTOKpiOeh 6
lr]crov^ elirev
XiacraTO to) irvev/xaTi tu)

dyio)
Kvpie
y^?, ttTTO
eôfJioXoyovjuLaL <toi, irarep, Kai Trjg TOV
Kai eiirev
ovpavov
Kai
on
eKpvâ^
Tuvra
aireK
pv\âg
B
<70(p(iov
crvvercoVf
18
Kai
avra aireKoXvyâ^ 6 val, {^6) Trar^p, OTi ovTO)9 evSoKia eyevcTO

pt]7rLoi9'
cjULTrpocrOeu
fJLOi
(^l)7rai/Ta vtto tov TrapeSoOrj koi ovSe]^ einimov, irarpo^

yiVO0(TKl
crov.
TOV vloV
ovSe
/ULt]
yiVCOCTKei, T19
.
(TTLV
vlO},
Traryjp, T19 eiriyivucxTKei ei juaj 6 vlo<i Kai to eav povAi]Tai o viog
tov iraTepa
koI t/? ccttlv 6 iraTrjp
ei jmrj
(without
yivocxTKei)
CLTTOKoXvyâL
St.
Matt.
less
xi.
16
The introduction
is,
as usual,
transformed by St. Luke. The interof is an ol improvement in style polation avOpcoTTOi it is somewhat though pedantic, but koi tlvl eicrlv
more or
ojULoioi
or rather kq] tlvi
ccttiv ojuoia,
is
may have come
from Q.
St.
Matthew has
brevity. discern St. Luke's polishing hand, and that in spite KXaUiv is substituted by St. Luke of his \eyovTe<i.
for KOTTTea-Oai,
frequent in Q ; often destroyed it from a desire for However, in what follows we can clearly
ParalUsmus membrorum
he
is
fond of the former word (used
by St. Matthew only twice, ina 'KXrjXvOev cluding quotation from the LXX). is an from for the historical ^XOev improvement (twice) but he has thus of St. thrown doubt Luke, standpoint
by him
eleven times,
upon the saying

(see
Wellhausen on
as a genuine utterance of our Lord this passage). 'ÂpTov and ofvov
are evidently interpolations, and moreover pedantic (for, as a matter of fact, "eating and drinking"
signifies
"eating bread and drinking wine");
like-
19
wise Xeyere in St. Luke is a natural correction for iravroov must the indefinite \eyovariv in St. Matthew.
be regarded as belonging to the text of St. Luke, it is indeed a favourite word of his ; but for this very
justified in not assigning it to Q. is a the TeKvwv only intelligible reading epycov most difficult to a sense which variant interpret, gives and which besides has only found its way into a part
reason
we are
is
of the authorities for the text of St. Matthew.

thoughtless scribe
like the addition of of epya. cyevrjOrja-aVy is a KaSri/uLvoi, stylistic improvement (so also the tov
think
was probably led by
eSiKaicoOt]
to
The two words Kare^ria-av and Karebefore ovpavov). St. Luke preoccur in Ezek. xxxi. 16, 17 filâXpv ferred the latter form, perhaps because of its rhythmic I have given the passage, likeness to {jy^tjoBria-ii.
;
xi.
25-27 (St. Luke x. 21-22), in the form which must be adopted on the evidence of the manuscripts. But judging from the exceptionally numerous and ancient quotations of this passage, we may conclude with great probability that, on account of the importance of
it
its
subject-matter, already at a very early date
had experienced serious correction, and, moreover, Luke jjiov was (1) that both in St. Matthew and St.
originally wanting after Trarpo^, (2) that the original reading in St. Luke was cyvca (not yivcoarKei),^ (3)
that the words tov vlov

1
el
jmr]
6 Tranip, ovSe (and T19

"
found, for instance, in quotations by Justin. Apol." i. " Tertull. adv. Marc." "Iren." i. 20, 3 (Markosians) " Demonstr." v. 1; Euseb. "Eclog." i. 12; Euseb. ii. 27; Euseb. "Hist. Eccl." i. 2, 2; Euseb. " Eccl. Theol." i. 12; "Dial, de Clem. " Horn." 17, 4 18. recta fide," i. p. 44, ed. van de Sande
'E7j'w is
63
{bis);
4, 11, 13, 20.
20
7nyivu)(TKi)

(the
St.
Matthew
wanting in
were perhaps originally wanting in St. corresponding words were certainly

Luke).
is iv avrij rij copa
a specifically
Lukan
in
expression (occurring with him six times, never St. Matthew) ; on the other hand, ei/ eKelvw rco
Kaipw
is only found in St. Matthew (twice again), and most probably comes from Q. tjyaWidcraTo too
TTvevjuaTL T. ay. is Lukan proved for r. iri^. r. ay.,
this does not need to be
is used by him four times (gospel and Acts), and ayaXXiacri^ it is wanting in St. Mark, and is found three times once in St. Matthew in the formal phrase yâipere is used Kal ayiaWiaaOe. by St. Luke airKpv>â<i
while ayaXXiai^
eKpvâ^ in accordance with his preference for compound words (vide swpra on St. Matt. x. 26).
for
Perhaps St. Matthew had already changed the very important aorist tyvia into the present (as if a timeless knowledge were intended), and this present was then also taken up into the text of St. Luke.
'ETTfyifcoo-zce/j/
yiP(Jo(TKLv.
can
With
;
scarcely be more original than St. Luke''s substitution of r/? o

St.
irarrip
vii.
for
;
49
viii.
tov Trarepaj compare 25 ix. 9.
Luke
v.
21
The
text of St.
Matthew
is
thus, apart
from the
present tense referred to, the more authentic. Except the omission in verse 16, the only alterations we may perhaps assign to this Evangelist are found in the
solemn \eyco
'Irjaovg
rjixepa
vjuliv,
in
to
the
introduction
the addition of airoKpiQeL'i 6 to verse 25, and in

(see St.
Kpiareoog.
Li place of the last expression the

iv
source
had perhaps
t^
Kpla-ei
Matt.
xii.
41, 42).

St.
1
21
Matt.
ev
xii.
27: kol
ol
Luke
xii. 10.
xi.
el
19, 20,
23;
iyo)
êekYeôvK
SaijULOvia,
Se
Kj3aX\oi)
VIOL
viJLWv
Ta
ev
TLVi
KpaA(28)
ecr.
XovcTLv ;
Sia
tovto avTOi
v/mcov.
vjUL.
KpiTai
1
earovrai
Kp.
oe ev TTvev/uLaTi Oeov eydo

to, Saijmovia,
(h' vjULag
.
eKâXXco
e(pOa(Tv
Xelcx
apa
(30)
SaKTvXw om. eyco yt
(f. TTvevjuiaTi)
rj
/3a<TL.
Tov Oeov.
u)v
/uif]
/meT
ejuov
jmtj
Kax
trvva-
ijuiov ecTTiv,
Kai 6
ycov
TTiêi.
/JLer
.
e/uiov
.
cKopKai
(32)
b?
09 epei eis
(t.
Kai 7ra?
Acara)
cav
vlov
e'lTFU
\oyov Kara rod

a<pe07]-
TOV avOpcoTTOv^
09 o
crerat avTO)
av eiwu
TO) Se
eh
T.
ay
irv.
Kara tov
TrvevjmaTO^
tov
fiXacrcprj/uLfjcravTi
ayLOV,
avTco
aicovi
OVK
a<peO}]<TeTaL
ouTe ev tovtco TOVTU ovTe ev

is
tw tm fxeWovTi}
St.
ovTe
yUeX-
\ovtl om.
(as in St.
eyo)
xi.
omitted by
restored.
Luke
Matt.
x.
16
10,
is
and
elsewhere), and the customary order of
words
at
so.
first
The Lukan reading SaKTvXo) seems the more original, but this is scarcely sight In spite of his liking for irvevjULa, St. Luke
(Exod.
viii.
substitutes the Biblical expression
19;
* The Beelzebub pericope stood in Q as well as in St. Mark, but the text printed above is all that we can with certainty assign to Q, besides isolated words from the introduction daL/xovi^djuLevoi, Kw<p6%,
XaXeiv,
01
Matthew
6xXoi (perhaps also iîaTavTo), verse 25 (St. Luke verse 17).
and
ipTj/xoOraL
from
St.
22
xxxi.

18
;
Deut.
ix.
offence
at
certain
Ps. viii. 4) he takes no 10 anthropomorphic phrases which

;
;
vide i. 51 have Bibhcal authority ^payîcov Oeov, i. 73 The solemn i. 66 ê)jO Kvpiou, opK09 tov Oeov. concluding phrase of verse 32 (a verse which St. Luke
: :
has corrected in regard to style)

polation by St. Matthew.
St.
may
Luke
be an inter-
Matt.
xii.
aircKi plOtjcrav
38 avTM
koi
rore
Tiveg
St.
xi. 16, 29, 30,
32, 31.
XôvT<i
TpOL Se ireipacrt]iuLiov
Twv
ypa/UL/uLaTecov
âpi-
cralwvXiyovTe^' SiSao-KoXe,
OeXojULev
eYriTOVv Trap
^ ovpavov avTOV
airo crov
crtj/ULiov
ISeiv
elirev
(39) o ê airoKpiQei<i
avToh' yevea
''ôt^
irovrjpa
ctti-
jjpâTO Xeyeiv
tj
yevea
Kou
iuiOi')(aXig
crrj/meiov
avTrj yevea irovripa ecTTiv

crj/meiov ^>JTi
IC^JTc^,
crrjjuieiov
1
jULt]
ov SoOi]cnj/meiov
. .
(TCTai
avTu
TO
'Iwm TOV
(41)
avSpeg
7rpO(p7]TOV. . ISîvevelTai
om. TOV Trpocp^TOv
add.
^Ycovaq
KaOm yap
T019
avaa-TrjcrovTaL iv
juLCTa
r^ Kplaei
otl
eyeveTO îVVLTaig (Trjiueiov,
T^9 yeveag TauTt]^ kql

avTriv^
ovTcog hcTTaL Kai 6 viog
tov
KaTaKpivovcriv
jUieTevoricrav efV
avOpcoTTOV
Tn
yevea TavTrj.
Iwva,
Kai
Kijpvyjma loou irAeiov
to
'I com S)ê.
(42) (3a(TLKL(T<Ta
ev
Tf]
VOTOV
Kpicrei-
eyepOrjcreTai
/j.Ta
t^?
yeveag
K
TCiOV
Tcov
avSpcov T. yev, TavT,
TavTt]^
aVTYJV,
Kai
KaTaKpivel
OTL
rjAUeU
avTovg
yrjg aKOvorai Tvjv (jocpiav SoXoyUcoi/oy, koI iSov irXeiov 2oXo/>taroy wSe.
irepaTCov r^?
23
Either the verses 41 and 42 have been reversed in

order by St. Luke, or what is more probable, verse 41 was originally wanting in the Lukan text (vide infrd).
The introduction is transformed by both evanThe scribes and Pharisees, and the vocative gelists. the original SiSda-KoXe, are peculiar to St. Matthew
;
introduction probably ran somewhat as follows In St. OeXo/aev airo crov a-rjiuLeiov iSelu. (they said)
:
:
Luke the correcting hand of the

clearly traced
;
stylist
is
is
here
likewise ^ yevea ktX.

yaof^âX/?
is
provement.
St.
Again,
as
a stylistic imelsewhere avoided by
Luke
a vulgar word.
Here
also,
contrary
to his usual practice (see, however, St. Matt. xi. 27), he replaces the compound verb by the simple ^tjrel, because he appreciates the special meaning of the
compound. The respectful affix tov irpocb^TOv, was most probably added by St. Matthew. rcov avSpwv
is
inserted by St.
Luke
compare a similar insertion

.
.
in St.
Matt. xi. 16. The words KaOcog yap
t^ yevea ravrrj in
St.
;
Luke are original (read, however, oxjirep for Kado)<s) St. Matthew has replaced them, or rather interpreted them as referring to the Descent into Hades, by
verse 40
:
Tpeh
r/luLepa^ rpei^ vvKra^, ovrcog ecrac o vio^ tov avOpwirov v t?] KapSia t^? ytj^ Tpeh ^jmepa^ Kal Tpei^ vvKTag, a clause which would never have been omitted
cocnrep Kac
yap
f]v
'Icom? v tu koiXiol tov ki]tov9
by
the
St.
Luke
if
he had read
it
in
his source.
In
(rt]/uLiov
for the Ninevites lay simply in the preach-
ing of Jonah (in disagreement with Wellhausen), that is, simply in the fact that a prophet had come to
them.
The
transposition
of the two verses in St.
24
Luke can only be due to an ancient error of a scribe, unless with codex D and Blass we regard St. Matthew verse 41 = St. Luke verse 32, as an interpolation in This is the more probable, in that the Lukan text. here r^? -ycjêa? ravrtj^ is not changed into twv avSpcov The verse, however, certainly T^9 yeveai ravrr]^.
stood in Q. The aTroKpiOei^ of verse 39 of St. Matthew. style
St.
is
in the
Matt.
xii.
43
orav
St.
Luke
xi.
24-26.
Se
TO CLKaOaprov Trvevjma aTTO TOV avOpwTTOv,

Sl
om.
^lepyerai
avv^poov tottwv
Koi ou-^ i^rjTOvv apairava-iUf

eupKTKei.
1^
M
cvpKTKOV Xcyei
T. oi. viro(TTp ek
jjl.
TOV
(44) totc Xeyei' OLKOV lULOV e'TTKT'
e^tjXOoV Koi
iXOov eupicKeL cryôXaôvTa

[Kai^
(T(Tapw/uievoi'
ovTa rxoXa^c
[Kai]
Kai
om.
KKO(TIUL}]jULeVOV.
(45) t6t
'irapaXa/UL-
TTOpeveTat
/3avi
jULcO'
koi
eavTOV
eTrra
eavTov lueO'
TTVeVjil.
om.
Tpa
kav'
'Kvevjj.aTa irovtjpoTepa kav-
TOv Kai eiQ-eXOovTa kqtoiKi

Kiy
TOV eiTTa
Kai
(T)(aTa
TOV
ylvcTai ra avupcoTTOv
yetpova twv
irpcoTOov.
Both
also the
/uLt]
and evplcKou are improvements in changed order of the words in verse

is
style, so
44*,
and
the substitution of
CTpecpeip
found
times,
in
vTroa-Tpeyp-co St. Luke
for
eTricTTpeypco (vwo-
[gospel
thirty-three
never
in
St.
and Acts] Matthew and St.

;
25
The omission of o-^ôXaôj/ra is intelligible, Mark). not so its addition the same is true of /xeO' kavrov, is found in St. Mark never, in St. Matthew *'YiTpo^
nine times, in St. Luke's gospel thirty- three times ; it has accordingly been added here. Tore pr. per-
haps belongs to
St.
St.
Matthew.
:
Matt.
xiii.
16
u/xwi/
St.
v/uLwv Se
Luke
om.
X.
23,
24.
ocpOaXjUol jiiaKapLOL oTi (SXeirovuLv, Kai ra cora OTL aKOVOVdiV. (17) lyjUL(J0P'\
aiJ.r]v
ê
oi
OL
PXeTTOPTcg a /SXeTTcre
Kai
yap \eyco
v/uliv,
otl Kai
aiJ.riv
Ta om.
.
aKovovG-iv
om.
TToXXoL
TrpocprJTai
eTreOvjULtjorav
[jcai /Sao- iXeig'l
Xeyco yap for Ka\ SiKaioi
SUaioi
iSeiv
rjOeXricrav
v/ULch /BXeTT.
[/cal
/5Xe7reTe koi ovk elSav, koI

OLKOvcrai
J^KOV(TaV
a aKovere^ Kai ovk
aK.
i^Kovcrav
om.]
Here St. Luke begins with a stylistic correction and with a pedantic simplification of the thought. Blass, following some authorities, is right in omitting the last seven words of St. Matthew from the text of The " hearing " was already wanting in St. Luke. St. Luke's parallel to verse 16 and if the concluding sentence of verse 17 had appeared in St. Luke it
;
should have read v/mecs aKovere (cf. the inmiediately preceding words of the Lukan text). Evidently St. Luke did not like it to be said that the prophets had
not heard, only that they had not seen. The emphatic strange in St. Luke, seeing that this evangelist elsewhere is accustomed rather to omit the pleonastic
viJLei^ is
but in this passage he had personal pronouns of Q omitted the vjjlwv at the beginning, and the vfxeh is
;
26
not pleonastic where he places it. aixriv may possibly inserted belong to the source, but may also have been doubtof its in spite by St. Matthew. Ka/ âa-iXek,
ful textual authority,
must be regarded
its later
to the
Lukan
text
for
as belonging addition cannot be
it is explicable that it should easily explained, while have dropped out of the text. If, however, it stood
in St.
Luke,
is
it
stood also in Q, and the SiKaioi of
St.
Matthew
a correction due to this evangelist, who

SiKaioarvvfj.
has a special liking for i-TreOvjULtja-av is an obvious

6vjuLiv
'JiOeXrjcrav for
(eTri-
stylistic
improvement
occurs only once elsewhere in St. Matthew). In Q, therefore, the saying ran essentially as it does in St. Matthew, with the exception of SUaioi (and
perhaps of the
St.
ajuLrjv),
Note
also the parallelism in
Matthew.
St.
Matt.
xiii.
3S
St.
Luke
iraXiv
xiii.
20, 21.
tlvl
aWtjv
irapaôiXrjv eXaXf}ojULOia
Kai
elireV
aev avTOii'
âoriXeia
Xf'l^lli
icniv
tj
o/uloiuxtco
t. /Saar.
^vjui]
t. Oeou;
V^
rodv ovpavwv Xaôvara yuvtj

eig
ojuLOia
ecrrh
evcKpvêv
Tpla,
eft)?
aXevpou crara
el^vjUicoOrj
ov
bXov.
all is identical.
Here, apart from the introduction,
The Lukan introduction seems

elsewhere
is
preferable, as St. Luke prone to transform rhetorical questions.
Commentators rightly point out that most probably the parable of the Mustard Seed, which is found in St. Matt. xiii. 31-32 = St. Luke xiii. 18-19, side by side with the parable of the Leaven, must also be
assigned to Q, although
it
is
also
found in
St.
Mark
(iv.
TEXT
27
Proof: (1) The two parables are in itself improbable that it is and closely allied, in tradition apart from one down handed were they another (2) they occur together in St. Matthew and Seed has in St. Luke (3) the parable of the Mustard these gospels a form which varies from that of St. Mark (4) this form is akin to that of the parable of
30-32).
; ; ;
the Leaven.
Mark.
Matthew.
7rap6r]KvavTOL<s \-
Luke.
6-
Kal eXeyev Trws o- aXAr^v

fiono(T(DiiVTrjV fSacTL-
TrapaôA^v cAcyev ovv tlvl

fxoia ecrriv
r]
jSacn-
Aet'av
Tov deov
avrrjv
r)
Iv
ywv
rj
ojJioia ecrrlv
TLVi
/SoXrj
irapa-
/3acrtAta
twv ov-
KOKKij) crii'aTrews, os OTttv (nraprj evrt rrjs

yrjs,
ws pavojv kokklo crLvdov XajSoiV o-tvaTrecos, ov AaTrews, icnreL- (3(bv avOpo)7ros avdpojTTos av- /SaXev et's k^ttov IpLLKporepov ov pev ev rw o.yp(^
6(0[XV ;
tov deov, Kat tlvl o/xoicocrw avTi]v; 6[X0La ecrrlv kokkci)

Acta
TravTWV
fXOLTiOV
Kttt
Twv
T(UV
a-irep-
tov*
fJîV
[XLKpoTcpov
TrdvTUiV
o-
CTTt
TTJs
(TTLV
(TV
avTov, Kal r)v^YjKal eycvcTO

cts
yrys,
orav
o-Tra/)^,
rwv
o-Trep/xarwv,
SevSpov, Kai
tov
to,
Si a v^t^ 6 rj fxelava/3atvt Kat ytve- Tav rai [Xiitov TravTWV (ov twv Aa^âvojv Twv Aa>(avo)v, Kat eo"Tiv Kat yiverat TTOiet KAaSovs [ley a- SevSpov, &a-re eAVTTO
Trerciva
ovpaolv-
vov KarccTKr^vwcrcv ev
rots KAaSots
rov.
Aovs, wcrre Svvao-ât T^v o"Ktav avTOV

TreTctva TOV ovpa-
êiv
rd
Treretva tov
ovpavov
o-kt^vovv
Kat
Kara-
Ta
ev
tois
vov KaTao'KT^vovv.
KAaSots avTOV.
The
follows:
text
of
accordingly
ecrrlv
ran
somewhat
as
e\eyv'
6/J.oia
/BacriXeia
tov Oeov
KOKKW
o-fvaTreo)?,
6/8aXev) ev
tw
ov Xa/Soov avOpcoTrog eaireipev (scarcely koi rju^tjcrev Kal ylverai (eig) aypco avrov,
Trereiva rov ovpavov KaraaKrjvoi e'v roh SevSpov Koi TO. It also seems to me that the introKXaSoig avTov.
duction in St. Luke
is
original (tIvi ojmola
avnjv);
28
St.

It is
Matthew abbreviates. Luke here shows himself

Mark,
noteworthy that
St.
to be independent of St.
differing in this point from St. Matthew, and also follows a simpler construction than the latter
evangelist, because he has kept closely to the source.
On
the other hand, the
/c^tto?
original (St. historic present of St.
Matt, aypo^
of
St.
Luke
is
scarcely
St.
Mark
yrj)^
and the
preferred. in com-
The
St.
Matthew is to be ra Trereim tov ovpavov, expression

is
bination with KaracrKTivovv,
also
ix.
found again in
;
Matt,
viii,
20
= St.
Luke
58
ra
irereLva t.
in St. Matt. vi. 26 (St. Luke has here ovpavov again 01 Ko/c/fo? crivaTreco^ also occurs again in St. KopaKcg). Matt. xvii. 20 St. Luke xvii. 6 ; likewise av^dveiv^ and the pleonastic \a/3u)Vf are again found
(Tirelpeiv,
elsewhere in Q.
St.Matt.xv.l4: Tfc^Xo?
Se
St.
Luke
vi.
39:
/mrjri
TV(p\6v
eav
oStiyu,
Svvarai
6Stjyiv;
TV(pX6g
ov-)(j.
TucpXov
elg
oLjiKpoTepoL Trecrovvrai,
ek
/366uvov
ajucpOTepoi
ôOvvov
difference
in St.
is
;
cfxirecrovvTai ;
The only
full
in the form,
which
is
more
be
re-
of
life
Luke
but
is
his version to
'Eaj/ is garded as more original on that account.? very frequent in Q, and St. Luke has very often
changed
it.
St.
Luke has
7
irecrovvTai by the compound, as

St.
is
replaced the simple often the case.
Matt,
iXOelv
7r\t]V
Si'
xviii.
to.
St.
Luke
xvii. 1
avevctk.
avayKY}
aKavtco
ocktov
/ul>]
ecttiv
tov ra
SaXa,
OpcoTTW
oval
av-
iXO.
[ôvai Se]
T(p
ov TO (TKOLvSaXov
apOpcoTTif)
om.
TO CKav-
ep-^CTai.
CaAov om. SaXov

The
original
first
29
in
half of the saying is certainly most the version of St. Matthew (avdyKt] is
found only here in this gospel, while it occurs a few times in St. Luke). Also the second half, because of the parallelism, is preferable in the form of St.
Matthew.
irArjv ovai
It
is
uncertain whether
oe.
St.
Luke wrote
or ovai
St.
oarrig
Matt,
xxiii.
12
St.
Luke
xiv. 11.
Ta7r6ivo)0}j(TTai,
Kai
ocrrf?
o TaireLvcov
TaireLvw(T6L
kavTOv
v^ûiOri-
aerat.
finite verb into the partiin St. Luke, likewise the substitution ciple frequent of Traj for o? and octti^.
is
Transformation of the
St.
Matt,
xxiii.
37:
St.
Luke
xiii.
34, 35.
*lpov<ra\r]jUL
tj
'lepovaraX^/uL^
<prjTa<s
aiTOKTeivovcra rovg irpoKou XiOojSoXovcra
Tov^ airearTaXfxevov^ Trpo^

avTyv, TTOcraKi^ ÔeXrjcra
eirieiri-
(TwayayeLV Ta TeKva
ov
crov,
avvat-ai i^c
eTTLcrvvayei iyi
Trjv eavTr]<s vocrcTLav
TpoTTOv
vocrcrla
opvL(s
eTTKTVvayet
om.
Ta
viro Ta<s [aiyT^?]

ijOeXi]-
TTTcpvya^, Kai ovk

crare.
VjULiv
(38)
iSov
acpLerai
ep>]/uLog.
o oIko9 vjulwv
p}]/uL09
om.
(39) Xeyco
yap
vjuiiVy
ov
/jlyj
yap om.
id>]Te yue
C0^
[Se ?]
yUe lOijTe air
apn
eco^
av
ei-
air
}/^l]
apn om.
irt]Te'
juLvo<i
ev\oyriiJLVO<5
6 ep'ô-
lav
0T6j
v ovo/uLari Kvplov.
30

Most of
the variants are without significance, and
yet even here the text of St. Matthew shows itself to be the more ancient. The reading eo)? dv rjû {vel ewq vî) ore is very pecuHar, and little germane to
the style of St. Luke. If we could accept Wellhausen^s conjecture that ore represents the Aramaic relative (is cui), and that the real subject is the
Messiah, then this reading would necessarily be the more original ; but the thought " Ye will not see
:
Me He
until
He
comes, to
is
whom
ye shall say, Blessed
is
too amazingly circumstantial. it is to be noted that this word apri, is found in the gospels only in St. Matthew and St. John in St. Matt. xxvi. 29, 64, and three times (oLTT apri again
St. Luke has omitted this vulgar and, moreover, pleonastic expression ; in the parallel passage to St. Matt. xxvi. 29, he uses airo rod vvv (a phrase which occurs again four times in the gospel and once
that cometh, &c.,"" In reference to
in St. John).
in
On acplerai eptjjULo^ Wellhausen rethe Acts). marks " The destruction of the city is not something in the future, it is already destroyed and is to remain
:
The later commentators shut their eyes and think of all sorts of things." And again on St. Luke xiii. 34, 35 " The omission of eprj/uo^ is very
in ruins.
.
.
remarkable.''
why acpUrai eptj/uog cannot be a prophetic future and that St. Luke omitted is not absolutely certain in pr]fxo9 (the word, moreover, the text of St. Matthew) because Jerusalem rose again
;
cannot
see
from
St.
its ruins, is
is
Matthew
to me questionable. The saying in only a reproduction of the prophecv of

:
Jeremiah
(xxii. 5)
ei*?
But the reproduction
iptjjucoa-iv
ecrrai 6 oiKog outo^.

vjuliv
acplerat
oIkos
vjuLwtJ

eprjfxo^
31
did not sound

St.
destruction
quite logical, for the idea of has to be supplied, and also was not
good Greek.
the omission of
Luke improved this version by St. Matthew read: " Your eprj/mo^.
left
be temple will to your disadvantage

dition of desolation
"
;
in a con:
St.
Luke
corrected
Your
temple
[left]."
will
as in St.
it
your disadvantage be delivered up The passive cKplea-Qai has now the same sense Matt. xxiv. 40 f. = St. Luke xvii. 34 f., where
to
As to the stands in contrast to TrapaXaixâvecrOat. this saying is our Lord's, or is a quotawhether question tion used by Him (or put into His mouth), vide infra.
St.
'El/ceFi'o
Matt.
6
xxiv.
43:
St.
Luke
xii.
(f.
39,
40,
ê yivuxTKere,
on
42-46.
tovto
CKeivo)
el
^Sei
oiKooecnrOTrj^
TTola
(pvXaKii
/cXeTTT/y?
copa
Koi
(f.
(pvXaKij)
eyprjyopr^nrev
av epyeTaif eyptjyoprja-ev elacrev av ovK Kcu oiopvÔrjvai Tr]V oiKiav avTov.
av
om.
OVK av a(p^Kv
(44)
Sia
Sia TOVTO Kal

CTOlfMOlj
vjuei^
yiveaOe
TOV oIkov TOVTO om.
OTL
OU dOKlT
Wpa 6 VLO^ TOV avOpcoTTOV (45) tl^ apa io-Th

ep-êTai.
copa ver.
44
OV SoKiT6 (the whole is perhaps an inter-
polation from St. Matt.)

oiKov6fjL09 (f. SovXo<!)
6 TTKTTO^ SovXo9 Kai (ppOov KaTecTTrjcrev o vi/ULog,

Kvpio^
eiTi
KaTacTTTjcrei
Tt]9
oiKTeiag
avTOv
TOV
Sovvai
avTOig
OepaTrela^ SiSovai
V
(f.
oiKereiag)
avTOig om.
(TlTOJU.TpiOV
(46) 6 SovXog eKCivo^f jmaKapiog OV AU(jOV O KVpiO^ OVTOV 6VpricreL
Trjv Tpo(pt]v ev Kaipip;
Kaipw TO
ovtocxs iroLOvvTa.
(47)
ctti
iroiovvTa ovTcog
aXtjOco^ (f.
a/j.i]v)
a/x^v
\ey(X)
Vfxiv
otl
32
Tracrii'

Toig
VTraoYoutTiv virapyji
KaraarWjareL
auTOv
avrop.
(48) SovXo^ eKivo9 ev
eav Se eiirn 6 KaKog

Trj
KaK09 om.
O KUl
fjiov
KapSla
epx^crOai (add.
avTov'
(49) XP^^^K^'- ^^^ \ if
O KUpiog, Kai ap^rjrai TvirT61V TOv<s arvvSovXovg aUTOV,

icrOli]
Se Koi
irlvr} jULTa
twv
o
Tovg TraiSag post Kvpios) Kai ra^ 7raiSi<TKa^ (f. r.

earQleiv re arvvoovX. avT.). Ka\ iTLveiv Ka\ jULcOvcTKea-Oai
jUeOuOl'TCOP,
(50)
ov
7J^6L
SovXov hcelvov Kvpio^ Tov

TrpocrSoKa ov yivwarKei^ copa ^ (51) Koi SixpTOjuyjcrei avrov Kai TO avTOv /uLera
^ju-epa
ev
Kai ev
/uLpo9
TCOP VTTOKplTWV 0^<rl.
aTTLcrrcou (f. viroKpircov),
is particularly instructive in that it us to recognise the various motives which guided helps St. Luke in his correction of the text handed down to
This pericope
him for almost everywhere the text of St. Matthew, when contrasted with that of St. Luke, shows itself On linguistic grounds, St. Luke the more original.
;
replaces eKelvo
by tovto, Sovvai by SiSovai (as in the Lord's Prayer), afxyv by aXrjOwg (a proof, moreover, that the ajULr/v here and thus most probably elsewhere,
where
it is
wanting in
the
pal
St.
Luke
stood
in the source
St.
compare
Luke). the same grounds he replaces the forms eaSu]^ TTivih by the infinitive (at the same time transforming he imthe descriptive phrase /xera toov fj-eOvovTcciv)
also
which
is
found in
On
proves the
order
of the
(jlov
words
(the
Kaipw,
unnecessarily
emphatic positions of
and
ev
and
outco^ in

;
33
he drops the superfluous too unemphatic a position) words eypt]y6pr](jv dp Kal, Sia tovto, avTo7^, and KaKog, on the other hand he adds ep^êa-Qai to because he wishes to express the principal Xpovll^î, He replaces verb which is implied in St. Matthew. oiKiav by 01K09, which is in fact the more appropriate
word.
replaces
He
it
takes offence at the vulgar oiKerela, and by the classical Oepairela, He changes the
in St. Matthew is not an but both slave and overseer, into an oiKovofJLog, and accordingly the aijvSovXci must also be transformed (this word is never found in St. Luke, while it occurs again four times in St> Matt, xviii. He replaces viroKpiTal by ainj-Toii a word 2833). which was more current with his readers {viroKpLTal are much less frequently met with in this gospel
SovXo?,
who indeed even
ordinary slave
than in
St. Matthew) ; the colourless rpocpij gives to a technical term which place a-iTOjUL6Tpiov^ certainly moreover is not met with elsewhere to wpa, (pvKaKrj
because the thief does
not only come during the at any time. but Only in the case of the (pvXaKrj, substitution of acprJKev for eiacrev do I find difficulty
in
conjecturing St.
is,
eiaaev
eav
is
Luke's reason for the change however, certainly the original reading, for only found here in St. Matthew, while it often
;
occurs in St.
Finally, St.
Luke (ten times in the gospel and Acts). Luke has interpolated between verses 44 and 45 of St. Matthew the words 'Eairev Se 6 Uerpo^'
:
KvpiCi "TTpog
rjixag
rrjv
TrapaôXrjv Tavrrjv Xeyeig
rj
koi
interrupt the Kvpiog. connection of the passage, which shows here only a
TTpog TTCLvrag ;
koi etirev 6
They
seeming hiatus, and they answer to the style and c
34

weight upon the Also Karaa-Tiâ-ei
manner of
St. Luke, who lays great definite address of the discourses.
(instead of Karea-rtja-ev)
ment
it
is intended to be an improvehowever stands in a certain connection with
the interpolated question of St. Peter.
The
If so,
St.
verse 44,
St. Matthew, from St. Matthew. an interpolation perhaps we cannot be sure that it stood in Q.
verse in St.
is
Luke corresponding to
Matt. XXV. 29
[TvavTi]
rw
roO
-)(l
St.
Luke
xix. 2(i
evovTi
SoOijcrerai
Km
de
7r
/JLtJ
picrcrevdôreTai'
-)(0VT09
iravri t. e^. om. ctTro Se koi

Trepicrcr.
tou
Kai
apOr]<rTaL
air
avrov.
air
avrov om.
Here, in all three places, it is plain that St. Luke has improved the text linguistically; as regards the
sense, irepiG-a-evOi]creTaL
was superfluous.
in
There are only about thirty-four instances
which
we have found sometimes strong, sometimes weak, grounds for conjecturing that the text of St. Matthew
secondary to that of St. Luke, but these instances still fm'ther reduced in number when we pass judgment upon them in combination. It is, namely,
is
are
(1)
by no means certain that the aij.Y}v of viii. 10, xi. 11, and xiii. 17, is an interpolation of St. Matthew's, for in St. Matt. xxiv. 47 St. Luke represents it by aXrjOco^ (and in St. Matt, xxiii. 36 by val)
x. 15,
it
may
therefore very well have also occurred in
in
the other passages, and St. Luke may have left it untranslated, seeing that he avoids un-Hellenic words.
The same may be
said (2) of the solemn \eyoo vjuiv of

xi.
35
22
St.
Luke
it
is
St.
Luke
X. 12,
24
in Q,
and
often gives it in his text of Q (vide xi. 51 ; xv. 7, ; &c.) ; it thus stood therefore possible that it was also
omitted by St. Luke here and there. (3) It cannot be proved that St. Matthew in iii. 9 replaced apPria-Oe
by
efV
S6^}]T,
and
it is
iii.
quite improbable that he inserted

11.
fieravoiav in
In regard to the remaining instances, thirteen affect

the introductions to the discourses (not the discourses themselves), or contain insignificant stylistic alterations.
The
discourse, St. Matt.

:
viii.
19
f.,
is
intro-
irpocreKQwv a? ypajuLjuLarevg, and in the same passage (verse 21) rwv /ULaOrjrwv ^ is added to erepo?, together with the addition of the
duced by the words
koi
vocatives SiSda-KoXe, Here also (verse 22), Kvpie. in xi. 4, 7, 6 'Itjcovs is inserted, and in xi. 25
and
airoKpiQei^
'Itja-ov^.
The
:
discourse of
xii.
38
ff.
is
introduced
by the words
avTM Tives toov ypa/uijUiaTcov âpia-alwv Xeyovreg, and the discourse of xii. 22 ff. by rore avrw Saijuoviirpoa-tjve'^^Qrj the parable of xiii. 33 by the words ; lastly, ^6juivo9
aTreKplOTjcrav
rore
koi
Tore (a favourite oXXrjv TrapaôXtjv eXaXtjcrev avToi^. particle with St. Matthew, occurring in his gospel ninety times, in St. Mark six times, in St. Luke foui'teen times)
is
One cannot be
St.
inserted in ix. 37, and perhaps in xii. 44. quite certain whether in St. Matt. xi. 16
elcriv ojULotoi ai'e
the words koi tlvl
omitted, or whether
alternative
is
Luke has added them.
The former
probable, because also in the case of St. Matt. xiii. 33, St. Luke exceeds St. Matthew in reading the words
:
It is questionable
;
is
an interpolation
it
whether in St. Matt. ix. 37 may also be original.
rots /xadrjTaTs avrov
36
Tivi ojnoiocKTco Tfjv /Sao-iXeiav
tov Oeov ; though he elseIn where shows a dislike for rhetorical questions. is added to 'Iwiâ, and in xii. 22 xii. 39 Tou 7rpo(pt]Tov similar the dumb man is both blind and dumb St. Matthew''s treatment of in occur amplifications
the
is now left (about fifteen instances) made in the actual fabric of the comprise changes Here we must at once agree themselves. discourses has a distinct St. Matthew that preference for the
Markan text. The group that
expression
epithet
"
your (the) Heavenly Father,"" or for the
"Heavenly,""
"*'
and
for
the
substitution
of
which preference the God,'"* to have been found in cause not seem does exciting
for
" Heaven
"
of
Q.
in vi. 26, 6 6 ovpaviog is subirarrip vjmoov in vi. stituted for 6 Oeo?) 32, 6 ovpdviog is added to in 6 ev TOiq vii. 11, 6 6 Trarrjp vjulwv, TraTtjp vjulwv
Thus
ovpavoig
is
and
in xi.
written instead of 6 Trartjp 6 e^ oupavov, 11, t. fiaa: rwv ovpavwv instead of r. âar.
T. Oeov.
It is evident that in these cases the text of
this gospel is secondary, seeing that these terms also appear in passages which are not dependent upon Q.
Again, this evangelist has also a preference for the In vi. 33, koi Trjv conception SiKaio^ (SiKaiocrvvt]).
SiKaioarvprjv
means
are
and a by no certainly an addition and in xiii. 17, the âcriXeh unimportant one
is
!
certainly
more
vi.
may perhaps
phraseology in
Tot'S'
One original than the SUaioL, discern imitation of sacred Biblical
26 (ra irereim tov ovpavov for 28 (ra Kpiva rod aypod for ra KopaKas)} for ev and in vi. 30 (tov yôpTOv tov aypov Kplva), here we cannot be certain. TOV yet aypw ôpTOv),
in vi.
ÎNVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT

The expression of
Koa-jULOv
37
rov
St.
Iûke
(xii.
30) ra
is
eOvtj
(in St.
Matt.
vi. 32,
rov
kocjulou
wanting),
which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament nor in the LXX, may be original (an Aramaic St. Matthew may have omitted tov Koajmov phrase) as superfluous.-^ There remain a few passages of
;
greater
weight
and
significance.
Trpcorov,
Matthew has
kingdom of
ol
inserted
In vi. 33 St. and has thus limited

to seek after the
the exclusiveness of the
command
ouro^
God;
in vii.
:
12 he has added to the
Golden Rule the words
yap icmv
6 vojuog koi
has given a complete twist to the TTpocprJTai, passage concerning Jonah, in that he has applied to the simile a new tertium comparationis (Jonah's three
days'
He
abode
it
in
the
whale's
belly),
and thus has
interpreted present tense in xi. 27 well as the conclusion of
of our Lord's abode in Hades; the

is
probably due to him, as

32.
xii.
On
treated
the whole
it
may
be said St. Matthew has
the discourses with great respect, and has edited them in a very conservative spirit. Seeing that the more important corrections are so few in
number,
it is
absurd to attempt to deduce from them
the permanent motives which guided the evangelist in making them. The alteration in the terms for " was no correction in God," or for " the
Kingdom,"
perhaps
his
eyes
"This
remain
"
*
is
TTjOWTOi',"
the summary phrase, the Prophets." Thus, there " " the and addition of only Righteousness " and the transformation of the of
;
still
less
the
Law and
Sign
One cannot be
and
xi.
sure of Q's term for the Last
Day
in St. Matt.
X. 15
22
{i.e.
whether
rj
ij/x^pa
Kplaeus
is
original or not).
38
Jonah," which transformation may have been found by him already carried out in his exemplar of Q.
In contrast with these few instances of correction on the part of St. Matthew, we reckon nearly one hundred and Jifty instances of correction by St. Luke ; hut these are all^ with very few exceptions^ of a stylistic
character.
St. Luke''s interest in style manifests itself
in detail in the
most varied
itself.
directions,
and yet
:
it
remains consistent with
Let us here give a
most important manifestations replaces vulgar expressions by those that are more refined, and substitutes more appropriate
summary of
1.
its
He
for inappropriate words.
by compound verbs. replaces conjunctions by the relative. 4. replaces /cat with the finite verb by ê (or the but, on the participle, or by a final sentence) by other hand, he also inserts Kal when it makes the passage run more smoothly.
9>.
3.
He He He
replaces simple
5. 6.
He improves the arrangement of the words. He makes a more logical use of tenses and He
fond of participial constructions. prunes away superfluous pronouns which
is
numbers, and
7.
easily crept into translations
and,
8.
moreover,
into
from Semitic languages, the language of the common
people.
He
He
varies the
constructions (oa-Tig av
9.
monotonous use of eav by other by Tra?).

great
circumstantiality
corrects
;
too
of
language
but, on the other hand, he explains obscure
expressions.
INVESTIGATION OF
10.
THE TEXT
39
11.
He He
reduces the
number of
the
rhetorical questions.
introduces
construction
of iyivero
/
with the gen. abs. followed by a
finite verb.
is
12. He multiplies the instances where in construction with the participle.
used
to
Beyond these stylistic motives which have led him make corrections,^ no definite bias of any kind
can be discovered in his treatment of the sections with one exception, which we have considered
namely, the introduction of the Holy Spirit into The the passage parallel to St. Matt. vii. 11.
omission of the clothing in the passage parallel to St. Matt. vi. 28, 31, and the corresponding recasting of the words, is a somewhat drastic change, but in
so far as it displays bias, the bias is very innocent. When he replaces " bread and stone " by egg and be he upon another tradiscorpion,''
may
of
dependent
tional
saying which was perhaps a current proverb (vide supra on St. by He has indulged in a fairly long Matt. vii. 9). arv Se aireXOuov SiayyeWe interpolation in the words viii. 22) Trjv âa-Lkelav rod Oeov (ix. 60, cf. St. Matt.
form
the
influenced
but the interpolation is, so to speak, neutral in character. Again, in order to give greater liveliness of form, he interpolates into the discourse of St. Matt. eiTrev Se 6 xxiv. 43 ff., after verse 44, the words
:
'
Kvpie ttôoj Kal elirev 6 KvpLO<s. koi Xeyeis irpog iravrag; he has ventured to give some sort of
rj
Hirpo^
^yua?
rrjv
irapalSoXrjv
ravrtjv
Lastly,
para-
phrase of the saying of St. Matt.
xi. 12,
which was
^ Also the omission of ^/stjûos is probably to be explained from motives of style [vide supra on St. Matt, xxiii. 38).
40

:
evidently unintelligible even to himself, in his balder version airo Tore rj âariXeia tov Oeov evayyeXlêrai,
KOI Tra?
e(V
avTtjv /Biaêrai,
If
it
is
we neglect
these few instances, in which indeed
possible that another text of Q than that used Matthew may have lain before St. Luke, then St. by we may say that in regard to the rest of the text
(that is, the text as a whole), o?ie and the same text lies behind St, Luke and St. Matthexv. It further follows
that the connection
between these two gospels, of
the source of the other, must be a i.e. the literary connection dependence of each upon common oral sources is not a sufficient explanation.
which neither
is
Having gained this firm standpoint, we now proceed to the investigation of those sections common to St. Matthew and St. Luke in which the differences
are greater.
II
St.
Matt.
iii.
7^:
lîcv
St.
Luke
iii.
7^ eXeyev
eKiropevo^
Se TToXXovg TU)v âpLcraidov âSSovKalcov Koi ^PX^~

jLievoug
cttJ
oe
\_ovv ?]
toI^
l^^ôig 6)(Xoig /BaTrricrOtjvai

vir
\_V(jo'7riov~\
to
'
/BaTTTicrjuLa
avrov.
CLTrev
avTOi^
no longer possible to determine exactly is stood in Q, certainly not " the Pharisees and what Sadducees" (they are characteristic of St. Matthew),
It
nor the imperfect eXe'yei^ (for it is characteristic of St. Luke), nor the infinitive âTrTKrOtjvai, which is likewise characteristic of St. Luke perhaps, how;

ever,
41
never
Q had
i.
ttoXXo/ with the genitive, for

St.
it is
found elsewhere in
Matthew
(see,
however, St.
avroiî.
Luke
source
16),^
probably also the word

in
.
The
:
may have run somewhat

.
this
way
lôov
TToXXov?
epyofxevov^
St.
eirl
avToU.
From
Matthew
fi
iSaTmcr/uLa St. verse 5
to
eiirev
Luke
verse 3, it follows that iracra
'7repL^(jdpo<s
rod ^lopSavov
stood in Q.
St.
Matt.
iv. 1
Tore
rod
St.
Luke
(5e
iv.
1-13.
ttpcv-
'Ij^ctou?
TrXjjprjg
Trjv
eprjjuLov
viro
jmarog
airo
Trvevfj.aTO^ ireipacrOrjvaL VTTO Tov SiaPoXov, (2)
aylop vTrecrrpeypêv TOV 'lopSavov, kol
tjyeTO iv
ev
Til
tw
Trvev/maTi
rjfxepa^ p. viro tov
Kai
fx
vrjcTTevaras
/J.
^jmepag
eprj/JLUi
Kai vvKTa<i
vo'Tepov
eTrelvaarev,
Treipaô/uLevos Sia/36\ov. Ka\ OVK e(payev ovSev ev toi^ ^/mepai^

Keivai9j
Kai
crvvTeXecreirei-
Oeicrcov
avTcov
vacrev,
(3)
Kai
UdV TTpoce.\e^
eiirev oe avTio o
09' 1 f to? ei
eiire to?
oiapoiva
ireipd^
vio^
1
cov eiirev
avTco' ei
etTre
TOV ueoVf
TOV ueov
Kiuw tovtco
irpo's
IVa OL ALUOl
OVTOL apTOi
6 Se (4) elirev <yeeir
yevrjTai apTO<s.
Kai
yevcovTai,
aircKpiQi]
'Itjaovg*
avTOV
cnroKpidel^ ypairrar ovk

fjLOvo)
yey paiTTai
apTO)
juovco
aprco
6
aviravTL
OTi OVK e7r'
^7](TeTai
7ri
^TjareTai
6 avOpcoTrog.
OpwTTO^j aXX'
^
is also
Yet it is also possible that 6xôi occurred in Q, since the word found elsewhere in that source.
42
priiJLaTL

(eKTTopevojtxepa)
Sia
(TTOjuaTO^) Oeov.
(5)
Tore irapaXajulBavei
in
The
St.
verses
5-7 come
after
Luke
Se
8-9.
ayiav ttoXiv, Kai ea-Trjcrev avTOV eiri to iTTepvyiov Tov lepoVj (6) Kai
eyei 'yei
'^yayev
*I
avTOV
eh
fol-
p lows
over aX^ JUL.

is
What
identical, yet
elirev (f.
om.
avToo' avT(p'
ei
viog VLog
avTOv,
Xeyei)
Tov OeoVy /3aXe (reavTOV Karco' yeypairrai yap OTL T019 ayyiXoi^ avTOV euTeXeiTai irept
(TOV,
evTeuOev [KaTto'\
irepi
(TOV
Kai
7ri
(r6j
/ULrj
"êipcov
TOV
SiacpvXaâi
ere,
apovcTLV
iroTe
Kai OTi
eiri
irpOG-KO^rig irpog \i6ov
TOV
rrroSa
arov.
avTcp
'Irjarovg'
(7) e(prj iraXLv
Ka\
cnroKpiOeig
'Itjarovg
yeypaiTTai' ovk CKTreipaaei^ Kvpiov tov Oeov

<J0V.
eJirev avTco {oti) e'lptjTai
avTov
opo<s
(8) 'TraXiv irapaXafxpavei 6 SidôXos 19
Kai
Sia/B,
avayayoov
. .
,
avTov
Kai
(o
Xiav om.)
v^rjXov XiaVj Kai SeiKvvcTLV avTCf) Traaag

/Saa-iXelai
om.
eSeiêv
(f.
r^?
oiKOVjuLevrjg
Ta^
fjLOv
tov
koct-
Koi
(9)
Tr]v
Soâv
eiirev
T. KOQ-jU.), Kol T. Soâv eV avTcov om., cTTiyiJup
avTCiov,
Kai
y^povov add., perhaps
ttjOo?
avT(p' TavTCL aroi iravTa SwacOi eav Trecrcov irpoaKvv^crrjg juLoi. (10) tot6
avTov,
(Tol
add.
6
Tt]v
^m/3oXo9,
eôvcriav
[icai Trjv
S CO (7 CO
TavT>]V diraa-av
eyei
tf
avTw
lirjcrovg*
ooâv
avTcoi'j,
(o
oti
e/uLOi
vwaye, aaTava' yeypair-
TrapaceooTai Kai
av
ueAct)
rai yoLp* Kvpiov tov Oeov crov ir pocTKVvrjcrei^
Ka\ avTO)
aeig.
jULOvo)
SiScojui
TEXT
crv
43
avTrjv'
ovv eav
evcoiriop
Xarpev-
TrpocrKvvrjcrr]^ e/mov, ecrTai crov Trucra. koi
aTTOKpiOeh
elirev
'Irjcrov?
avrw'
is
What
fol-
lows
identical,
but
without
vTraye,
oraTava
and yap,
(11) T0T6 acbiricriv avTOV 6 Sidô\o9y KOI iSov
Kai
cruvTeXecra^
iravra
ayyeXoi
TrpoarfKOov
Kai
ireipaarfMov airea-Trj air'
SialBoXog
avrov ayja
SiijKOvovv avTU),
Kaipov,
In the above passage I have indicated by spaced type all the words which are common, or which
in the two gospels. closely correspond to one another, It is at once seen that we have here an essentially
The chief difference is that in St. text. Luke the third temptation has become the second. It is in favom' of the order of St. Matthew that
identical
the temptation on the mountain is undoubtedly the here it is no longer a question chief temptation of the Divine Sonship being put to the test, but
;
of
its
renunciation
the
Son of God
is
tempted
to enter into the service of Satan.
It is in favour
of St. Luke's order, that according to it the scene of the temptations changes only at the last temptation, that the devil makes his final assault with a
temptation actually based upon the words of Scripture, and that our Lord's answer forbids further It is not possible to give a certain detemptation.
cision
on the point, but probability
is
on the
side
44

Nothing can be built
of the order of St. Matthew.
upon the viraye ârava of St. Matthew, for these If they were, what words can scarcely be original. reason could St. Luke have had for omitting them ?
word with him, never and only once in the gospel, while it is found twenty times in St. Matthew, fifteen times in St. Mark, and thirty-three times
{vwayeiv
is
indeed a rare
occurring in the Acts
in St. John).
St.
Besides, the phrase
occurs again in
and may therefore, perhaps, have been inserted from the latter passage (where St. Mark viii. 33 also has it). The wide divergence at the beginning and end is partly due to the influence of the Markan text. Hence it is that St. Matthew derives the episode " " to ayyeXoL SitjKOvoui/ avrw (^TrpocrrjXOop belongs the style of St. Matthew, the word is found more It is from St. Mark than fifty times in this gospel). viro that St. Luke derives "
Matt.
xvi.
23,
Tov Sia/BoXov Tov ârava).
"
(St.
^fxepag
yu'
jul
ireipaXpiJLevo(s
Mark
^jucipa^ ireipaôjuievog
viro
All further deviations of St. Luke

in the introduction are likewise
from
St.
Matthew
secondary, so that we must recognise the pure text of Q in the version of St. Matthew ; for (1) in place
of the representation of the Spirit as the active subject St. Luke writes in accordance with his
style
and
irXrjpt]? TrvevjULarog ayiov irvevâTi^ (2) he inserts virearpeêv airo T. 'lop^. {yiTO(TTpe(peLV is found twenty-two times in the gospel and eleven times in the Acts, never in St. Mark or St. Matthew) (3) he writes the imper:
and mode of thinking
ev
rw
fect
riyero
for
avYi-Ôr}
(the use of the imperfect
is

almost peculiar to
St.
45
it
Luke; moreover, avriÔr] is is found in St. Matthew certainly original, and it in this gives a correct touch of passage, only local colouring [the wilderness is on the high ground] elsewhere in St. Luke the word occurs frequently
for it
;
dropped here because the evangelist did not understand its significance) ; (4) he omits the forty
is
nights as superfluous (agreeing with St. Mark) (5) he replaces the clumsy va-repov by the good Greek phrase a-vPTeXea-Oeio-cov avroov, (6) he mistakes the technical vYiarreveiv, and replaces it by the extravagant
;
the
ovK ecpayev ovSep, (7) by his corrections, or through influence of the Markan text, he has made it
appear doubtful whether the temptations occurred during the forty days or first after that period
had passed.
St.
Matt. 3
;
(vide supra)
is
Se
is
Trpoa-eXOcov put for Kdl
is
added by St. Matthew by St. Luke 6 Treipdlôov

;
most probably the original word.

St.
Matt. 8
The one
stone of St. Luke, and the
the stone, seem to me secondary, just because they better suit the situation. Why should
address to
St.
Matthew have changed them

St.
Matt. 4
<5e
airoKpiQeh
etirev is characteristic
of St. Matthew's solemn
style, but irpo^ avrov is Lukan, likewise on. St. Matt. 4 aX\ eiri Travri prjjuLaTi Oeov (with or without eKiropevo/txevw Sia crTOjuiaTO^, words which have weak attestation) is an interpolation of St. Matthew, who completes the quotation from the LXX. St. Matt. 5 The historic present is here, as always,
:
:
avoided by
St.
Luke
likewise
TrapaXajuL^dveiv
elg
(also
46

Matt, xxvii. 27) was distasteful
"'''
in verse 8, again in St.
to him.
St.
Matt. 5
St.
""
Matthew has replaced " Jerusalem

;
"'"'
the holy city (see also xxvii. 53) of the Hebrews also read ' Jerusalem.
by
"
for the gospel
St.
Matt. 5
St.
Luke avoids the Semitic

is
repetition
of avTov.
St.
Matt. 5
evrevOev
the
in
word is found elsewhere in St. Matthew and St. Mark.

Matt. 6
Luke''s
:
a Lukan interpolation St. Luke, never however

;
St.
Tov SiacpvXdâi
ere is
an interpolation
so also
(according to the here and in verse 7.

St. St.
of
LXX),
on
Matt. 7
Here
is
St.
'I>ycrot'? elirei/
avru)
the
Luke with koi aTroKpiOeh 6 more circumstantial of the

original 8)
; ;
two, so also in St. Matt. 10.

St. St.
Matt. 7 The ttoXiv of St. Matthew is Luke avoids iraXiv (see also St. Matt.
:
it
is
found about seventeen times in
St. Matthew, twentynine times in St. Mark, forty-seven times in St. John ; on the other hand, only two (three) times in St. Luke'^s
gospel and
eipfjrai^
is
five
times in the Acts.
ip}]juLPov)
ii.
original, for the latter (together with to vide ii. 24 ; Acts is peculiar to St.
Luke
yeypairTai^ not
16, xiii.
St.
40
elsewhere only in
Rom.
iv. 18.
opog v>\rri\6v^ perhaps also attested by the gospel of the Hebrews; St. Luke rationalises and leaves the scene somewhat in shadow (he would
8,
:
Matt.
probably have us suppose that om* Lord was raised up into the air so as to be able to see everything). The
word
oiKovjuLEVT] is
Lukan
(used
by
St.
St.
Luke eight
St.
times,
;
once by
St.
Matthew, never by
Mark and
John)

v (TTiyiuLO)
47
ypovov
is
(the words
kol rtjv Soâv
of course interpolated by St. Luke avrwv have either been dis-
or should be omitted altogether). placed in St. Luke St. Luke's theological opinions have likewise led him to amplify the devil's address to our Lord by the long a-oi (set at the beginning, cf. the e/xol interpolation
:
and
(TV
in
what
ijULol
airacraVi
'
on
(TV
follows) ^wcrco Ttjv eôvcrlav Tavrrjv koi <5 dv OeXco olowfxi 'jrapaSeSorai
. .
avTTjv
ovv
(TTai
CTOL
7ra(ra.
evwiriov
is
Lukan
in St.
(occurring in St.
Luke
thirty-six times, never
Mark and
11
;
St.
ireac^v is
{cf.
ii.
an interpolation in the
xviii. 26, 29).
:
Matthew); on the other hand, style of St. Matthew
St.
the inserted
St.
Concerning viraye 'Earava (whence which follows), vide siipra. ydp Matt. 11 Koi cruvreX. tt. Treip. is added by St.
:
Matt. 10
Luke
((TvvreXeiv
is
wanting in
stood in Q twice elsewhere in St. Luke). cKpitjciv is found ten times in St. Luke, never in St.
;
St.
Matthew, occurs
acpicTTOLvai
Matthew,
is a Mark, and St. John. ^XP'^ Kaipov Lukan interpolation which weakens the unique signi-
St.
The expression occurs ficance of these temptations. in Acts xiii. 11. New Testament in the only again The text of the story of the Temptation, as it
stood in Q, can therefore in
my
opinion be
still
restored with almost perfect certainty ; almost everywhere the matter which is peculiar to either of our
two authorities shows

genuine text
is
The itself to be secondary. the shortest, and St. Matthew apQ here proaches nearer to it than does St. Luke. ran somewhat as follows
:
'O
'lri(TOv<s
viro avijÔr] etj Tr]V eptj/uLov
rod
irvevfxaTO^s
48

vtto
Treipaa-Orjvai
tov SiajSoXov, koi

TOV U60V,
ClTTe IVa
vrjcrTevG'as ^juepag
jul
KOI vvKTag
aVTO)'
1
jjf
varrepov
L
eirelvacrev, koi
VL09
OL AlUOl
Treipa^wv OVTOL apTOl

eir
etircv
yevojpTai,
/ULovo)
ig
lepovaraXrj/uL
prep aireKpiQri' yey pairrai' rrycrerat 6 avOpotyirog. irapaXaju/SaveL Se avrov Kai ecTTrjcrev avTOV ein to TTTepvyiov tov
el viog el
koi
ovk
lepov KOI \eyL avTW'

KaTCi)'
tov
Oeov,
âXe
creavTOV
yeypaiTTai
yap
orov,
otl
Toh ayyeXoi^ avTOu
evTeXeiTai irepi
[JLY]
Kai ein "êipcov apovcriv ere, TTore irpocTKoyîJ^ ttjOO? XiOov tov iroSa <tov.
6
'Irjcrovg'
<pr] avT(f>
iraXiv
yeypaiTTai' ovk eKireipaarov.
ereig
Kvpiov tov Oeov

eig
iraXiv
irapaXajmlSavei
avTOv
Tcc?
op09 v'^tjXov Xiav Kai SeUvvcriv avTw Trdarag
elirev avT(p'
/ULOi.
âcriXeiag tov koctjulov Kai Tt]v Soâv avTcov, koI TavTa aroi iravTa Scocro), eav irpocrKwricrri^
Kai
Xeyei avTM 6
crov
'I/^croy?*
TOV
Oeov
XaTpevcrei^.
St.
TrpocTKVvriarei^ koi avTOv 6 Sid/SoXo^, a<pit](Tiv

St.
yeypaiTTai' Kvpiov Kai avTco jULOVia
Matt.
V. S, 4, 6, 11,
Luke
vi.
20^ 21-
12.
23.
(3)
T(p
âKapioi
V
01 irTOdyoi
TTvevjULaTi,
oTi
avTiiyv
T(t)
TTvevjULaTi
om,
vjuLCTepa
ecTTiv
(Bao'iXeia
twv
(f.
avTwv)
(f.
tov
ovp.)
ovpavwv,
(4) jULaKOLpioi 01 wevOovvre?, oTi avTo\ TrapaKXtjOr]-
Oeov
t.
These two verses are transKXaiposed in St. Luke.

ovTeg vvv
creTe
(f.
(f.
aovTai}
irevO,)
yeXd-
avT. irapaKX.)
in the ordinary text
The beatitude which immediately follows

:
position varies in the MSS.) fiaKapioi ol irpaeh, on avrol KK-rjpovo= Ps. xxxvii. 11), is probably a later interpolation ; fjL-âovaLv tV yriv (
(its
vide
Wellhausen on this passage.

(6) fxaKapioi ol 7rivu)VT9 Kol Siyl/coPTcg rtjv SikgiocrvvrjVf
49
wv
Kcu
(post ireLvwvTe^^
.
Sucaiocr.
om.
OTL avroi "^ôpracr-
avTOL om.
arecrOe
"ôpraa-Bri-
drjcrovTai.
(11) fiaKapioL e(TT orav oveiSiccocnv v/aag Kai oioo^wariv Ka\ e'nruxjLV irav irovrjpov
KaO^
[evcKev
KQLL
ecrea-Oe (?)
orav
/ULiarrjcrMcriv
vfxag ol avOpooTTOi kol

acpopia-oocriv vfj-ag
SlG'WO'IV ?^
orav
[Kai ovei-
vfJLWV
efjLov].
yêvSo/ULcvoi
Kai
K/3a\(J0G'lV
(12) yalpeTC ayaWiacrOe, otl o

TToXu? V T019
ovTcoi
TO OVOfXa VKa Tov

irov.
VfJLWV 0)9 TTOvrjpov
viov
Tou avOpco-
jJLLCrQo^ V/ULU>V
ovpavoi9*
yap
iol-
coâv Toi'9 XjOO^TJTay
Tovg
yapYire iv cKeivn r^ Koi iSov crKipT^craT' rjiJLepa 6 TroXf? v/ulwv jULia-Qog yap
ovoavcp'
irpo vjuLwv,
Kara ra
toi?
aura
yap
eTTOiovv
irpocpâig avTWv.
It
oi
Trarepes
is still
of the original
Siylrm'reg)
rrjv
possible practically to settle text of verses 3, 4, 6}

SiKaiocrvvtjv
is
the question
As
(Kai
added by
St.
Matthew,
so also
with the greatest probability we may decide

:
similarly concerning rw Trvev/uiaTi (the simple tttcoôJ is also found in St. Matt. xi. 5 Trrajpôi evayyeXiI'ovrai).
On
is
the other
hand,
AcXa/oi/re?
(for
ireu-
OovvTcg)
1
certainly a correction of St. Luke,
who
Apart from the order, and perhaps also the question whether The pronoun v/iirepos is first or third person is original. but it may stand for an certainly Lukan {vide a Concordance) Wellhausen and others decide for St, Luke. But original vfj.Qv. the repetition of the pleonastic avrol gives an impression of originMatt. xi. 18) transforms ality, and St. Luke also elsewhere (c/. St.
the
;
the third person into the second.
50
is

fond of using KXaleiv (eleven times in the gospel, Matthew only two occurrences and one of these
;
in St.
Luke vii. 32 = St. Matt. xi. 17) brought about the yeXda-ere in the following clause (St. Luke is fond of strong expressions, yeXap occurs again with him only in vi. 25? never elsewhere in the New Testament), Ps. cxxvi. may have influenced The twofold pvv is of course also the evangelist here.
in a quotation, qf. St.
KXaleiv then
in the gospel
interpolated by St. Luke (vvv occurs thirty-seven times and Acts, four times in St. Matthew). St. Matthew 11 and St. Luke 22 look like two
is
separate translations, yet are not so, as

St.
Matthew 12
= St. Luke
is
23.
We
and
shown by must start

then
from the consideration of

appear that St.
^lEip eKeivr]
this verse
it will
Luke
th
riimepa
is
almost everywhere secondary. as secondary as mjv ; the imstyle

;
perative aorists are an arare (for ayaXXiaa-Oe)
improvement in
is
a-KioTri-
a genuinely
Lukan exaggerais
i.
tion (vide supra yeXda-ere) ; crKiprdv St. Luke in the New Testament {vide
peculiar to 41, 44), like-
wise lôv
St.
yap (never found

six
in
St.
;
Luke) not care for the plural oupavoU, and {Kara) rd avrd is Lukan (elsewhere in the New Testament only in St. Luke vi. 26 and Acts xv. 27). 'J^ttolovu for
eSicoPav
Mark,
times in
St.
St.
Matthew and Luke does
was written by
St.
ing clauses not only persecutions

are mentioned.
Luke, because in the precedbut also other trials
A genuine translation-variant appears

Wellhausen says
""
to stand at the conclusion.
St.
Luke has read

the verb; St.
in
'
their
forefathers
as the subject of
Matthew has read 'your forefathers' The difference in the Prophets. to apposition
51
Aramaic is only that of daq'damaihon (ol Trarepe^ avTcov) from daq'daviailidn (tov9 irpo vjuloop).'''* But there
namely, yet another explanation of this variation that St. Luke is here influenced by his reminiscence
is
of the familiar invective against the Pharisees (St. St. Luke xi. 47 f.) ; in that passage Matt, xxiii. 29 f.
the prophets and the fathers are spoken of together, "" and thence he has derived " the fathers here. This
may
in
have happened the more easily since the words
Matthew (i.e. in Q), rovg irpo v/ulwv, appeared liable to misinterpretation (Apostles Prophets), or
St.
an unnecessarv addition which of for some better substitute.

as
itself cried
out
Matthew 12 pretext of has been altered the which sents Q, original Luke. it is St. Then, however, possible that by also St. Matthew 11 = St. Luke 22 are not two
It accordingly follows that St.
different translations of a
it
is
common
original
rather
probable that here again St. Luke has deliberin fact, has transformed the, whole ately altered in shows itself in the the first verse. This, place, of In variants. . place stylistic -vp-efôirovtjpov
IJLevoi (the very fact that y\fev^6iJiV0L does elsewhere in the synoptists shows that it
not occur
probably
belongs to Q) he writes the excellent Greek phi-ase and supplies the subjectless verbs with to)?
TTovijpov,
One of the principal difthe subject ol avOpcoiroi. ferences is that St. Matthew has oveiSlcrcoG'iv, Siw^cocriv,
elirwariv
irav
7rov>]pov
KaO'
vfxwv
yêvSojuevoi,
while
St.
Luke
writes
cog
/ulkt/jctcoo-li/,
t. a(popi(Tco(Tiv, eK/BaXcocrip
ovo/ma
is
vjULcov
7roP7]p6v.
not quite
logical, in St.
The order Luke it is
in St.
Matthew
:
strictly logical
52
hatred
is

followed
find
excommunication, excommunication by the general defamation of the name.
by
Besides,
we
that St. Luke uses
/miareiv
also
in
other places where it does not occur in the parallel passage of St. Matthew (vi. 27, xiv. 26), and that " to defame" eK^dWeiv, in the metaphorical sense is in New the good Greek, Testament), (here only Greek at all. is not whereas eliretv irav
Trovrjpov
Accordingly, here also the text of St. Matthew is It must remain an open everywhere to be preferred.
question whether, in the places where St. Matthew is secondary, the corrections are due to the evangelist
himself or
before him.
whether
secondary
The Beatitudes
text already lay certainly circulated in
various recensions from an early period, indeed from the beginning. Thus Polycarp (Epist. 2) quotes as follows ol tttcoôi koI ol SicoKO/mevoi evcKev jixaKapioi
:
SiKaioavvtjg,
on
avTCDV
ccttlv
fi
âcriXcia
tov
Oeov,
This looks like a combination

St.
is
of
the
texts
of
Matthew and St. Luke ; perhaps, however, it a combination of these two and of the source, or perhaps it is another version of the source.
St.
word must be said concerning [evcKev ejuLov] Matthew and evcKa tov vlov tov avOpwirov
St.
in
in
St.
Matthew's phraseology here is somewhat redundant ; many authorities have therefore omitted ypêvSojuevoi ; but this word seems to me to be supported by the oj? irovfjpov of St. Luke (vide On the other hand, eve/cei/ ejjiov should be supra). omitted from the text of St. Matthew, for a succession of ancient Western authorities do not read
Luke.
it;
others read
'ivenev
SiKaiocrvvtjg
(Da.b.c.g'.k)
the
INVESTIGATION OF
THE TEXT
53
ancient Syriac reads cvckcv tov ovo/maTOi fiov. If these words were wanting in St. Matthew then the cvck. t. of St. Luke most certainly did not vlov T. apQp. This phrase stands in close connection stand in Q. with TO ovojuLa vjuwv, which also does not belong to Q
(vide supra).
i/Kv
If,
nevertheless, the critic asserts that
must belong to Q, it is no longer possible to ascertain what word came after this preposition in
the source.
St.
Matt.
V. 13, 15, 18, xi.
St.
Luke
;
xiv. 34,
35
25, 26, 32.
33
;
xvi.
17
xii.
58,
59
(13)
vfjieig
xvi. 18.
iare to
d\ag
KaXov
eav
06
ovv
Kai
Tfj9 yf]S'
iav Se TO d'Xaj
ev t'lvl oKkjet? ovSev Icr'êL
TO to
d'Xa?*
aAa?
ouTe
jULcopavOuj
6r](TTai;
jULCopavOi],
iv t'lvl apTud)]yrjv
creTaL;
eig
out6 ef?
jurj I^XtjOeu VTTO KaTairaTGicrOai
ctl
e^co TVOV
KOTrpLav evOeTOv ecTTLV p(a ISdWovcTLv avTO.
avOpooTTCOv.
(15) ovSe Kalovaiv Xi/^-
ovoeig
Av^vov
TOV
ayj/ag
ef?
vov Kai Tl
VTTO
7ri
',(TLV
aVTOV
Kpv7rTr]v
TiOrjcTLv
JULoSlOV^,
[ovê
TOV
Trjv
JULOOIOV,
aAA
Kai
ev
VTTO
7rt
dXV
Xv^VLaVf
to2<5
\aiuL7rei
ttolctlv
th
Xv^viav, %a ol TO <pco<i eLCTTTOpeVOJULeVOL

Trjv
^XeTTCoa-LV.
oiKia,
(18)
vjuLiVj
a/ut-rji/
ecog
Xeyo) av irapeAur] o
yap
eVKOTTOOTepOV Se icTTLV
TOV
ytjv
ovpavov
KaL
r]
Trjv
ovpavoi Ka\ rj yrj, looTa v juiia Kepala ov juij

f]
tov vojulov TrapeXOelv jULiav Kcpalav Treaelv.
irapeXOi] ^'^^ '^^^ vo/xoVy

eo)?
av iravTa yevrjTai,
54

o)?
(25) 'i&6i evvowu Tip avtiSlko) <tov Ta-)(y ecog otov L /xer avTOu ev tu oo(p'
\
</
yap
virayeig juLera
eir*
tov
c^pX'
olptiSlkov (TOV
lUL^TTOTe
are
irapaoo)
ovTa, ev Til oSw S09 ipyaaiav airriXXaxOai air'avTOv,

IUL7]7roT6 KaTacrvpii ere irpog
aVTlSlK09 TO) KpLTlJ Kai O KUl KpLTT]9 TO) VTTtjpeTlJy

6ig
TOV
are
KplTTfjV,
Ka\ O KpiTT]?
(pvXaKtjv
aiJ-riv
^Xridrjcrri'
oroi,
(26)
fjit]
Xeyot)
ov
eco?
irapa^ccxreL to) irpaKere Topi, Kal o irpaKTcop
eêXOr]^ CKclOev
lâXei
elg
o'Oi,
(puXaK'^v
jmrj
av cLTToSa)^
KoSpdvTr]v,
Tov ecr-ârov
Xeyoo eKelQev
ov
ecog Kai
epeXO^g to earxî-
on
(32) e-yo) ê Xe-yco Traj o ax oXi'(
vjuitv
yujâT/ca
avTOv
irapeKT09
Tov XeiTTOV airoSwg. irag 6 airoXvoov Trjv yvvaiKa avTOV Kai yajULa)v eTepav luoix^vei, Kai o
aTToXeXvjmevrjv airo
Spog ya/uLcov juLoixûei.
av-
Xoyov
iropveia^
ttolgi avTr}v
lULoij^êvOrjvai,
Ka\ b? iav
ya/ULrjcrr],
airoXeXvjut.evrjv
fjiof^ârai.
in the
saying also stood in St. Mark (ix. 50) kqXov to dXag eav Se to dXag avaXov ev Tivi avTO apTvareTe ; eêre ev eavTOig d'Xa., yevrjTai, The saying in Q ran v/meig ea-Te to dXag Trjg yrjg or in a similar form St. Luke must [in this foi'm
The
first
form
have read
it in Q, for the context in which he gives the saying shows that he referred it, like St. Matthew, but as in cases of doubt he often to the disciples
;
prefers St. Mark to form of St. Mark]

oXia-Orja-eTai [here
Q, so here also he has chosen the
also
euv Se to dXag jucopavOi], ev tivi St. Luke uses the apTvciv of
St.
Mark];
eig
ovSev layyei cti [St.
Luke
replaces this
INVESTIGATION OF
THE TEXT
55
expression by ovk evOerog (evOero^ and avevOerog are peculiar to St. Luke, cf. xiv. 35 and Acts xxvii. 12),
and
St.
reinforces
eig
it
phrase oure
according to his custom with the in ytju ovre el<s Koirpiav (Koirpia only
8),
Luke, vide
xiii.
which
also replaces the

e^co
word
KaTa7raTiG-0ai^
Tcov
el
jurj
l3X}]6ei^
KaTairareiaOai vtto
apOpcoirwv [that ^XtjOev e^co is original is shown the fact that St. Luke did not like to sacrifice it, by but let it hobble behind the main body of the saying].
Thus the
verse stood in
in the
form in which
it is
preserved in St.
Matthew.
and "
is
In the second saying, dirreiv and avdirreiv (for "fire" light "), are Lukan, so that the verdict here must
be given for St. Matthew ; the participial construction Lukan ; the ovSelg for an indefinite third person 'Ytto tov juloSiov plural is a stylistic improvement.
is
probably an interpolation from
St.
Matthew
into
the
Lukan
30.
text
is
St.
Luke
vide
says
viii.
eiG-TTOpevojuievoi
saying occurs four times in the in St. In St. Mark iv. 21 it Luke). gospels (twice runs jujjti ep-êrai 6 XJî/o? 'Iva vtto tov juloSiov TeOij
xxviii.
:
The Lukan,
ek Kpyim^v. 16 ; Acts iii.
Ol
2,
ov^ 'ii/a eiTL Trjv Xv^viav TeOtj ; in Q ran as St. Matthew gives it. St. Luke gives it both times {vide viii. 16) with the same traits which can
r]
VTTO Tf]V k\lv}]v,
it
be easily explained as peculiarities of his own in " " from he inserts the bed St. 16, however, " Mark, and replaces the " bushel not by etV Kpvirrriv
;
viii.
but by the general phrase KaXvirreL avrov crKevei (for this word see Acts ix. 15 ; x. 11, 16 xi. 5 xxvii. 17). In making the lamp give light, not to those within the house but to those entering in, St. Luke evi; ;
56

;
dently intends to improve the sense of the passage

the gospel (though this is doubtful). The third saying in Q ran as follows
6 ovpavo9 Kai ^
airo Tov
lodra ev yrj^
j?
he perhaps also thinks of the missionary aspect of

:
eco?
dv irapeXQri
jULt]
irapeXQn In regard to form, St. Luke has improved the clumsy construction, but he has also altered the thought by the which he evKOTrcorepov
vofxov.
fxla
Kepaia ov
has adopted from other sayings
(^vide St.
cum
parall.; xix.
24 cum paralL).
Matthew, the Law abides as long as remain according to St. Luke, it

;
Matt. ix. 5 According to St. Heaven and Earth

lasts longer
than
they.
Here we discern St. Luke's genuinely Hellenic reverence for the Old Testament a reverence which
could be so deep, because the writer stood remote from the controversies concerning the application
of the precepts of the
Law
to the daily
life.
The
converse hypothesis (Wellhausen) that St. Matthew has attenuated the thought is unacceptable from considerations both of matter and style. St. Luke
has introduced ireaelv in order to avoid the double
irapeXOn {irea-dv in the metaphorical sense is not found in the gospels, but cf. Rom. xi. 11, 22; xiv. 4; 1 Cor. X. 12; xiii. 8; Heb. iv. 11), and he has
omitted the In singular.
Icora
St.
ev
as
superfluous
and somewhat
a/i^j/
Matthew the opening words
y. X. viMv and the concluding clause ew? dv iravra yeu. are perhaps secondary. The latter was probably
added because the preceding passage in
St.
Matthew
" " speaks of fulfilling ; the evangelist may, besides, have been influenced by a reminiscence of St. Mark
xiii.
30.
57
Close consideration of the fourth saying also shows that St. Matthew has excellently preserved the text
of
Q (perhaps ayur/i/ is secondary). The temporal o)? at the beginning is specifically Lukan (references are
unnecessary)
;
here
eir'
'[(tOl
ap-ôvra
is
an explanatory
interpolation, and
Testament) seemed
it
cvvocov (here only in the New he replaced to St. Luke too weak
by the transparently clear phrase Sos epyaalav airrjWa-Ôai air avrov (epyacrla is not found elsewhere
however Acts
19
;
in the four gospels, see

xix. 24,
xvi.
16, 19
25
Ephes.
:
iv.
neither
is
airaXkacrcreLv
found elsewhere in the four gospels, see however Acts xix. 12 aTraXXdcrcrecrOai air' avTwi/). St. Luke
has just as happily avoided the awkward phrase Ta')(y 0)9 OTov el imeT avrov (he places the /merd at the very
beginning), as well as the unnecessary repetition of 6 dvTiSiKOi, Moreover, his sense of style would not
allow
him to
describe the action of the adversary
and
the judge with one and the same

uses
word
(St.
Matthew
wapaSovvai in both cases)
(Tvpeiv irapaSovvai elsewhere in the New Testament, but crvpeiv [of men] is peculiar to St. Luke, occm'ring indeed three times in
and
he writes here Karadoes not occur (Karaarvpeiv

;
the Acts).
Luke has replaced the very indefinite the technical term 6 TrpctKrcop, and VTrrjperrjg by the vulgar In all these cases KoSpavrrj^ by Xctttov. it is had before Matthew inconceivable St. that simply him, and has altered, the text presented in St. Luke. In the fifth sa3dng St. Luke is evidently dependent
St.
word
not only upon

av
airoKvarn
eir
Trjv
but also upon yvvaiKa avrov

Kal
St.
Mark
x.
ii.
(o?
Kai
yajuDja-u
aX\r]i'^
/j.oij(arai
avrrjv
idv
avrrj
diro\vaa<Ta
rov
58
av^pa
avrrjg

avTt]9
avSpog Accordingly, in St. Matthew we have only to omit the introduction and the phrase TrapeKTog \6you iropvela^. In St. Luke
yvi/tj
\yel
eav
eêXOrj
airo
rod
Kai]
yajuajcrr}
aWov,
jULoiâTai).
KOL yajuLuov in fact, erepav comes from another source from St. Mark and by its insertion the sense of the
saying
is
ing hand was
altogether changed (that St. Luke's correctat work here is also evident from the
substitution of the participle for 09 eav In yafxyjarn). the to the austere Q saying gave expression thought
:
"
He who
:
divorces
his wife
causes
her to commit
adultery
of adultery."
thought.
St.
both she and her new husband are guilty St. Luke has completely changed this
Matt.
V. 39, 40, 42,
St.
44-48.
(39) "OcTTf?
eig
ere
28,
paTTiêi
cr
Luke 35^ 32,
vi.
29, 30, 27,
33, 36.
(76
ef?
Tip TVTTTOVTl
Ti]v
Tr]V
[êîav^
Lay ova
a Lay ova,
irape-ê
[exl] Kal
((70u),
crTp6\ôv avT(p Kai

ctol
Trjv aXXrjVj
\
">
Tijv
aWrjv,
KaL airo
(40) Kal TO) OeXovTL

KpiQrjvaL (Tov Xa/Beiv,
Kat
Tov
"îTcova
tov aLpovTog aou TO IJuaTLOV KaL TOV "VlTCOVa

KCoXvoru^.
)f
kol a<p9 avrco

ere
lULt]
TO
Kai
IfXaTLOV.
(42) Tip aiTOvvTL

r
S69,
crov
iravTL
aiTovvTL
ere
SlSov,
TOV Six ovTa airo
KaL airo tov

era
jut]
SavicraarOat
Tpacpij^.
airod-
a'lpovTog tcl airaLTeL [cf. v. 35 :

juLrjSev
Kal
Savel^cTe
aweX-
TTLÔVTeg^.
(44) eyw 6e Xeyco vjuiv tous ayairaTe eyOpov<s
vjuLLv
Xeyco
t.
toli^
ukovovctiv
v/ul,,
ay air.
eÔp,
KaXwg

VIULCOV
59
KOI
Tcov Cicokoptcov
vjuLcig,
TTOieiTe TOig
jULiarovariv vjuas,
virep
evXoyeiTe
jULevovg
T(x3v
Tovg
/carapco-
i/jmag,
irpocrevyedOe
CTTJjpeaôvTCov
Trepl
vjuLag,
(45) 0X0)9 yeutjcrOe viol
Kai
ecrecrue
vioi
vyj/i(TT0v,
Tov irarpos
ovpavoig,
Kai
vjmcov
tov ev
ip\.iov
on
eiri
avTog
TOv<s
^jO>7<jto9
eaTiv
on
tov
a-âpldTOvg kcu
avTOv avareXXei ein

povg t
eyei
aSiiKovg.
irovt]-
TTOvripov's,
IS ayaOovg
)iKaiov9
koi
Koi
errri
(46)
TLva
Kai
eav
yap
ayairr]vj^-cig,
ov-)(j.
Kai
ayairaTe
vjaug, irola
tov<5
vjuliv
arjre Tovg ayaTrcovTag

fjLicrOov
ayaircovTag
')(OLpi<g
e-êre;
[ecTTivl; Kai
yap
ol
OL
TeXoovai
to avTO
ajLiapTooXoi T0V9
ayairoDV-
TTOiovcnv;
Ta<i avTov<s ayairooaiv,
(47) Kai eav acnrao'tja-Oe T0V9 aoeXcbovg v/mcov ijlovov,

TL irepiarcrov iroieiTe; eUVlKOi KQl OL eui TO
TTOIOVCTIV;
ov-î
Kol
\_yo.p^
^GLV [ef]
ay aOovjulip
"TTOirJTe
[-eire] tovs ayaOo-
TTOLOvvTag v/mag, iroia
aVTO
\api9
Kai ol
[X'^P^^
'^M-l
Gcrnv;
ctjUiapTcoXoi
to avTo
iroiovdiv.
(48)
TeXeioi
earecrOe ecretTVe
0)?
ovv
vjuei?
o iraTrjp vjmwv o ecTTiv. TeXeios ovpavoL<i
ylveorQe oiKTip/uovegf /caOco? O 7raTt]p VfJiCOV OlKTipjUiWV

ecTTiv
lôiKTcipei'].
There can be no question that

verses St.
St.
in the
two
first
;
Matthew has preserved the

(1)
original text
Luke has
;
introduced
the
participial
con-
struction
by
TVTrTeiVi the equally
he has (2) replaced the vulgar paTrlêiv vulgar (TTpe\ôv by Trapeze,
60
the

awkward un-Hellenic and
.
diffuse ro) OeXovri a-oi
Kai . . Xa/3eiv by airo tov alpovTOS (in the KpiOrjvai latter instance he has transformed a command relating
to behaviour in case of a judicial action into a general maxim ; hence /mt] KcoXua-ijg for the more positive acpeg. ' St. Matthew says He who wishes to sue thee for
:
thy coat, allow him to take also thy cloak ; St. Luke " He who takes says thy cloak, hinder him not from
:
"
taking also thy coat ").
^Pairiiêiv
is
found in the
New
Testament only
67); crrpecpeiv
(TTpacpeiî
in St.
is
Matthew (viz. once again in xxvi. used by St. Luke only in the form
also the Semitic repetition of the dative in avr^ (D. has avoided this by writing 6 OeXcov), " " coat,"" St. Luke In the order, " cloak might seem
notice
to represent the original; "for the coat is nearer to the body than the cloak." But St. Luke was obliged to begin with the cloak, for the robber catches hold
of the cloak, not the undergarment easily understand that the Lukan text
its origin,
we can thus
is
secondary in but we cannot explain a secondary origin of the text of St. Matthew.
The Lukan
verse 42,
fifth
is
insertion
of iravrl
in
St.
Matthew
found in the Lukan version of the of the Lord''s Prayer and elsewhere in petition
also
St.
Luke;
is
likewise the substitution of SlSou for 86$
also
occurs in the
AiSov
is
more
fourth petition of that prayer. correct Greek, seeing that the command
In what follows, the words airaiTeiv (note general. the play upon alrelv and airaireiv) and airekTrlXeLv of themselves show classical feeling ; the possessive pro-
noun {ra
airb
era)
is
also
.
Lukan
.
the whole clause, koi

is
rod aipoprog
airaiTeh
interpolated
by
St.
TEXT
42^ in
is
61
St.
Luke.
is
On
the
other
hand,
verse
Matthew St. Luke

St.
original, for the
35,
thought and the construction in

is
expressed in
St.
Matthew
is
clumsy (the middle a7ro(TTp(p<rOai

Luke). In verse 44 St.
not found in
Luke
has, as is so often the case,
omitted the superfluous pronominal subject, and has
added
liar
this gospel).
T019 aKovovcriv (influenced by what precedes in In this verse the two exhortations
pecu-
Luke can scarcely be original what reason could St. Matthew have had for omitting them ? Besides, St. Luke is fond of the words /uLiareiv and
to St.
;
evXoyeiv (oi
/uLicrouvTe^
^fJ-a^f
in the literature of the
almost a technical post-apostolic epoch, term with Christians for their adversaries). The four verbs ayairav, KaXco^ Troieiv, evXoyeii/, Trpocev-êcrOai
is
indeed
form a premeditated climax which

pared
for
is not to be comwith the originality simple combination
of ayairav and irpocrev'sêadai. St. Luke has already avoided the word Sicokciv in St. Matt. v. 11, 12 (vide
supra)
why,
know not;
iii.
eTrrjpedêiu
occurs again
only in 1 Pet.
16,
and does not belong to the

speech (vide Aristotle's de-
vocabulary of
finition).
common
In verse 45 the peculiarly Lukan i/xp-fo-ro? (without 6 and without Oeog) shows that St. Luke has made
changes
oVwy is not frequent in St. Luke (it is found ; only seven times in the gospel), elsewhere also its use is avoided by this evangelist. Xprjarog ecrrLv ein rovg
ayapLCTTov^ has too much of the flavour of the liteIt is difficult to say why rary style to be original. St. Luke has done away with the beautiful simile of
62
St.

Matthew.
express the before him
Did he think that it did not thought clearly enough ? That he had it
in his source seems to follow
comes
which and aSiKog of St. Matthew are suspicious; the former being a " Your Father favourite word with this evangelist).
Trovrjpovg,
from
in haltingly at the close (the SiKaiog
in Heaven,''' in
picious.
At
St. Matthew, is almost always sus"" is to be the very least, " in Heaven
omitted.
In verse 46 rlva
for
julictOov r)(eTe
is
certainly original
a specifically Lukan yapi'Si given by word (found twenty-five times in the gospel and the Acts, never occurring in St. Matthew and St. Mark).
St.
Luke,
is
The question Lukan (vide

in
St.
St.
in 46^
is
also
original
for kol
yap
is
the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer Luke, where St. Matthew has Km, in
Matthew
koi
yap
occurs twice,
in
St.
Luke's
gospel nine times), and St. Luke has often removed rhetorical questions from Q. Again, the reXcovat must be more original than the more general term
ol
ajULaprcoXoi.
St.
Luke perhaps did not wish to
repeat the phrase to avro iroiovcriv (vide verse 47), therefore he develops it here. The el here and in the
edv
following verse
is
is
certainly
secondary;
in
Q,
Also in very much more frequent than et. other passages St. Luke has changed edv into e:. In verse 47 St. Luke understood darTratea-Qai to mean to be friendly disposed towards anyone,"
"to devote oneself in love towards anyone" (probably rightly), and has accordingly rendered it by it is obvious that St. Matthew is dyaOoiroieiv, here. The julovov of St. Matthew is also original
INVESTIGATION OF
original
;
THE TEXT
63
St.
Luke avoids
[viii.
this use of the
once in the gospel Mark while in St.
50]
and
word (only that from St.

;
Matthew
it
often occurs
it also
For jroia v/ulip ')(OLpi<Sy occurs only once in the Acts). vide supra on verse 46 ; the fact that the corresponding words of St. Matthew (t/ irepicrcrov TroLelre) are a
is in their favour. For Ka\ ol a/maprcoXoi, " vide supra on verse 46 ; " cOvlkol is not found at all the word would have been almost uninin St. Luke
vulgarism
telligible to his readers.
In verse 48 St.
fluous
Luke has again

(cf.
pronominal subject
(oTTO)?) yevtja-Oe
by
erased the superIn replacing verse 44). ea-ecrOe in verse 45, and caea-Oe by
in verse 48, ylvearOe
he has in both cases improved
Likewise in writing KaOwg the logic of the passage. It is, however, for 0)9 he has improved the style.
difficult
to
decide whether reXeioi or oiKrlp/uLoveg
is
Wellhausen describes the latter the original word. as much the more genuine.*" TeXeiog is indeed
found in the gospels only here and in
xix. 21.
St.
Matt,
OiKTLpjULwu Nevertheless, I
assign the idea to Q or to our Lord on the evidence of these two passages is hazardous. is found nowhere else in the gospels.
To
am
inclined to prefer the latter
word
at least so far as significance is concerned. Perhaps and has been replaced in St. eXerijuoveg stood in
Luke by the more

St.
ijjuL(Jov
refined word.
Matt.
o
vi.
lidrep
.
St.
.
.
Luke
three
xi.
2-4.
^/ulcov
v TOig
ovpavoi^'
ovpav. om.
The
are
;
ay laa-Orjriio
(10)
to
ovo/ulol
t]
ctov
first
petitions
eXOciTft)
âa-Ckela
probably wanting
read
64

OeXrjjiia
<TOV yevriQrjTW to
crov, cog
in their place
eXOera) to
ev
oupavcp
Kai ewi
ayiov
Kai
TTvevjULa arov (p' îmag

rjjjiag,
KaOapicraTOi)
(11)
TOP
apTOV
Sog
rjfJLWV
rjJJLLV
(Jiliioiiv
om.
?)
TOV
eiTLOlXTLOV
^lôv
TO KaO'
fifjiepav
<jrjiJLepov'
(f. (T^/uLepov)
^juliv
(12) Kai acbeg

o(pi\ÎULaTa
^/uLcov,
Ta
Kai
Tag
ajmapTiag
(f.
^jULcig)
cof
koi
yap
avTo\
TravTl
rjfxelg a<pi]KaiuLv
T019 o<pi-
a(pio/UL6v
rjfJUV'
Xeraig Îulwv
(13) Kai
rjâg
pvcrai
vripov.
i<5
/ULr]
6d)lX0VTl
eicreveyKrjg
TreipacTjuov,
aWa
iro,
aXXa
TTOVtjp,
^/mag airo
tov
om.
It
is
certain that the
depend upon
translation,
two forms of the prayer one original form and one original
just as certain that St. Luke the prayer as the customary prayer in the communities with
it
is
and
could not have

congregational
w^hich
known
he was acquainted, otherwise he would not
Have revised
rransmitted to
(cf.
St.
The form language so drastically. him contained only the vocative iraTep Paul) and the so-called fourth, fifth, and
its
All the other clauses found in St. sixth petitions. Matthew are either accretions which attached themselves to the common prayer during the process of transformation into a solemn congregational prayer in the primitive Jewish Christian communities and
under the dominating influence of the prayers of the Synagogue, or they were added by St. Matthew himself. With the correction SiSou compare St.

Luke''s
65
St.
similar
correction
of
as
St.
it
;
Matthew gives the prayer and as indeed it was, used

as
Matt. v. 42. was meant to

St.
be,
it
daily
Luke
gives
an instruction in prayer, therefore the present This also explains the substitution of to tense. KaO' rj/mepav for a-^juepov, as to which it is to be
noted that r. KaO'
New Testament
xvii. 11).
only in
it
^^/mepav St.
occurs
elsewhere
(xix.
in
;
the
Luke
47
Acts
to St.
there
is
Luke because
is
was most probably distasteful belonged to the vulgar idiom no doubt that it is the original word ; ^jmei^
'OcpeiXtjima
replaced
by avroi
in order to avoid the threefold
repetition of the same
word
(St.
Luke
is
also
fond
of omitting the pronominal subject before the verb vide mipra on St. Matt. v. 44, 48, and elsewhere)
Kai
yap
also is a phrase that St.
{vide supra
is
on St. Matt. v. 46). acprJKajuLev certainly as original as the cos (vide St. Matt. v. 23) ;
Luke uses The perfect

full
elsewhere
St.
Luke has here attenuated the
and important
Lastly, the interpolation significance of the petition. of iravrl (with participle instead of substantive) is
also
on St. Matt. v. 42 and elsethe amplification of whether question the prayer is due to St. Matthew himself, or whether he adopted it in the form it had already taken in the Church (vide supra), is one that cannot be definitely settled (iraTep ^/mwv 6 cv t. ovp. seems to An original form betray the style of St. Matthew).
vide supra
where.
Lukan The
"
(" Trdrep
must have
and the fourth, fifth, and sixth petitions) existed, and there is nothing to say
The seventh petition against its having stood in Q. like the first three has strong points of resemblance
66
with the prayers of the Synagogue, and it is certain that St. Luke would not have passed over this
petition if
St.
it
had existed
in his exemplar.
St.
Matt.
Se
vi.
W:
Orjcr-
Luke
xii.
33^
6r](r-
aupLêre
vjuiv
Otjar-
aupov
aveKXeiirTOV
evToh
avpovg ev ovpavw, birov ovT (jrjg ovT ^pwcri^

a(f)anlî
ovpavoig birov KXeTrrrj^ ovK eyyitei ovoe arjg

SiacpOelpei,
koi ottov kXcttSiopva-crov(riv
Tai ov
ovSe
KXeinovcriv,
Taking also into consideration verse 19 of St. Matthew and verse 33^ of St. Luke, it is at once seen that St. Matthew gives a saying which is complete in itself, while St. Luke adopts, as it were, only
a reminiscence of this saying, which he binds up with the command to sell all things and give alms (cf. his enthusiasm for this ideal in the Acts). Moreover, the pluâseology and the selection of words betray the
deliberate choice,
St.
and thus the secondary character of
AiacpOelpeiv (also (pOelpeiv) does not belong to the vocabulary of the gospels, but is classical ; the thief and the moth are not easily understood apart
Luke.
from
St.
St.
Matt.
vi.
19
eyyilêiv
is
a feeble word which

is
Luke was fond of using
(it
not found in
St.
John, occurs three times in St. Mark, six or seven times in St. Matthew, twenty-four times in St. Luke),
and
ai/e/cXefTTTo?
also
belongs
to
the
language of
cf. xvii.
literature (St.
;
Luke
46
:
loves such formations,

;
Acts xxvii. 12 avevSeKTog ^vcrPaarraKTO^ the plural ovpavoig, which avevOero^). Accordingly, is much rarer in St. Luke than in St. Matthew, can
xi.
:
67
alone be claimed for Q, wherein verse 19 must also Verse have stood, as is shown by the Se of verse 20.
19 rmis
OTTOV
jmrj
Orja-avpHêre
Pp(Jo(Ti9
v/jllv
Otjaavpovg
koI
ctti
t??
'y^?,
(Ttjs
Koi.
acpavilêi^
oirov
/cXeTrrat
Siopvarcrovoriv
Koi Kkiirrova-iv,
Only,
been made to treasures upon earth,

the thief explain themselves.
St.
if reference had do the moth and
Matt.
vii.
13:
EiVeXOare
<TTvrig irvXijg'
^la
t??
OTL TrXa-
xiii. 24: elaeXOeiv ^la ayoovlXeaQe rtjg (TTevrjg Ovpag, on
St.
Luke
Tela
\_ri
Koi irvkti] evpvycorj
po^
ri
6S69
airayovara
eig
<tov(tiv
ttoXXo/, \ey() v/mv, ^>;t>}eicreXQelv Kai ovk

icr')(y<rovcriv,
rhv
oLTrooXeiaVf koi
ttoWol
Si
eicriv
ol
eicrep'ôiULevoi
avTt]9'
rj
(14) OTL crrevrj

Koi TeOXijULiuevtj ^
eig
TTvKrj
r]
6S09
^coTjv,
Kai
airayova-a
oAi' oXiyoL
rrjv
cktiv
ol
evpicTKOvreg avTi]v
Luke gives only he an extract, wherein, however, develops the teachand of means ing by ayodviCeaSe X^rirricrovcnv {aymL-
As
in the former passage, so here St.
Xeo-Baii
a classical
gospels, writes
though
it
occurs in St. Paul
word not found elsewhere in the St. Luke also

;
in Acts xvi. 10, and a eQirwaixev eêXOeiv is not which 'tr]Tiv given in St. Matthew is also found in St. Luke's parallel to St. Matt. x. 39 with
;
OVK
i(T')(yiv,
compare
also St.
Luke
vi.
vi.
48, viii.
43,
xiv. 6, xiv. 30, xvi. 3, xx.
26; Acts
The
vi.
19
converse theory that St. Matthew f., has worked up a shorter text (Wellhausen),
10, xxv. 7). here, and in
68
is
St. Luke has absolutely incapable of proof. written dvpa for irvXtj, because he omitted the way,"
so
St.
Ovpa would more naturally suggest itself. Luke thinks of the door of a house (vide also the Q and St. Matthew think of the following verse 25)
that
;
gate of a city.
St.
Matt.
vii.
16
airo
tt
St.
Luke
vi.
44,
43
Twv Kapwcov eTTiyvwcreaOe

avTov^'
(TLV
juL-^Ti
eKacTTOv
SevSpov k
tov
crvWeyov-
airo aKavOu)v (TTa5/
î/Xa?
(TVKa;
airo rpiôXcov 0VTW9 nrav (1*7)
Kapirov yivooaKeyap e^ aKavSwv a-vWeyovcriv avKa, ovSe K ÔLTOV a-TacjyvXijv
iSlov
Tar
ov
SevSpov ayaOov KapTTovg KoXovg TTOielf TO Se crairpov

SevSpov Kapirovs irovtjpov^
TTOieL
(43) ovl^yapl Tpvywa-iv. ecTTiv KaXov SevSpov
TTOiovv Kapirov crairpov,

ovSe
[îrdXiv^
(18)
ov SvvaraL
SevSpov
SevSpov
TTOvrjpovg
ayaOov
Kapirovq ovSe eveyKCiVf
crairpov iroiovv Kapirov
KaXov,
SevSpov aairpov KoXov^ TToLelv,
Kapirov^
Cf. also St. Matt. xii.

iroLYia-aTe to SevKai KOKOV TOV Spov avTOv koKov^ Kapirov iroiricraTe to oevopov (rairpov Kai tov Kapirov avTOv crairpov e/c yap TOV Kapirov to SevSpov
3B
t]
if]
yivwcTKeTai,
St.
Matthew found the saying

it
in
two
sources,
and
therefore gives
twice, probably intermingling the
two forms.
TEXT
69
Which of the two sources is Q, is to be determined by comparison with St. Luke. (In regard whether St. Luke verse to the order of the clauses we are no longer in a 44, stood before verse 43
position to say anything definite.) that Q had the words e/c tov Kapirov
We
may
be sure
to SivSpov
was probably added by St. Luke yivuxTKeTai (eKa<TTOv an interpolation of the same character as the Traj likewhich he is so fond of inserting in the text Also wise iSiov, which is, moreover, wanting in D). the rhetorical question of St. Matthew 16^ is original
St.
Luke has often removed such

on
St.
rhetorical questions
(vide supra
Matt.
v. 46, 47).
choice
expression
than
Baro? is a more is and therefore rplôXoî
and the Lukan distinction between and (TuWeyeiv rpvyav is certainly appropriate, but
secondary,
for
St.
that very reason
it
can
scarcely
be
original.
singular crracpuX^V) because he had also replaced the plural rpi^. by the singular ^droi. The 17th verse of St. Matthew is wanting in St.
Luke chose the
Luke
(It
is
the latter may have considered it superfluous. nevertheless a Semitic practice to give positive
in
,
. ,
and negative expression to the same thought For ov Svvarat adjacent clauses.) iveyKciv
. . .
TToieh, St.
iroLovv
this participial construction is Lukan ; the evangelist probably also wished to avoid an infinitive aorist
Luke reads
ovk gcttlv
iroiovv
and present in close connection. It is, moreover, noteworthy that neither tjveyKov nor any of its derivatives are found in St. Luke^s gospel.
singular
33,
The
xii.
Kapirov
in
St.
Luke and
adjectives
St.
Matt,
together
with
the
/caXo?
and
70
crairpo's

(see
likewise
St.
Matt.
xii.
33) must have
stood in Q.
St.
Ira's
Matt.
Xeycov
vii.
21: ov
Kvpie
St.
vii.
Luke
:
vi.
46-49;
xaXeiTe
jULOi
Ti
Se jue
Kvpie elareXevcreTaL eig Ttjv toov /3a(Ti\eiav ovpapwv,
KVpie KVpie, KOI ov TTOieiTC
aW
a Aeyoo;
TTOicov
TO
[jlov
OeXrjjULa
Tov
To7<i
Trarpog
ovpavoi9.
tou
ev
(24) Tray ovp bcmg UKOvei jULOV TOVg XoyOVg TOVTOUg

KOI TTOiei aVTOV^
creTai
O/ULOlOoO)]-
(47) Tra? ovv ep-ôjuevos

CiKOVCOV JULOV irpOS jUL TOOV Xoycov Kai itolwv av-
Kai
avopl (ppovlfxa) o<tti9
T0V9,
viroSei^w
vjuliv
tlvi
WKoS6jUit](Tev
avTOv
rrjv
rj
Trjv
<TTIV OJULOlOg.
(4o) 0/U0109
oiKiav
ein
irerpav.
^po'^^rj
ecTTiv
(25) Koi Kare/B)]

Kai
jULOvvTi OLKiaVf
^XOov
ol TTorajuLoi Kai ol
avejuLoi
Kol
oikoSoavOpwirtp o? ecTKaêv ejSdOuvev Kai eO>]Kv

eiTL
hirvevtrav
Kai
OejueXiov
Trjp
ireTpav.
TTpocreTrea'ap
td
'
oiklol eKeivn,
7rXr]iujuLvpi]<}
Se
yevofxevr]^
Kai ovK eirecrev TeOejuieXicoTO
irpoceprjêv 6 TTOTajULO^ tjj

oiKia eKGLvyj Kai ovk 'icr'^crev craXeva-ai Sia to avTr]v
yap irerpav, (26) Ka\ Trag 6 ctKOvcov jjlov TOf?

XoyOVi
ri
cTrl rrjv
TOVTOVS
'^ p/
KOI
JULt]
KaXw^
(49)
fxr]
oiKoSojuLrjcrOai avTrjv.
TTOIWV aVT0V9 OJULOlCoOriCTCTai

^
ê
CLKOvara^
o/uloios
Kai
ecTTiv
aVOpi
jULtjarev
/ULCOpcV,
00-Tf?
WKOOOKai
TTOirja-a^
avTOV
ajuLjULOV.
rj
Ttjv oiKiav eiri
Trjv
(27)
Kai
avOpcoTTO) oiKiav eiri

OejULeXiov,
fi
oiKoSojurjcravTi
Ti]v
yT]v
"Xcopi^
Kare^r]
ol
^pO')(rj
Kai TjXOov
'iirveva-av
TTOTajuiol
TTpoaeprjêv 7roTajUL09y Kai evOvg crvveireKai eyevcTo
ol avefxoi kcu
TrpocriKoâv
Kai eirecreVf
orev,
to
prjyjua
Ti] oiKia cKeivHy
Ti]9 oiKiag eKeivt]9 fxeya.

Koi
71
^v
ij
TTTWcf?
auT??
(vii.
jULeyaXt],
(vii.
pwcrev
1) 7riSr] eifkriiravTa Ta prifxara

.
. .
28,
viii.
iyevero
'Irjcrovs
ore
5) koli iriXeo'ev 6
avrov
eia^XOev
els
Jâ(papuaov/UL.
Tovg Xoyovg tov.

.
T0U9
elareXQovTOS
,
Se
.
.
avTOV aV JâcpapvaovjUi
It
St.
may be
vi.
Luke
questioned whether St. Matt. vii. 21 and 46 are really derived from Q. The
source perhaps lies far in the background of and we may not with absolute certainty claim time,
common
the verse for Q. If, however, an attempt is made to reconstruct Q, then o Xeycov juloi Kvpte is, in respect of originality, certainly to be preferred to KaXeip jul6 Kvpie, " Father to " and " to do the will of words."
my
my
Matt. 22, 23 and St. Luke xiii. 26, 27 ai'e quite independent of one another (I have therefore refrained from printing these verses in the above passage), even
St.
though here also a common source lies far in the It is most probable that we have here background.
genuine
air
vjULiv,
instances
avTOis
ijuou
of
translation-variants
ovSeiroTC eyvoov
Ttjv
compare
'
6juLoXoyr](rcjo
on
vjulcls
airo-^w-
peiTG
ol
epyaCofievoi
avofxlav
with
ijuov
Xiyw
ovK OLoa TcoQev ecrre

aSiKtag.
air6(TTr]Te air
In regard to the parable which certainly stood in the common source, Wellhausen has remarked that in St. Luke it is more lifeiravres
epyarat
like,
and that
its
reference to the different characters
of the Christian community is more obvious and distinct. Even if this were so, it would have little weight
in determining the superior originality of St. Luke's
72
version. But I cannot share Wellhausen's impression, except perhaps in the case of the very descriptive
words
St.
Matthew
09 earKa'êv koI eâOuvev Kai eOrjKev OejUieXiov. often omits such descriptions, so that
these words are perhaps original (yet, on the other hand, we have ground for hesitation in the fact that the first two verbs are found in the New Testament
only in St. Luke ; a-Kairreiv again in xiii. 8 and xvi. 3 ; I shall, however, return to this As for the rest, point). the text of St. Matthew for the most part deserves
the preference (with perhaps the exception of vTroSel^co ktX. in St. Luke, for this viroSel^w receives a certain
attestation
iii.
from another passage
in Q, viz. St.
Matt,
St.
Luke iii. 7, and is once again omitted by Matthew in x. 28, cf. St. Luke xii. 5). The intro7
:
= St.
duction of the parable accordingly ran perhaps somewhat as follows Tra? ovv octtl^ aKovei /ulov tov^
\6yovg TOVTOvg koi

icTTiv
o/uioio<S'
iroiei
avrov^, VTroSei^co
vjuliv
tlvl
yet may very well be that vTroSel^co was inserted by St. Luke, and that the somewhat illogical future passive ojuloioSt. Orjcrerai has in this case a claim to originality.
ojuLOio'^
ecTTiv
kt\.
And
it
Matthew writes 7ra? Luke in better Greek

:
ovp
:
ocmg
aKovei koi
iroiei,
St.
irag ovv (ep-^ôjuLevo^ irpog fxe koi)
oLKOvoov Kai
iroicov.
St.
Matthew
:
writes
avSpi
in
rj
ocmg
St.
wKOoofxtjG-ev,
St.
Luke
aiSpcoTrw
St.
:
oikoSojulovvti.
Matthew, avrou rrjv oiKiav, Greek St. Matthew oiKiav.

:'
Luke
better
^po-^rj,
koi Kare^rj
and writes in the absolute St. Matthew genitive TrXrjjUiiuivpt]^ yepojuLei^rjs. thinks of storms of rain and wind, but to St. Luke it
St.
Luke avoids the vulgar
^po-^)^
seemed improbable that these could overturn a house,
TEXT
73
For ovk and he therefore supplies a flooded river. 24. xiii. Luke St. vide on as Lukan, supra 'la-vya-evi
St. Matthew writes: Luke more correctly St. Matthew writes
:
Tra? o clkovcov koi

:
jurj
ttolcov,
St.
6 Se
eirl
aKovaa?
tcai
fxt]
Troirjora^.
cause he saw that a
even on sand
man
berhv ol/uljulov, St. Luke could build a house firmly

rrjv
writes:
eirl
yrjv
X'^P^^^
OefxeXiov.
these words are certainly added by St. Luke, it is " therefore improbable that the " eOrjKev OefxeXiov This, occurring in a former verse stood in Q. " however, also renders " ecrKayêv kol efiaOvvev very
As
doubtful.
The original parable simply distinguished between the house on the rock and the house on the
Matthew
gives
it.
sand, just as St.
The thought that

is first
a good foundation depends upon labour
intro-
Luke, and was suggested by the words in Q reOefxeXlcoro iwl rtjv irirpav, where, however, the emphasis rests upon irerpav. Why indeed should St. Matthew have omitted this trait if he had found
duced by
:
St.
? On the other hand, it is quite the that simple contrast of "rock and intelligible " sand did not seem sufficient to a later writer, who reflected that still everything depended upon the
it in
his
exemplar
nature of laying a good foundation, whatever the the soil might be. Moreover, arujuLirLTrTeiv is certainly less original than the simple irlirreiv, and it is very of a great breach ai'e a clear that the words
speaking
correction
for " the falling

cppovijuog
/mcopos
In St.
Matthew
was great is a solecism. and jmwpo^ alone cannot be
"
claimed for
for
is
Matthew among the four

times in the
first gospel),
exclusively confined to St. evangelists (occurring seven

(ppopijuLo^
and
also occurs in
74*

Mark, twice
in
this gospel seven times (never in St.

St.
Luke). It is a most important point that St. Matt. vii. 28 and viii. 5 have a parallel in St. Luke vii. 1 ; for
from this it follows with certainty that even in Q large portions of the Sermon on the Mount occurred together, and that the Sermon was followed by the
But Cure of the Centurion's Servant in Capernaiim. both evangelists have altered the wording here for
;
eyeveTo ore ireXecrev
is
a phrase that
by St. Matthew (vide xi. 1, xiii. and the genitive absolute (eioreXOopro^ avrov), which is added, likewise shows the secondary character of the But the Lukan text of St. Matthew at this jôint. text is shown to be secondary by iireiS}] (never occurring in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John five times, however, in St. Luke''s gospel and Acts), in as well as by irduTa ra prj/mara (never occurring thrice again in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John St. Luke). There seems, therefore, no hope of recover;
often repeated 53, xix. 1, xxvi. 1),

is
ing the original wording of the source before the
words
St.
eicrtjXOcp
el^
Jâcpapvaovju.
Matt.
viii.
5:
St.
Luke
vii.
1-10.
EfVeXôi/TO?
eig
crrjXOeu avTco
ê
avTOu
irpo-
elcrrjXOev
vaovjuL.
e/9
Jâ(pap~
}â(papvaov/uL
(2)
eKaroPTapTeXcvrav, 69 {o) aKOv-
eKarovrap^09 irapaKaXcov avTOv (6) Kai XeycoW Kupie, o

Traig
julov
ôv
r]v
Se Tivoi oouXog KaKco?
6-ôov tJixeXXev
ê/^Xijrai ev
rn
avTip orag Se
evTiiui09.
Trepl
rod
irpos tcov
'hjarov
oiKia
TrapaXvTiKog,
oeivco^
aTrecTTeiXev
avrov
'Iou-
PacraviX6iJLevo<i,
(7) Xeyei
irpecr^vrepovî

'
75
oircog
avT(p
irevcrod
e'yo;
eXOcov Oepa(8) airoKpi-
oaicoVj epcoTcop
avTov
Se
avTOV.
6
eXOoov
avTov.
oiaa-wa-}]
top SovXov
irapa'Irj-
$19
(pi]'
eKaroPTapjôs
(4)
OL
el/uil Kvpie, iKavos iva fJLOV viro Triv
ovK
yepo/ULPOi
irpog
tov
(Tovv
<rTyr]v eicreXOi]^'
jjLOVov
aWa
kol
/jlov,
TrapcKaXovv avTov
a-TTOvoaloog,
XeyovTC^
CD
otl
elire
Xoyto^
6
a^LO<s
(TTiv
Trape^r]
laQi]G-6TaL (9) Kal

TTOS
eifjii
7rai9
TOVTO,
(5)
ayaTTOL
kcjli
yap
t^v
yap
iyo) avOpooVTTO eôvariav,
TO
crev
eOvo's
y]jJ.(Jiv
(TVvay(joyt]P
rifjuv.
avTo? wKOOOjur](6) 6 ê
'I;;croi/?
j^Sr]
e/mavrov (rrpaTicorag^Kal Xeyco tovto)'

e-^cov vir'
CTTopeveTO
Se
crvv avTOL<s.
TTopevOtjTi, Ka] TTOpeveTai, Kai aWo)' epyôv, Kai Ka\ tw epyêrai,
avTOv ov juaKpav aireyovTO^ airo r^y oiKia^,

eTre/ULyêv
oovXcp
JULOV
TTolrjarov
Tap-^t]g
fxr]
(piXovg 6 cKaTOvXeycov avTu>

'
TOVTO, Ka\ TTOiet, (10) aKOvcras oe o irjcrovg

eOavjuLaaev ToTy aKoXovOovcriv
eyct)
vjULiv,
cTKvXXov OV
eijuLi
yap
viro
Kvpie, iKa-
V09
iva
JULOV
Ttjv
Kai
cLirev
ajmrjv
CTeytjv
TTpog eiire
(T
eicreXO)]^'
(7) Sio ovSe ijULavTOv ^plcocra
ovoe
ev
T(p
eXOeiv
aXXa
ÎcrpaijX
TOdavTrjv
elirev
tt/ct-
Xoyw,
juov.
TLV evpop.
(13) Kai
TO)
0)9
6 6 Îtjcrov^
viraye^
xaT?
Kai laO/iTco (8) Kai yap

elfxi
eKaTOVTap-^y
eiricTTevcra's
eyco VTTO
JULV09y
apOpcoTTOs
iôvcriap
ey^WP
VTT*
Tacrcro'
yevtjQrjTOi)
ejULaVTOP
aoi' Kai laOrj 6 waig ev tj]

CO
G-TpaTUOTaî Kai Xeyoo
pa
KLVl].
TOVTW'
TTOpevOtjTi^ Kai
iropeveTai, Kai aXXo)Kai ep-yTai, Kai p-)(ôv,

Tip
SovXw
JULOV TTOlijarOP
TTOiei.
TOVTO,
Kai
(9)
76

CLKOvcrag
^lt](jov9
Se
ravra
6
av-
eOav fxacrev
Kai tm <jTpa(pig aKoXovOovvTi avTO)0'^(p

TOVy
eiTTCP
v
Aeyci) vjmiv,
ovoe
T(p 'IcrparjX TocravTt]V TTKTTIV VpOV.
(10)
IS
Koi.
viro(TTpe>âvT<i
OL
TTejULCpOei'Teg
TOP OLKOV
evpov Tov
vovra.
SovXov
vyial-
In this section at
traits in
St.
St. St.
least
it
is
obvious
that
all
Luke
Matthew Q, and that Matthew thus transmits the source in the more The two deputations to our Lord original form.
are
(in place of the personal interview of the centurion) a later addition. This is strikingly shown the fact that the (1) by long speech which St. Luke
from or do not proceed from

different
in addition to
assigns to the friends

if it
is
intelligible
and appropriate
was spoken by the centurion himself, and only because also in St. John (iv. 46 ff.) the centurion (2) comes himself. An attempt to distinguish (âaiXiKog) between that portion of the additional matter in St. Luke which perhaps came to him through tradition, and that for which he himself is solely responsible, is under such circumstances unnecessary. I would only remark that evrijuLo^ (verse 2), ol irapayevo/uLci/oi
(verse
4),
cnrovSaico^
(verse
4),
juaKpav
the aTre-êLv (verse 6), ^l6 (verse 7), aîovv (verse 7), far as as the rdaro-ea-Oai are, passive (verse 8) gospels

are
77
concerned, exclusively Lukan (Slo alone occurs once in St. Matthew) ; and, again, that it is in the
Luke to supply objects to the verbs verse 10 and St. Luke verse 9), Matthew (cf, and likewise to add rh (cf* St. Matthew verse 5 and St. Luke verse 2). Again, Siacrwêiv can be claimed
style
of St.
St.
as
reCKev
Lukan, as well as the alternation between airecr(verse 3) and cTre/AxJ/ei/ (verse 6), and the It cannot be shown pleonastic arpacpei^ (verse 9).
that St.
Matthew has altered the text of Q (note other things the eyw of verse 7, which is so among characteristic of Q) moreover, traces of this text
;
still
the
appear thi'oughout St. Luke's version, even at beginning of the nai'rative where the transis
formation
verse 7, while SovXog
so complete (vide also ttcus of St. Luke is used in verse Thus roig 2).
aKoXovOovciv (St. Luke, to? aKoKovOovvri avro) o^Xw) is also With the original, probably also the ajmriv.
compare St. Luke The (St. 85). concluding verse has a completely different form in St. Matthew and
/uLrj
cTKvXXov of St.
Luke
v.
verse 6,
viii.
49
Mai'k
St.
Luke.
Later
I shall give
what
believe to be
sufficient justification
for the
bold hypothesis that
this verse did
Here I would only not stand in Q. viii. 13 is almost that St. Matt, out exactly point like St. Matt. xv. 28 (Canaanitish woman), while St. Luke winds up the passage with a conclusion
of conventional character.
St.
Matt.
vjULtv
viii.
11
St.
Luke
6
xiii.
28,
29
A.eyoo Se
OTi TToWoi
Ka\ Sua--
ckci ecrrai 6
KXavO/mog
airo
avaroXwv
Kal
^pvyjULog
twv
OF THE
UNIVERSITY
-A
78
"
IJ.CJOV

y
ijôvcTLv
Kai
avaK-
oSov TOOV
Kai
Tovg
oTav
Ka\
Kai
byj/ecrOt
XidriarovTaL lULera 'A^/3Ka\ 'Icraa/c Kai paajUL

'IaKU)/3
'A./3paajUL
'Icraa/c
Trai^ra?
'laKCDJS
Til
/3a(Ti-
'Trpo(^Y}Ta'5
ev
r^
vjuLoig
Xeia
Xe/a?
Tcov
ovpavwv'
fiacri-
(12) ol Se vLOi T^9

eig
âcriXeia tov Oeov, Se K/3aWojULPOV9

(29)
Kai
eô).
eK/3\ri6y](rovTai
yjôvcriv
airo
[eêXeucTOVTai]
<tk6to<;
to
e/ceT
avaToXoov Kai
Svcrjucov
to e^coTepov
(TTai 6 K\av6/UL09 Kai o

/SpvyjuLog
Kai [aTTo] /Boppa Kai votov, Kai avaK\iQri<TOVTai ev

Til
Twv oSovtwv.
âa-iXela tov Oeov.
If
clauses
we represent the order of

of St.
1,
the
component
Matthew''s
2,
the series
2% 2\
version of the saying by 3, 4, then the order of St.
It given by the series 4, 2^ 2, 3, 1, 2% 2. is here evident that 4 occupies a false position at the beginning, for ckci is thus out of connection (it does
is
Luke
xiii. 27) ; hence 4 after 3, the 2 (iv Tij /SacriXeia order of St. Matthew, is original T. 6.) occurs twice in St. Luke, which of itself shows
not connect with
that
2*'^'
belong together, and that 2* (koi amKXiOtjthe beginning,
o-ovTai) is thus in place at The order of St. after 1.
coming
is
Matthew
in
is
accordingly
original.
The change of order
St.
Luke
due
to the transposition of 4 (e/cet kt\.) to the beginning, This required for which the reason is not obvious.
further transpositions that the oypêcrOe (so
and
also the interpolation
of
thought of the passage now reminds us of the Rich Man in Hades). UdvTa^ also Tovg TrpoOrJTag is also secondary oyêaOe with If in St. Matthew, double accusative is Lukan.
;

ePeKeiKTOVTai
it
is is
79
the right reading,
as
is
probable,
N^phaq, vide which acts as the passive to Appeq (cKâXXeiv) WelUiausen ; but St. Luke here has not given a new and better translation of the Aramaic word, but
then the translation of the Aramaic
has simply
replaced
in
the
poor
Greek eêXeva-ourai
ei9
by
St.
Kl3aX\ojuL6vovg.
The phrase
the
t.
(tkoto^
t.
e^wrepov
occurs
New
Testament
only in
Matthew, and that thi'ice (vide xxii. 13, xxv. 30). Here also it is inserted by the evangelist, who again
probably introduced ttoXXo/ at the beginning (elsewhere it is not unusual for St. Luke to supply subjects On the other hand, Borras and to subjectless verbs). Notos certainly belong to the Hellenic evangelist.
[St.
^f.VOL
Matt.
Se
X. 7:
iropevo-
[St.
Luke
ix.
aTreV-
Ktjpvararere Ktjpi
Xerj
reiXev
avrov^
Krjpvarcreiv
yovTcg
PaoriXeia
OTL
tjyyiKev
ovpavwv,']
Trjv /SacriXeLav
tov Oeov koc

dv eicreXXeolku)
f}
twv
ia<jQaL\.
elg
(12) elcrepyoiJLevoi Se
(x. 5)
etV rjv S'
Ttjp oiKiav ao'TraaracrOe av-
OrjTe
oiKiav,
TrpcoTOv
TYjV (It^) Kai eav jmev f] ri ^ yt 1 t If f 'A/1' oiKia aîa, eAuarct) rj eip-qvrj
vfJLWV ir
II
yeT'
tovto).
eiprivr}^
tw
(d) Kai eav
eKei
avTYjv*
eav oe
îrj
fioj ipr]Vi]g, eTravairaYjaeTaL

eir
a^La,
rj
elprjvr] vjulcov ttjOO?
avTOV
/Jiy]ye,
rj
eip7]vtj
v/ulwv
ei
vjUias
7ri(TTpa(p^Tco.
oe
em
:
vjmai
ava-
(24) ovK <7TLv juaOrjTtjg TOV oLoacrKaAov ovoe virep
Ka/uL^êi.
(vi.
IULa6t]Tr]9
40)
OVK
ecTTLV
SovXo9
avTOv.
jULaOrjTi],
virep
tov
Kvpiov
virep
tov
SiSdar-
(25) apK6Tov
tw
o 6
KoXov*
avTOv.
%a
o
SiSaa-KaXos
avTOV,
yivrjTai koI
o)?
KaTtjpTiG-jULevog Tra? ecTTai 009 6 SiSdcrKaXog
Se
SovXo9
ft>?
aVTOV. KVpiO'S
80
St.

Matt.
Luke has transformed the direct discourse of X. 7 into narrative. The words kol lacrOai are a Lukan interpolation, as is suggested by the fact that our Lord's work of healing is the chief point of
St.
interest
with
St.
Luke.
to
He
also
delights
to give
special emphasis disciples. Again, the record that the Kingdom was the subject of their preaching is of later character than
the
Mission
of the
the tradition that it consisted of the proclamation " It is, however, very questionable whether ijyyiKev.'''' we are at all justified in assigning this clause to Q.
The
conjunctive relative (St.

is
Luke
x. 5) is
a con-
struction which
very frequent in St. Luke, belonging to the characteristics which distinguish his style from
those of the other evangelists, with whom it is of rare occurrence. EfVeX^^^re is a grammatical improve-
ment upon
elcrep'ôiJLevoi.
St.
v.
Luke has
47
;
also avoided
aa-TraXea-Qai in St.
Matt.
he substitutes the
words of the greeting itself, deriving them from what follows. It is also undoubtedly due to later reflexion
that the worthiness of a single inhabitant of the house replaces the worthiness of the whole house. " sons Moreover, St. Luke elsewhere uses the
phrases,
"" " of this generation {I.e. and xx. " of consolation " (Acts iv. 36), of the Resurrec34),
of
light'" (xvi. 8),

'"
**'
tion
St.
(St.
Luke
XX. 36).
Nothing similar
is
found in
Matthew. St. Matt. X.
used absolutely, is also found in "Aîo's^ 11 and xxii. 8 ; St. Luke has avoided
it
^îravairayâ-erai (on linguistic grounds rightly), (for eXOoLTCt) eir avrriv) is found again in the New Testament only in Rom. ii. 17, and shows by the
it
is
repeated preposition that
alien to the simple
TEXT
81
St. Luke reads i for edv, as language of the source. in St. Matt. v. 46, 47 (el is rare in Q). (vide supra) The middle eTria-rpecpea-Oai is avoided by St. Luke in
the gospel and the Acts

St.
(see,
v.
Matt.
ix.
it
22 ;
St.
Mark
30,
on the other hand, viii. 33 St. John

;
xxi. 20) ; In St.
probably belonged to the vulgar idiom. Matt. X. 24 f., St. Luke seems to me to have
the
clause
it
omitted
trivial.
servant because
concerning the lord and the was superfluous and sounded quite
That the second half of the verse in St. Luke proceeds from the same source as St. Matthew, is shown by the words wy 6 SiSda-KaXog avrov. It is
therefore impossible to accept Wellhausen's theory that we have here an instance of faulty translation
from the Aramaic, and that
Tra? must be taken has often inserted Luke adverbially 7ra?, and the reason why he has here made such drastic Verse 25 in St. Matthew (i.e. changes is easily seen.
= perfectly). (
St.
in
the
source)
sounded as
if
without
difficulty
become as
his
every scholar could master ; St. Luke

in-
somewhat pedantically wished to make such an
ference impossible. Also KarrjpTiarjuLiuos, which does not occur elsewhere in the gospels, though indeed in St. Paul (Rom. ix. 22; 1 Cor. i. 10; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ;
Heb. xi. 3), is a word of somewhat choice charand hence points to the style of St. Luke. 'ApKGTov occurs once again in St. Matt. vi. 34, otherwise not in the New Testament (St. Matt. vi. 34 also comes probably from Q, but the parallel is wantcf.
acter,
ing in St. Luke).
The
text of St.
Matthew
in this
Even passage shows no trace of secondary elements. the Viyy LKev of verse 7 is original ; the narrative form
82

it
of the parallel verse in St. Luke made easy to include this word, vide supra.
St.
not very
Matt.
VjULlU
X.
27:
o
Til
St.
Luke
xii.
ocra ev
XeyCO
eig
ev
T^
(TKOTLOLf
OTKOTLa
eWaTe,
ev
rw
enrare ev
rw
(pcoTC
Kai b
TO
Koi.
ovg
cttI
jmrj
aKOvere, K>]pvtcop
Scoiuloltcov.
âre
(28)
Toov
(Tcojixa,
kou o (pcoTl aKOvcrQrjdeTai, TO ovg e\d\}]craTe ev irpog T019 Tajueioig, KrjpvyOrjcreTaL

eiri
(po/SeicrOe
airo
Tcov SoojULdTO)v. (4) Xeyo)

vjuLiv
airoKTevvovToov
Trjv
to
fJLr]
Se
jULi]
TOig
(piXoig
juov,
ê
^v^v
(pojStjOfJTe
airo
toov
croojuLa
SvvajuLevcov aTroKTelvai' (poSe juluWov tov êicrOe
airoKTevvovTWv
Kai jiieTa
to
juLtj
TavTa
e-ôvToov
Troitja-ai"
koi y^v^rjv Kai ev yeevvr]. aTToXecrat acojULa
Svvajuevov
TrepicraroTepov
ti Se
(5) virooeiôo
(poPt]0}]Te'
lULeTa
vjuliv
Tiva
(29)
ov')Q.
Svo
(TTpovdla
eiri
acTcrapiov
ircoXeiTai ; Kai ev
TreareiTai
(po/3rj6r]Te tov to airoKTelvai e-ôvTa
e^ avTcov ou
Trjv yrjv
vjULCov,
eôvcriav e/m/SaXeiv eig t]V
aveu tov TraTpo^ (30) vjuLcov Se koi at

elcnv.
yeevvav vat, \eyoo vjuliv, TOVTOV (pol3}]0r}T. (6) OV-^l

irevTe
Tplye^
ovv
Ttjg Ke<pa\r]9 iraarai
^piOjuLfj/mevai
(31)
jjLri
crTpovOia TrooXovvTai Kai ev ef acrcrapioov ovo;

avToov ovK ecTTiv eTTiXeXrja-fxevov
evooTTiov
(boêlaOe
iroWtov
(TTpovOicov Sia<pepeTe vjuLeh.
tov
Oeov.
(32) Tra? ovv ocrTig ojuloXoy7](TeL
(7)
aXXa
Ka\ at
Tpiye<i Trjg
ev
ejmoi
ejuLirpocrOev
Ke(f)aXr]g vjULoov Tracrai rjplBjULrjvTai.

lULt]
TOOV avOpcoTTCOv, 6lJLo\oyY)(J(J0 ev avT(p Kciyoo
(poêicrOe' ttoX-
ejULirpocrOev
Xcov
TOV
iraTpos
fJ-ov
tov ev
(8) Xeyoo
(TTpovOloov Sia<pepeTe. Se vjuliv, Tra? o?

ev
ejuol
T019 ovpavoh, (33) octti^ Se apvr]crt]Tai jme ejuLTrpocrOev

To/
av
ejuLTrpoG-Qev
ojuoXoyârt] toov
avOpooiroov,
avOpwircov, apv/icro/mai
Kai
O VLOg TOV
avOpooTTOV
Kayco avTOV ejuLirpoaOev rod
ojuiGXoyyja-eL
TEXT
ev
83
/ul-
avTM
Trarpog
ovpavoig.
ôv tou
ev
Toh
rcov ayyeXcov tov TrpocrOev Oeov. (9) o Se apv)](Td~

JUL6V09
/Lie
eVWlTLOV
TCOV
avOpcoTTCov
airapvfjQricreTaL
evcoTTiov t(jov
ayyeXoov tov
Oeov.
Wellhausen
recognises,
in
his
remarks
on
St.
Luke is here secondary. 7, he wished that our Lord should not appear Probably As he had already used eiirare as a mystagogue.
Matthew
verse
that St.
in the protasis he wrote aKOva-Qrja-eTai in the apodosis, and then he was again obliged to alter aKovere and
to replace it
ef?
by
St.
eXaXi^craTe
moreover,
ctKoveiv
TO
ovq offended his sense of style as

;
with an uncouth
correct
construction
Luke
ov<i.
substitutes the
XaXelv
TTjOo?
to
Again, oca
is
more more
correct
than
Then KtjpvâTc is changed into KtjpvvOija-eTai to ear aKovG-Oyja-eTai. parallel Finally, the contrast, and housetop," was too grotesque for the Hellenic he therefore softened it by interpolating " in artist the secret chambers.''"*
o.
;
Coming
to St.
Matthew
verse 28,
we
see that the
can scarcely be original. Xeyci) vjULiv toi9 (piXoi'S julov St. Luke felt the faulty connection of the two verses,
and therefore begins a new paragraph moreover, " " is a characteristic word which belongs both (piXoi to the Lukan and the Johannine writings. M^ is more elegant than jmr] (po/Beia-Qe (St. Luke (pop}]OrJT
;
has allowed the present in St.

stand).
St.
Matthew
verse 31 to
Luke
says
nothing
concerning
" the
84

"
slaying of the soul ; it is not clear for what reason " the soul " in verse I conjecture (he also omits 5). " " that the slaying of the soul was a monstrous idea to the Hellenic evangelist (and besides ri
irepia-croTepov
The vTroSel^co of St. Luke betrays the Lukan style). may be original, but need not be so (vide on St.
Matt.
is
vii.
24)
it
incorrect Greek.
;
stands in place of juloXKov, which Again, awoXea-ai ev yeivvri is bad

substitutes ijULâXeiv eig. By the and (po^YiOrjre at the close of the
Greek
St.
Luke
repetition of
verse, St.
to its importance. Naturally this emphasis is not original. The existence of the variants, " two sparrows for " a farthing and " five sparrows for two farthings "
Xeyw Luke yet again points
Had sparrows become (verse 29*), is an enigma. cheaper ? In 29^ no one will doubt that St. Matthew This is shown also in the has the original text.
phraseology ivooTriov is peculiar to St. Luke among the synoptists (it does not occur in St. Matthew and St. Mark), and ovk ecrriv eTriXeXrja-fjL. is the
:
language of literature.
for
St.
Oeos (vide supra
on
St.
Matthew's irarhp vjucou Matt. vi. 26) is alone
secondary. In St. Matthew verse 30, St. Luke''s arrangement of the words is grammatically more correct, but that
of St. Matthew better suits the sense, and is accordingly more original; i^plO/uLrjvrai is of course a correction for
i^piOjuLr]juiPai
etcrlv.
St.
Luke
replaces the
weak
by the stronger word aXKa. In St. Matthew verse 31, Wellhausen

ê,
asserting translation
is right in that we have here an instance of false
from the Aramaic
(iroWtiov in place of
St.
TEXT
85
TToXXw); but the error already occurred in Q, for Luke also gives a similar text. The pronominal
(v/uLek) is
subject
St.
omitted by
f.
:
St.
Luke, as
is
so often
the case.
The
ovv in St.
St.
Matt. 32
Matthew is doubtful. Luke again marks the new
thought by introducing the words Xeyco Se vjuliv. " Son of Man," which he reads in his version of verse for in verse 33 he also has the 32, cannot be original
;
"I" (like St.

r.
Matthew
;
in
both
places).
However,
ayyeXcov is certainly original (vide St. c/m-TrpoG-Oev Mark viii. 38) here again we find support for the theory that St. IMatthew has probably often inserted " Father which is in heaven," " the the
phrases,
my
which is in heaven," into his source. In as well verse 33 both the participle 6 apvrjardiuevo^ as evwiriov and aTrapvrjOrjcreTai (for apvTjcrojuai Kayu)
Father
avTov) are
fi-equently
St.
Lukan
(St.
Luke
uses the
passive
more
than the other evangelists).

X.
Matt.
OTi
eiTL
34:
fjL^
St.
Luke
xii.
51
voiuLL(rt]T
Ôov
Trjv
eip^vrjv
yrjp'
jSokeiu ovk
SoKiT6 OTI
yevofxrjv
ov)(îf
elprjvriv
irapeyii;
t]
Sovvai ev
vjuliv,
tu
*]\0ov jSaXetv
IJia-âipav.
Si)(a(Tai
eiprivrjv
aXKa
Aeyco
a\\
(35) jjXOov
avOpcoTTOV
yap
koI
Siajuepia-jULOV.
(53) Siajuep-
Kara
KrOrjcrovTai Trarrjp eiri vlw
Tov
Trarpo^
avTOv
Kai UL09
CTTf
7rl
eiri
Ouyarepa Kara
avTr]<s
rJy? iuLt]Tpo9
Ovyaripa
Tr]i/
Trarpc, Kai
/uLJjrrjp
OuyaTtjp
irevQepa
Kai Wfi(f)t]v
Kara t^?
[(37)
5y
/uL}]Tepa,
pv/j.<pT]v
irevOepag avr^^.
(piXcov
eiri
Tt]v
avrtjg Ka\
virep
iraTepa ovk ijuie

Kai o
jmtjTepa
/ulov
r}
vv/uL(pt]
eiri
Tt)v
Gi
irevOepav.
'icrTLV
[(xiv.
26)
IJ.
Ti9 epyerai
agios'
(piAoov
viov
TTpo^
Kai ov [xiaei tov
86
Ouyarepa

virep
lyite
ovk
irarepa
avTOv
Kai
Trjv
(TTIV jULOV aîo^.]
Kai Tt]V yvvaiKa Ka\ juLrjrepa TO. TGKva Kai Tovs dSe\(bovg Kai rag dSeXcpd?,
en
T Kai
Tr]p
eauTOv y^v^rjp,
juLaOtj-
ov Svparai eipai fxov
(38) Kai o? ov \a/uL/3avL
Tov
crravpov
avTov
jULOV,
Kai
CLKoXovOel
OTrKTOt)
OVK
(xiv. 27) ocrrig ov BacrTaYei TOP (TTavpop eavTOV Kai oiria-w jjlov^ ov ep-^Tai
ecTTiv fjiov aîog.
ovpaTai
Trjv "^v^rjv
eipai /ulov /maOrjT^g.
(39) 6 evpwv
(xvii.
Tt]P
avTOv airoXecrei
6
ctTToXecras'
avTYjv^ Kai
33) 09 cap ^rjTTjcri} Y^X^^ avTOv Trepia'lroXecrei
Tt]V
ejuLov
y^v^t]v
evpricreL
Troi^cracrOai
TTJP,
av-
avTOv eveKev
avTYiv,
O?
o'
ap
oLTToXecTei
YwoyoPYicrei avTr)p.
vjULcig
ejULC
(40) 6 êypiievo'i Kai o ejuLe d-^Tai,

Se-êrai Se-ôjmepog air ocTTelXavT a [xe.
(X.
ejuLOV
aKoveij Kai
e/uLe
16) O aKOVWP VjULCOV 6 dOeToov

aueTci' o oe e/xe
top
v/ma^
aOeTCOP aOeTei top airoo"-
TciXapTa
In
St.
jue.
Matthew
verse 34,
we
;
find that St.

vojULiortjTe
Luke has
oti
again inserted XeycD vjulip. occurs also in St. Matt. v. 17

(St.
M^
SoKeiTc
xii.
is
;
^XOov found in Q
is
Matt. xxiv. 44
= St. Luke
44)
yet there
some doubt whether this verse belongs to Q. As, however, St. Luke has here the interrogative form, which he has often obliterated elsewhere, we must
decide in his
favour,
îprjpfjp
Sovpai
;
ip
tJi
yij
is
is a certainly an improvement in style Trapeyepojuirjp choicer word than tjXQop^ and SiajuLepia-juLOP (here only

in
87
the
the
New
Testament) than
ij.a')(aipav,
lastly,
arrangement of the words in St. Luke shows more The same stands good of St. Matthew artistic skill.
verse 35
= St. Luke
verse
53
of
SiaiiApL(T/uL6<s
was the
for
cause
of the
substitution
SiajULepicrOjia-oPTaL
^XOov ^Lyaa-ai (the latter word is wanting in the LXX, and may also have been disliked by St. Luke)
;
irarrip
eir\
vlw
Km
vlo<s
eir\
irarpi
is
more
correct than
the
awkward
St.
symmetry
law."
tov irarpo^ avrov. avOpcoirop Kara Luke also repeated the "mother
For and
" mother-in-law and daughter-indaughter," and the

It is difficult to
come to a
It
definite decision con-
cerning the relationship of St.

St.
Matthew
verse
37 to
is
Luke
xiv. 26.
may be doubted whether Q

however certain
it
is
here the
common
source,
that
It
lies in the ultimate background. probable that St. Luke is strongly influenced by St. Mark x. 29, that juna-eip, and likewise en re kcu (re is Lukan), must be assigned to him, that he has formed the conclusion of this verse after the pattern of the one which follows, and that St. Matthew has
some such source

is
(This may also preserved the text of Q unaltered. is not which be true of St. IMatthew verse 36, printed
in eyOpoi tov avOpcloTrov [vide avOpcoiro^ the Luke omitted St. verse 35] ol oiKiaKol avrov. whole verse because it seemed to him quite super-
above
kol
fluous after verse 35.)
The
saying of St.
Matthew
verse 38, occurs twice
in both St. Matthew and St. Luke and once in St. Mark. The two forms printed above are derived from a single source, since they are both negative in
88
form, while the other three begin with el rf? OeXei, Again it is the original form of the negative version
which occurs in
St. Matthew: this evangelist writes while St. o?j Luke, in better Greek, writes ocni^, the '' former speaks of " taking the cross, St. Luke of " " of course, is intended to mean bearing ( taking,""
St. Matthew writes "bearing"). pleonastically (acto Semitic cording idiom) aKoXovOeiv oV/o-ft), St. Luke
corrects
St.
it
into
ep'êcrOai
oirlcrM.
On
each occasion
for ovk
Luke
writes ov SuvaTai etvm

aîog.
/ulov
/maOrjTJ]?
ecTTiv jULov
One understands how the former
phrase could have taken the place of the latter, but not how the latter could have replaced the former
(concerning the avoidance of aîog, vide
sv/piâ
on
St.
Matt.
X. 13).
The saying of St. Matt. x. 39 is one of the two sayings of our Lord which is found in all four gospels St. Matt. xvi. (twice in St. Matthew and St. Luke). 25 and St. Luke ix. 26 are derived from St. Mark viii. 35 thus St. Matt. x. 39 and St. Luke xvii. 33 come
;
from
St.
(in all the six versions the expression airoX'^v')(fiv
\veLv rhv
is
words Trepnroieia-Oai (vide Acts XX. 28 1 Tim. iii. 13) and Acts l^cooyoveiv (vide vii. 19 ; 1 Tim. vi. 13), which are wanting elsewhere
;
Luke here
found). uses the
in the gospels they are doubtless secondary ; in sense that is, with the Aramaic they are identical with
crcolêiv
ahi" (vide Wellhausen). Moreover, the IC.Vtwh of St. Luke is very suspicious; for in St. Matt. vii. 13 (St. Luke xiii. 24) this evangelist has again interSt. Luke evidently regarded the polated X*l'^W0V(nv.
expression rhv
'^^'x}iv
evpeip
as not clear
enough
St.
89
John also has replaced it by (ptXeiv rrju yp^v)(^v. Only we are surprised to find that in this verse St. Matthewhas the participle and St. Luke the finite verb (with
09 edv)
case.
;
St.
elsewhere almost always the reverse is the Luke was probably influenced by his ver-
sion
of St.
Mark which he had
given previously in
ix. 24.
"Ei/e/cei/ ejuiou is
interpolated
by
St.
Matthew
(from
St.
Mark). Matt. X. 40
all
St.
The second
In
the other of the two utterances of our
half of this saying is Lord which are
found in
four gospels.
St.
Mark
ix.
37 we find
:
the saying concerning the reception of the little child (in whom Jesus Himself is received), which concludes
Kai
09
av
ejULc
oeyj^rai^
ovk
ejULC
oeyeTai
aWa
tov
a7ro(TTi\avTd
St. St.
julc.
Upon
this passage are
dependent
Matt,
xviii.
ix.
Luke
5 (but without the second half) and 48 kol o? dv e/ue Se^rjraii Si)(Tai tov
:
airoa-TelXavrd
/xe.
In the three other passages (the

St.
two printed above and

av TLva
\a/uLl3dvi
Tre/jLyô)
John
xiii.
20
6 Xa/uL^dvwv
Xa/UL^dvcov
ejae
Xafx/Sdvei,
Se
ejue
TOV TTCfxyâvTa jtxe) the reference is to the The reception of those who preach the gospel. and St. John in this of St. Matthew agreement
saying (St.
John
Matthew XaiuL^dveiv and
ê>ê<70at
7re/>t\{/-at
genuine
and
aTroa-TeiXaif
St.
translation-
variants) suggests the conclusion that St. Luke has The motive here arbitrarily altered and amplified.
is
clear
St.
from the
slight alteration
made by
St.
John.
In
Matthew (Q) the saying
applies to the reception
This application of the direct apostles of our Lord. no longer suited the circumstances of a later time, and more particularly of the Diaspora. Therefore
90

'"*
we read in St. John 6 Xa/uâvcov av riva TrejuLyjrcOi and " into " hearing St. Luke changes " reception (in the
sense of " obeying "), with
nought."" 8 o aOcTcov ovk avOpoiirov aOerei
:
contrast " setting at For aOereii^ in St. Luke, vide 1 Thess. iv.
its
St.
Luke
vii.
30
It
rrjv pov\r]i/
the thought in St.

fxe
SuJoKeig.
is
aXXa tov Oeov (and rod Oeov tjOerrjcrav) for Luke, vide Acts ix. 4 2aoJX, r/
;
:
thus proved that in the two last Lukan text is again secondary, although, owing to the marked difference between
verses of this section the
St.
Matt.
X.
40 and
St.
Luke
x. 16, it
must remain
doubtful whether this very widely circulated saying occurred in Q.

St.
Matt.
xi.
2:
'O
ev
Sh
tco
St.
Luke
vii.
18,
19:
'Icoavvtji
aKovarag
koi air^yyeiXav 'Icoavvei ol

fJLaOtjral
êorjJLWTrjplcp
ra epya tov
Sia
avrov
Kai
irepi
iravTWV
Twp
nre/j.â's ^piG-TOv, avrov jmaOtjTcov
tovtcov.
irpocTKaKea-d-
jmevog Svo Tiva<}
rwv
jma-
elirev avrcp*
OrjTcov
avrov
looavvijg
eirefji'êv
irpb^
rov
KvpLov \ey(av'
St. Luke has already told us (iii. 20) that St. John the Baptist had been imprisoned, it was not therefore necessary to mention this again ; but something of the
in Q hence the ev rw To hear is Matthew original. SecrjuLcortjpLO) on the other the works" is an awkward expression hand, the corresponding passag of St. Luke is of the
sort
must have been mentioned

of St.
pression
conventional type likewise, ire/jLy^rai Sid gives an imof greater originality than the irpoa-Koke;
o-djuLV09 (cirejuyêv)
of the formal gospel
style.
Lastly,

the interpolation of riveg the repetition of the name
in
91
verse
18
is
and o Kvptos is Lukan, and John shows that the version not original. St. Matthew has thus
preserved the text of Q.

St.
Matt.
')(^r]Te
xvii.
20^:
St.
Luke
xvii.
el
htav
irLCTLv wg
eêre
ttlottlv w<s
kokkov
KOKKOv
T(p
o-ivaireoog,
'
epeire
'
CTLvaTrecog,
(rvKajuivo)
eXeyere av rrj
î^^p^^-
jULeralSa opei TOVTcp evQev 6Kt Koi /ULeTajBijcreTai
(ravri])
coOrjTt Kai (pVTevOrjTL ev
t^
OaXaa-ariJ
Kai
V7rr]K0vcrv
dv
St.
VJULIV.
often the case, has written el for recognise that St. Luke has " " the " the mountain " a refig tree by replaced miniscence of the " Cursing of the fig tree," which he
Luke, as
is
edv.
The commentators
omitted.
St.
Matt,
xviii.
12
rl
St.
Luke
XV.
r/y
VfjLiv
SoKi;
eav yevrjTat
avOpco'TTog e^
v/mcov e^coi/
TiPi
avOpwTTw cKarov nrpoâTa Kai irXavfjOr] ev

ovyî
cKpyjcrei
cKarop
aTToXecra?
TTpo/Bara Kai e^ avrcov ev ov
^ avTcov,
TO,
TO.
KaraXeiirei
ra
evevi]-
evevYjKovTa evvea eiri Kai TTopevOeig opr]
Kovra evvea
Kai
ev r/; eprjjiKp
CTTl
iropeverai
evpcov
TO
f);Te? TO Tr\av(jdiJivov ; (13) Ka\ eav yivtjrai evpeiv
airoXooXog ewg eupu avro;

(5) Kai
eiri
eTriTiOrja-iv
avTOf
aiJLr]v
Xeyco
v/ulip,
on
T0v<s
co/uiovg
avrov
')(âipi
f]
eir
avrw jmaWou
iirl
Toig VVi]KOVTa ivvea

TTGirXavriiJi.evoig,
Kai eXOcov etV "âipcov, (6) Tov oiKOV arvvKoXei Tovg
T019
M^
(plXovg
Ka] Tovg yeirovag,
Xeycov
avT0i9'
awâptjre
92

yWOf,
on
jULov
Tov
evpov to irpoâTO aTToXwXof. (7)

oti ovTCog
Xeyco
vjuiv
wapa
rj
ecTTai ev T(p ein evi ovpavix)
ajuapTcoXu)
eiri
/neTavoovvTi
evevYjKOVTa evvia SiKal-
ovs,
oWipes ov -^pelav e-ôv-
ariv jULTavola<}.
St.
in the apodosis
Matthew has the principal interrogative clause St. Luke by using the participial
;
construction (as so often) makes the whole into one
The former is original, likeinterrogative sentence. wise the awkward ylvea-Qai (St. Luke eyeiv). The
e^
vfxihv
of St. Luke
is
Luke
writes aTroXecrag for
out of good connection. St. ir\avi]6iii because with his
construction he was compelled to avoid the change of subject. KaraXeiVa is an evident correction for
the clumsy a(py](7i. 'Exf to, opt] and eV t^ ipyjjULw be as translation-variants, if it were might regarded
probable from other passages that St. Luke had knowledge of the Aramaic original of Q ; St. Luke has here repjlaced the special by the more general
Again, he writes to aTroXcoXo?, because he aTroXecra?, St. Matthew gives to TrXavco/mevov (in accordance with the TrXavrjOij of his
term.
had already written

text).
Tlopeuerai eirl to is good Greek for TropeuOeh The un-Hellenic phrase iav yei^rjTat evpeiu is ^rjTei. Here, therefore, the replaced by the correct evpwv.
text of St.
St.
Luke is shown to be everywhere secondary. Luke verse 6, and indeed the principal pari
5,
of vrse
have no parallel in
St.
Matthew.
They

may have
93
stood in Q, and St. Matthew may have omitted them because they only give coloin' and finish to the parable however, nothing certain can be said the 'Z^vvKoXeiv is found eight times in point. upon the New Testament, including seven times in St.
;
Luke and "

in
" also " neighboui's (St. liuke xiv. 12, xv. 9) " have a Lukan flavour ; <Tuv)(âipetv is friends
the gospels exclusively

cLTToXcoXog
Lukan
(i.
58, xv. 9)
and
cauuot have stood in Q, seeing that in a preceding verse it has been traced to St. Luke's correcting hand. Here the Xe-yco v/uliv, which St. Matthew verse 13
TO
also stands in St.

it
is important, because shows that this asseveration also occurred in Q it
Luke
verse 7,
does not, however, follow from this that

original
St.
given by St. that the owner rejoices more over the one sheep than over the ninety-nine that
it is
when Matthew
always Matthew or St. Luke.
it is
asserts
had not wandered; St. Luke gives the spiritual application and interpolates the idea of repentance
(^vide
infra St.
is
Luke
xvii. 3,
There
no doubt
as to
4 = St. Matt, xviii. 21, 22). which of these versions is the
original. text.
Thus here
also St.
Matthew has the ancient
St. Matt, xviii.
15 'E a V
:
St.
Luke
xvii.
3: eav
Se ajuapT^cTl] 6
<joVy viraye
aSeXcpog
/uLera^v
jULOvov.
eXeyôv avrov aov Km avrov

crov
ajmaprrj 6 aSe\(p6g croVj eTriTLjuLtjcroi' avro), Kai eav

iJ-eravoyjcru^
eav
aKOvcrih
(4)
Ka\
KaL
eav
avTw. acpeg eirraKi^ t^9

ei<s
CKepStjcrai
(Tov.
tov
aSeXcpov
tjfxepag
ajULaprrjcri]
ere
eirraKi^
eTridTpi^n
94

TTpo^
ere
Xeycov
juerai/oco,
(21) t6t irpocreXOoov 6

TleTjOO? elTrev avrcp* Kvpie,
TTOcraKig aju(.apTJ]cri ei9
ejuLe
6 aSe\(f)6<! avTO);
ecog
juiov
KOI
aipijcrco
eTrraKig;
XeyeL avrw o
Xe-yo)
oroi
CO)?
Itjcrovg'
(22) ov
cTrra/cf?,
aXXa
CTTTa,
60)?
ifiSojuLtjKOvraKig
is
At the first glance the text in St. Luke, because it the shorter, seems to be therefore the more original in form ; as a matter of fact, it presents to a certain
extent the longer form, and besides rests upon a conflation of ideas. It is the longer in that St. Luke alone
gives T?? ^juepa^ and speaks of repentance (just as in XV. 7), of which nothing is said in St. Matthew verses
21
f.
laid
(i.e.
is
In St. Luke the point upon which emphasis is the sinner's repentance ; while St. Matthew
is
Q)
concerned with the question of uncondi-
tional forgiveness, not in the case of sins in general but in the case of personal injury. St. Luke confuses
Here, however, St. Matthew too is not original, for his version in verse 15 is already determined by the subject-matter of the following The text must have run eav verses (16 and 17).
the two cases.
:
ajuapnia-u
of St. {afxaprn
Luke
improvement) 6 aSeXcpo^
eXeyôv
is
crov,
a grammatical eXeyôv avrov (uiraye

is
belongs perhaps to the style of St.

certainly
Matthew
the rare
more
original than the frequent
TEXT
95
The saying is, however, still imperfect, eiriTi/uLtjarov). hence we cannot do without the following clause idv (Tov CLKOvcru eKepStjcrag tov aoe\<p6v crov.
:
other saying in St. Matthew verses 21 and quite independent of the previous one which it. The absolutely St. Luke has blended with un-Hellenic construction of its clauses, the equally
The
is
22
un-Hellenic
close, are
eto?, and the cTrra (for eTrra/cf?) at the enough to prove its originality although
the
introduction
of
St.
Peter
may
be
secondary.
St.
The
e/BSojuLîKovTOLKis eTTTcc
probably seemed to
Luke
too paradoxical.
St.
Matt. xix. 28
eirl
v/mei^
.
.
St.
v/uii$
Luke
/xer
xxii.
28,
30
OL aKoKov6i](TavT<i
jjlol
06 ecre ol
Sia/jLejuevt]-
KaOlcrecrSe
SwSeKa
Koreg
ejuov
ev
. .
to?9
.
KpivovTe<s Opovovg SwSeKa (pvXai tov ÎdparjK.
ra^
Treipacjuoi^
/mov
koI
KaO/jcrecrOe iirl
vovTcg TO.?
Opovcov KplScoSeKa (pvXa^
TOV
'l(Tparj\,
It is obvious that the introduction in St.

is
besides, Siajueveiv only occui's once again in the gospels, and that in St. Luke (i. 22) ;
more
original
Matthew
and the plural
Treipaa-jmoi
it
in the gospels, though rest is identical in the two versions " twelve," twice repeated, must be
original.
St.
not found anywhere else The occurs in Acts xx. 19.

is
;
the
number
as
regarded
Matt,
xxiii.
St.
v/aiv
Luke
to??
xi.
46
koi
oval'
Aea-jiieuovcriv
Se
(popTia
iirl
vo/ullko?^
âpia
Koi iTTiTiOiacrii'
(popTi^cTe tov^ aiÔpwirovs
96
Tovg
cojuiovg

TCOV
avOpcoTTCov,
avTol Se Tcf oaKTvX(p avrcov ov OeXovcriv Kivrjcrai avra.

^
(popTia Svcr/3d(rTaKTa, avTol evl Twv SaKTvXwv

vjuLWP
Kal
ov 7rpocr\âveT Toig
ovai
(13) oval Se
fxaTci^
vjuiv,
ypa/mvttorrjv
<P opTioig, xi. 52

vo/iAiKOi^,
vjjuv
TOig
Km
KpiTQL,
âpLordioL OTL KKetere

tcov
Tr]V
OTL rjpaTe [eêre] KXetSa T^9 yvijocrem'
âcriXeiau
eniTTpocrOei/
ujueig
ovpavoov
avTOi
OVK
eiarfKOaTe
Kai
twv avOpcoTrwv
ovk
elcrip-êcrOe
ei(Tp-)ÔjULVOVg
Tov^ eia-epô/ULevovs eKCoXvcraTe,
yap
TOl'9
OvSe
acplere eicreXOeiv. (23) oval vjuLiv,

fjiaTeig
ypajUL-
xi.
42
ovai
v/uliv
to??
Kal âpicraloi viroKptTal, on OLiroSeKarovre TO ^SvOCTjULOV KOL TO ClVljOoV Kai
âpicraiOL?,
otl
airoSeKaKCU
T0VT6 TO
riSvOCTfJiOV
TO
TO
KV/ULLVOVf
KUL
acpijKaTC
Ta (BapvTepa tov vojuloVj Tt]V Kpicriv KaL TO eXeo? Kai Tt]V TTLCTTIV. TavTa Se
eSei
TTOirJG-ai
TTYiyavov Kai irav Xayavov^ Kai irapepyecrQe Ttjv Kpicriv Kal Trjv ayairtjv tov Oeov.
[ravTa
jULt]
eSei Troirjcrai KCLKelva
Trapeivai.^
KaKelva
julij
a(peivai.
(25)
oval
vjuLiVj
ypafjL-
xi.
39
vvv
vjmeig
ol
yuare?? Ka\ âpicraioi vtto-
âpicraiOL to
TroTrjpiov
KpiTaif
OTL KaQaplXeTe to e^coOep tov iroTripLOV Kai

T^9 irapoypîSog,
earooQev
e^coOev tov Kai TOV irivaKog

ecrooOev
KaOapL^Tj TO Se
v/ULoov
Se
ye/uLei
apirayrji
Kal
yefxovaiv e^ apTrayrj^
aKpaar'ia^}
1
Kai
TTOPtjpiag.
St.
Matthew
verse 26 and St.
Luke
verse 41 are not without
connection, yet do not lend themselves easily to comparison. In the first place, St. Luke 41* {oCix 6 ?rot7j(ras rb ^ûdep Kal rb ictaOev

[(27) ovai
\ fxaTei<s Kai
97
vjULCP,
$a/ picraioi
ypajuiviro-
[xi.
44
!)?
ovat
v/juv,
on
Ta
ovk
ecrre
Ta
juLvrjjULeia
KpiTai,
on
irapojuLoiaêre
aSt]\a, Kot ol avOpcoTTOi oi
racpoig KKOviajuievoi^,o'iTLve^ cbaivovTai /ULV eôoOev

wpaioiy ecTcoQev Se yejuLovariv
OG-Tecov
TrepiTrarovvTe^
o'lSacriv.'^
eiravw
vcKpoou
Km
Tracrrji
aKaOapo-lag.J^
(29)
ovai
vjULiv,
ypajn-
XI.
4<7
ovai
TO,
v/uliv,
on
Se
jmaTeig koi âpicraloL viro-
OlKoSojU6LT
TCOV
JULVt]IULia
Kpiraij
on
.(5( oiKooo/uieLTe
TrpocpijTcoUy
vjuwi'
ol
Tovi Ta(pov<f Tcov

Kai
K0crjUiiTe
SlKaiCOl',
ei
7rpo<pt]T(Jov
juLV}]/u.ia
ra
TWV
(30) KOL Xeev
yexe'
^jmepaig
'/jjueOa
rah
(48) apa /uapecTTe Kai crviêvSoKeiTe Tvpe<s TCOV T019

ujuLcoVj
iraTepe^ avTov^.
aireKTeivav
ovK
CLP
irarepiav r/juLcov, rjjjLeQa avTcov kolvoo-
tcov
epyoi^ OTi avTOi

avT0V9,
juiev
iraTepcov aireK-
Teivav
vjULeis
Se
VOL ev T(p ai/xaTi toov ivpo-
oiKoSojULeiTe,
(31) C0G-T6 jmaprv(ptjTwv. on viol ecrre peire eavroh

TCOV
TTpocpriTas.
rof? (popevQ-aPTOov (32) Koi vjueig
TrXtjpwa-are
to jmerpov
tcov
Trarepwv
v/ulwv.
the same is the case iirotrjcrev;) has not any parallel in St. Matt. 26 with the vocative, âpicrdie TV(p\^, of St. Matt. 26. Whether the words Kaddpi(Tov irp'jOTQv rb ivrds rov voTiipiov and irXrjP to. ivbvra 86t iXerjuocrvprjy go back to one Aramaic source (wherein "dakki" was confounded with "zakki") is doubtful. The latter halves of the
;
verses, iVa yivrjrai

vfuv
ia-Tiv,
/cat t6 e/cr6s avTOv Ka6ap6v and Kai ISoii irAvra KaOapa are alone really related to one another. If, however, a single source was here really used, then St. Matthew has the more
original text.
98

(34) Sia TOVTO iSov
eyct)
vjuLcig
rj
xi.
49
^la
tovto koi
cnrocTTeXXco
7rpo(br]Ta9
irpog Kai crochovg Kai
lochia TOV 6eov elirev
ypajuLimaTeig'
e^
koi
avrcov
(rravpco-
airoKTeveire
(rere koi
(p^Tag ^ avTcov airoKTevovcTLv Kai
airocTTeKoo eig avTOvg ttjOOKoi oLTrocTToXovg, koi
e^ avrcov /uLacmyTijOi]
wcrere ev raig crvvaycoyaig Koi. airo vjuiwv Sicoêre
TO
al/ma Travrcov tcov
TToXew?
OTTO)?
aijuLa
etV
TToXiV
(p
v/ULag
(35)
Trap
K-)^VVVOjULVOV TTpOiptJTWV airo KaTajSoXrjg k6g-/jlov
TO
Aur]
aiTO
Trig
yeveag
a'l/uLaTog
TavTrjg,
SUaiov eK-^vvofxevov airo rod aifxaeir). T^f yrjg Tog "A/SeX Tov SiKuiov eo)?
(51) aTTo
eft)?
"A/BeX
a'ljuLaTog
^Layaplov tov
/mcTa^v
Kai
v/uliv,
airoXoiJLevov
OvG'iacrTrjpLOv
tov
o'i~
Tov
alfxarog
Tjaâplov
tov
VLOV Bapay^LoVj ov e(povuo-are fxera^v tov vaov Km
KOV
lal,
Xeyco
airo
eK^nTf]-
OrjcreTaL
Ttjg
yeveag
TOV
ajurjv
Ova-iaa-TtjpLov.
9
(36)
TavTtjg.
TavTa Xeyco v/miv, 7'jêL \ eiri TravTa Trjv y veav

Tavrrjv.
St.
is
Matt,
xxiii.
For
in
Sea-juLeveiv
(popTia, which
scarcely intelligible Greek,
St.
Luke has written

:
:
(popTiteiv
acTTpairl]
erl/uLtjcruv,
(popTLa
(cf.i
acTTpaTrTOvara,
Acts
this evangelist, xvii. 24 xxviii. 10 Tijuaig

aTreiXticrcoiueOa,
Acts
iv.
17
aTreiXi]
Acts
xxii.
(poovij
V.
28.:
:
irapayyeXla
15
V.
eTTiOvjuiLa
'TraprjyyeiXajUiev, xxiii. 46 eTreOujULtjcra,
St.
:
Luke
ecrTr},
(poomjcrag
[likewise
Acts
xvi.
28], vi.
St.
avaa-Tag
ii.
Acts
jULcvov
ejixevev,
Luke
the
(jyvXaccrovTeg
(pvXaKOLg).
The construction of
filled
cbopTiêiv
with a
double accusative
place of
eTriTiOiaa-iu
Sucr/Sda-TaKTOs
is
TEXT
99
literary
St.
Greek
Matt.
supra the remarks on

xii.
33.
kv\ T.
âKT.
to,
it
is
is
lends
Kiveiv),
emphasis
because
ro)
a stylistic SaKTvXw.
this
irpocrâveLv
is
and Lukan, vide vi. 20 = St. Luke correction of, and

(for
correction.
a compound,
shown to be a
stands
In
St.
Luke
verse
among
against the scribes ; this may be correct. St. Matthew introduced the verse into a description of the Pharisees which he had taken from a separate
the
Woes
source,
and
so
was able to arrange a
list
of seven
yet it may well have been otherwise (vide infra on verse 25) ; it is evident that in Q part of the subject-matter occurred in a description
Woes.
And
of the Pharisees, part in the form of Woes. ôjunKog is found six times in St. Luke, never in St. Mark,
John, and St. Paul, once in St. Matthew (xxii. 35), but the latter occurrence is doubtful. The word, thereSt.
fore, certainly
has substituted
it
did not stand in the source St. Luke it for " Pharisees," or has combined
or used
42,
it
39,
43),
alternately with the latter word (vide xi. perhaps in order to remind his un-
instructed readers
xxiii.
who
Kal
the Pharisees were
(cf.
Acts
is
f.).
The
of St.
Luke,
verse
46,
probably to be counted original. St. Matt, xxiii. 13 The combination of scribes and Pharisees is also found four times in St. Luke
:
(v. 30, vi. 7, xi.
53, xv. 2).
If he
had found
it
here
he would certainly have given it in his text. Since, however, he writes vo/ulikoI, we must suppose that " " only Pharisees stood in Q (vide supra on verse 4)
viroKpirai than in St.
is
much more frequent in Luke and in St. Matt.

;
St.
Matthew
xxiv. 51, St.
100

it
Luke has replaced

in
in the passages
by aina-Toi. Whether it stood we are now considering cannot

;
:
be certainly determined probably Q ran oval vjuliv Toh âpia-aloL^. It is obvious that " to hold the key
" is the correction, and " to close the of knowledge " kingdom of Heaven is the original ; moreover, the does not suit well with yvwa-i^^ which verb
elcrepêcrQaL
word occurs only once again in the gospels, and that St. Luke also in St. Luke (i. 77, ypuxjig a-coTtjpiag).
puts avTOL in the place of
v/meis^
for
he does not
like the personal pronominal subject expressed with St. Luke gives the aorist eia-rjXOaTe instead the verb.
of the present because, as a matter of fact, the St. Luke "lawyers" did not possess the yvaxrig.
omits yap because its connection with the context is not clear, and he simply writes eKwXucraTe instead of the circumstantial ovk acfylere eiareXOeiVf just as in the case of St. Matt. v. 40 he replaces a(pg avrcp
by
juLT]
KwXvcrijg (KcoXveiv
once in St. Matthew, 6-\-6

intro-
times in the
St.
Lukan writings). Matthew xxiii. 23 Concerning the

:
duction, compare M^hat has been said above on " Anise and cummin " verse 13. (St. Matthew), " " Rue and (St. Luke) ; the former is every herb Ztschr. " Expos. Times," xv. 528 ; original (Nestle,
f. Neutestamentl," Wissensch. 1906, s. 10, believes that cummin and rue correspond to KDQli^ and is difficult of interTO, N")Ilti/)fiapvrepa tov vojulou
pretation
cording
the
to
and seems to conflict with verse 4, acwhich the very charge brouglit against
is
the Pharisees
words
are
that they impose the heavy burden therefore omitted by St. Luke.

TrapepêcrQe It follows
is
101
from
words in
St.
Matthew
a more elegant word than acbrjKaTe. the middle of the three eXeo?
that here conduct towards
the neighbour is spoken of (Wellhausen) ; St. Luke, however, alters this and reads, " Ye pass by the judgment and the love of God." The conclusion of
the verse found in
many manuscripts
St.
it
of St. Luke
is
an interpolation from have stood in Q, for
Matthew.
is
It can scarcely
in
accordance with the
tendency of St. Matthew.
Moreover, the preceding

to
St.
words
St.
Koi rrjv ttlcttiv are very doubtful. Matt, xxiii. 25 Here, in contrast
:
Matthew verse 4, St. Matthew has the woe and the St. Luke the simple description (vide supra)
;
vvv,
which
is
found only here, seems to be original;

substituted
vi.
St.
Luke has
the
more general word
St. irlva^ {cf.
Mark
25) for TraôxJ//?.
He
has also
correctly interpreted the somewhat dubious 'i(T(jodev by TO 'i(T(j}Qev vjuLoovy and has replaced aKpacria, which seemed
too special a word here, by the more general irovrjpla. Wellhausen thinks that the St. Matt, xxiii. 27
:
text of St.
Matthew
is
here more
St.
original than that of
Luke.
diffuse and less But the sayings
in St. Matthew the Phariare absolutely different sees are to whitewashed sepulchres compared in order that (whitened, they might be seen of
:
in St. Luke, on the other hand, they are men) compared to just the opposite, to sepulchres which
;
cannot be seen.
The
latter
:
simile
is
only
intelli-
those who walked over gible from Num. xix. 16 The Jewish the sepulchre were rendered unclean. ordinance which lies at the background of the
102
version
in

St.
Luke
vouches
for
the
originality
of this text.
And
can scarcely be however, we are not allowed to assume that both verses belonged to Q, then St. Luke must have
the
preference, seeing
yet the text of St. Matthew due to intentional alteration. If,
that
St.
Matthew
verse
27
does not carry us much farther than verse 25. Only, the more elegant and appropriate /mvtjjuieiov (for
due to the correcting hand of St. Luke not found anywhere in St. Mark and (rdcpo^ St. Luke) see also the remai^ks on St. Matthew
TOLipog)
is
is
verse 29.
St.
St.
Luke here
may
29-32 = St. Luke xi. 47, 48. Does give an extract or the original ? confidently affirm the former alternative, because
Matt,
xxiii.
We
Moreover,
of the cold, matter-of-fact tone of St. Luke's version. its secondary character is also shown by
airoKTelveiv for
(poveveiv
and by
St.
crvvevSoKetVi
which
is
peculiar to St.
xxii.
Luke and
;
Paul (vide Acts
viii. 1,
20
Rom.
by
fxaprvs,
(jULapTvpeiv
i. 32 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13), as well as which occurs thirteen times in the Acts is found in St. Matthew only in this
passage).
itaque.
St.
Luke
also avoids cocrre in the sense of
and Pharisees are inter(vide Wellhausen on this passage) as well as the words koi kog-julit to. St. Matthew often concerns Twv SiKatcov. jjLvtjjj.e'ia
However, the
scribes
polated here by St.
Matthew
himself with
" the
"
righteous
like
(side
by
side
with
prophets and such
people).
We, moreover,
note that the prophets alone are mentioned afterwards. cf. the Again, verse 32 is perhaps original
clumsy phrase irXripodv
to
/uerpoi^
tcoi>
irarepwv (on
TEXT
lOS
the other hand, verse 33 is an appendix which has been fashioned after the pattern of iii. 7).
St.
Matt,
xxiii.
34-36.
We
discover
from
St.
Luke alone that our Lord here quotes an authority The fact that we which He regards as inspired. do not know what this authority was, is no reason
for asserting that the passage in question
is
not a
quotation, especially seeing that we read elTrev (not the present), and that our Lord could not possibly have said, " I send prophets, wise men and scribes." can easily understand that the dislike to represent
We
our Lord as quoting from an apocryphal book, or some other motive, led St. Matthew to erase the
quotation formula (his iSou is, as it were, a substitute for what has been omitted, and Sia tovto has good
That St. sense only in St. Luke). is inconceivable. St. here polated
drastic
Luke has interLuke has made

usual,
corrections
in
detail.
;
As
he
has
omitted
the
in
1
before iyoo
the verb
scribes
^
he has transformed
!
wise
men and
into apostles
(just
;
as
Clem. 42, Deacons are interpolated)

;
he has
changed airoa-reXXa) into aTroareXo) (because of the conclusion of the discourse) he has inserted kql
before e^ avroov (pr.) he has replaced SicoKeiu by cKSiwKeiv, and the uncouth (Semitic) phrase eXOt] <p^
;
irav aljma by to aijua iravToov (the K^r]Tr]Oi] passive is enough to betray his style, also K^t]Tiv occurs in St. Luke alone among the gospels), also For eV^ OTTO)?, as in several other passages, by Iva.
v/ma^
This word is certainly original, seeing that in the context of Matthew the ypafj-fxareis are denounced, so that the evangelist himself could not have inserted them here.
1
St.
104
T^f
airo
less
<y5?j

which seemed superfluous, he has substituted KaraôXfjg Koa-jULoVi words which seemed much
superfluous, and he has introduced yevea avn] from verse 51 in order to lend greater precision to the solemn asseveration of the close of that verse.
As
ov
in St. Matt, xxiii. 31, he avoids (popeveiv, replacing

(povV(TaT6
hj the
participle
tov
aTroXojULevou.
Concerning the variants elg avrovg and ttôo? lyyua? I have nothing to say, the two prepositions occur in parallel passages of the two evangelists without any
recognisable reason
pwcreTe
vjuiiJov
for
their
variation.
In a-rau-
Kai
e^ avTtov /ULaaTiyuxTeTe ev Taig aupaywyaii

St.
we probably have an addition by
Matthew
cf. St.
Matt. XX. 19, juLaarTiyuxrai koi (TTavpuxrai also awo TToXecog eh iroXiv is probably interpolated in accordance with St. Matt. x. 23, likewise the two occurrences of '^ SlKaiov''\^{vide supra on xxiii. 29); St. Luke reads, but scarcely correctly, irdvrwv rcou
7rpo(pr}Tci)i/.
out (1) that
Concerning vlou Bapay^lov, I would point it is not quite certain that these words
are original in St.
Matthew
(2) that as St.
Luke
does not read them, and as the gospel of the Hebrews " filium according to St. Jerome''s testimony read
Joiadae
"
[so
also
(in
accordance
with
Chron.
xxiv. 20) a Greek scholion ta St. Matthew], it is therefore very improbable that the words stood in
Q.
What
reason
?
omitting them
discussing
within his reach.
could St. Luke have had for Their historical control was not We therefore here refrain from
is
what Zacharias
meant by
St.
Matthew or
his interpolator. There is no reason for suspecting an historical hysteron-proteron. In place of the " Temple
105
and the Altar," St. Luke writes with greater precision, the Altar and the House (of the Temple)." Lastly,
the
i/al
of St.
to
Luke shows that

oltto
ajmiji/
stood in
rjêi
KiCt]rt]6}](TeTaL
is
substituted
cKXrirriQii
for
eirl
in
order
verse
;
take
led
up the
to
this
the omission
of the previous of Tavra Trapra,
which words indeed do not express the sense very

clearly in the context to K'tt]T. in St. Luke
Tov twice
original.
St.
Matthew (the subject to aijma). The absence of before aijuLaros in St. Luke is probably
of St.
is
Matt.
xxiv.
26
St.
Luke
wSe*
xvii.
23
koi
e/ca,
J2jav ouv eiTroociv vjuliv loov
epovcriv
vjuliV
/mi]
iSov
ISov
6r]T'
fxrj
aTreXOfjre
ISoV ev T019 Ta/LlLOt^,
fjLt/Se
Sico^r]T.
fi
(24) wcnrep
acrrpaTTviro
7ri(TTeva-ijT' (S'T) oicnrep

rj
ryap
aarTpairrj
e/c
eL<s
yap
CLTTO
acrrpairt] eêp-êTai
T over a
ovpavov
Xa/iiTret,
tTj^
tov
eco?
avaro\(jov Kat ipaLveTat Sucr/ULcJov, ovrcog earai rj
Trjv vir
ovpavov
ovTCog ecTTai 6 vlo^

1/
Trapovcna
avQpodirov'
tov
vlov
tov
TOV apOpWTTOV
avTov.
(Tco/uiaj
TH
01
^jULepoi
(28) oirov eav
(3*7)
Kt
oirov
to
2 TO
TTTcojua, Ki (TvvaÔi]-
Kai
aero I
aovTai ol aeTOL.
xxiv. 37
at
:
CTricrvva-ûrjcrovTai,
"Qcrirep
yap
(26) Ka\ KaOo)^ eyeveTO

ev Tai<f ^jiiipaig Ncoe, oi/tcoj ecTTai KOI ev Ta'i<s ^jmepaig
tov Ncoe, ovTwg tjfjLepai ecTTai ri tov vlov TrapovcTLa
TOV
yap
(38) 0)9 ai/Opwirov. ijcrav ev Tal<s ^/mepaig

Tafj
TTjOO
TOV
(27)
juLOvv,
VLOV
TOV
avOpWTTOV'
tjaOiov,
eiTLvov,
eyaelg
[cKCLVaLf^
TOV
eyajULiôvTO, CLXpi V^
elcrjjXOev
KaTaKXva-jULOv
Kai
TTLVOVTe^f
Tp(JoyovTS
yajuLOVPTeg
rjjjLepa^
Nwe
Tr}V KL^wTOv, Kai fjXOev 6
106

/cara/cXuar/xo? Kai airijoXecrep
elcryjXOev
^jmepag
Tt]V
Nooe
eig
iTavTa<s,
KI^CjOTOV,
(39) Kai OVK
eyvooG-av eo)? rfkOev 6

kXv(Tiulo9 Kai Tjpev
Kara-
aVaj^Ta?,
ovTcog
ecTTai
rj
irapovcna
Tov vlov TOV avOpcoTTOv. (40) TOTe ecovrai Svo

P Tip aypu),
(34) Xeyoa
Til
vjuliv,
Tavrn
cttI
eh
TrapaXajut.-
vvKTi
ecrovrai
duo
âverai
/ixvXcp, /una
Kai
eh acbierai.
KXivtjg
jULiag,
elg
Trapa-
(41) Svo aXyOovcrai ev tco

Koi
X)]iui(pOy](TTaL
juLia
irapoXajjiâveTaL aSlerai.
OLcbeOijcreTaL'
Kai 6 erepog (35) ecrovrai

eiri
ovo aArjuoucrai
f]
to avTO,
rj
fJLia
7rapaX}]jUL(pOtjcrTai,
Se
CTepa
acpeQ-qareTai.
Clauses with eav

in
may be presumed
to have stood
often uses such clauses, and, again, he As for the rest, it is difficult in often alters them.
St.
Luke
St.
Matt. xxiv. 26 to determine whether
St.
has abbreviated or St.
Matthew has
to
amplified.
Luke The
former
alternative
seems
me more
probable,
especially as Sicjokciv, used in this sense, is a word Li verse 27 characteristic of St. Luke and St. Paul.
aa-Tpairrj acTTpairTovcTa on St. Matt, xxiii. 4
= St.
of the clause in
St.
Lukan in style (vide note Luke xi. 46); the rest Matthew is also original (St.
is
Luke guards
against
the idea that

;
lightning only
cf. a similar Lukan corpasses from east to west rection of St. Matt. viii. 11= St. Luke xiii. 29). Also must be regarded as the reading irapova-ia of Q it is indeed only found in St. Matthew, but
rj
;

also
107
with the exception of xxiv. 3 (which passage may be derived from Q), only in places dependent
(vide xxiv. 37, 39).
St.
upon Q
Luke has avoided
the word, which belonged to the sphere of Jewish Messianic dogma and was an unsuitable term for
that
Second Coming in which Christians believed vide Wellhausen on and which is here referred to St. Luke"'s XdjULTrei is a better St. Matt. xxiv. 3. word than (palverai, and is therefore a correction.
'Ei/
Tij
rjfxepa
authority,
St.
but
avTov does not possess firm textual is an indispensable element of it
For the disagreeable word Luke's vocabulary. TTToofxa St. Luke has substituted the more elegant
he has deleted eau ij, has given smoothness (Tco/uLa, to the clause by the addition of kql, and has replaced double compound eirKTwa-^Ô. a-vva-^. by the
St.
Matt. xxiv. 37
to
On
at
logical
^juepaL
grounds
. .
St.
Luke
ecrrai
could not allow

rj
cocrTrep
oi/'ro)?
irapovcrla
is
not fond of
16
wa-irep
remain unchanged (besides this he on the other hand, he uses
KaOo)^
+ 12
times,
>vhile
in
St.
Matthew
it
In regard to >} occurs only three times). wapova-ia in the right (vide supra on St. Matthew is again In place of the double comSt. Matt. xxiv. 27).
one element stating parison (St. Matt. xxiv. 37 ff.) St. Luke only the theme which the other develops The latter can scarcely gives a simple comparison.
be
original
but
St.
shown by the imperfects.

is
Luke's unoriginality is also The use of the imperfect
a speciality of St. Luke, feeling for the niceties of

iyajulôpTo
is
and shows the Greek
his
better
language.
Moreover,
an
improvement
upon
108
yafjuXovre^
rection.

(vide
Wellhausen), and
as before in
is
thus
cor-
other pages, we find that the shorter text of St. Luke is not original
Here again,
but a revision.
St.
Matthew
It ahuost necessarily followed that verse 39* should fall a victim to the
reviser's pruning-knife,
nor indeed do we lose
much
thereby.
Wellhausen
variant
St.
calls
of St. Luke verse 34
Matthew and
i.e. poorer version in logic and sense
St.
verse 40 a poor but in comparing Luke it often happens that the the version which is less good
St.
;
Matthew
is
the
motive which
led
the original. Here, moreover, to St. Luke's alteration is
He wished by means of the examples quite clear. to given express something which was not distinctly
expressed in Son of Man
the
original
text
namely,
by
. .
that the
might come by night

ev
rep
just as well as
by day.
Til
Accordingly he changed t6t into ravrij
vvKTL
and replaced
el^
,
,
aypca
eT?
eiri
.
kXivi]?
eT^
lJLia<i,
again,
he substituted
,
for
the
fjLia
better
.
.
.
Greek 6
6 erepo^ (likewise for
lULia
lastly,
the better Greek ^ /uia ... 17 erepa) ; he changed the present into the more correct
future (so also in the following verse) and repeated the earovTai (in verse 35) which could not be disThat the pensed with in correct composition. women grind " at the mill " (St. Matthew) was
self-evident
;
it
was
ein
not
that
they
grind
to
superfluous to mention Hence St. Luke avTo.
substitutes the latter phrase for the former.
There are thus about
fifty
variants in
the
case

of which
;
109
we have found reason to question the of these originality of the text of St. Matthew one-half coincide with the variants which we have characterised above (pp. 34 if.). The aixrjv Xeycjo
in V.
vjuLiv
18
may be
V.
26, the iyco Xeyoo
original, likewise the v/uliv in v. 32, and the
ajmr}]/
in in
ajuLrjv
viii.
10 (vide supra). ovpavoh with irarpo^
On
(v.
the other hand, tov ev 45), ovpavw in place of
ovpavoU (vi. 20), and 6 irarrjp v/mcov for o Oeo^ (x. 29), are not original. We find circumstantial phrases, like those we have noticed above, in irpoa-eKQwv
(iv.
3),
ê
oLTTOKptOeh
etirev
for
aireKplQr} (iv.
4),
and Tore TrpocreXOcov 6 Tlerpo^ elirev avrw (xviii. we find interpolations in the " Pharisees and 21)
;
" '^ scribes in chap. iii. 7, in the " addition to the " Pharisees of chap, xxiii. 23 " scribes (together with the hypocrites "), and the " '" " The and Pharisees of chap, xxiii. 29. righteous '' also appear in these sections, and " righteousness vide v. 6 (" to hunger and thirst after righteous-
Sadducees
"
of
ness
V.
xxiii. and probably also 29, 35 ""), (bis), 45 (yet here " the righteous may perhaps be of the The viraye because parallelism). original
'*''
in all three cases of its occurrence (iv. 10, viii. 13, xviii. 15) is probably inserted by St. Matthew on
the other hand, one cannot be quite certain whether the viroSelô) of St. Luke, which does not appear
in St.
it
Matt.
vii.
24 and
x.
28,
is
original or not
St.
seems to
in the
me more probable that No importance is to right.

iv.
Matthew
is
the slight stylistic variants in chap.

viii.
be attached to 9 {irecrwv add.),
5 (gen. abs. for
finite verb), viii.
11 {iroWol add.),
110
X.
31 (ouv add.), xxiii. 4 (Se for Km), xxiii. 25 (vvv In these cases it is om.), xxiii. 35 (rov add. &^.y). It verdict. a definite to give naturally impossible of the in is probable that jultj vojmlcrtjre (x. 34), place
interrogative
secondary (vide supra on Also the words juLcopos and SoKciVi St. Matt. iii. 9). the two builders characterise which expressly cbpoi'ijuiog, are of houses in chap. vii. 24, 26, probably added
SoKeire,
is
by
St.
Matthew.
Besides these instances there are, however, several others in which the modification of the text is of
noteworthy, and at times of considerable, importance. In chap. iv. 11, at the conclusion of the story of the
Temptation, the words

Koi SirjKovovu avTU) "
''
Kai ISov
ayyeXoL
irpoa-rfKOov
that the
alone,"
is
quotation, continued (" but by every word, &c.,"

viii.
Before this are inserted. " Man doth not live
we
find
by bread
iv.
In chap.
12,
eig
to <tk6to9 to eôorepov
"
4).
is
formula current with St. Matthew (for the simple But of considerably greater importance are eTo)). the following instances, wherein we trace distinct bias
of various kinds
1.
:
(iv.
introduced as the "holy city" is here we recognise the bias of a Christian of Jerusalem (note, however, that the term does not occur in the reproduction of a discourse of our
Jerusalem
;
5)
Lord).
2.
The addition
jmrj
in
chap,
xxiii.
23 (raura
eSei
TTOLrja-m KOLKelva
a Jewish ChrisTrapeimi) displays
tian reverence for ceremonial precepts.-^

1 The whole verse, xxiii. 27, is possibly an interpolation cannot come to a clear decision on this point.
;
one

3.
111
The conception of
V.
reXeios
is
introduced into
;
the conception SiKaiog) a distinct chap. ethical tendency is hereby indicated. 4. In chap. v. S2, in reference to the question of divorce, an important limitation is given in the inter(cf.
48
polated phrase irapeKTO's Xoyov Tropuelag. 5. Another limitation is given in the tco TrpevjULan (with ot TTTcoyôl) of chap. v. 3.
quotation tov Oeov elirev, ôcpla seems necessarily to presuppose the dogmatic bias of one who refused to recognise an uncanonical
enigmatical
6.
The omission
(xxiii.
of
the
rj
formula
34)
Kal
writing.
7.
The
substitution
of "Father in heaven"
for
the "Angels of God" (x. 32, 33) is connected with the evangelist's Christological position.
8.
is
The addition of
due
to
evcKev
e/mov
in
chap.
x.
39
likewise
the
influence
of Chnstological
avrov
julovov
dogma.
9.
The
addition of /ULera^v
crov koi
to
eXeyPov avrov (xviii. 15) points to the existence of a stereotyped gradation of disciplinary rule in the But it is questionable whether Christian community.
this passage in its present
form belongs to the original
text of St. Matthew.

10. Lastly, in chap, xxiii. 34, St. Matthew has probably interpolated the words kol a-Tavpcoarere Kal e^ avTwv fxao'TiyuxTeTe ev raig crvvaycoyai^ vjulwv, and has
added
airo TroXcw?
etV
iroXiv to oicoêTe.
all
Probably these are

has allowed himself to
variations which St.
Matthew
make from
ccoy
the transmitted text
of
(add also the clause
dv iravra yevtjrai in
112
chap. V. 18).^ Taking into account the considerable size of Q, they are few in number and of slight im-
Yet, on the other hand, they are numerous portance. enough to exclude the hypothesis that St. Luke did not follow a source common to himself and St.
Matthew, but used the gospel of
St.
Matthew
itself.
As for the variants of St. Luke, they are eight to ten times as numerous as those of St. Matthew. As
in the case of the former
group (pp. 38
ff.),
so also
here
can be clearly shown that these variants are almost exclusively of a stylistic character. The twelve
it
categories of our former list are now increased by The most important are the followseveral others.
ing
:
He
introduces the imperfect, erases the hist,
13.
present, and makes a correct use of the participle, imperfect, and infinitive present and aorist.
14.
He
substitutes the infinitive of the verb for a
prepositional clause.
Concerning vlov âpaxôv (chap, xxiii. 35), see my remarks on the If the words were added by St. Matthew himself, passage "itself the question arises as to which Zacharias he was thinking of. In spite of Wellhausen's discussion of this question, the last word on the subject has not yet been said. The theory that it is the Zacharias who was slain in the Temple' at Jerusalem in the year 67
.
for though St. Matthew is, in my opinion, impossible could well put a detailed prophecy into the mouth of our Lord, yet he could not have let him say 6i> icpoveva-are. Since it follows from St. Luke that the saying in Q was not introduced as a word of the Lord, but as an utterance of the Sophia, this later Zacharias is absolutely excluded. I do not wish here to go further into the The address as it appears in St. question of the Lord's Prayer. Matthew suggests that the evangelist himself was the editor but
or 68 A.D.
there are other reasons leading to a contrary opinion.

15. 16.
tuates.
113
He He He
introduces the genit. abs.

amplifies,
exaggerates,
emphasises, accenr/?,
17.
inserts writes Xiyetv irpo^,
completes
objects, &c.
In some cases he alters the whole style of the narrative, changes the order (vide pp. 38 f. and else18.
where), amplifies, curtails
the stylistic motive
is
not
always apparent (other motives also enter into play, such as those which led him to the addition of new
traits
which enrich a simple narrative).^ He has favourite words and particles which he interpolates, while on the contrary he avoids other
19.
words.
Alterations in the subject-matter
of the
source
and bias are extremely rare when compared with those stylistic changes which remind us of the corrections constantly made in our hymn-books. In what follows, I propose to deal with the most important of these material alterations
showing distinct motive
:
In the story of the Temptation (iv. 113) it is expressly stated that our Lord was in Himself TrXrjpr]^
He was led into the ayiov, and that wilderness not vtto tov wvevjULaTog but iv irvevfj.aTU
irvevjuLaros
Also an opportunity
that
all
is taken to let the devil explain the world had been delivered to over power him, and that he could give it to whomsoever he willed The saying concerning divorce is altered
:
it
is
made
clear
that the one guilty of adultery
is
^ These variants, or, one may say, arbitrary alterations, range between those of the least and the greatest interference with the He even replaces a mountain by a fig-tree. text.
114

Into
he who divorces his wife and marries another
the beginning of the Lord's Prayer (xi. 24) there is inserted a petition for the gift of the Holy Spirit
(eXderco to dyiov
In the parable of the Two Houses (vi. 4649), ^/uLag). St. Luke has inserted the new thought that in build-
irveviJLa crov (p' ^jma^
Kai
KaOapicraTco
ing everything depends upon the careful and laborious In chap. ix. 2 preparation of a proper foundation. " he has set " healing side by side with the preaching of the approaching kingdom as an equally important
function of the disciples
In chap.
xii.
3 he shows
a disposition to guard against our Lord being represented as an esoteric teacher in the following verse *" he has introduced " ol <pl\oi jixov as a designation which our Lord had applied to His disciples, and in the same passage he has omitted the expression " to the Hellene kill the soul," because it seemed to him
;
In chap. x. 16 he does to be too paradoxical. " " Lord our to of not suffer speak of the reception the apostles (into the house) ; for this, at the time
of the writer, was no longer possible, but of "" " Into the parable of the Lost them. hearing St. Luke has interpolated the trait of Sheep (xv. 7),
repentance, of which no mention was made in the text of the source (so also in xvii. 3, 4) ; in chap, *" for the " kingxi. 52 he has substituted gnosis " xi. dom ; in chap. 42, Tt]v ayairtj]/ rov Oeov for " in chap. xi. 49, " apostles for eXeo? (and irla-ri^) " wise men and scribes " ; and in chap. vi. 22 he has inserted eveKcv rov vlov tov avOpcoirov.
;
These, so far as I can
see,
are all the corrections
which display a distinct bias in regard to subject-

matter.
influence
115
Such
with
bias,
St.
therefore, has
Luke than with

case, its
indeed, in the
former
had no stronger St. Matthew influence is somewhat
In regard to style, however, St. Luke has thoroughly revised the text of the source, while St. Matthew in this respect has, as it seems, almost
weaker.
entirely
refrained
from
correction.
Yet although
the stylistic corrections of St. Luke are so numerous, we cannot say that he has completely obliterated the
characteristics of his exemplar.
all,
Indeed, in spite of
his
we cannot but recognise that
work of
revision
ever carried out in a conservative spirit, and that his readers receive from him a just impression of
is
we
our Lord"'s style of discourse. In not a few passages are left in darkness as to the reason why in one
place he corrects and in another place he allows the transmitted text to stand in spite of its harshness ;
only in some passages can we explain St. Luke'*s version from his consideration of the parallel sections of St. Mark.
In a few cases
it
is
possible to
doubt
whether any common source lies at the background of St. Matthew and St. Luke (as in St. Luke vi.
46-49; vii. 1-10; xi. 41, 44; xiv. 26); yet there is an overbalancing weight of probability in favour of this hypothesis. We, however, almost always notice that short and pregnant utterances of our Lord, as compared with the longer discourses, have sufi'ered least correction, and that the revision is most in narrative and stringent pai'able. That one and the same Greek translation of an Aramaic original lies behind the two gospels is shown by the large number of parallel sections which are
116
Yet it is impossible to say anything verbally alike. at all definite concerning the homogeneity and extent
The exemplar used by St. Matthew source.-^ in this or that detail from the differed have may it is even which lay before St. Luke exemplar
of this
this was probable from the nature of such texts that but we have found no sure criteria by which we so
can clearly distinguish the separate exemplars so that we can with any propriety speak of Q^ and Q^. Even the translation-variants, to which Wellhausen, Nestle,
and others have drawn attention, are not

as
so certain
they appear
at
first
sight
always,
or
almost
Neveralways, they admit of other explanations. and here the I not would theless, possibility, deny
and there even the probability, of such variants. That in many sentences the Aramaic original is discernible under the veil of the Greek text, is a fact
which does not require to be specially pointed out.^
1 Yet we may here remark that there is no basis for the hypothesis that the parts of the Sermon on the Mount, which are common to St. Matthew and St. Luke, are not dependent upon a common written source, but are derived from oral tradition. The situation here is not dissimilar to that of many other passages i.e. it is beyond measure probable that St. Luke had before him a written text (the same which St. Matthew has used) which he
has edited in accordance with his own stylistic principles. 2 The result to which our investigation has brought us agrees in all important points with the results obtained by Wernle. This scholar, while rejecting the hypothesis that St. Luke was disof his sources, writes as follows tinctly biassed in his reproduction " St. Luke had before him the dis(" Synopt. Frage," s. 88) courses of the Logia-source in the primary form, not in a secondary
:
edition. He himself, in spite of his conservative attitude, submitted this source to a threefold redaction: (1) he corrected it in accord-
ance with his own Greek style

the discourses so as to give
(2)
he arranged and furbished up
them
definite positions in the course
On
TEXT
117
the basis of the preceding investigations, I open the second chapter with a reconstruction of the text
In not a few passages I am quite conscious of Q. of the hypothetical character of the text as it is But without boldness it is impossible to printed.
make any advance in the solution of a problem such as this, and one must reckon with probabilities.
no slight probability for But before we pass to the next chapter, I would add an appendix which is intended to justify my neglect of the sections, St. Matt. xxi. 32 2-11 (St. Luke (St. Luke vii. 29, 30), St. Matt. xxii. xiv. 16-23), and St. Matt. xxv. 14-30 (St. Luke
However,
I
may
claim
the text I ofier.
xix. 1227), in
my
attempt to ascertain the contents
and the text of Q.

so clearly in the course Luke's introductions to the discourses have from the first been excluded from consideration] (3) he has edited them in accordance with the requirements of the
of the narrative [this does not of our investigations, because
St.
;
come out
times,"
Wernle
is
also
correct in his further remark
(s.
185)
"Almost everywhere St. Matthew has preserved a better text than " St. Luke yet he ought to have added that in St. Matthew there
;
are to be found
nature
far
many
alterations of the text of a very drastic
more
drastic than
any
St.
Luke has allowed himself
to make.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
St. Matt. xxi.
32: ^Xdev
vfias
St.
TTois
Luke
A,abs
vii.
yap to"
'I(i)dvvY}<s
Trphs
OLKOvcras
Kat 29, 30 kol ol

:
oo(^ dLKaLO(rvvr]<s, Kat
ovk
'
cttict-
TeAwj/at eStKatwcrav rbv ^cor,
Teva-are [scil. ol ap;(te/3ets kol ol TT peer^vre ol 8e pot] avTO)

TeXtoi/at KOL at iropvai IttlctTevcrav avTW * vfxels 8e tSovre?
TO /JccTTTta/xa (iaTZTi(T6kvT<i 'Iwccvvov ot 8e âpiaraloi kol ol vofiLKol tt)v f3ovXrjv TOV

deov rjOerrja'av els kavTovs, -Qei vtt avTOv. P'aTTTtcrc/evTC?
firj
ovSe
rov
varrepov ixeTCfxeXrjOrjTe 7ncrTV(raL avro).
St. Matthew introduces this passage among the discourses with the Jewish authorities (at the conclusion
of the parable of the Two Sons) after the entry into in St. Luke it occurs very much earlier, in Jerusalem connection with the long discourse concerning St. John (that it does not fit into the context either at the one place or the other can be easily shown, vide Wellhausen on both passages). But one cannot but entertain serious doubt as to whether the passage belongs to Q indeed whether the two versions are directly dependent upon
;
any single common source. They are certainly derived from a common tradition viz. some saying of our Lord
publicans followed the preaching of the leaders of the people rejected him." while John, But beyond this all is different. Moreover, both in
to the effect,
"The
Matthew and St. Luke there occur in these passages such strong traces of the characteristics of the respective evangelists, or such evident signs of dependence upon the context, that it is no longer possible to deduce from of the tradition. " 01 Te\Q>vai koX them the
St.
ai TToovat
"
wording
in St.
original
118
Matthew come from
xxi. 31
"
;
îKaioo-vvy]"
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
119
must as a rule be regarded as an interpolation by St. '' TncrTeveiv avro),'' thrice repeated, is derived Matthew; from xxi. 25, and [xerafieXccrdaL from xxi. 29. The same is " '' the case in St. Luke. Has 6 Xaos occurs a dozen times
in this gospel (never in St. Mark, once in St. Matthew) ; the active hiKaiovv is never found in St. Matthew and
St,
Mark, while
it
occurs thrice in St. Luke's gospel

is
fSaTTTLo- Sevres to fSaTrrLcrixa
Lukan
dvacTTas
(c/!
TLfials
eTLf-crjcrav,
direiXy a.TreiXr](Twixe9a, TrapayyeAt'a TrapyyyetAajuev, cTrt^v/xt^

kTre6viit](Ta^
(^wvrjcras
<^wvt7,
ecrrr),
{xevov
e/zevev,
darpd-KTOvora, (fiopna <f)opot vofxiKOL in itself, and in conjunction TLêLv); likewise with ot âpLo-atoL, is Lukan ; " rj jBovX-i]" does not occur in
(jivXdcrcrovTes
(pvXaKds,
dcrrpoLTTi]
St. John, while it is used nine dOerdv (wanting in St. Matthew) is also inserted by St. Luke in x. l6 = St. Matt. x. 40; els eavTOvs (eavTov) occurs only once again in the gospels, St.
Matthew,
St.
Mark, and
;
times by
St.
Luke
Luke xv. 1 7. Therefore we can say absolutely nothing concerning the form and origin of this saying.
viz. in St.
St.
Matt.
xxii.
2-11 (the Great Supper)

identical
:
St.
Luke
xiv.
16-24.
The
course)
skeleton
is
A man who
his first invitation (to those

is
who
gives a feast ; are invited as a matter of
refused on the excuse of business of various kinds.
invites the vagabonds. In detail some verbal, or almost verbal, coincidences are found dv9po)7ros (the giver of the feast), direcrreLXev rhv
:
The master becomes angry and
SovXov avTOV
.
. .
(^Tovs
So'uXovs
avTOv), ot KeKXyjfxevoi, epyecOt

. . .
eTOLfxd ecTTLV (jjTOifxaKa
Sevre),
dypov -qyopaa-a
(eis
rov l8lov dypov^, (evyrj

els rots
fSoiov rjyopaa-a (eis tyjv epLTTopiav avTOv^^
opyicrdeis (^dipylcBt]), elrrev
avTOv), eêXde eade eirl rds SteôSovs rwv 68wv), eêXOe
tw SovAw avTOv {Xeyei tols Soi'Aois TrAaretas Kat pvfxas ttJ? ttoAcws (^Tropevels
ras 68ovs (eêA-
66vTes
els
Tas o5ovs).
no
But
in

contrast
with
these
:
instances of great dissimilarity 1. In St. Matthew the host is a king (God). 2. The feast is a marriage-feast.
3.
coincidences
we
find
The marriage
In
St.
feast
is
given in honour of the son
(Christ).
4.
invitations, in St.
5.
In St.
Matthew several servants^ are sent out with Luke only one.^ Matthew the first invited are invited twice (the
;
second time other servants are sent) in St. Luke, after the invitation of the poor, homeless, &c., since there is still room, the invitation is extended to the utterly destitute. 6. In St. Matthew the second invitation to the first
invited
7.
is
amplified so as to attract them.
Matthew it is only shortly stated what the invited did instead of responding to the invitation ; in St. Luke their excuses are given word for word (three
In
St.
first
cases are given in contrast to two in St. Matthew). Matthew relates that some of the invited 8. St.
ill-
treated and slew the inviting servants J nothing of this.

9.
St.
Luke knows
St.
Matthew
;
relates that the king sent his armies
against those murderers and destroyed their city ^ St. Luke tells us notliing of
10. St.
them and burnt

this.'*
Matthew adds the
story of the
'
man without
wedding garment.
1 The prophets are probably signified. I do not understand how Wellhausen has arrived at the conclusion that the apostles are meant. 2 Perhaps our Lord Himself is signified but this interpretation is by no means certain.
;
3 The text here is, of course, doubtful ; perhaps we ought to read " destroyed them and their cities." ^ Taking together these new traits in St. Matthew, it is clear that the evangelist has amalgamated a second parable (B) with the main parable (A). B tells us of a king against whom his subjects
revolted in his absence,
vengeance.
and who punished them with a terrible This parable was allied to the parable of the Vineyard.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
There
St.
is
121
Matthew
is
question
no need of many words to prove that here is ahnost the only everywhere secondary whether the distinction of two classes of
;
poor, as well as the verbal report of the excuses in St. Luke, are primary. The former trait answers to this
evangelist's warm interest in the very poorest, and the to that pictorial style which is a frequent characteristic of St. Luke. Nevertheless, in these traits
latter
he may
tinction
also preserve the original text.
between the two versions

^
is
that St.
The main disMatthew
has transformed a genuine parable an historical motive.
into an allegory with
Did, however, the text, as presented in St. Luke, form the exemplar of St. Matthew ? and did it belong The first question should perhaps be answered to Q } in the affirmative the exemplar of St. Matthew, so far as its essential content is concerned, would not have presented a very different appearance from the text given in St. Luke, which besides permits of easy transThe second question lation back again into Aramaic.^
:
In the concluding verse in St. Luke (xiv. 24) our Lord Iîmself represented as the host ; but the introduction of this tr^t has not seriously affected the general character of the original parable. 2 Note also that 5^ is wanting, and that, on the other hand, ten
1
is
clauses of the section begin with Kal (the style is, however, Lukan in places ; thus tis, verse 16 ; Tapayevd/xevos, verse 21 ; &pa, with gen.,
verse 17 [vide St. Luke i. 10; Acts iii. 1, x. 3, xvi. 33, xxiii. 23], ijpâvTO, verse 18 ; wapaiTHadai., verses 18 and 19 [wanting in the gospels ; see, however. Acts xxv. 11] ; dv&injpos, verse 21 [only again
in
New
Testament
in St.
Luke
xiv. 13]).
'Awd
fiias,
verse 18, can
scarcely be Semitic (Wellhausen), but is a vulgar abbreviation for dwh /iias yvd}fMr]s (so once in Philo) vel ^vxris. The phrase ^x^
:
good Greek. Is the phrase: ^x M^ We iraprjTr]ixhov ("habe me excusatum," Martial) a Latinism ? must of course become much more cautious in making such assumpIt is also possible that St. Matthew has preserved a more tions.
&vdyKr]v iêXduu ISelv avrov is
faithful representation of the original text if we subtract all the traits which are derived from the parable B,
122
I am inclined to answer in the negative ; for St. Matthew has upon no other occasion so freely edited or amalgamated with other material those sections which are derived from Q. We must therefore conjecture that either this
received another form in

St.
section did not occur in Q, or that if it did, it had already before that source reached
Matthew.
In the
first
case, the section lies outside
our sphere of investigation into the constitution of the in the second case, it is difficult to determine text of the Lukan text purified whether we should claim for
of
its
Lukan
traits or
the text of
St.
traits
derived from the parable B.
Matthew less those Hence we must
disregard this section altogether.

St.
St.
Matt. xxv. 14-30 (the parable of the Talents)
Luke xix. 12-27. Here the chief distinction between St. Matthew and St. Luke lies in the fact that St. Luke has amalgamated
with the parable of the Talents (C) the afore-mentioned parable B (concerning the king taking vengeance upon his revolted subjects) which St. Matthew has combined
with the parable (A) of the preceding section.^ A very The parable B could not preserve its perplexing case and has been incorporated into the existence, separate
!
parable of the Great Supper (A) by
St.
Matthew, and
in both into the parable of the Talents (C) by St. Luke cases bringing into its new context a disturbing and
incongruous element.
In
St.
Luke the parable B^

Matthew, but
is
given in clearer detail than B^ in St.

connection with the context the latter gospel. has amalgamated with
It
1
its
is
even poorer here than in noteworthy that St. Matthew

is
yet a third parable
(the
in St.
Matthew
is
not quite identical with
in St. Luke,
yet they are closely allied. as Bi and B.
We
must therefore distinguish them
Wedding
Kt
ecrrat
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I Garment), and that C and D both

6
123
conclude
*
with the clause
K/3dXeT (avrbv) KXav9fxh<s Kal 6 jSpvyixos twv

:
els
rh o-kotos to l^corepov
686vt(ov.
The
:
command parable B^ also concluded with a terrifying and the parable KaTaa-ffidâTe avrovs efXTrpoa-Qev jxov,^ likewise concludes with a melancholy sentence (St. Luke
xiv.
fxov
24): ov8els tcov dvSpojv Ikcii/wv twv KeKXrjfxevbiV yevcrerai There were thus four parables, all of Tov SetTTvov.
which were originally concerned with the Parousia (the Judgment and the Kingdom) St. Matthew gives them in the order first, A amalgamated with B^ and with D as an appendix, then C St. Luke gives first A, then
C amalgamated
with B^.
it
is
How
this
came
to pass in the
no longer possible to discover; we must therefore refrain from attempting to ascertain whether these parables stood in Q, and in what form.^
course of tradition
Now in regard to C, we find that at the beginning of the parable the form in St. Matthew is different from that in St. Luke on the other hand verbal, or
;
they become very strongly marked. ^lopav (both) SovXovs [ScKa SovAovs] eSwKev avrois SovXe dyaOe ttoXXwv oAiya (both) on dyaSe CKX'qpos c^wv ktA.]
istic
I
almost verbal, coincidences are not wanting indeed in the second part and in the dialogue this is character-
Cf. dvOptMiros
aTToSi^/xcov [7ro/5v^7j is
fxaKpdv^
c/caAecrev
[KaAecras]
tov<s tStovs
eu,
cttc
evrt rjs ttlcttos,
ere
KaTaa-Tyjcro)
lctBl
[evye,
SovXe,
kv
eXa-)(^L(TTO)
ttlcttos
iyevov,
iôvoriav
el dvOpioiros,
6epL^(3iv oTTOv
\dv9p(x>7ro<s
ovK cnrLpas Kal crvvaywv oOev ov BiearKopincrais avcTTt^pos t, aipets o ovk WrjKas, Kal OepLêLS 6
OVK ecnreipas]
^
:
Tronype SoGAe
birov ySeL<s otl depiô)
ovk
d7rc6Xe<rev Toii (poveTs iKelvovi Kal tt]v irdXiv avruv iyiTp7]<Tev Cf. B^ [or in place of the last four words simply, rds 7r6Xeis]. 2 further amalgamation took place in the Gospel of the
Hebrews
with C.
here
the parable of
the Prodigal Son
is
combined
124

. .
OTi
(re
eairetpa kol (rvvdyu) odev ov StecTKopTrtcra [Troi'ry/jc SouA.e, ^Jêis eSei . aipiDV 6 ovK WrjKa Kal dyjpiîjjv 6 ovk ecrTretjoa]
dpyvptd p.ov rots rpaTreêtrats, kol ^KdoiV dv to ephv o"Vv tokw [Kai Sea rt otjk eScuKa? eA^wv (ruj/ tokw dv avTo yaov TO dpyvptov eiTL rpdireâv ; Kayu) ovv dir Kal Sore t(^ )(ôvtl avrov to rakavrov dpare eirpaâ'l
ovv jSaXelv
to,
yio eKOixLcrdixi^v
rd
8c
SeKtt
ScKa
jotvas )(oi/Tt]
rdXavra [dpare a7r avTou no yap e^ôvTt
t'))v
/xvdv Kal 86t

.
tw
. .
Tcts
Trav'Tt SoOtja-eTaL
tov
/xt)
c'xovtos Kttt o
)(êL
dpOrjo-eTai dir
/xt)
avrov [ot6 iravrl tw

/<ai
diro Se e)(0VTt SoOâeraL,
tov
Ixovtos
o ;(t ap^rycreTat].
quite evident that there is, at the background, a single traditional source declaring itself even in details Hence the differences proceed most of phraseology.^
it is
Here
probably from the hand of the final revisor i.e. either St. Luke or St. Matthew have made corrections. Which
of them was the corrector.'' give the following table of comparison, wherein we of course entirely neglect those traits which St. Luke has derived from B^
:
We
St
Matthew
number.
St.
Servants of an indefinite
Luke Ten servants.

:
The
lord on his departure

all
The lord on
his departure
commits
his
posses-
sions to his servants,
commits to each only a pound, and expressly tells
them
and indeed
cording
to to
five
to trade therewith.
to each achis
ability,
one
talents,
to
another. two, to the third
one (these are intended to serve as examples of the
method of
1
distribution),
are linguistic
The synonyms are not translation-variants, but corrections made by St. Luke.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
he
I
is
125
not
who
five
received
five
This given
information
talents
gains
therewith
other
talents,
he
re-
expressly in the comnarrative but is

fol-
who
other
received two gains

two,
municated in what
lows.
he who
it
ceived
one buries
;
in
the earth
on
as
his
return the lord

sets
the
first
says
that
his
a reward
those
had received the five and the two talents " and over " many things "Enter into the adds,
joy
of
talent
who
gained pounds, the second that his pound has gained

five
pound
has
ten
pounds;
over ten
over
the
first is
set
cities,
the
who
thy taken from hipi had buried it.

;
lord
"
the
second
five
cities,
is
another [the other] returns the pound which
he had kept wrapped in a napkin ^ it is taken from him.

;
what he leaves behind to decide what makes trial of in Luke he St. do with should it; they ten of his servants, giving them an express direction as In St. Matthew he divides to each to their procedure. individually according to his ability, but gives the same reward to those who had laboured in St. Luke he gives the same to all, but the reward varies in accordance with
In St. Matthew the lord him among all his servants
leaving them
divides
the performance of each.^ It seems to me that the simpler version is that of St. Matthew. This impression,
Luke is an obvious Latinism. Matthew it is the servant who gains, in St. Luke it is the pound which each has received. The latter version is naturally
1
liovdaptop in St.
St.
In
still
Lastly, there are secondary, because it betrays most reflexion. obvious traces in St. Luke that his exemplar mentioned not
ten but, as in St. Matthew, three servants.
126
moreover, St. Mark.
{cf.

confirmed by a glance at a passage in Here we read (xiii. 34) ws avOpoiiros olttoSyjimos Matthew verse 14 ioanrefj avOpojTros dTroSrjfxiov,
is
: :
St.
otherwise in
St.
Luke)
dcfiels tyjv
otKiav avTOV kol 8ovs rots
SouAots avTov Trjv iôva-tav (therefore not a test but the management of the whole household, as in St. Matthew ;
St. Luke), Kao-T(^ to epyov avrov (to each therefore according to his ability; so also in St. Matthew, otherwise in St. Luke). Thus St. Matthew, in contrast
otherwise in
Luke, agrees with St. Mark, who evidently knew of the parable which has been drastically edited by St. Luke. It does not, however, follow that the parable
to St.
comes from Q, nor

has handed
it
if it
comes from
Qthat
St.
Matthew
is
down
indeed improbable.
to us in its original form. This In St. Mark to each servant
is
assigned his separate function in the household ; this idea can indeed be still traced in St. Matthew (and in St. Luke), but it has been thrust into the background
by ideas of another kind. The trafficking with money can have had no place in the forms of the parable with which St. Mark was acquainted for he knows nothing
;
money to the servants. Hence the common source of St. Matthew and St. Luke is secondary when compared with St. Mark (whether Its form has it was contained in Q we cannot tell).
at
all
of the
distribution
of
perhaps arisen from the combination of two parables 1 the departing lord delivers his household to the (C
:
care of his servants
C ^ the departing lord gives his ; property to his servants that they may develop it).
:
CHAPTER
LINGUISTIC
II
AND HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE NONMARKAN SECTIONS COMMON TO ST. MATTHEW AND
LUKE (Q).
ST.
I.The Text
1. (St.
Matt.
. .
iii.
5,
7-12
rj
St.
Luke
iii.
S, 7-9, 16, 17.)

. . .
(7)
iSoov
[.
Jlacra
7repi-)((iopog
rod ^lopSdvov
. . .
lÎcoavvrj^l
TroXXovg [vel rovg o^j^Xof?]

Tig
^p^poltto
jiiivovg CTTi
TO
iBaTrTKTjUia elirev avTol^''\

e-î^voov,
YevvrjiJiaTa
Ttjs jULeXXovcn]^
vireoeiêv
Troi/jcraTe
vjuliv
(pvyeiv
T^9
ev
lJLeTavola<i
OjOy^?; (8) (9) kcu jur]

eyoiJ.ev
e/c
ovv Kapirov aîov

?]
S6^r]Te [ap^tja-Qe
\iyeiv
avTOi<i'
iraTcpa
tov
t(jov
rj^t]
Â.l3padjUi'
X'lQcov
vjULiv
OTL SviâTai 6 Qeog

TO)
Xiyco yap tovtoov iyeipai
TKva
piXo.v
rj dîvr] Trpog Tr]V KCiTai' irav ovv SevSpov jur] iroiovv (H) Kapirov KoXov KK07rTTai Kai ig TTvp jSaXXeTai. o ê eyu) jmev vjmag âirTiô) ev vSaTL eig /uLeTOLvoiav
A.^paafX'" (10)
oe
Tcciv
SevSpcop
07ri<7ft)
eijiAi
jUiOV
p-)ÔIULVOg
l(J)(UpOTp6g
jULOV
(7TIV,
OV OVK
Uavog
TLorei
VTroS^jmaTa /SadTacraL' avTog v/mag /Sajrev \7rveviJ.aTL (a-yico) Kai] ov to tttvov irvpi, (12)
to,
ev Til koI yeLp\ avTOV, SiaKaOapiei Trjv oXcova avTOu, koI ctitov avTov eig Trjv aTroO/jKfjv, to Se TOV (Tvvaêi ayypov
KaTaKavcrei
2.
Trvpi acrîdTU) (pp. 40, 41).
(St.
Matt.
iv.
1-11
eh
St.
Luke
iv.
1-13.)
(1)
'O
^\ri(Tov<s
avrjyOr]
Trjv eptj/ULOv viro
tov
irvev-
p-aTog TreipacrO^jvai viro tov Sia/SoXov, (2) koi vrja-Tevcrag

127
nS
^jmepag
jul

Km
elirev
vvKrag
avTcp'
jj!
vdrepov
viog
et
eireivacrev,
ireipaYaciv
el
tov Oeov,
elire
(3) kol 6 \va ol
\lOoi ovtol aproi yevooprai, (4) Kai aireKpiOr]- yeypairovK eir apT(p juovw ^rjcreTai 6 avOpooTrog. Tttt (5) TrapaXaju^dvei Se avTOV ei9 lepovaraXtj/uL koi ecTTrjcrev avTOV iiri to Trrepvyiov tov lepov (6) Kai Xeyei avTW 1 VL09 1 TOV QeoVi jSoXe creavTOV KaTco' yeypaiTTai
yap
OTi TOig ayyeXoi9 avTOv evTcXeiTai nrepi <rov Kai iirl "êipwv apovcrlv cre^ /jly] itotc 7rpo(JK6^n<s 7rpo<s XiOov TOV TToSa (TOV. (7) echrj avTip 6 hjaou^' ttoXiv
yeypaiTTat' ovk eKTreipaa-eig Kvpiov tov Oeov crov. (8) iraXiv TrapaXajmâveL avTOV eig opo<s v^^rfKov \lav
Kai SeiKvvariv avTco Trdarag to.^ (SaariXeLas tov KOcrjuLov Kat
Trjv
Soâv avTwVi (9) koi

edv TrpocrKw/jcrug
'
elirev avTco'
jjloi.
TauTO.
croi
irdvTa
Scecrot),
Îrjcroug
yey paiTTaL' Kvpiov

/cat
(10) kcu \eyei tov Oeov crov
avTw 6
Trpocrkoi
Kwrjcreig
d(pi}]cnv
XaTpevareig. auTov 6 SidjSoXo^ (pp. 41 if.).
avTU)
/ulovw
(H)
8. (St.
Matt.
v.
1-4, 6, 11, 12
17, 20-23.)
. . .
St.
Luke
vi.
(I) (2)
[.
oÔL
iSlSaêv
Tovg
ecTTiv
juLaOtjTas
Xeycov
.]
(3) M.aKapLoi ol tttcoô/, oti,
avTwv
oti
rj
âcriKela
TOV Oeov,
(4) /uLaKapLoi ol
crovTai',
irevOovvTe^,
qvtoI TrapaKXtjOij-
(6) juLaKapioi ol ireLvcovTe^, otl avTOi '^(opTacrOrjcrovTaL (II) /uLaKOLpiOL ecTTe, OTav oveLSla-cooriv v/ixag koi Sioo^cocTiv
KOI
e'lTTOoa-iv
irdv
Trovrjpov
kqO^
vjmcov yêvSojtxevoi,
(12) -âlpeTe koi
ayaXXidcrOe,
oti
julktOos
vjulcov
THE TEXT
TToXi'? v
129
iolooâv tov^ irpo-
Toig ovpavot9' ovTwg

vjulcIjv
yap
(pijras Toi/f Trpo
(p. 48).
4. (St.
Matt.
ere
v.
39,
40
St.
Luke
vi.
29.)
[coi'],
(39) "OcTis
paTrliêi e/? Tr]v [Seîav]
ciayova
Km Tt]v aWfji/, (40) Kai tco OeXovri <roi crrpeyôv avna KOI TOP yj.T(i>va arov Xa/Seiv, KpiOfjvai acpes avru) koi to
IjULOLTlOV
(p. 58).
5. (St.
Matt.
v.
42; St. Luke

ô?? koi tov
vi.
30.)
airo aov
(42) Tu> aiTOvvTt

Savlcrao-Oai
/mt]
ere
OeXovTa
aTroaTpacprj^ (p. 58).
6. (St.
Matt.
v.
44-48
St.
Luke
vi.
27, 28,
35^
32, 33, 36.)
(44) 'E-yo) Xeyft)
vjuLiv
ayairuTe Tovg eÔpovg

v/ma^,
v/ucov
Koi irpocev'êa-Qe virep
twv ^mkovtcov
(45) OTrwg
yevtjaOe vloi tov iraTpo's vjuloop, oti top j'jXiop ovtov CLPaTeXXei eiri Troptjpov^ Kai ayaOov^ [Kai ppeyei eiri
SiKaiovi Koi
ao/zcou?].
(46)
cap
yap
ayaTrrja-rjTe
Tovg
ayaircoPTag
TcXcopai
v/mag,
TLPa
/ull(tOov
;
TO avTo
ttolovcip
epêre; ov-î Kai ol (47) Ka\ cap aariracrfja-Oe
Tovg aSeXcpovg
KOI ol iOpiKol
vjucop /ulopop,
to avTO
TTOLOVCTLP;
t/ irepicrcTOP TroieiTe; ov-î (48) eaeaOe ovp oiKTip-
fxopeg [? Xer]fj.0P9 ?] cog 6 TruTtjp vjulwp oiKTip/mcop [? eXe>7lULCOP ?] icTTlP (p. 59).
7. (St.
Matt.
oara
vii.
12; St. Luke

OiXrjTe
"va
vi.
31.)
vjuip
(12) TLoLPTa
cap
ttolooctip
ol
Kai apOpcoTTOi, ovTCog
ujmeig
iroieiTe
avTOig (p. 9).
130

Matt.
vii.
8. (St.
1-5
St.
Luke
vi.
37, 38, 41, 42.)
ev w yap KpLjuaTi KpiOrjre, (2) koi ev (j) fxerpcp jmerpeiTe /uLerprjKpiOrjcreaOe, Kplvere Qria-eTaL vij.lv. (3) t/ ê ^Xeireig to Kapcpog to ev tw
(1) M>;
/CjOiVere,
%a
/mrj
ScbOaXjULw Tov aSeXcbov crov, Trjv Se ev to) arw ScpOaX/uiii) SoKov ov KaTavoeis; (4) rj ttco? epel^ tw aSeXcpw arov
acbeg e/c/3a\a)
to Kapcpog
ocpOaXjJLW
e/c
tov 6(pOa\/uiov
(5)
crov, Kai
rj
SoKO^
ev
T(p
crov;
irpooTov
Sia^Xeylreig eKâXeiv
TOV ocpOaXjULOv crov to Kapcpos k tov oipOaX/uiov tov
viroKpiTa, eKJBaXe Trjv Sokov, Koi TOTe
aSeXipov (TOV (p. 8).

9. (St.
Matt.
xv.
14
St.
Luke
vi.
39.)
etg
(14) TvipXog TvcpXbv eav BoOvvov TreaovvTai (p. 28).

10. (St.
oStjyu,
ajuLCpoTcpoi
Matt.
x. 24,
25
St.
Luke
vi.
40.)
(24) SovXos virep

imaOrjT^
OvK
ecTTLV fjLaOrjTrjg virep
tov SiSaarKaXov ovSe
tov Kvpiov
o)?
avTOv.
6
%a
cog
SovXo^
yivrjTai 6 Kvpiog avTOV (p. 79).
(25) apKeTov tm SiSa<7KaXo9 avTOV, koi 6
11. (St.
Matt.
vii.
16-18;
xii.
33; St. Luke
vi.
43, 44.)
TOV Kapirov to SevSpov yivwcTKeTai. jm-Wfcltto aKavOwv aTa(pvXa<5 tj airo Tpi/36Xcov crvXXeyovcriv (TVKa ; (17) ovTO)9 "ttclv SevSpov ayaOov Kapirov koXov
(33) 'E/c
TTOiei,
TO
ov
Se
crairpov
SevSpov Kapirov irovrjpov
iroiei.
(18)
SvvaTat
ovSe
SevSpov
ayaOov
Kapirov
irovrjpov
iroielv
eveyKelv
(p. 68).
SevSpov
crairpov
Kapirov
KaXov
THE TEXT
12. (St.
181
Matt.
vii.
21, 24-27; St.

ywot*
/cJÔfe
Luke
vi.
46-49.)
(21)
[Ou
Tra? 6
Xeywv
Kvpie, eia-eXeva-erai
deXtjfxa
juov
efV Tî^ jSacriXeiav
tov 6eov, aX\* 6 iroiwv to

ocrri^
tov
rov^
Trarpog
yuou].
(24) Tra? ovu
ctKovei
Xoyovg tovtov^ koi

eoTTLv ojULOio^
'
iroiei avTOV<s, tlvl VTroSeiô) vjulip in of these ecTTLv seven ojULoiog place [or
oarTi<s
words simply
avTOV
oixoLOdBrja-erai^ avSp\ rrjv oiKiav eiri rrjv Trerpav.

/caf
(pKoSojmrja-ev
(25) koi
Kare/Stj
rj
^P^X^
rjXBov 01 TTorajuioi Kai 7n^va-av ol avefxoL Kai
irpoa-eTrecrav
rn
oiKia eKeiprj, Kai ovk GTrccev reOejuLeXlwro
yap
TOl'9
cttI
Trjv
XoyOVg
avSpl
ajuLfjLOP.
(26) Trerpav. TOVTOV<S Kai JULtJ

ocrri^
Kai
ira^
clkovcov
/mov
TTOICOU
aVT0V9
Tr]V
OjULOlOoO^-
a-erai
wKoSo/mtjcrev
Kare/Btj
rj
avrov
oiKiav
CTrt
rhv
(27) Ka\
eirvev(Tav
l3po')(f]
Ka\
^XOov
ol
iroTa/uLol Kai
ol
ave/moi Ka\
tjv
irpoa-eKOâv th
avrrjg jmeyaXtj
oiKia KLvri, Ka\ eirea-eVy Kai

(p. 70).
Trrcocri^
13. (St.
Matt.
vii.
28
viii.
5-10, 13
St.
Luke
vii.
1-10.)
(28, viii. 5) [After

19
He had
spoken these words]
koi irpocrtjXOev avrw cKarovei&tjXOev Jâcpapvaov/j. outov (6) Kai XeyooV Kvpie, 6 Traig rapYog irapaKaXccv oiKia ev rfj ixov fie^Xtjrai TrapaXvTiKO?, Seivwg âaraviXojjievog.
(7)
Xeyei
avrip'
Se 6
e'yo)
eXOwi/
Qepairevcroo
avTOv.
(8) OLTTOKpiOeh cKaroi'Tapyog (pt]' Kvpie, OVK ei/uil iKavog "iva jxov viro Tt]v a-reyrjv eKTeXOrjg' aXXa (9) Kai fxovov eiire Xoyo), Kai laOiâ-erai 6 iralg fôv.
vir* ejuLavrov viro eôvciav, eywv eyco avOpcoiroi eifJLi Kai Xeyco rovrip' iropevOtjTi, Kai Tropeverai, crrparKiOTag,
yap
132
KOI
aXXft)*

cp-ôv^
Ka]
ep'^êrai,
kol
tw
Sov\(p
fiov
irolfjcTov TOVTOf Kai iroiei.
cOaujULaa-ep
vjuLiVj
kol eiTrev T019
(10) CLKoXovdovaiv'
aKovara<s
ê o '\rjcrovq
[a/x^yi/]
Xiyco
oj?
ouSe iv
elirev
Tw
ttlcftip evpov. [(13) 'IcrpafjX Tocraurtjv
Koi
'li](rov^
tw
aroi.
7ricrTV(Ta^
yevrjOriTOi)
cKarovrap-^r]' ^vwaye^, Kai laOrj 6 irali ev Trj
copa
kelvril (pp. 71, 74).
14. (St.
Matt.
xi.
2-11
St.
Luke
vii.
18-28.)
(2)
*0
epya tov XpicTTOVf eLTrev avrw' (3) (rv

Koojuev;
^ Îwavvt]^ CLKOvcra^ ev T(a Sea-imcoTijpLa) ra oia twv /aaOtjTwv avrov 7r6yit\|/-a?

el o
(4) kou
CLTroKpiOeh
epyoixevo^ ri erepov TrpoaSoelwev avroig' TropevOevre^
CL'TrayyeiXare
'Iwavvu
aKovere
koi
pXiireTe.
(5)
TVcbXol ava^Xeirovcriv Kai
wepiiraTOvcriv, XcTrpol KaQapiYovTai Kai Kcocbol aKOvovcriv, kou vcKpoi iyelpovrai Kai iTTwypl evayyeXiXovTar (6) kol âKapiog ecrriv 09
ywXoi
av
fit]
crKavSaXicrOiJ iv
i/xoi
(7) tovtcov
Se
iropevoviro
/jLV(Dv
yjpâro
eig
Xeyeiv T019 oyXoig irepl ^looavi/ov rt

rrjv
eprj/uLov
i^^XOare
aveixov
OeaaracrOai;
KaXa/uiOP
e^rjXQare ISeiv; avQpwirov ev /iiaXaKoig ejuLcpiecr/JLevovy iSov ol to, jmaXaKa v T019 oiKOig T()V /3a(nX(ji)v, (9) aXXa tI (popovvTcs
(8)
Xe-yo) v/ULtp, Trepicr^7]X0aT; TrpocpijTijv tSeiVj' (10) OVT09 eo'Tiv irepi ov yeypair(TOTcpov 7rpo(pr]TOV. Tai' ISov iyu) airocrTeXXw top ayyeXop fxov irpo
aaXevofievov;
aXXa
tl
vol
koi
TrpoardoTTOV crov^
efJLTrpoa-Qep
crov.
09 KaTaarKevaarei Tt]P (11)

[a/x>;i/]
oSop
crov
Xeyoo
vjulip,
ovk eyrjyep-
Tai P yepptjTOtg yvpaiKcop jmelToyp 'Icodppov [rot' âirTioro ê jULiKpoTcpo^ P T^ âcTiXeioi TOV Oeov jULelôov Toi/]*
avTov
ea-TiP (pp. 90, 14).
THE TEXT
15. (St.
133
Matt.
xi.
16-19;
St.
Luke
Tavniv
vii.
31-35.)
tivl eaTLV
(16)
o/jlolol]^
;
Tm
6juloi(jci(T00
Ttjv yei'cav
[/caf
ojuLoia iarriu TraiSioig KaOijimivoig ev
rah
'
ayopai^
a TTpocrCpcovovi/Ta Toh erepoig (17) \iyovariv

v/uLtv
tjvXrja-a/uLev
Kai ovK
wp'îjcracrOe' eOprivrjarafJiev
koll
ovk eKoyâcrOe.
koI
(18) tjXOev
yap
(t6l(jov
icoavvrjg
/ul-)]T
ecrQicov
ixr]Te ttivoov,
Xeyovcriv
avOpcoTTOV
SaijuLOviov
e-^î.
(19)
KOI
^XOev
fto?
tov
XiyovcTiv' iSou av~ Kai tcXcoi^cov (biXo^ koi ajuapoivoTrorrj^f OpcoTTog <payo^ TcoXwv. Kai iSiKatcJoOt] rj airo tcov riKvoov avrtj^ (ro(pLa
TTLvoov,
KOI
(p. 16).
16. (St.
Matt.
x.
7; St. Luke
ix.
2;
x. 9, 11.)
rj
(7) TlopeuojuLevoi Krjpva-aeTe Xeyovres otl ijyyiKev
âa-tXeia tov Oeov (p. 79). 17. (St.
Matt.
viii.
19-22;
St.
Luke
ix.
croi
57-60.)
oirov
(19) [EiVeV
Ti9
avTCf)'^
CLKoXovOijcTCi)
eav
(20) koI Xeyei avrco 6 'Itjarov*;' al aXcoireKeg airep-^ri. Kai Ta irereiva tov (pooXeov^ e-)(ov(TLV ovpavov KaTacrKrjvu)06 o TOV VL09 o'ez?, avOpuctirov ovk 'i')(ei irov Trjv K<paXt]v kXii/ij. (^^) eTepos Se eiirev avTw' eiriTpe^ôv juloi tov julov (22) TrpooTOV OLTreXOeiv koi
6a\âi iraTepa Xeyei Se avTcp' aKoXovOei juloi, koi acpeg tov9 vcKpovg 6a\âi T0f9 eavTicv vKpovg (p. 10).
18. (St.
Matt.
ix.
37, 38
St.
Luke
x. 2.)
(37) A.eyi avTOi<^

ol Se oepicrnxog iroXvg,
[roh
ju!.aOr]Taig
avTOv
?]
6 juev
epyaTai oXiyor (38)
Sey'jBrjTe
ovv
TOV Kvpiov TOV avTOv Oepia-juLOv
OepiQ-juLov oTTCoj
CKâXrj epyaTug ek tov
(p. 12).
134^

19. (St.
Matt.
x. 16*; St.
Luke
o)?
x. 3.)
(16) 'loof
eyoo
aTrocTTeXXoo
vjaag
Trpo/Bara
ev
juecrw XvKOOv (p. 13).
20. (St.
Matt.
eav
x. 12,
13; St. Luke

ei9
x. 5, 6.)
(12)
avTY}v
îcrp-)(OjULVoi
Se
>;
Trjv
oiKiav
acnraa-acrOe
a^m, eAaarft) ?; eiprjvri vjULoov eir avTtjV eav oe ij aha, eipyjvr] ujulcop irpo^ vjuLci^ 7r icTTpacp^Tco. (Preceded by some words which can still be supplied with some degree of certainty from St. Luke x. 4 jmrj âa-TaXere âXkavriov, fxt]
(1<3)
fj
jULt]
rj
:
Kai
oiKia
TT^pav,
/uLr]
vTroorJiaaTa, koi jurjSeva
Kara
Trjv
oSov acnrd-
a-riaOe [i.e.
" do not stop "]) (p. 79).
21. (St.
'
Matt.
x.
10^
St.
Luke
r^?
x.
7^)
avTov,
:
(10)
A.^109
yap
epydrtjg
rpocj)^?
Preceded by some such words as St. Luke x. 7* ev avTn Tu oiKia jmeveTe, eaOovreg Kal irivovreg ra irap
auTcov (p. 12).
22. (St.
Matt.
Xeyco
x.
15
St.
Luke
x. 12.) ecrrai
yij
(15)
['AyU^j^]
vjULiv
avcKrorepov
'ZioSojULcov
KOI
lu place of the last four TojuLoppcov [oT
words, ôSojuoi's^ ev tu ^jmepa [cKelvr] ? Kpicrecog ?1 rj rrj TToXei eKelvr}. (Preceded, according to St. Luke x. 8-11, some such words as follow ek rjv av iroXiv elarepby
:
vjuliv k, êyoovrai Ufjuag, Oeou. r. S' av avroi^* e/? rj ijv /Baar. Xeyere t^jyyiKev TToXiv icreXOi]T K. jurj êyudVTai v/ma^, ePeXOovre^ eig r.
yjia-Oe
k.
eadlere r. TrapaTiOejULeva
TrXareiag ai/T^9
t]/uiiv
e'^Trare*
VJULOOV
k. t.
Kovioprov r. KoXXrjOevra
T.
CK.
T. TToXewj
ig
TToSa^ aTTOfxaa'a'OjuLeOa
vjuiiv)
(p. 13).
THE TEXT
23. (St.
135
Matt.
aoi,
xi.
21-23;
St.
Luke
x. 13-15.)
'
el
ôpaYelvj oval (toi, BrjOo-aloav otl ev Tvpw Kal ^lSwvi iyevovTO at Swajueig at yevo/uLevaL vjMv, irakai dv ev araKKO) Ka\ cnroSw jtxeTevorjcrav.
(21)
irXfjv
Oval
(22)
Kal
[Xeyw
vjuiv^
Tvpco
?
juLrj
kolI
îScovl avcKTorepov
rj
eo'Tai [eV VjuLepa Kplarew^

(TV,
ev TJj Kplo'ei ?^
eco?
vjuiv.
(23)
eojj
liâcpapvaoiifXy
ovpavov vy^coO/jcu;
aSov Kara/S^crij (p. 17).
[24. (St.
Matt.
x.
40 ;
St.
Luke
x. 16.)]
[*0
Kal 6 e/xe Se'ôjuevo^ Se'ôjuevog u/xa? e/xe Se-)(Tat,
Se-êraL
tov OLTroarrelXavTa
/xe] (p. 86).
25. (St.
Mati.
KLV(j)
xi.
25-27;
Kaipcp
St.
Luke
x. 21, 22.)
oroi,
(25) 'El'
OLTTO
Tw
eiTTev eôjULoXoyovfxaL
rtjg yt]<s,
Kal irarep Kvpie rov ovpavov

crochcov Kal arvvercav koi
on
eKpvyâg ravra
cnreKaXvyp-a^
avra
vrjirloi^'
(26) valj 6 iraTYjpf otl ovrcog evSoKia eyevero eiJ-irpocrOev crov. (27) Travra fxoi irapeSoOt] viro rov irarpogf Kai ovoeig eyvco \jtov viov ei /mrj o iraTrjp ovoej tov Kai w eav (SovXrjTai 6 iraTepa [rig eyvco'^ el /mi] 6 utoy
uioj aTTOKaXv'âi (p. 17).
26. (St.
Matt.
xiii.
16, 17; St.

ol
Luke
x.
23^
24.)
TO. S)Ta
(16) *Y/ULwv jxaKapLOi OTL oLKOvovcriv. [J/xcoi/],
otl ^Xeirovariv, kou ScpOaXjuol,
(17)
[âjixt]v
yap^ Xeyco
vfMVy OTL iToXXol irpocpriTaL \_Kal âa-iXelf^ eireOv^tja-av ISeiv a (SXeireTe koi ovk elSav, Kal aKovaaL a a/coJere,
Kal OVK rjKovcrav (p. 25).
136

27. (St.
Matt.
vi.
9-13
St.
Luke
xi.
2-4.)
rjjuLiv
ft)?
TOU apTOV rjjULWV TOV eiriOlXTLOV So9 [(9) TloLTep, (11) (12) kgl a(peg rjij.lv ra 6(j)ei\i]fxaTa rjîm,
a-rjjULepov,
rjixel^
Kcu
acbr'JKajuiev
roig ocpeiXirai^
rj^cov,
(13) Kai
jur]
eicrepeyKug
rjfxa^ ef? TretjOacr/xoV.]
(p. 63).
28. (St.
(7)
Matt.
vii.
7-11
St.
Luke
xi.
9-13.)
AhelTe, KOI
So67](T6Tai vjulIv i^rjTeire, koi evpria-eTe'
(8) Tra? yap o aircov KpovT KOL OLVoiy^cTeTai vjULiv. koi tw Kpovovri avoi6 Koi \a/Jil3di/i, 'Q'lTOov evpla-Keij
aiTTja-ei (9) rj tI<s ia-riv i^ v/ulcov avOpcoTrog, yriG-erau 6 VLog avTOV apTOV^ firj XlOov eTTiScoarei avTa>; (10) i] Kot l-)(Qvv aiTi]cri, /mrj o(piv eirMa-ei avTcp; (11) et ouv
bv
v/meig irovrjpoL ovTe<s o'lSare
TOig ^So/mara] ayaOa owcrei 6 6 TeKVOi<s vjuLcou, jmaXXov e^ ovpavov Trartjp ayaOa rois airoddiv avrov; (p. 8).
TroVo)
SLSovai
29. (St. Matt. xii. 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 43-45 St. Luke xi. 14, 17, 19, 20, 23-26.)
(22) [iOepdirevcrev]
TTcia-a
.
SaijuovilôiuLevov
Kwcpov,
[wa-Te]
TOV KW(j)6v XaXetVf (23) koi [e^la-Tavro] [Travres] ol

o-)(Xoi
.
(25)
.
iprijJLOVTai eK^dXXot) TO. Sai/movia, ol viol vjuloov ev tlvi eKJSaXXovcriv ;
fiaanXeia jmepicrOeia-a icp' eavTrjv (27) Kol el eyco ev BeeXê/3oi/X

ecrovrai vjulwv
el
Sid
TOVTO avTol KpLToi

Oeov eyco
^ âa-iXeia
ejmov
.
(28)
Se
ev
TTvev/ULati
(p' Uyua?
ejuLOv
e/c/3aXXft)
rd
.
Saijmovia,
.
.
apa
/j.h
ecpOacrev
cov fxer
rov Oeov.
(30) 6
Kar
a-KOpTTi'teL
eomVj koi 6 jutj arvvaycov yuer' eôv (43) orav to aKdOapTOV irveviJ.a
Si
ePeXOrj diro
tov dvOpooTrov, Siep-êTai
dvvSpcov tottcov
THE TEXT
^tjTOvv
eig
137
avairavcriv Kai
julou
oJ^
[kui]
evpia-Kei^
Tov oiKOv
eTricrTpiyôt)
(44) [rore] \eyei' oQev e^fjXOov Kai eXOov

Kai
KCKOcrjuLr]'
upi(TKi
jxevov.
(TKoXaôvra
TrapoXajuLâvei jmeO' eauTov kiTTa TrvevjuLara irovrjporepa eavrou Kai eicreXOovra KaToiKci Kei, Kai yiverai ra ecrâra tov avOpco-
(45) Tore
iropeverai
crea-apwixevov Kot
TTOV eKcivov yêipova tcov Trpoorcov (pp. 21, 24).
30. (St.
Matt.
xii.
38, 39, 41,
42
St.
Luke
xi. 16,
29-32.)
OiXoiixev cltto ctov (rrjfxeiov ISeiv. (38) [They said] (39) 6 ê eiTrev yevea irovripa Ka\ jxoi'âXi^ (TrjfJLeiov
:
eTTi^rjTei,
Koi
atj/uLeiov
ov
SoOi]<TTai
avTu
ei
jmrj
to
artjiueiov 'Icova*
Taf9
'yei'ea
arjjueiov,
Niveveicocnrep yap iyevcTO 'Icova^ to?? Kai ecTai 6 tov u/o? ovTcog avOpcoirov tu
TavTTj.
KpLcrei
Tn
(^1) av^peg ISiiveveiTai avacTTricrovTai jULCTa r^y 'yej/ea? TavTt]9 tcai KaTaKpivovcTLV
et?
avTYiv^ OTL
]ULTev6)]arav
to
KTjpvy/ULa
icova, Ka\
iSov
(42) âtriXKrara votov iyepOrjaeTai iv Tn Kplarei jmeTa t^9 yeveag TavTijg Kai KaTaKpivei avTYiVy OTi rjXQev k twv irepaTOdv Ttjg ytjg aKovaai
TrXeiov 'loova SiSe.
Tf]v
aocplav
(p. 22).
ôXojmcovo^f
koi
iSov
irXeiov
ôXof^covoi
&S
31. (St.
Matt.
v.
15
St.
Luke
xi. 33.)
(15)
Ov
Kalovcriv
Xv^vov
Ka\
TiOiaa-iv
avTOV vtto
TOV
/uloSlou,
aXX'
eirl
Ttjv Xv^vlav, Kai XajULirei iracriv
TO?? ev
Til oiKia (p.
53).
vi.
32. (St.
Matt.
22,
23
St.
Luke
xi.
34, 35.)
ocpOaXjixo'^
(22)
oroi^J*
Xv-^vog av ovv II o
TOV
adojUiaTog
ecrTiv
(pfaA/xo? crov airAovs, oAov
to
138
(TWiuLa

(Tov
(pwreivov ecrrai'
(23) eav Se 6 ocpOaXjuLog

G-Koreivov ea-rai.
el
crov
TTOvrjpoi ^,
oXou to
V (TOL
crwjuLa (tov
OVV
TO
(^W<S
TO
CKOTO^
icTTlV,
TO aKOTOg TTOCOV ;
(p. 4).
33. (St.
Matt,
St.
xxiii. 4, 13, 23, 25, 27, 29,

xi. 46,
30-32, 34-36 ;
Luke
52, 42, 39, 44, 47-52.)

Aear/txevovcriv
co/ulovs
(4) [Perhaps
"
Woe "]
eiri
(popTia
/Sapea Kal avTol
Koi.
eTnTiOeacnv
TO)
Tovg
SaKTvX(p
T019
avTcov
ov
toov avOpcowcov, OeXovcriv Kivyjcrai
avTa. (13) oval

vjuLiv
âpicraioi^,
otl
KXeleTC
Trjv
vjmel^
PacriXelav tov Oeov
cjixTrpocrOev
twv avOpwirwv
elcrep-ôfxevov^
yap
ovK eiarep'êcrde ovSe TOvg

ToFff
acpleTe
cicreXOeiv.
(23) oval
vjjuv
TO Ta âpvTcpa tov
^SvOG-jULOV KOI
TO
otl airoSeKaTOVTe âpicraloL^, KOL TO avr]QoV KVjULlVOV, Kai a(b^KaT
vo/moVf tijv Kpicriv
Km to
v/mei?
eXeog.
ol
" (25) [Perhaps a

eacoOev Se ye/uLOva-iv e^
(St.
Woe "]
[vvi^]
âpia-aioi,
KaOapiêTe to e^wOev tov TroTrjpiov koi
TfJ9 '7rapo\îSogj
apway^g
v/miVj
koi
aKpacria^.
Luke
xi.
44) oval
ol
otl earTc
ol
aSrjXoi,
o'loacrip,
Kal
avQpoDiroL
ol
ol Ta(poi irepiTraTOvvTeg ewavco
OVK
âpLo-aloig, otl o1tiv6^ e^coOev juev TrapojuLOia^CTe Tacpoi^ KeKOViajuivoi^y ccrcoOev oe (halvovT-ai octtgoov yejuiovariv copaioi, veKpcov Kal Tracrr]^ aKaOapcrLas.'j
[(St.
Matthew 27)
oval vjjuv
Toh
(2932) oval
vjjilv,
Kal 7rpo(pt]Twv (30) Tcov TraTcpcov ^/ulcoVj
XiyeTC
ovk av
oTi oiKoSojueiTe Tovg Tacpovg twv el rjixeOa ev Taig i^/mepaig

fjjuieOa
avTcov
KOivcovol
ev
THE TEXT
TO)
aijULari
139
^crre
juLaprvpeiTe
tcov
7rpo(pr}Ta)u.
(^1)
(povevaravTcov tov^ Trpocbrjra^, [(32) Kat v/meig irXrjpuxTare to juerpov tcov iraTepcov vjuow']. (3436) Sia TOVTO Kai rj ô(pia tov Oeov elTrev
eavTOi^,
on
vlol ecTTe tcov
vjua^ [^^'?] irpo^ irpocjyrjTag Ka\ Kai avTwv airoKTevelre (TO(pov^ ypa/uijULaTi^' e^ Ka\ Siu>^T, (35) oxco? eXOt] ecp' v/mag irav aJ/ma eK')^vvv6(xevov eiri rrjg yrjg airo alfxarog "A./3eX
aTrocrreXXo)
ewg
a'iiULaT09
TOV
vaov
Zia'âplou, ov echovevcraTe /uLera^v Ka\ tov Ovcriaa'Ttjplov. (36) ctjULrjv
Xeyco vjuLiv, rjêi TavTr]v (p. 96).

34*. (St.
TavTa iravTa
iiri
Ttjv
yeveai^
Matt.
x.
26-33
St.
Luke
xii.
2-9.)
(26) OvSev
creTai, Kai
VJULIV
etjTLV K6Ka\vjuLjUvop
o OVK airoKaXv<i)6ri-
KpvirTOV h ov yvcocrOrjcreTai.
(TKOTia, t7raT V
TH
TM
'
(pCOTL
(2T) o Xeyco Kttl 6 19 TO
ovg aK0VT, KrjpvâTe iwl twv ScojuaTwv. airo twv airoKTevvovTwv to (po/SeicrOe
\|rt'^^j/
imr]
(28) koi
crcoiuLa,
jj-tj
t>]v
Se
ovvajuLevcov airoKTeivai'
yp^v^^rjv
TOV Svva/xevov koi
oe juaXXov (po/SeiaOe koi (Tw/xa ctTroXecraL iv yeevvrj.
(29) ov^L Svo [TreVre] (TTpovOla acra-aplov [acrcrapicov |8'] TTCoXeiTaL; Kat ev e^ avTwv ov irecreiTai eiri Trjv yrjv avev
TOV Oeov.
iracrai
(30)
vjucov
Se
koi
at TpL-ê(s t^? KecpaXtjg

'
ripLOiJ.rjij.ev
at
elatv.
(31)
fxr]
\ovv'\
(bo/BeicrOe
TToXXu)
[yet
TToXXoov already
stood in Q] a-TpovOloov
ovv o(TTig ojUioXoyijcrei ev
SiacpepeTC
v/uLeig.
(32)
7ra?
ejULOi /j.7rpocr6ev twv avOpwirwVi ojmoXoyyjcrei Kai 6 viog TOV avOpwTTOv [yel ojuLoXoyyjcrw Kayw^ ev avTw e/JTrpocrOev TWV ayyeXwv tov Oeov (33) ocrTig Se apvrjarjjTai twv fxe e/uLTrpocrOev avOpwTTWv, apvya-ofxai Kayw aiTOV twv ayyeXwv tov Oeov (pp. 14, 82). ejuLTTpocrOev
140

34^. (St.
Matt.
eav
xii.
32
St.
Luke
xii. 10.)
(32) Kai
avOpcoTTOV,
TTvevjULarog
ôyov Kara rod vlov tov avrw o? ^' av eiirn Kara tov a(j)66}](TeTaL tov ayiov, ovk acpeOâ-eTai avTw (p. 21).
09
eiwu
Matt. vi. 25-33; St. Luke xii. 22-31.) Aia TovTO Xeyuf vjuliP) jurj jmepijuivaTe t^ '^'^XW (25)
35. (St.
vjuicov
ov-î
TL (payr]T, fxtjSe Ttp acojULaTi vjulcov tl ivSvcn^crOe' irXelov ecTTLV Trjg Koi to aco/ULa r} "^v-^r] Tpocbrjg
ejiilSXeyâTe eig Tovg
?],
TOV ivSvjmaTog; (26) TreTciva tov ovpavov

avT0ii9'
KopaKag [ra
oti
Yov(riv ovê arvvdyovo'iv eig
ov aweipova-iv ovSe OeplaTroOrjKag, Kal 6 Oeog Tpecpei

^Xiklgv
ou^
vjuLi9
jULoXXop SLacpepcTe avToov; (27) r/? ê

Tt]P
e^ vixcov fiepijULvcou SuvaTai irpoarQelvai ein avTOv Trrj-^vv eva; (28) kou irepl ivSvjULaTog tl
KaTajmaOeTe
to,
jixepijuLvaTe;
ov kottiwciv ovSe av^dvovcriv' Se ovSe VYfOovcnv (29) \ey(t) vjuiv, [oTf] SoXoyuwj/ iv Tracrr] ry ooû avTOv irepieâXeTO cu? ev tovtoov. (30)
Kplva
ircog
el
Se ev
dypw top
"ôpTOv
cr^/ixepov
ovTa kou avpiov

ajuicpiei'pvcriv,
fxt]
eig
Kkiâvov /SaXXojuievov 6
TToXXo) jULoXXov
vricrt]T
v[xa<5j
'
Oeog
ovTcog
ov
XeyovTe^
oXiyoTriCTTOi; (31) tl tl (paycojuLep ; rj
ovv
juepi/uLrj
'irlwjuev ;
tl
irepLPaXco/uLeOa ; (32)
'
iraPTa
olSep
KoarjuLOv']
eTTi^rjTOVcTLP
yap TavTa Ta yap 6 TraTrjp
eOptj
vfjLwv
[tov
otl
TOVTCov CLTraPTCOP. (33) ^jjTeiTe Se Tr]p â<Ti~ Xpil^^^^ XeLap avTOv, KaL TovTa iravTa irpoa-TeOrjcreTaL vjullp
(p. 4).
36. (St.
Matt.
vi.
19-21
St.
Luke
xii.
33, 34.)
(19)
OTTOv
(Tovcrip
arj'i
t^? yrjg, Otjcravpovg OtjaravplXeTe kol ottov KXewTai KOI /Spworig SiopvcTacpavilêL, Se vjullp KOL KXeiTTOvcnp (20)
vjullp
M^
evrJ
OtjcravpliCêTe
THE TEXT
Orja-avpovg
141
crrji
iv
ovpavoh,
ottov
ottov
ovre
ov
oure
acbavuCeii
Kai
KkeirTm
Siopvcrcrovciv
^pwcrig ovSe
KkeirTOvcTLV'
[u/xojj/],
(21)
oirov
tj
yap ecmv
cKel ecrrai koi
KapSia
Otjcravpog cov crov [vjulcov^ (pp. 66, 4).
37. (St.
Matt.
xxiv.
43-51
St.
Luke
xii.
39, 40,
42-46.)
(43) 'E/cerô Se yivuxTKcre, otl el ijSei 6 otKoSecriroTt]? (bvXaKi] 6 /cXeTrr*/? ep-êTai, eypriyoprjaev av kcu
e'lacrev
TTola
ovK av
oiKiav avrov. SiopvÔtjvai Trjv
(44)
\^Sia
TOVTO Ka\ vjuLeig ylveaOe eroijixoh on J ov SoKcire copa 6 vto? Tov avOpcoTTOv p')(Tai.li (45) TL9 apa <tt\v 6
TTfCTTO?
TtJ9
Sov\o9 Kai
(ppOPl/ULOgi
OV KaT(7Tt](rV 6 KVpi09
Trjv
CTTf
oiKereia^
avrov tov Sovvai avroi^

o
vp7](ji ovTCog
Kaipcp;
(46) juaKOipiog
SovXog ckcivo?
TTOiovvTa.
ov
Tpo<pr]v eV eXOcov 6
T019 virapyovcriv avrov Karaarrrjcrei eav Se avrov. e'lirr] o \_KaKog^ SovXog cKeivog ev ry (48) avrov (49) -^povi^cL juov o Kvpiog, Ka\ ap^rjrai KapSla rvirreiv rovg crvvSovXovg avrov, iaOirj Se Kai irlvri /ucera
iiTL
Kvpios v/JLiv oTt
avTOV
(47)
ajULr]v
Xeyu)
iracriv
'
roov /meOvovrcov,
ev
^fJ-epa
f]
(50) rjêi 6 KvpLO<s rov SovXoV ckclvov ov TrpoaSoKa Kai ev copa ij ov yivcocTKei,
(51) Kai
SiyproiJirjcrei
Oi](Tei
avrov Ka\ ro
(p. 31).
jmepog
avrov juera
Tcov VTTOKpircov
38. (St.
Matt.
x. 34, 35,
36; St. Luke
xii.
51, 53.)
(34) AoKelre, on tjXOov /SaXetv elprjvrjv OVK t]XOov âXeiv eipyjvtjv aXXa jmayâipav.
eir\ rtjv
y^v;
(35) rjXQov
yap
Si^âcrai
avOpcoirov
Ovyarepa Kara t^?

TrevOepag
avr^g.
Kara rov Trarpog avrov Kai Kai Kara riy? jj.rjrpog aurrjg w/uL(pt]v
[Kai
(36)
e-Ôpol
rov avOpcowov ol
oiKiaKol avrov] (p. 85).
142

39. (St.
Matt.
v. 25,
26
St.
Luke
xii.
58, 59.)
eco^
(25) "IcrOi evvocov

fxer
T(p
tw
avTiSiKW crov
ttotg
ere
Tayy
otov
et
avTOv ev
KpiTu
au
Koi
rr] 6Su>'
fxyj
6 avrlSiKog TrapaSo)
^XrjOrjcrr]'
eco?
(26)
6 KpLTrj^ TO) VTDjpeTr}, KOI et? (pvXaKrjv ov juLtj [a/xî^] Xiyco croi, eêXOijg cKeWev,
CLTToScfs
tov
<7ya.T0v KoSpdvT}]v (p. 54).
40. (St.
Matt.
xiii.
31-33;
tlvl
St.
Luke
xiii.
18-21.)
(33)
[/cat
TTCiXiv
eiTrev'^
ojulokjoo-o)
rrjp PacriXeiap
TOV Oeov;
V^ XajSovcra yvvt] VKpv\^v This oXov. 19 aXevpov craTa Tpla, eo)? ov e^vjULcoOrj was most probably preceded by tIpi ojULola ecrTiv ^
:
ojULOia co-tIv ^vjÛ,
/SacriXela
tov Oeov, Kai
tlvl ojuloiwotco avTY]v; ofxo'ia ccttiv
KOKKCp (TivaTrewg, ov Xaôov avOpwiro^ ecnreipcv iv to) Km ylvcTai (etV) SevSpov koi aypu) avTOv, koi rju^tja-ev TO, TTCTeiva TOV KaTacrKtjvoi iv tois KXaSois
ovpavov
avTOv
(p. 26).
41. (St.
Matt.
vii.
13,
14 ;
St.
Luke
xiii.
24.)
(13) EiVeXâre Sia t??

[rj
crTevijg nrvXrjg'
oti TrXarefa
7rvXrf\
aircoXeiav,
Koi evpv-^wpo^ ^ 6S69 rj oLTrayovara eig t*]v Kai ttoXXol eitriv ol elcrep'^ôiJLevoL ^C avTriq.
OTTevri
eis
vj
(14)
OTL
irvXt]
^(t)W)
kou
'ôt^
TeOXijuLfxevrj
rj
0S09
rj
CLTrayovcra
Ttjv
oXiyoi
elcriv
ol
evpicr-
KOVTes avTtjv (p. 67).

42. (St.
Matt.
viii.
11, 12
St.
Luke
xiii.
28, 29.)
Svctjuloov
(11)
Ae-yct)
v/ULiv,
oti
oltto
avaToXwv
kcu
rjPovcriv Ka\ avaKXiOrjarovTaL

Koi. ^laKoo/B
T^
jmeTa Â^lSpaajuL koi 'Icraa/c Oeov' (12) ol Se viol t?? tov /SacriXeia
j8acrfXc/a? eêXevarovTai êK/BXijOâ-ovTai]
e^w
ckci ecTTai
6 KXav0jULO9 KOt 6 PpvyjULo^ TCOV oSovTCOv (p. 77).
THE TEXT
43. (St.
148
Matt,
xxiii.
37-39
St.
Luke
rj
xiii.
34, 35.)
(37)
lepovoraXriiJL,
lepovcoXrj/ui,,
airoKreLvova-a tov9
Kai XiOo/SoXovara Tovg cnrearTaXfj.evov's irpog 'Trpo(priTa<s

avrrjv,
TroaraKi^
rjOeXtjo-a
cTncvvayayeip
to,
TGKva
<rov^
ov TpOTTOV opvi9 [eiriavvayei'] ra vocrcrla [out??] viro To.'i wTepvyag, Ka\ ovk rjQeKrja-aTe' (38) ISov cKplerai vjMv o olKog vjuicov Ij0>//xo?. (39) Xcyot) \jy^p~\ vjULiVy ov fxy]
yu Lorire air
apri
eco?
av
[jjt^tl
orej enrrjre' evAoyrjjULevos
V ovojuaTi ep-)^6lULV09 KVplOV (p. 29).
44. (St.
Matt,
xxiii.
12; St. Luke xiv. 11.)

Kai
(12) *'0crTi9 v\^/oo<TL eavTOV TaireivodOrjcreTaiy oaTL^ Taireivwo'eL kavrov vy^coOtjcreTaL (p. 29).
45. (St.
Matt.
x.
37
rj
St.
Luke
xiv. 26.)
ijULc
(37)
fjLOv
O
'
(piXoov
Trarepa
jmrjTepa virep
rj
ovk etTTiv
ijuie
aîo9
KOI 6 (piXcov vlov
Ovyarepa
virep
ovk
ecTTLV juiov aî09] (p- 85).
46. (St.
Matt.
x.
38
St.
Luke
xiv. 27.)
(38)^09
ov \a/uLâvL tov
fJLOv
aravpov avrov koI olkoXovaîo9 (p. 86).
Oei OTTiG-oo yuou, OVK ecTTiv
47. (St.
Matt.
v.
13
St.
Luke
xiv. 34, 35.)
(13)
'Y/iieig iarre
to
d'Xa? [r?? 7??]' eav Se
to d'Xa?
v tlvl aKia-Qria-eTai; e/? ovêv gtl el jmrj io-)^vi /mcopavOrj, viro twv KaraTraTeicrOai ^XrjOev e^co avOpcoTrcov (p. 53).
48. (St.
Matt,
v/uLiv
xviii. 12,
13
St.
Luke
xv. 4-7.)
(12)
T/
irpo/SaTa
koi
SoKi; cav yevtjral tivl avOpcoirw eKorov 7rXavr]0iJ iv i^ avroov, ovî a(pi]<7ei to,
144

koll
evevrjKOVTa evvea
ein Ta oprj TropevOeig ^rjrei to TrXavwuxevov; (13) Kai eav yevrjrai eupav auTOy â/uirjv^ Xeyo) vjuLiv^ on yaipei eir avro) /maXXov rj eiri TOig ivev^-
Kovra evvea Toh

49. (St.
TreTrXavrjiuLevoii (p. 91).
Matt.
vi.
24
St.
Luke
xvi. 13.)
(24) OJ(5el9 Suvarai Svcr). Kvpioig SovXeveiv tj yap tov eva jULiar^crei /cat top erepov ayairrjarei, rj evog avOeêrai ov Svvaa-Qe 6eu) SovXeveiv Kal Tov erepov KaTa<ppovri<Tei
'
KOI
/iiajuioova
(p. 4).
50. (St.
Matt.
xi.
12, 13; St.

koi
Luke
xvi. 16.)
oltto
(13)
Ot
TrpocprJTaL
vojulos
ew? 'Iwavvov*
Tore
eft)?
pLaarrcu
*I(jodvvov
vo/jLog
eft)?
apri ^ PacriXela rod Oeov PiaYeraij koli 'A.iro rwv ^jmepcov apTrdôvanv avrrjv \vel:
eft)?
KrX.
Travreg
yap
ol
'7rpo<prjrai
koi
'Idodvvov
'7rpo<p^revcrav'\ (p. 15).

v.
51. (St.
Matt.
Xeyco
t]
18
St.
Luke
xvi. 17.)
(18)
KOI
rj
lÂjULrjv
v/miv'],
yrjt
Iwra ev
53).
jmla
dv irapeXOr] 6 ovpavog Kcpala ov fxtj irapeXOrj airo

eft)?
rod
vo/jLov (p.
52. (St.
Matt.
v.
32
St.
Luke
xvi. 18.)
(32)
['E-yft)
avrov
TTOiel avrrjv f/.oi'êvOijvai, Kai b?
Xeyo) v/miv'] 7ra? 6 olttoXvcov rrjv yvvaiKa eav aToXeXvjmevtjv

(p. 54).
xviii.
yajn}]cry], juL0i-)(araL
53. (St.
Matt,
7; St.
Luke
xvii. 1.)
(7) *A.vdyKri
avOpdoTTw,
Si*
eXOelv ra cTKavSaXa, TrXrjv ovai ov ro (TKavSaXov ep'êrai (p. 28).
rca
THE TEXT
54. (St.
145
Matt,
xviii. 15, 21,
22; St. Luke
xvii. 3, 4.)
(15) 'Eai/ afj-apri^cru 6 aSe\(p6<i crov^ eXeyôv eav (Tov aKOvcrri, eKep^r]cra<s Tov aSeXcpov crov. TTOcraKig ajULapTrjcei eig e/ixe 6 aSeXcpog ulov kol
avTO)
;
avTov
.
a(p))crco
ecog
eTTTOLKig ;
Xe-yet
avrcp 6 'hjcrovg'
ov Xeyco
93).
(70i eco? eTTTOLKig,
aXXa
ccog ejSSojuLJjKOvra ctttci (p.
55. (St.
Matt.
xvii.
20^
St.
Luke
xvii. 6.)
TOO
(20) 'Eaj/ e-)^t]T irlcTTiv w? kokkov aivairewg, epecre 'ivQev e/cef, Kai fxeTa/SyceTai opei TOVTco' jULeTa/3a
(p. 91).
56. (St.
Matt;
xxiv. 26, 27, 28,
37-41
St.
Luke
xvii. 23, 24, 37, 26, 27, 34, 35.)
(26) 'Eai/ ovv

fxr]
eLircoG-LV
vjuiv'
iSov ev ti]
/mij
epyj/mu) icTTLV,
ê\0t]T6'
tocTTrep
iSov ev TOig
t)
Ta/aeLOig,
TriCTTevG-tjTe'
(27)
KOLL
yap
eco?
aaTpairr] lêpêTai
ovTCog eVraf
{j
rj
airo
avaToKoov
(paiveTai
Sva-jULoov,
Trapovaria
TTTcojuLa,
tov
CKei
VLOv
TOV apOpooirov (28) ottov eav
to
ol aeToi. a-vva-)^6i](T0VTaL (37) ^'Qicnrep at ^luepai tov Ncoe, ovTwg ecTai rj tov vlov tov avOpwirov (38) wg yap rjcrav irapovo'ia ev Ta7g tov KaTaKKva-jULov rjfxepaig [eKeLvaLg'\ Tcug irpo Kal Ka\ irlvovTeg,
TpooyovTeg
OL')(pL
rjg
yajuovvTeg
yajuiôvTeg,
^jLnepag eicrtjXOev
ecog rjXOev
ovK eyvcocrav
ovTcog ecTTai
(^^) '^'^^^ 6 KaTaKXvcr/nog Kai rjpev diravTag,
Ncoe
eig Ttjv KifBcoTOv^
t] irapovaia tov vlov tov avOpcoirov. Svo ev tm ay pep elg TrapaXajulSaveTai eaovTai (40)
j
Kai eig ev tw /xJXo), juia acpleTai' (41) Svo aXrjOova-ai kq] juLia TrapaXaju/SaveTai acpleTai (p. 105).
K.
146

57. (St.
Matt.
x.
39
eav
St.
Luke
xvii. 33.)
(39)
aTToKearei
eupcov [o? avTYfv, Kai b?
evprj"^
rrjv
^v^^tjv
avrov
Ttjv
av aTroXecrei [o airoXecra^]^
"^v^rjv
avTOV
evpriaeL avTriv (p. 86).
58. (St.
Matt. xxv. 29
[iravTi]
St.
Luke
xix. 26.)
KOI
7repi<T(Tev-
(29) Tftj
6r}(TeraL'
')(OVTi
juitj
SoO^(TTaL
tov Se
eôvros Koi o eêi ap67](TeTai air
avTOv (p. 34).

59. (St.
Matt.
xix.
28
St.
Luke
xxii. 28, 30.)

.
KaOlcrecrQe (28) *YiULi9 ol aKoXovQrjo-avTe^ juoi . . 7n ScoScKa Opovovi Kpipovreg tov^ SooSeKa (pvXa^ tov
*Ia-pa}]X (p. 95).
II.
Linguistic
the
three
Characteristics
(St.
Each
of
synoptists
markedly) possesses grammatical peculiarities,^ even if the style of each These be not distinctly formed and homogeneous. sections which we have here separated away from their present context do not possess such marked
characteristics.
least
numerous verbal,
Luke most stylistic, and
It
is
therefore
their
style.
is
impossible,
or
at
uphold grounds of vocabulary and

^
unsafe,
to
homogeneity upon
The
best discussion of these

"
found in Hawkins, "Horae
Synopticse
(1899), pp. 1
ff.
VOCABULARY
A. VOCJBULARV
(1)
147
Verbs
find in Q about 166 eTvat, Apart simple verbs (occurring in about 475 places) and about 82 compound verbs (in about 168 places), namely
:
from
we
dyaXXLucrdaL, 3
dyaTrav, 6
aireiv, 5,
(ter),
fâTTTiêLv
(bis)
5iSacrK6tv (3)
StSoVat, 2, 5, 27,
(terj,
49
/SacravLêLV,
13
28
atpcLv, 2, 56,
58
/3acrTd^LV, 1,
/SiaêcrOat,
20
14,
30, 37, 58
28 (quinquies) aKoXovdelv, 13, 17, (bis), 46, 59

^
50
BLKaiovv, 15
pXkiTUv,
(bis)
8,
26
Sixdêtv,
38
BixoTOfxclv,
37
6,
lôvXecrOaL,
25
BuoKCLv,
3 (bis),
1,
oiKoveLv,
12
(bis),
13,
14
(ter),
26
(6) ya[Xlv, 52,

/?/)6X5^^'
S3
SoKtv,
(quater), 30,
34%
54
dXyjOeiv,
d/Xiêtv,
56 47 54
(bis)
56 56 ykfx^LVy 33 (bis) y tVecrât, 2, 6, 10,23

yafXLêLV,
(bis), 25, 29, 30,
37,
38,
48
8ovA.e7Jtv,
49
1,
(bis)
Bvvaa-dai
34*
dixapTaveiv,
dpidix.iv,
34* dpKelv, 10 dpvetcrOai 34* (bis)

dp7rd^LV,
yLvii)(XKiv,
37, 40, 48 (bis) 11, 25

34,
Jbis), 35, 49 (bis)

idv,
37
kyyi^LV, I6,
kyelpeiv, 1,
22
(bis),
(bis),
(bis),
ypatfieiv,
37
14
56
2 (quater),
30
efvai, vv.
ciTTetv, 1,
11.
50
6,
apxâ-dai (1), 14,37

dcnrdêa-OaL,
14
yp-qyopdv, 31
Saijuovtêcrâi, Savtêcrât, 5
20
(bis) avXetv, 15
29
2 (quater), 3, 8, 13 (quater vel ter), 14 (bis),
av^dueiv, 35,
d(fiavL(Lv,
40
(bis)
2,
5et/v'vv6tv,
36
1,
Seicrâi,
2 18
/SdXXeiv,
13,
SecrpeTueLV,
35, 38 (bis), 39,
Bexô-dat,
33 22
17 (bis), 22, 25, 30, 33, 34* (bis), 34b (bis), 37, 40, 43, 55, 56
(bis),
kXky\.iv,
pr][xovv,
47
^
24 (quater)
The numbers here
54 29
refer to the sections of the text as given
above.
148
epx^crOai,
1

(bis),
l(rxvLV^
47
[xepllciv,
29
12
29,
(bis), 13(ter),
Kaietv, 31
14, 15 (bis), 20, 30, 33, 31,
Ka6apL^Lv, 14, 33
KaA,v7rTiv,
KLcr9aL,
1
/xepi/^vav,35(quater) pTpiv 8 (bis)

jXLa-eLv,
34*
49
47
2
(ter),
38
(tei),
poLx^vetVj 52 (bis)
43, 53 (bis), 5Q
ka-dUiv, 15 (bis), 2J,
Kp8aLVLV,
54
34*
ixcopaiveiv,
VT^êtv,
Kr]pv(T(TLv^ 16,
35
22, 31
evayyeXiêa-Oatj 14
Ktvetv,
33 36
(bis)
Vr](TTVLV,
oS'j^yeti',
KXeUiv, 33
KAcTrreii',
evXoyeiv, 43
cvvoelv,
o?Sa, 28, 33, 35, 37,
39
13,
kAiVciv, 17
Vpi(TKLVf
28 KoXXacrdai, 22 29 (bis), Kovtav, 33 (bis), 37, 41, 48, 57 KOTTiai^, 35

(bis)
KOTTTeardai,
^39
oiKoSo/xeiv,
12
(bis),
33
o/xotow,
15,
12
(bis),
15
8 (qua-
40 (bis?)
3
exeiv, 1, 6,
13,
15,
KocTixdv,
29
4,
6/xoAoytr, 34* (bis)

oi/etStêtv,
17
ffv, 2
(bis),
55,
58
Kptveiv,
ter),
(ter)
^r;Tii/,
28
(bis),
35, 48
{vjuovv,
i]Kiv,
59 KpovLv, 28 (bis) 29, KpvTrretv, 25, 34 AaAetv, 29

Xap/SdveLV,
4,
6p)(eLcrOaLj
Tretm^'eiv,
15
2 2 (bis)
7r6var,
7rei/)a(etv,
40
28,
7r[XTrLV,
14
33, 37, 42, 43
40
(bis),
46
TTCvdetv,
TTiVetv,
17 (bis) BavfidêLV, 13 OeacrOaL, 14

BoLTTTeLV,
31 Aarpeveiv, 2
Aa/xTreiv,
Aeyeti/,
1
3 15 (bis), 21,
35, 37,
56
(bis),
2
11,
OeXetv (eêA.tv), 4, 5, 7, 30, 33, 43

OefxeXiovv, 12
6pa7rVLV, 13,
depiêiv,
(bis),
(3),
6,
12, 34* 7n(TTevLV (13), 56

TTtTrretv, 9,
12,
(bis)^
14
13 (quater), TrXavacrOai^ 48 (ter) 15 (ter), irXt^povv, 33 16, 17 (bis), 18, ttvUlv, 12 (ter)
(bis), (bis), 23,
29
(bis)
22
26,
TTOteii/,
35
29, 30,
33
(bis),
1 6 (bis), (ter), 7 (bis), 11
6r](Tavpiîv,
06
34%
35, (ter), 37,
(ter),
12
(ter),
6'Atîv,
Op-qvetv,
laa-Oaij
41 39, 42, 43, 48, 15 51, 54 (bis) 13 (bis vel XiOofôXeh', 43

fiapTvpeiv,
(bis),
13
(bis), 37,
52
TTopevea-dai,
13 (bis),
16, 29,
serael)
tSetv, 1,
33
14 48
(bis),
14
2
26
[xeOveiVj
37
1
7rpo<fi7]Tveiv
(50)
(bis), 30,
43
pcXXeLV,
jxeveiv,
TTwAeiv, 34*
paT7L^LVf
4i
tcrravai,
21
VOCABULARY
(TaXevetv, 14>
149
^tXeiv (45) (bis) cfio/SeLcrdaL, 34* (ter)
ôi/Vtv,
(f)OpLV,
aapovv, 29
CTKavSaAiêtv, 14
aKopTTLêiv,
(nretpetv,
(rTpe(f)iv,
29 35, 40 4
35 56 TiVretv, 37 I'l/'ovv, 23, 44 (bis) cf)ayLV, 35 (bis) (âivecrOaij 33, 56

Tp(fiLVf
rpioycLV,
33 (bis)
14
yaipeiVj 3, 48 Xopraêiv, 3
(fjipSLV,
1 1
1
TttTrecvovv,
Tidivai,
44 (bis) 31, 37
cfi-vyiVj
XpOVL^LV,
xl/v8a-6o.L,
37
3
cfiddveLV,
29
dixcfiievvvvai,
14, 35
34b
54,
(bis), 43, 48,
'jrL('r]Tiv,
30, 35
dvo-fSXeireLV,
14
56
(bis)
1
imdviia.v,
26
20,
dvayeo"ât, 2 dvaKAivetv, 42
StajSXiTreiv, 8
e7rto-r/D6(/)tv,
29
StaKadapiêiv,
8ia(fipLV, 34*,
e7r6(Ti;vdytv,
dvareAAeiv, 6
di^tcTTdvat,
35
(bis),
kiriridkvai,
eTTLTpeTreLV,
30 dvotyetv, 28 dvTe>(o/xat, 49
(XTrayyeXAeiv,
(XTrdyetv,
8Lpx^<y0o.L,
Sto/ovcraetv,
29 36
43 33 17
59
a-Oat), 15,
14
lcrp)(e(r9aL,
12,
13 KadLO-rdvaL, 37 (bis)
KaTa/?atVetv,12(bis),
41 (bis) aTrkp^cddai, 17 (bis)

(XTroSeKaTOVv,
aTToStSovai,
(bis),
20, 22 (bis),
(ter),
29,
33
41
23
KaraKavetv,
1
33 39
L(rcf)epeLV,
27
dTTOKaAiVreiv,
25 Kf3dXXLV, 8 (bis), 18, 29 (ter), (42?) KaTa[xai'6dvLV, 35 (bis), 34* KaraTraTelv, 47 airoKpLveaOai, 2, 13, eKKOTTTeiV, 1 14 KaracKevdêtv, 14 aTTOKTetveiv, 33, 34^ K)^LVtV, 33 KaracTKT^vow, 40 eêpx^crOaL, 14 (ter), KaTacf)povLv, 49 (bis), 43 22, 29 (bis), 39, KarotKeiv, 29 aTroXXvvai, 34*, 57 42, 56 (ter) perafSaiveiv, 55 (bis) (bis) aTToAi'etv, 52 (bis) /xeravoeiv, 23, 30 k^KTTavLa, 29 TrapaSiSov'tti, 25, 39 dTTOjxdcra-ecrOaLj 22 ôpoXoyi(T9o.Lj 25
dTTOO-reXAeiv, 14, 19,
KaraKpLvetv, Karavoetv, 8
30
(bis)
iyKpv7rTtv,
24, 33,
43
5
kpfiXkiruv^
ei'SvviLV,
d7rocrT/D6(^crât,
40 35 35
28
(bis)
TrapaKaXelcrdaL,
3,
13
TrapaXap.(Sdv.iv,
(bis), 29,
d(/)tevat, 2, 4, 8, 17,
ivTeXetv, 2
7r68iSoi'a6,
27
(bis),
S3
(bis),
56 (bis) TTo.paTLBkvai, 22
150
Trapkpyicrdaiy
(bis)
Trapofxoidêiv^

51 Trpocrevxô'OaLf 6
TrpOCTKOTTTeLV^ 2,
(rvXXcyciVf 11
12
o-wayetv,
1,
29, 35,
3S
TTpoa-Kwelvy 2 (bis)
TrpocTTLOkvai^
56
VTrdyiLV (13)
V7rdp)(tv
TrepifiaXXeLv^Sb (bis) TTpocnrLTTTeiVj 12

TrepnraTelv, 14,
TTpocrSoKoiVy 14,
7rpo(Tp)êcr6aij
33 37
13
35
15
(Partic),
1,
(bis)
7rpocr<jiUiViVj
37
woSaK vwat,
12^
The numerical
is
of interest.
ratio of simple to compound verbs They stand in the ratio of 100 50

:
very nearly the same as that which holds in the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle of St. James.^ In
the Epistle of St. John the ratio of simple to compound verbs is actually 100 18 ; in the first Epistle of Peter, on the other hand, as 100 63 ; in the Epistle of St. Jude as 100 78, and in the Epistle to
: :
the Ephesians as 100

cent,
79.
St.
Luke has about 66 per
more compounds than

is
gospel the ratio

St.
Mark.
Matthew, in which almost exactly the same as that in The relatively small number of compound
St.
verbs in
occurrences
may
^
number of 475 of simple verbs to 168 of compound) be advanced as evidence of near relationship of
(especially if one takes the total

:
this source to the Semitic*
The compounds
:
are almost
Of these eighty-two compound verbs, twenty-four are not found elsewhere in St. Matthew, namely aiitpievvvvai, dvdyeadai, dvTix'^ff6ai, dTodcKaTovv,
SLop^KxaeiUy
dTrofidcaeadai,
Sia^X^weiv,
SiaKaOaplêLV,
iyKpOirreiv,
5i^pxf(y0aif
ela^pxô'dai,
iKireipdêiv,
iîfftdvai,
4in5i56vai,
KarafxauddycLV, Karavoetv, KaracTKevdêiv, irapo/xoLdêiv, vpocrdoKdv, irpoa-
KbwTuv,
2
Trpoa-iriTTTeLv,
vpoaTidivaL,
irpo(T(fi(a}VLV,
vwoSeiKiÔvai.
John there are about 209 simple verbs to 100 compound ; in St. James, 126 simple to 64 compound. In St. John, however, it must be observed that a particular simple verb occurs much more frequently than a particular compound verb. ' The rare use of compound verbs in St. John admits of a similar explanation though here a conscious literary purpose must also be
In
St.
;
taken into account.
VOCABULARY
151
always verbs of the most common description^ indeed the majority of them are those in which the preposition has kept its elementary local significance,
The only compound
or those which are no longer felt to be compounds. verbs that are at all characteristic
in in 1, are Sia^Xeireii/ in 8, Siopvcrcreip SiaKaOaplêiv 36 and 37 (vide Job xxiv. 16 ; Exod. xxii. 2 ; Jer. ii.
34),
eiril^rjTeiv
in
30 and 35,
efx^Xiireiv
in 35, irpocr-
Compounds with virep and irpo are absent. The entirely simple verbs also are practically in common use ; the only exceptions are verbs always in the LXX), Si-)(otoiuliv (37 ; ; wanting ^Lyoj(^Lv (38
irlirreiv
in
12.
c/! Exod. xxix. 17), only here in the New Testament KoviaaQai (33, cf. Acts xxiii. 3), a-apovcrOai (29, cf. St. can disLuke XV. 8, a later form of
o-aipea-SaL).
We
cover scarcely any instances of constant use of, or Of the of prejudice in favour of, particular verbs. in occur more eighty-two compounds only twenty-five
than one passage
(viz. ajuLCpieiî/vvai, air OKaXvirreiv^ airo-
KplveaOai, airoKTelveiv-i airoXXuvai,
aTrocTTeWeiv, a(pievai,
Sia(hpiv,oiopv<T(reiVi eicrep'êcrOai, 6/Cj8dXXe/j/, epepyeaOai,

eiriCrjTeiVi eTTiCTTpeCpeiv,
KaOiêcrOai, KaTa/Saiveiv, fxera-
voeip,
TrapaSiSovai,
'irapaKaXeicrOai,
TrpocTKOTrTeiv,
TrapaXa/m/Saveiv,
TrepiiraTeiv,
TrpocrSoKav^
avvayeLV,
trait
is
viro-
the only important but of especially of repetition Siafpepew, Siopvcra-eiv, Of the 166 simple verbs only fifty-one are
Seucvvvai)
;
here
the
a^Levai. found in
more than one passage

CLKOveiv,
(viz.
ayairav, aipetv,
acriraXecrOaL,
aireiVi
cLKoXovOeiVf
ap'êcrOai^
avPaveLVi jSdXXeiv, âcTTaêiv, (SXeireiv, yajmeiVi yiveaOai,

1
A double
compound
is
only once found
(in
43
iTria-vpdyeiv)
hut,
as will be shown, in a quotation.
152
yivw(TKiv,

ypa(j)iv,
êyeaOah
eyeipeiv,
rjKeiVy
StSovai,
eiTreiv^
SiWKeiv,
SoKeiv,
ecrOieiv,
ovvacrOaii
evpiarKeiv,
iyylêiv,
e-^êiv,
epjêcrOai,
^tjreiv,
OeXeiv, Oepaireveiv, ISelu,

Xa/uLâveiv, KpuTrreiv, ir'nneLV [iriar-
KaOapiêiv,
KrjpvcrareiVi
Kplveiv,
XeycLV, otSa, oiKoSojuLetv, ojuloioup, irlveiv,

Teveiv]^
iroieiVi
TropevecrOai,
a-Trelpeiv,
riOevai,
v^jôuv,
none of these (except perhaps (palvecrOai, yaLpeiv)\ in 1, 14, 30, the redundant in [1] eyeipeiv ap-^êaOai 14, 37, aKoXouOeiu, aa-iraYecrQai:, (SaXXeiv and SoKeiv) is characteristic. That our sixty sections form an whole does not therefore admit of homogeneous based stringent proof upon an investigation of the character of the verbs both simple and compound.
(2) Substantives
and Adjectives
What
form a
has been said of the verbs also holds good

:
for the substantives
and adjectives these also scarcely basis for the conclusion that the sections are
homogeneous.
Remarkable words and phrases are exceedingly rare, and these as a rule occur each only once. Yet attention may perhaps be drawn to the
Tlacrag Ta<} âcriXelag tov koctjulov koi Trjv Soâv avTwv (2) and ôXojmwv ev iraarri tu So^^] avrov rag âcriXela? tov koctjulov (2) and tol eOvt] tov (35) k6(7iulov (35); "loaf" and "stone" in 2 and 28; airoOrjK^r}
following
the ; avaToXri and SvotjuloI in 42 and 56 frequent occurrence of the word âa-iXeia ; the use of yeved in 15, 30, 33, of in 1, 11, and 40, of SevSpov in 2, 14, and 56, of o SovXo9 in 10 and 37, of ^
in 1
;
and 35
eprjjuog
epy^6iJLV09
43, of ^la-parjX in 13 and 59, of KXeTTTtjg (together with in 36 and 37, of Siopvcra-eiu) ol in 6 and 14, o)(Xoi in (1) 14 and 29, of
in
1,
14,
and
ircpicra-ov
VOCABULARY
:
153
of TO. irereiva rov ovpavov in 17, 35, and 40, of irla-Tig different degrees ot faith), of crocpla in 15, (13, 55 in and 15, of and 30, (33), of reXcopt]^ in 6
8 and 37.
viroKpiTrj's
noteworthy
trait is the great
number
This finds an of adjectives used as substantives. that the in the fact original was Semitic. explanation
Proper names are of very scanty occurrence (Abel, Abraham, Jacob, Jonas, Isaac, Israel, Ninevites, Noah,
Solomon, Zacharias, John

Beelzebub,
Mammon
[the Baptist], Phai'isees, Bethsaida, Chorazin, Gomorrha,
Not Jerusalem, Jordan, Capernaum, Sidon, Sodom). one of the disciples of our Lord is mentioned hy name, not
even St. Peter
for
;
by accident
in
also the
name
ol [xaSyiTal
the text preserved for us wanting 14 the word does not refer in in one passage 10; (except to disciples of our Lord) this, however, is only acciis
them
dental
numerous passages
refer to them,
and
in
59
we are
told of twelve thrones for the followers
of Jesus.
The concept
in
Q import for our Lord
"ot aKoXovdouvre's^'' (aKoXovOeiv) is of great The term 6 ^piarrog (13, 17, 46, 59).
In regard to is found only once (14). the title 6 Kvpiog as applied to our Lord, it is not
quite certain whether St. Matt.
vii.
21
(St.
Luke
vi.
46) stood in Q ; but in this context it has no more significance than the Kvpie in the mouth of the centurion (in 13) ; Q itself never calls our Lord "o /cJ^to?,'"*
its
" Jesus " (vide 2 In the and to adjectives, by far regard [13], 17, 54). the most noteworthy feature is the use of aîog (1, 20,
designation for
Him
is
simply
21, 45, 46), of juaKapiog (3, 14, 26, 37), of 0X09 (32, 40), of TToXJ? (3, 18, with julktOo^ and with Oepiar/uLO^), and
of
-TTovrjpo^
(11, 28, 29, 30, 32).
154

following
:
The
and adjectives
"AjSeX, 33]
'Appaoifi,
1
is
a complete
list
of the substantives
dvTiStAcos,
39
(his)
ypafifiare'V'Sf
(bis),
42 dîvq,
yvv-q^ 14, 40,
S3 52
29
dyaOd,
Ttt,
28 (bis)
dirod-qK-q^ 1,
35
Saijudi/tov,
15,
aTTwAeta, 41 dyaOoif 01, 6 d/OTrayry, 33 dyaTTwvTes, oi, 6 dyyekoL, 2, 14, 34* d/3Tos, 2 (bis),
(bis) SttKTv Aos,
33
(bis),
27,
Sei/o/oov,
11
28 ay opd, 15
dyp6<s,
(quinquies), 40
darcrdptoVy
34*
ScarfxioTqpcov^ 1
35, 40, 56 d(rT/)a7r'^, 56 dSeXcfios, 6, 8 (ter), d^vpov, 1 54 (ter) fSaXXdvTLOV^ 20

^Sr^s,
Std/3oAos, 2 (bis) StSdo-KaAos, 10 (bis)

StKatoi, ot (6)
StWKOl/TS, Ol,
aSiKot, ot (6)
23^
^diTTLa-pLa, 1
fSaTTTKrTrjS
(14)
80KOS, 8 (ter)
Sd/xa (28)
aT09,
ai/xa,
56 33 (quater) dKaOapcrca^ 33
dKdv6aLf
dKpacria,
1 1
fSapvTcpa, rd,
16,
33
jSacrtAeia, 2, 12, 14,
33
dXas, 47 (bis) dXevpoVj 40

aAtuv, 1
dXwirrj^y 17
djutapTwAos, o,
djX[X0S')
15
12 dvayKT], 53
dvd7rai;(rts,
29 56
14
(bis),
dvaroAT^, 42,
dvepios,
86â, 2, 35 29 (bis), 33, SovXos, 10 (bis), 13, 37 (quater) 35, 40 (bis ?), 42 SvvapLLs, 23 (bis), 50 âo-tAcv?, 14 (26) 8v(rp.6sj 42, 56 ot SwSeKa, fiacTiXicrcra^ 30 (indirectly), 59 BeX(e/3ovX, 29 Br^^craiSdv, 23 Sw/xa, 34* 50 WvLKOL, OLy 6 (iia.(TTr^S-i Wvos-, 35 /36dvvov, 9 e'iprjvq, 20 (bis), 38 ^pox^, 12(bis) l3pvyp6<Sy 42 (bis) 1^ /3/3cuo-ts, 36 (bis) eKardi/ra^XO?)
.
12
dv-qOov, 33 dvrjp, 12. (bis),
yeevva, 34* (ter vel bis) yeved, 15, 30 (qua- eAeos, 33

ter),
30
33
1 o,
v8vixa,
lôvo-ia,
35
13
(bis)
dvOpMTTos, 2, 7, 13, yevvrjfia^ 14, 15 (bis), 17, yevvrjTOSj
14
^(j)9ev, TO,
33
28, 29 (bis), 30,
yrj,
33 (ter), 34^ (ter), 38 (bis), (40), 47, 48, 53 Tofxoppa, 22
22, 25, 30, 33, ipydTrjs, 18 (bis), 21 34*, 36, 38 (47), epyov, 14 51 14, 2, 6/5>^/xos, 17,
56
VOCABULARY
pXOflVOS, O, 1,
155
Adyos, 12 (bis), 13,
14^
idoTtt,
51
25, 37
43
evSoKta, 25
Kttipd?,
34b
AvKOS, 19
/caA.a/zos,
Ktt/oSta,
14
S6,
1
37
(bis),
xOpoi,
ix^Svrj,^
ol,
6 (38)
KapTTOS,
11
(quinquies)
Zaâ/ota?,
^v/xr;,
33
Kdp<f)os, 8 (ter)
Av^via, 31 Avxvos, 31, 32 10 (bis), padr]TT^S, 14 (18)

/xaAttKa, ra,
pap(i)vas,
40
33
KaTttKAvcr/xds,
(bis)
56
17
3,
14
(bis)
C^rji
41
i78i;o(7/xoVj
KaracTKr^ V(u(ri9,
paxo-f-pa,
49 38
"qXiKia,
"qXtoSy
35
22, 23, 33,
(ter)
Ka<f)apvaovp^
23
pkpos-,
31
1
^/x/3a, 2,
Kepaia, 51 K<fiaX-q, 17, 34*
pka-ov (19)
/xeravoia,
(bis)
37 (50), 56 OkXrifia^ 12
ôs,
1,
2 (bis) 12,
14,
16,
(bis),
(bis),
29
34
(bis),
33 35
(ter),
40
(bis?),
42, 49, 50
^cpto-jutos,
18 (ter)
p.krpoVy 8, 33 Kijpvyixa^ 30 kl/Siotos, 56 priT-qp, 38 (45) kAcxSos, 40 pLKpOTCpOS, 6, 14 KXav6p6<i, 42 piados, 3, 6 36 (bis), pdSios, 31 KXiTTT-qs, 37 pvXov, 56 vads, 33 KXtâvos, 35 6, 14, 17 Kotvcuvot, 01, 33 ve/cpds,
O-qa-avpoSi
^/oij,
36
(ter)
KOKKOS, 40, 55
(bis)
34a
^pdvos, 59
39 KovLopros, 22
Ko8pa.vTi-)s-,
VT^TTIOS, o,
NivevttTT^s,
25 30 43
(bis)
38 (45) ^VGriaO"T7^ptOV, 33 'lo.Ka>f3, 42 le/odv, TO, 2

9vy(XT()p,
*Icpova-aA.iJ/x,
Kopa^, 35
Kocr/xos, Q,
(?)
vd/xo5, S3, 50,

vocrcria, ra,
51
25
K pi pay 8
Kpivov,
vdros,
30
35
22,
2,
43
Kpia-Ls,
23,
vvpcpr], 38 30 Nwc, 56 (bis)
(bis)
'Ivô-ovs,
(bis),
33
29, 39 (bis)
68d?, 14, 20, 39, 41
2(ter)(13),
K/DiTTJs,
54 IfxaTLOV, 4
17,
'Io/oSavr^9,
'lo-actK,
Kv/xtvov,
33
dSovs,
42
KvpLos,
1
(bis),
(bis),
2 (bis), 10 oiKCTeLa, 31 12 (bis), 13 oLKLa, 12 (quater),

13,
42
59
'lo-paîA, 13,
18, 25, 37 (quater), 43, 49

6,
_
20
(bis),
21,
31, 37
OtKlttKOS (38)
ixOvs, 28
'IcDvas,
Kcu^ds,
(bis)
14,
29
30 (quater) 50
oiKoSeaTTOTyjs,
o,
'Iwavi'Tys, 1,
14 (qua- XcTrpos,
14
OLKOs, 14, 29,

olvOTTOTTJS,
31 43
ter), 15,
XtOos, 1, 2 (bis), 28
15
156
43

35
;rvu/xa
(l),
2,
oXiyoTTLcrTos, 6,
ovojxa,
opyrj, 1
29
:
crocfiia,
15,
SO
33
[of
evil
bis]
;
spirits
2o(îa,
33
25,
29
55
to dyiov,
oo(f)6s, 6,
opvLs,
43
33
34^
TToA-is,
opos, 2, 48,
o(TTeov,
TTOV-qpoi, 01,
22 (quater) 6
23 o-Tav/)os, 46
o-TToSos,
crraffivXrj, 1 1
TTOvqpov, TO, 3 ovpavoi, 3, 36 ovpavos, 17, 23, 25, TTorafjios, 12 (bis)
crreyrj,
13 13
(TTparnx>rYi<i,
28 (35), 40, 51 ovs, 26, 34* offieiXeT-qs, 27 6({iLXr]ixa, 27

ocfidaXiJios,
TTOTTJpLOV,
TTovs, 2,
33 22
a-rpovOiov, 34* (bis) OrVKOV, 11
7rp6/3aTOv, 19,
TV
48
14
(ter),
o-w5oi;Xos,
0-VVT0S, 6,
o-w/xa,
poa-oiiTov ,
14
3,
37 25
(sex),
Trpocfy-qrrjs,
26, 32 (ter)
ocfifi,
(bis), 26,
33
28
1 (3),
43, 50
14,
oxXo6,
Trats,
29
TTpdra, rd,
29
32 (ter), 34* 35 (bis) ra[xeiov, 56 rdcfios, 33 (ter)

(bis),
TratSiov,
15
TTTepvytov, 2
TKV0V,
1,
15,
28,
13 (ter vel bis) irrkpv^, 43 TTTVOV, 1 irapaXvTLKos, 6, 13

Trapovcria,
Trapoxj/LS,
43
TeAcovT^s, 6,
15
56 (ter) 33
6
(bis), 12,
TTTWjota,
56
12
TOTTOS,
29
1 1
TTTWO-IS,
rpt/3oXos,
rrarrip, 1,
7rTa))(ds, o, 3,
14
vel
TpOTTOS,
rpocjiri,
43
17, 25 (quater), 27, 28, S3 (bis), 35, 38 (45) 7rtVtOVTS, ol, 3

Tteipdîiiv, o,
7ri/oa(r/xo9,
TTvXy],
41
(bis
ter)
TTv/),
21, 35, 37 Trpos, 23 (bis)

o,
1 1
(ter)
Tv<l>X6s,
(bis),
/3iC^
14
v8o)p, 1
i;iot
TTevdepd,
27 38
TTivd0VVr<S, 01, 3
23 40 (TrjixLov, 30 (quinq.) 36 (bis) (rrj<s,

craKKOs,
craTOt',
T.
ISacnXeiaSf
42
vtos, 6,
29, 33 (45)
irepaTa, rd, 30 TrepidCTov, TO, 6,
o-taywv, 4
vloS T. dvOpiOTTOV, 15,
14
2iS(ov,
(TivaTTL,
irepix^pos, y), 1 Trereivd, rd, 17 {35),
23 (bis) 40, 55
17,
30
(34*), 34^
(TITOS, 1
(37), 56 (ter) ^ vtos T. deov, 2 (bis),
40
irkrpa,
Trrjpa,
(TKdvâXov, 53 (bis)
25
v7rdp\ovTa, rd, 31
V7rr)piTr]<s,
12 (bis)
cTKoria, 34*
20
35
13, 55
o-KOTOs,
tttJ^^v?,
2o8oju,a,
TTLcrTLS,
nXareia, 22
32 (bis) 22 ôXofxuJVj 30 (bis), 35
V7r68r]pa, 1,
39 20 VTTOKpirris, 8, 37
cf)dyos,
15
VOCABULARY
âptcraioi,
157
J^ptcrros,
33 (qua- (^wXeos, 17
<j()ws,
ter)
<f>iXo<s,
32, 34
6,
15
Xi>, 1,
XtTcor,
(fiOpTLOV,
33
37,
(fivXaKi],
(fivX-j,
39
X.opa^cv,
23
14 14 ^vxî, 34* (bis), 35 (bis), 57 (bis) w/xos, 33

^(oXos, 6,
59
Xopros, 35
w/)a(13)(37), 37
dyados, 11 (bis)
ciyios(l),
aSrjXos,
eTOLfJLOs,
31
41 13
TTICTTOS,
34b 33
vpv\oipo<i^
TrAttTVS,
37 41
iKavo, 1,
tcr;(V/oos,
TroXvs[l],3, 18,26,
aKaOapTos, 29
avKTos, 22, 23
30
(bis),
34% 35
(bis),
avvSpoSy
29
KttKOS (37) KaAos, 1, 11 (bis)
(bis),
TTOvr^/jos,
41
1 1
ajios, l,20(bis), 21
KpVTTTOS, 34*
fiaKapios, 3(quater), 14, 26, 37
/xeyas, 12,
lxoL)(aXLS,
VK/30S,
(45) (bis), 46
aTrXovs,
28, 29, 30, 32 (raTTpos, 11 (bis)

crKoreLv6<5,
32
32
apKcros, 10
a(r/3ecrTo^, 1
14 (bis)
(TTv6s,
41 (bis)
2
30
rax V, 39
vxj^t^Xos,
papys, 33 (bis) Seivios, 13 Sextos, 4

7rioT;o-ios,
33
6 (bis) oA/yos, 18, 41

oiKTtpiHiiv,
(ppovLixos,
<fi(i}Tiv6<S,
epr^fios,
27 43 ecrâros, 39
oAos,
32
(bis),
40
40
Xet/owv, ojpalos,
6>oios, 12 (bis),
31 32 29 33
(ter ?)
The
seem ofQ.
simplicity and homogeneity of the vocabulary does to me to incline the balance in favour of the unity
(3) Prepositions
Among
are
wanting
seven
the prepositions Trapd, crvv, and evwiriov is (in place of the latter ejuLirpoaOep
times)
;
used
the
prepositions
of most
fre-
quent occurrence are ev (about fifty-nine times, and with the most varied significance), then iirl (about twenty-eight times) and ek (about twenty-eight
times), also
cltto
(sixteen times),
e/c
(thirteen times).
158

Of rarer observe at once the Semitic original. sense of in the eo)?, juLeTo, (only Sid,
and
viro (eight,
We
occurrence are
''with*"),
nine,
nine,
and ten times
respectively).^
only seven times " of " against ; sense in the with the genitive (always the occurrence with the accusative in section 20 is
is
Kara
found
four uncertain), irpog and virep five times, Trepl only each oirlcrw three avev, times, a-^pi, jmera^v, times, TTpo
only once. The absence of irapd and a-vv is important ; for is found elsewhere in St. Matthew eighteen to irapd
twenty times (and indeed with all its three cases), avv is in St. Luke twenty-nine to thirty times; found elsewhere in St. Matthew two to three times,
and
In
in
St.
the
absence
Luke twenty-four to twenty-six times. of the preposition irapd we may
clearly
There
article
recognise a distinct characteristic of Q.^ are a few cases of construction with the
and
preposition
in
substantival
or
adjectival sense.^
^
39, 43, 51
?wj also occurs as a conjunction six times {vide 39 ?ws 6'roy, tm oC, 56 ^wj TjXdev). 'At6 is also found ^ws &v, 40
: :
with particles dirb totc, 50 [t6t also again in 8 and 29], air' dpn, 43. 2 Uapi is found with all three cases in St. Mark in St. John it frequently occurs with the genitive and dative, but is wanting with the accusative. We should have an instance of occurrence in Q if
;
were permissible to regard the text of 21 as simply that of Q we have not authority for this, seeing that there is no parallel in St. Matthew.
it
;
but
8 ffoi
Cf.3:
(21
:
01 Trpb vfxuv,
28
6 i^ ovpavoO, 31
ol iv
oIkI<},
32
rb iv
TO. Trap' aiirwy).
GRAMMAR AND STYLE

B.^GRAMMAR AND STYLE
159
in Q are most frequently connected ^ in Semitic languages) of Kal means Se, as (as by falls very much into the backwith Kai, compared ground it is indeed found scarcely thirty times Neither Se only thrice in 1, 18, and 33). (yueV can we speak of yap as of frequent occurrence (about
Sentences
twenty times, koi yap in

frequent ten times
as
*
el.
The
:
13).^ latter is
el
'Eaj^
is
twice
as
found only about

elire
*lva
(2
:
[bis'j
el vlo?
rov Oeov,
SiSovai
vel
^dXe.
TTOG-w
28
el
o^Sare
ayaOa
Swcrei.
T019
:
TeKV0L<5,
jmaWov 6 irarhp
29
[bis]
el
ev
BceXei
ei
eKâXXo), ol viol ev Tin eK^dWovcriv ; 32 TTvevjuLari Oeov eK/3aX\co, apa eipOaaev. ei ev (bcog (TKOTOS earTLV, to ctkoto^ iroa-ov ; 35
YepoiiK
: :
ev
to
ay pep
TraXai
tcov
Tov YopTOV 6 6eo9 ajUL<pievvv(nv^ ov 23 e: iv Tvpw eyevovTO at vjuLoig;

:
ttoWco fxaWov
ovvdjuLei^,
av
juLeTevojjarav.
33.
el
tjimeOa
:
ev
Tai^
rumepai^
37 el ijoei 6 OLKOoecnroTtj^ ovk av rj/ULeOa. TraTepcov, av Kai 6 TTola KXe7rTr]9 epyeTai, eyprjyoprjcrev (pvXaKu ovk av e1.a(Tev). Besides the four instances just quoted,
av occurs again in sections 14, 34^, 52, 57 (69 a^),
25 (y
^
av), 39, 43,

e.g.
51
(eo)?
av),
ko.1
bQ
(ottou
at^).*
The
is
rare
2
Cf. vide
sections 12 and 13.

e.g.
Also
with the apodosis
not
sections 13, 35.
OZv is found about a dozen times cf. 1 (with imperative), 1, 6 (with the imperative future), 12, 18, 28, 32 [bis], 34^ [his, but one of these is doubtful], 35 (with imperative), 56. Atd Toxno occurs in
sections 29, 33, 35 (37).
'
Also
ii-f)
= except)
three times [vide 25, 30, 47)
and
ttXtJv
(23, 53).
^
Section 22
29), 6re
(3
and
is doubtful: eh i)v Slp. "Orap is found only twice never (for in 43 it is very doubtful).
160
particle

. .
.
re is never founds nor in consequence re while Kalj they occur both in St. Matthew and St. oure Luke. Ovê occurs about ten times, ovts
. . .
once (36), /uirjSe once (35), nirjre M'/t^ once (15), once also the interrogative jud^tl (H)? ov jmri thrice ? once (49). (39, 43, 51), ?
.
wg are entirely absent;'^ in the we have their place simple participial clauses is fomid only once (14), not in a absolute genitive saying of our Lord but in a descriptive passage
Temporal
clauses with
;
constructions, {tovtwv iropevofxevwv). Participial both with a temporal significance and as a substitute
for
relative
clauses,
moreover,
several
extraordinarily frequent participles (co-ordinated or sub-
are
it
However, the ordinated) are found in conjunction. the with constniction of eJvai participle , so common
with
St.
Luke,
is
very rare; I have only found
in section 56.
So
far as I see, the accusative with infinitive occurs
only once (53). Final clauses are often

infinitive {vide, 2,
expressed by the
simple
37 [here with the genitive of the article], 38 \ter\ 47); tVa and ottc*)? are not The former is only found in the following frequent.
14
[^^r],
combinations
1
e^Ve
'Iva
ol
XlQol aproi yevooprai (2),
' just as," vide 6, 10 (13), 27 (ws kuI), 33, 35, 56 ; "Ov rpbirov is found in 30 and 56 \his] ; Kaduis is wanting. cf. &<nrep OiJrws is used in the apodosis, vide 7 {iravTa 6(ra eav once (43).
fis
throughout =
6^\r)Te
(cos)
. .
ovTw
iroielTe),
30,
66
[ter]
in the
connection
ovTUi, also in the principal sentence in 3, 11, 37.
"Oaris
ibcnrep
is
also found a
also occurs a
36,
few times (4, 12 [bis], 33, 34 [bis], 44 [6is])."Ottou few times (also in the senê of "whither"), vide 17, 56 (followed by e'/cel in 36 and 56 ; iKcT also occurs in 55).
GRAMMAR AND STYLE

ocra
ixrj
161
(7),
eav
OeXrjTe
'iva
jur]
ttoiwctiv
vjuliv
ol
avdooîroi
KpLvere
ha
KpiOtjre
(8),
apKerov tw
ei/uu
;
fxaOtjTii
1.va
"va yivtjrai cog 6 jULOV VTTO rrjp
SiSdcrKoXog (10), ovk
tKavog
areyriv elcreXOrj^ (13
but in section 1
Uavoq
is
combined with the
infinitive).
The
third
"Otto)? passage alone answers to the classical use. occurs only three times (6: oirwg yevrjcrOe viol
Tou
TraTjOoy,
:
18
SeÔrjTe
rod Kvpiov
(p'
vjuLag
oircog
aljuLa).
eK/SaXu
Mrj,
ipydrag, 33
ottco?
eXOiJ
is
irav
in the sense of "w^,"
in
from the both cases
LXX
found only in a quotation (2) and in section 39 (and, moreover, in the combination /ult] irore)}
;
Clauses introduced by on (in the sense of that,'' " for," and " because ") are frequent they are found
about thirty-three times, and present no remarkable feature. '^Qo-re, in the sense of 'îtaque,''^ is found once (33) on the other hand, coarre consecutive is
;
probably altogether wanting, for its occurrence in section 29 is doubtful. The various constructions with which IV are so usual in St. Luke and are also at, y
JUL
found
This
in
is
Matthew^ are likewise of importance. A redundant

St.
:
entirely
absent.
ylvecrOai occurs
only once (48
One
eav yevtjrai evpeiv). characteristic of these sections

is
is
use that
made of
interrogative sentences
^
the copious ^ (with or
without interrogative particles)

^
; cf. 1, 6, 8, 11 (12), Otherwise the use of particles presents no point of special interest. We find dXXd (12, 13, 14 [bis], 31, 38, 54 ; here the use in 14 is alone noteworthy), d/xriv (14, 26, 33, 37, 39, 48), &pa (29, 37),
ij8v (1), vat (14, 25), yOv (33),

2
&c.
The frequent use

Vide
TTcDs, 8,
of the future with a significance of continuity/xaXKov,

Troo-d/cts,
is
also to be noticed.
'
35
trdacfi
;
28
oi
ToWcp
;
fxSXXov,
36 [fidWov
also again in 34*, 35, 48j
43, 54
ij,
28, 35, &c.
162
14, 15 (17), 23, 28, 29, 32, 34% 35, 37, 38, 40 (43), These interrogative sentences give the 47, 48, 54. discourses a certain individuality, to which the not
unfrequent employment of parataxis and of parallelismus memhrorum lends a further distinctive trait. Not a
few of the sayings are conceived in this simple artistic Taken together, the stylistic expedients which form. are employed impress upon the sayings a stamp of
homogeneity.
Use
is
not often made of the historic
The imperfect present {vide 2, 13, 17, 18, 40, 55). the optafound never see is ; 29, (yet 30) practically The frequent use of the tive is absolutely wanting.
redundant personal pronoun and of the superfluous avTO^ in its oblique cases (more than 100 times) is Both traits are Semitic. Lastly, we characteristic. a adduce by no means small number of unmight
constructions occurring in the majority of the sections, some of which may likewise be due to the influence of Semitic idiom, such as those we have already noticed above in the case of tVa, but to
classical
mention them
elire
in detail
would lead us too
far (vide
similar phrases). All these characteristics taken together, and especially the negative characteristics, give to the sections,
\6yu) and
or at least to the great majority of them, a certain individuality, and distinguish them from the style
of St. Mark, of St. Matthew, and of St. Luke. cannot give a convincing proof of their unity from the results of investigation into their vocabulary and
style ; and yet especially if it is considered how different and various is the content of these sections
it
We
must be acknowledged that there
is
in
them a
FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS
certain unity of grammatical
163
and
stylistic character
and colouring.
III.
The
Formal Characteristics of the

Subject-matter
The
sist
we have obtained
sixty sections (34 is a double section) which as the result of our analysis con-
of seven narratives, eleven (twelve) parables (and similes), thirteen groups of sayings, and twenty-nine
single sayings of smaller or greater length.
The
seven
narratives
comprise
the
Temptation
story (2), the narrative concerning the centurion at Capernaum (13), the question sent by St. John from
his prison
and the answer of our Lord
who declared himself ready and of one who desired first to bury
of one
(29), the
(14), the story to follow Jesus, his father (17),
the cure of a demoniac and the Beelzebub controversv
demand for a sign, together with our Lord's answer (30), and the question how often one ought to forgive, together with our Lord's command (54).
There are thus only two
miracles of healing) in Q one a very notable miracle, a cure wrought at a distance. The introduction to
stories of miracles
(and these
some of these stories may have been longer in Q, but we have no means of settling this point. Nor can we at once discover any motive for the choice of just these seven stories; they have nothing in common
with one another.
It is important that (in 23) the towns Chorazin, Bethsaida, and especially Capernaum, appear as the chief scenes of our Lord's ministry An equally (concerning Jerusalem in 43 vide infra).
164
important point
is the strong emphasis laid upon the of St. John the Baptist. The discourse significance concerning him, which was suggested by his doubting question and which is continued in 15, is preceded by
an account of his preaching of a baptism of repentance (1), and is followed by the testimony (50) that with
him
closes
the
epoch
is
of the
Law and
the
Prophets.
No mention
stories.
made of the
disciples of
our Lord in these
Q includes the following parables and similitudes the Blind leaders of the blind (9), the Good and
:
corrupt tree (H)? the House on the rock and on the sand (12), the Querulous children at play (15), the Sheep and the wolves (19), the Light under the
bushel (31), the Thief by night and the Faithful and unfaithful steward (37), Concerning the correct
behaviour to the adversary (39), the Leaven and the (40), the Strait gate and the narrow way (41), the Lost sheep (48). Eight of these
Mustard seed
parables
have
closer definition
an
individual
address
only two refer to the
without any Kingdom of
God, one to the present generation (15), and one to This preponderance of the indithe disciples (19). vidual address is noteworthy, and it is also noteworthy that the two parables concerning the Kingdom of God are not eschatological, and are closely connected
together (vide infra).
37,
The
an
39 (41)
close
with
parables in sections 12, outlook towards the
end.
Without anticipating a closer critical examination, a cursory glance suffices to inform us that the parables bear the impress of genuineness in a
high degree.
The
:
165
of sayings (discourses) ^ may be grouped in regard to subject-matter as follows The discourse of the Baptist, together with
thirteen
collections
the reference to the
Coming One
;
;
(1)
the Beati-
Love mote and beam

tudes (3)
;
for enemies (6)

(8)
the
;
Lord's
against Judging, Prayer and the
power of Prayer (27, 28) Fear not, be not anxious, lay not up treasure (34% 35, 36) The great thanks;
giving to the Father (25) ; The great denunciation Not peace but a of the scribes and Pharisees (33) sword (38) ; False Messiahs, the Parousia of the
;
Son of
Man
(56).
In judging of
it is
specially
important to note that this source also contains a sermon of the Baptist, and further, that formal teaching concerning the better righteousness, and
that exact directions concerning prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, are wanting, although an ethical code is
imparted in sections
3, 6, 8, 27,
28,
34%
35, 36.
In
the discourses concerning our Lord's relationship to the Father, concerning His attitude towards the scribes and
Pharisees and towards the world,
and
in the discourse
concerning the Parousia, the most important relationships ad extra are dealt with, except the relationship to the Baptist, which has been explained in the narrative section
14 (and also beforehand
in section 1).
shorter or longer sayings are less varied in content, as appears at the first glance ; of them be regarded with more or less
The twenty-nine
many
may
the restoraprobability as parts of discourses in Q, tion of which must however remain problematical ; in
Besides these, it is very probable that sections 16 and 18-24 belong to one discourse.
^
166
the case of others, it is possible at once to recognise that they are either related to one another or depend Nine of the the larger groups of sayings.
upon
also in form, sayings in subject-matter, and perhaps 4 (The sections code ethical to the namely, belong
blow upon the cheek, non-resistance when the coat is taken away), 5 (Give to him that asketh), 7 (The Golden Rule), S2 (The light of the body is the eye), 44 (He that exalteth himself), 49 (No man can serve two masters), 57 (He that findeth his life), 58 (Whosoever hath to him shall be given), 52 (Against
divorce). directions
Fifteen sayings belong together as special
namely, 10 disciples 16 his not above (Proclaim master), (The disciple that the Kingdom of God is at hand), 18 (The
and promises to the

is
harvest
is
great, the labourers few), 19 (I send
you
forth as sheep), 20, 21 (Conduct of the mission from house to house), 22, 23 (The mission in the cities,
sayings concerning the Galilean cities), 24 (He that receiveth you receiveth me), 26 (Blessed are your eyes and your ears), 55 (The faith which removes mountains),
45 (He that loveth father or mother), 46 (The bearing of the Cross), 47 (Ye are the salt of the
Of the 59 (Ye will sit upon twelve thrones). and Law the section 50 (The remaining sayings, with the narrative of connects until John) Prophets section 14 the saying concerning Jerusalem (43), as
earth),
still
;
well as the saying that the children of the kingdom would be cast out while the Gentiles would enter in
purport belong together, and can be connected with the Great Denunciation (33). Quite by themselves stand the sayings concerning the Son
(42), in their
of
167
offences
Man and
The
(53)
the Holy Spirit (34^), concerning and the permanence of the Law (51).
first
impression that one receives when one
For the most surveys the content of Q is twofold. part, the subject-matter seems to fall asunder into
disconnected parts, and this impression cannot be
quite overcome ; but as soon as one calls to mind the content of the three gospels and compares Q with it, then Q appears to be undoubtedly more homogeneous than
amy of
the three.
What
Mark
!
varied material stands in
peaceful juxtaposition in St.
and even
in
St.
Matthew and St. Luke, Even if one neglects the
stories of the Infancy,
what a multitude of varied
interests, indeed of discrepancies, cross one another in those gospels would ever have believed that
!
Who
all
that St.
Matthew
or St.
if
Luke
or St.
Mark
nar-
rate
itself
stood in one
book,
in each
case the
book
as a single ? these whole with gospels, the complete Compared content which we have assigned to Q is simply Here a great number of points of view homogeneous. and tendencies which prevail in those gospels are
had not been handed down to us
absolutely wanting.
It is characteristic of St. Mark that he emphasises the supernatural in our Lord, the Son of God of St. Matthew, that he treats a great part of the gospel material from the point of view of the primitive community, giving to his whole narrative a
;
Jewish and yet anti-Judaistic tone in the interests of and of St. Luke, that with the largeapologetics
;
heartedness of a Greek he thrusts those

display Jesus
as
the
traits, which Great Healer, into the fore-
168
ground.
But in Q all these tendencies are absent. Here we receive rather the impression that the
author is simply concerned with the commandments of our Lord, and aims at giving a description of His message, in which description he appears to be influ-
enced by no special and particular bias. Perhaps we not be mistaken in that his selection may supposing
was also determined by his desire to illustrate our Lord's message and His witness to Himself, in their main and characteristic features, by specially striking
The Messiahship (Divine Sonship) having examples. been established in the introduction, is in the body
of the work presupposed as a fact that admits of no
further controversy.
The
Galilee,
geographical
It
horizon
of
is
bounded by
and indeed much more

is
strictly so than that
of the synoptists.
ever looks
beyond
Galilee.
indeed a question whether Q Reference is made to
section 43, but I regard it as being very improbable " Das viertes (with Schmiedel, Evang. gegeniiber den
drei ersten"
[1906J, s. 45 if.) that this utterance Jerusalem stood in Q as a saying of our concerning Lord. It has been shown above that in section 33 the words (St. Matt, xxiii. 34-36 = St. Luke xi. 49-51)
form a quotation from an apocryphal Jewish writing, wherein they were spoken by the Wisdom of God ^ for so St. Luke (therefore Q) describes the author; nor could Jesus have said that He was sending forth prophets and wise men and sci'ihes. Moreover, in St. Matthew this passage is followed immediately, and without a fresh introduction, by the words concerning Jerusalem St. Luke does not give them (St. Matt, xxiii. 37-38
;
until
169
xiii. 34). It is therefore in itself very probable that these words also belong to the quotation, and that it is accordingly Wisdom which says TrocroKig
:
It is Wisdom eiriavvayayeLv ra TCKva aov. herself who, by sending forth prophets, wise men, and scribes who had been slain by Jerusalem, had in
rjOeXtjcra
vain essayed this gathering together of the children of Jerusalem (while if ascribed to our Lord this TToa-aKig, together with the lament over the murdered
is supposed indeed impossible).^ Thus, according to the intention of Q, our Lord's own words first begin with Xe'yo) [7a/)] ^1^^^, ov fxt] fxe
prophets, wise men, and scribes to have sent, hangs in the air
whom He
is
'ISîre
ktX. (St. Matt, xxiii. 39

section
St.
Luke
xiii.
35).'
Hence from
1
43 we can draw no conclusion
somewhat different from that of the sayings of 'Ov rpbirov does not occur elsewhere in Q (cis is the only word used) ; verbs compounded with two prepositions are wanting elsewhere. Yet I do not wish to lay much stress upon
style also is
The
our Lord in Q.
these points.
In Q, is accordingly as follows 34-38 was given as a quotation used by our Lord to give force to what He was saying, to which verse 39 was appended as a real utterance of our Lord Himself. This caused some uncertainty in regard to the limits of the quotation. The result was that St. Matthew did not treat it as a quotation at all, but transformed the whole passage into an original discourse of our Lord (and yet with the help of St. Luke we can still detect in 5td tovto a trace of what has been obliterated), while St. Luke has broken off the quotation directly before the appeal to Jerusalem, and omitting the latter here, has given it in a different place as a saying of our Lord Himself. If this explanation is correct, then it further follows that St. Luke has torn asunder verses which stood together This is important for we see that it is not always the case in Q. that St. Matthew has arbitrarily combined passages from Q which did not stand together in that source, but that on the contrary St. Luke also has separated passages which were in juxtaposition.
history of this passage
xxiii.
:
The
St.
Matt,
170
concerning any close connection of our Lord's mission with Jerusalem nevertheless there is a strong balance of probability that sections 33 and 43 were spoken in
Jerusalem, where it is more natural that they should have been delivered than in Galilee.^ which is thus never menTogether with Jerusalem
tioned in
except in the against the Pharisees the Passion and all references to the Passion are absent
Woe
The single isolated saying concerning the of one's own cross (46) would at the best, if taking up it really stood in Q, only afford an indirect reference to the Passion, and the sign of the prophet Jonah (30),
from Q.
according to the account in Q, had absolutely nothing to do with the Passion. So far therefore as we can
judge
all that after the 'precedent
form
the
mam theme of the Synoptic Gospels the Passion
of
St.
Marie goes
to
and the narratives and discourses leading up to the Passion was completely wanting in Q. Herein lies the fundamental difference between the gospels and Q. The latter, in fact, was not a gospel at all in the sense that the Synoptics are. The narrative of this source must therefore have been wanting in historical climax no thread of
have run through it, bindthe end the to ing beginning for what climax or what thread of continuity could have existed where
historical continuity could
;
the Passion, and the thoughts connected with the Thus Q in Passion, were left out of consideration ?
main could only have been a compilation of There is sayings and discourses of varied content.
the
one must remember that we are told in St. Mark vii. 1 There came together to Him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem" cf. vii. 5, &c.
1
Still
' '
that
no force
St.
171
in the objection that St. Matthew and Luke may have omitted the parts of Q which dealt with the Passion. If from St. Luke xvii. 34 to
the end only two isolated verses can be proved to be derived from Q, or if from St. Matthew xv. 15 to the
end only a very few isolated verses in chaps, xvii., and a couple or so of longer passages in chaps, xxiii. and xxiv. belong to Q, this cannot be A source which afforded the merely accidental. such evangelists ample and excellent material for the first half of their works would have been used by them elsewhere if it had contained further material. But may it not be that one of the two evangelists for some reason or other departed from the source while the other still followed it, so that the matter
xviii., xix., xxv.,
peculiar to him in the concluding third part of his work was derived from the source ? This is
possible,
and
it will
the
matter
which
therefore be necessary to examine is peculiar to each of the two
Until this gospels, keeping this contingency in view. is done, the verdict which the facts before us only
allow us to give
is
that
Qis a
the
compilation of discourses
arrangement of which has no reference to the Passion, with an horizon which is as good as absolutely bounded by Galilee, without any
clearly
discernible
bias,
and sayings of our Lord,
whether apologetic, didactic^
ecclesiastical, national,
purpose at
instruction
all
that of imparting catechetical can be discovered in the compilation, it
beyond
or anti-national.
So far as any
consisted
certain
perhaps in an endeavour to give, with a
the
degree of completeness, a representation of main features of our Lord's relationship with
172

Perhaps an investigation of the
His environment.
order of the sections will help us further.
IV.
The
Order of the Sections
Since we may regard St. Matthew as independent of St. Luke and vice versa, it follows that if they agree in the order in which they present sections
which
do not occur in
St.
Mark, that order
is
This thereby proved to be the order of the source. the has been critics, by rightly emphasised point
and has lately been investigated by Wernle and Wellhausen (" Einleitung," s. 65 ff.). In the first place, the first thirteen sections show an astonishing coincidence in order
:
St.
Luke.
St.
Matthew.
(1)
iii.
7-9, 16, 17
20,
(2) iv.
(3)
vi.
1-13 21-23
= iii. 7-12 (The Baptist). = iv. 1-11 (The Temptation). = V. 2-4, 6, 11, 12 (Introduction
to
Sermon
the
Beati-
(4) vi.
29
= V.
= V.
= V.
tudes). 39, 40
cheek,
(Blow upon the robbery of garto
ment).
(5) vi.
30
42
(Give
him
that
asketh).
(6) vi.27,28,35^1
32, 33, 36
(7) vi.
4448 (Love your enemies).

12 (Golden Rule). 1-5 (Judge not; Mote and Beam).
31
(8) vi.37, 38, 41,42
= vii. = vii.
ORDER OF SECTIONS
[(9) vi.
173
[(10)
vi.
39 40
43,
= X.
44
(11)
vi.
14 (Leaders of the Blind).] 24, 25 (The disciple not above his master).] =vii. 16-18; xii. 33 (The good
= XV.
(12)
vi.
46-49
= vii.
and corrupt 21, 24-27
tree).
(The house
(13)
vii.
1-10
= vii.
upon the rock and upon the sand).

28
;
viii.
clusion
5-10, 13 (Conof sermon ; the
centurion at Capernaum).
must accordingly judge that Q began with the preaching of the Baptist, that then there followed the story of the Temptation, then important parts
of the so-called Sermon on the Mount,^ which con" After Jesus had spoken these words he entered into Capernaum," ajid was
cluded with the notice
:
We
immediately succeeded by the narrative of the centmrion

at
question in
The subject-matter Capernaum. St. Luke, chaps, iii., iv., vi., vii.,
entirety
in
is
found in
(with the exception of St. Luke vi. 39, 40) in St. Matt., chaps, iii., iv., v., vii., and viii. with very few changes in order.
its
St. Luke now introduces in vii. 1835 (sections 14 and 15) the discourse concerning the Baptist ; St. Matthew does not give this discourse until
^
St.
Luke and
St.
Matthew
differ
concerning the
site.
The
former says
iirl
(v. 1) dv^^Tj els
But was present, and that the sermon was nevertheless addressed to the disciples. These statements must have occurred in the
rdirov TreSivov.
(tfxXos)
rb 6pos, the latter (vi. 17) Karaâs ^(rrtj both agree in stating that a great multitude
source.
174
chap,
xi.,

and he
inserts
beforehand
the
sections
concerning discipleship and the charge to the disin this gospel they occur in viii. 1922 ; ciples in St. Luke these sections (1622, ix. 37, 38, and x.
;
;
24, 34, 38, 45, 46, 57) are found dispersed through-
out
chaps, ix. (2), 57-60; x. 2 (3), 5, 6 (7''), 9, 12, 11, (16); xii. 2-9, 51, 53; xiv. 26, 27; xvii. 33.
At
upon
first
this
glance it seems impossible to throw light chaos and to discover the order of the
as soon
as
source, but
one
in
sets
down the
is
related
sections
side
by
:
side
lists
the chaos
falls
into
order in an astonishing fashion, as

following table
(16) (St.
seen from the
ORDER OF SECTIONS
Q.
It
is
175
as
now
still
more uncertain whether

;
^ whole they belong here for when they are omitted in order, the reno disturbance there is absolutely
maining nine sections follow one another in exactly the same succession both in St. Matthew and St. It is at the same time shown that these sections, Luke. which are indeed closely allied in subject-matter, were
not first brought together by St. Matthew, but that in Q they stood in the same order of succession as that of the first gospel; for it is clear that St. Luke also
found them in this order.

chaps, ix., X., xii., order of succession.^
xiv.,
It is
noteworthy that
this evangelist has distributed them throughout the

xvii.,
without altering their
to
Seeing then that the sections (16), (19), (24) are be left on one side, and are perhaps to be
altogether excluded from Q, the only question which remains open in connection with the order of the
sections (l)-(8), (11)-(15), (17), (18), (20)-(22), (34*),
is whether the (38), (45), (46), (57), in St. Matt, viii.x. originally
to
material belonging stood before or
As it concerning the Baptist. that St. Matthew (and not St. Luke) has proved reproduced the arrangement of the source in chapters
after the discourse
is
viii.x., it is
follow
him
accordingly probable that we must also here, and conclude that in Q the discourse
concerning the Baptist came after the discourse to the disciples. Now follow, in St. Matt. xi. 21-23 and xi. 25-27
^
Nevertheless internal reasons
demand
that at least section 21
be assigned to Q. 2 In an important passage we thus gain insight into
St.
Luke's
method
of composition {vide supra, p. 169, note
2).
176
as in St.
Luke x. 13-15 and x. 21-22, the Woe denounced against the Galilean cities (section 23), and the great thanksgiving to the Father (section 25). But just as in the case of sections 9 and 10, we
cannot
form
any judgment
is
as
to
all
their
original
position in Q, so
it
also
with
those passages
of the Sermon on the
Mount which we have not

If
already given in the above list. in the order of St. Matthew, we

table
:
we take them
have the following
St.
Matt.
ORDER OF SECTIONS
able results, if
177
we only neglect the eight short sayings 84^ 42, 44, 50, 53, 55, 59) and the (sections 26, then we find in the short parables (40 and 48)
following order
:
St. Matt. xii. 22, 23, 27, Beelzebub (section 29). St. Luke xi. 14, 19, 20, 23-26. 28, 30, 43, 45
;
St. Matt. Sign of Jonah (section 30). St. Luke xi. 16, 29, 30, 31. 41, 42 Woe against the Pharisees (section 33).
;
xii.
38, 39,
St.
Matt.
;
xxiii. 4, 13, 23,
25, 27, 29, 30-32,
34-36
St.
Luke
xi. 46,
52, 42, 39, 44, 47, 49-51.
The coming
of the
Lord
;
as a thief ; the trustworthy
and the untrustworthy steward (section 37). St. Matt. xxiv. 43-51 St. Luke xii. 39, 40, 42-46.
Jerusalem, Jerusalem (section 43).
St.
Matt,
St.
xxiii.
37-39
St.
Luke
22
;
xiii.
?
34, 35.
(section 54).
How
oft
shall I forgive
Matt.
xviii. 15, 21,
St.
Luke
St.
xvii. 3, 4.
The Parousia
;
(section 56).
Matt. xxiv. 26, 27, 28,

35.
St.
37-41 St. Luke xvii. 23, 24, 37, 26, 27, 34, To him that hath shall be given (section 58).
Matt. XXV. 29
Since
;
St.
Luke
xix. 26.
we have already
seen above that St.
Luke
has
concerning arbitrarily separated Jerusalem from the Woe against the Pharisees, it is evident that the correspondence in order in this list
only disturbed by the question concerning forgiveness and by the splitting up of the discourse,
is
the
section
St.
Matt. xxiv. 2651
(St.
Luke has divided
it
and
placed the second half before the first) ; otherwise the It is of importance for our knoworder is identical.
178
ledge of Q to notice that discourses which had the end of the world in view evidently stood at the conclusion of this source, such discourses, namely, as the
Woe
against the Pharisees,
the prophecy of judg-
ment upon Jerusalem, the coming of the Lord as a thief in the night, the faithful and unfaithful steward,
the warning against false Christs with the announcement of the Parousia, lastly, the saying, To him " that hath shall be given (with its converse). From this investigation, which has been carried
somewhat further than that of Wernle and Wellhausen, we derive the following results
:
(1)
The
sections
distinguished
above
by the
numbers 1-8, 11-15, 30, 33, 34% 37, 38,

identical in St.
17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29,
43, 45, 46, 56, 57, 58, permit of being arranged in an order which is practically
Matthew and
St.
Luke
they thereessential
fore certainly belong to a single source.^ (2) This source had an order which in
points is natural follows

:
and
intelligible.^
It proceeded as
The preaching of the Baptist. The story of the Temptation (probably preceded by the Baptism of our Lord with the
voice
1
from heaven, vide
infra).
I have long adopted an extremely sceptical attitude towards the hypothesis which assumes a single definite source for the material (not in St. Mark) which is common to St. Matthew and
but the facts which are here disclosed seem to St. Luke be conclusive (against Hilgenfeld, Zahn, Godet, and others).
;
me
to
It is,
moreover, astonishing how superficially and cursorily Zahn passes over this question in his voluminous " Einleitung" (IP, s. 410 ff.). " 2 C/. Wernle, Synopt. Frage," s. 226 ff.
ORDER OF SECTIONS
The most important
the Mount.
parts of the
179
Sermon on
The charge
mission.
to
the disciples concerning their
The discourse concerning the Baptist. The Woes against the cities. The great Thanksgiving to the Father. The Beelzebub section, and (bound up with it) The sign of Jonah. The Woes against the Pharisees, together with
the
pronouncement
of
judgment against
;
Jerusalem.
The warning
against false Christs concerning the Parousia.
the discourse
The coming of
night
;
the Son of
Man
as a thief in the
the faithful and unfaithful steward.
The
saying that to him that hath shall be given, and the other saying that the disciples
should govern the twelve tribes of
Israel.^
The
35,
36,
sections 9, 10, 16, 19, 24, 26-28, 31, 32,
34^
39-42, 44, 47-55 do not admit of being It is therefore only mmx arranged in a definite order.
or less probable that they belong to Q, and therefore in an investigation into the characteristics of Q they ought
to
(St.
be
regarded
as
of
only
secondary
authority
Matthew and St. Luke can well have depended upon more than one source for their common matter
which
is
not found in
St.
Mark
still
the difference
in order is
*
no proof
in favour of such
an hypothesis).
Matthew Luke
at a
is
St.
Luke gives
this saying (59) at the end, St.

(in
very much earlier point the right here.
chap, xix.)
perhaps
St.
in
180

:
In this connection the following points must also be
noted These
Eighteen of them have been already included above among the very short sayings, and seven of them are short parables
them
twenty-seven sections short, indeed very short.^
are
almost
all
of
or only similitudes (9, 19, 31, 39, 40, 41, 48) which could easily change their place ; only five sections (27, So far as their 28, 35, 36, 54) are of greater extent.
content
is
concerned, the majority of these sayings

suit the character of
admirably
Q and give sion for postulating another source. (3) From the discourse to the disciples
no occathe
{i.e.
subject-matter in St. Matt, x.), and from the fact that in the first gospel the sections 33 and 43, as well as sections 56 and 37, are correctly given in
juxtaposition, preserved the
we conclude that
St.
Matthew has
order of the source more faithfully than St. Luke.^ It therefore follows with no slight
probability that those parts of the Sermon on the Mount which ai'e common to St. Matthew and St.
Luke, and yet do not stand in the same order in the
two gospels
47, 49, 51, 52),
(sections 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 41, in the order of St. occurred in
Matthew, and that St. Luke has separated and distributed them throughout his work for reasons which can no longer be discovered (in the belief that he
shall be justified in could trace a better rdî^). deciding similarly concerning other sections which
^
We
Together they form scarcely a quarter of the whole contents
of Q.
2
We now
recognise that the great composite discourses of

their outline already given in Q.
St.
Matthew had
ORDER OF SECTIONS
occur in different positions in St.
181
St.
Matthew and
in regarding St. Luke in this matter as in the extreme. capricious no gospel like St. Matthew, St. Mark, was (4)
Luke, and
and
St.
Luke, and yet
it
was not a merely formless
compilation of sayings and discourses of our Lord without any thread of connection. Rather we learn
from the beginning and the conclusion (eschatological discourses) that it possessed a certain definite arrangement of subject-matter and the outlines of a
It was, however, in no sense a chronological order. biographical narrative, but essentially a collection of This is the very reason that it makes no discourses.^
mention of the Passion. Nor need we be surprised at the composition of a work which confined itself to the discourses and sayings of our Lord ; indeed, if one keeps in mind the contemporary Jewish fashion,
the composition of such a work is a priori probable, and, moreover, finds support in Christian terminology, which from the first distinguished between the acts
1 The seven narratives {vide supra, p. 163), which at least were included in Q, do not alter this character ; for in five of these the important feature is clearly a saying of our Lord, and the story is cursorily narrated only in order to give the occasion of the utterance. It is otherwise with the story of the Temptation, and, as it seems, with the narrative concerning the centurion. But the inclusion of the former becomes at once intelligible if the story of the Baptism was also included ; in this case we must conceive of Q as a compilation of sayings which received its necessary
determination, and thereby an historical character, in that it was prefaced by an account of the consecration of Jesus as the Messiah.
This hypothesis is corroborated by the strongly Messianic character of the story of the Temptation in Q {vide the following note). Accordingly, only the story of the Centurion seems to fall outside
the framework of Q.
Yet vide
infra.
182

i.
and the sayings of Jesus (vide

Acts
1
SiSdcTKeiv
Trepl Is St.
Epistles ; wavrcov wv yjpâTO 'Irjaov^ Troielv re Kai Luke here thinking of his two main
?
St.
Paul's
sources, St.
Mark and Q
cf.
St.
Luke
xxiv. 19, &c.).
V.
Can
we Discover any Trace of Q in the Matter that is Peculiar to St. Matthew

OR TO St. Luke, or in Indirect Evangelic Tradition ?
istics,
Seeing that Q is so neutral in linguistic characterwe can scarcely use arguments based upon phenomena of style and vocabulary in order to
Nor prove that passages in question belong to Q. does an analysis based upon phenomena of subjectBut one thing is matter promise much success.
we can distinguish numerous passages in both gospels which certainly could not have stood in Q.
at all events possible
:
Let us begin with St. Matthew and with the Sermon on the Mount.^ Of the passages that stand in St. Matt, v.vii. and are wanting in St.
Luke,
world.
it
is
possible
that
hill),
v. v.
1%
41
City upon
16 (Light of the (If one constrain
1 Wellhausen (" Einl.," s. 74) judges that the Baptism of our Lord by St. John could not well have been absent from Q. There is by no means little to be said in favour of this theory {vide supra, " and note that both " dv-qx^V " and " virb toO irveiiiaTos in the story of the Temptation can only be understood in the light of the story of the Baptism) and in this case there is much that is attractive in the hypothesis that the original form of the voice from heaven in But WeUSt. Luke is to be derived from Q {vide Excurs. II.).
hausen's combination of the temptation by the devil with the temptation by St. Peter (St. Mark viii. 32, 33), and his confident
OTHER TRACES OF Q
183
thee to go one mile, then go two), vi. 34 (which finishes ofi' the verses 2533 belonging to Q), and
vii.
22,
23 (Many
will say to
me
in that day, &:c.)
20-24, 27-31, 33-38, 43; vi. 1-8 (14, 15), 16-18; vii. 6-15, must have been wanting in that source, because
;
stood in
all else,
namely,
v. 17, 19,
these passages are strongly

characteristics of St.
marked by the peculiar Matthew (better righteousness,
formal directions concerning almsgiving, prayer, and fasting, &:c., vide supra, p. 167) and because St. Luke offers absolutely no parallel to them. The
by no means
is
discernible
nothing
certainly
slight degree of homogeneity which in the passages in question (while similar is found in the passages which
proof
all
belong to Q) is in itself a strong that they are alien to Q. They indeed partake of that controversial attitude towards
Judaism which is a peculiar characteristic of St. Matthew. The same may be said of the sayings concerning Of the parables the Sabbath in xii. 5 ff., 11 f. peculiar to St. Matthew in chap. xiii. the Buried Treasure and the Pearl (verses 4446) may have stood in Q, because they are similar to the Mustard Seed and the Leaven ^ but we have no certainty that this was so, especially as they are
;
assertion that the C7ra7e Saraj'a of St. Matthew is derived from the record of our Lord's repulse of St. Peter, are rash. Wellhausen's
other conjecture that a trait in the story of the Baptism, in which

St.
Matthew
differs
from
St.
Mark, namely,
St.
John's objection
to baptize our Lord, had its origin in Q, is destitute of all foundation and is, according to Q, section 14, improbable.
1
So Wernle, "Synopt. Frage,"
s.
187.
184
separated
like
is

from the
latter
pretation of the parable
parables by the interof the Tares and seem

St.
an appendix added by
Matthew.
No
one
Tares and likely to claim the parables of the of the Draw-net for Q, any more than the concluding
passage
(xiii.
51
f.)
of the collection of
parables in chapter xiii. The story of St. Peter's

is
walking on the sea a of narrative entirely secondary (xiv. 2831) character, likewise the words addressed to St. Peter
concerning the Rock upon which the Church would be built (xvi. 1719), perhaps also the story of the coin in the fish's mouth (xvii. 24-27), certainly
(xviii.
the
discourse
on
discipline
xviii.
16-18).
Q ; that the parables of the Great Supper (xxii. 111) and the parable of the Talents belong to Q is not impossible, as we
the
little
Possibly ones) stood in
in the Church 10 (The angels of
but we can arrive at no have seen (pp. 119 fF.) on this above all, we can no longer certainty point All restore the form in which they stood in Q.^ the parables and discourses that occur that remains
the last chapter of St. Matthew preceding the must probably be kept distinct from Q, Passion for they present no indication of relationship to
in
that
1
source.^
As
for
the
narratives peculiar
to
The order in which the parable of the Talents occurs in the two gospels is in favour of its belonging to Q ; for it is found in St. Matt. XXV. and in St. Luke xix., thus in both cases it follows the discourse concerning the Parousia, St. Matt. xxiv. and St,
Luke
Matt.
*'
xvii.
This
is
not so in the case of the Great Supper

xiv.).
(St.
xxii.
and
St.
Luke
* Naturally, in the case of many parables and discourses, the possibility" of such relationship cannot be disputed.
OTHER TRACES OF Q
185
the account of the Passion in St. Matthew, it would be a most arbitrary proceeding to assign
these to Q, seeing that even the prophecies of the Passion are wanting in this source and that these passages of St. Matthew are secondary or even
tertiary in character.
In
can
St.
Luke the
situation
is
not different; we
state
with considerable
and such passages that are

did not stand in
trast
probability that such peculiar to St. Luke

discourses,
all
the narratives,
and parables which

love
for
sinners,
specially
emphasise
the
con-
between the poor and the rich and our Lord's
and are
so
characteristic
these,
of St.
there
Luke''s
is
peculiar genius.
Apart from
peculiar to this gospel which may possibly have belonged to Q ; but I have sought in vain for any clear principles upon which a probable
is
much
that
is a priori probable, indeed quite certain, that much which occurs only in St. Matthew or in St. Luke is derived
proof of such relationship could be based. must content ourselves with this. It
We
from Q, but except the parable of the Mustard Seed which grows into a great tree and this has been
by us already assigned to Q, though it also occurs in St. Mark I believe that there is no part of
the subject-matter peculiar to any one of the two gospels which we are justified in definitely assigning
to Q.i
Any
1
one
and assumes that the apostolic source
that adopts the standpoint of Resch " existed for

in this connection than
We
must therefore be more discreet

other scholars.
Wemle and many
186

by
side with
centuries side
our gospels, and with them

tradition, will
exercised influence
upon the evangelic
passages of Q in the gospel He, however, who sayings found in the Fathers. cannot convince himself that there is any proof, or
attempt
to discover
possibility of proof, that the later tradition has been influenced by the sources of our gospels, will hope for
very
little
from the examination of the " Agrapha "
and related material.
Nevertheless, I have investi-
gated afresh the material which Resch has collected The ("Texte und Unters.,'' Bd. 5, 10, and 30).
appearance of light at the Baptism (Bd. 30, Heft 34, s. 36), which is a very early tradition and is found in Codd. Vercell. and Sangerm. at St. Matt,
iii.
15
XX. 28
ê
{cf.
the saying found in Syr. Cur. at St. Matt. also the same passage in Cod. D) v/xer?
K
/uLiKpov
XriTeLTe
av^fjarai
;
Kai
jULrj
e/c
/xeiToi/o?
eXarrov ehai (I.e. s. 39) the Logia in 1 Clem. ii. 13, 46 and Polycarp. ii., and in Acts xx. 35 ; the
iv oh oiv ujjiag KaraXa^co, ev Tovroig koI KpLvw of Justin Martyr and others (I.e. s. 102) ; the saying strongly attested from Clement of Alexandria on-
wards
aireicrOe,
(pWh
s.
to, juLcyaXa, koi to. jmiKpa
v/uliv
irpoa-reOrjcreTaL Q.c.
Ill); the yet more constantly

:
yhecrOe Sokijulol TpaireQTai (s. 112 ff*.) ; ^lol rovg acrOevovi^ra^ the saying attested by Origen iirelvcoi/ koi Sia tov^ Koi. Sia Tovg ireipcovra^ iâSeuovv. the crv kol ; saying SL\lôopTa<} iSi'ôov (s. 132)
quoted saying
g-ooôu
rj
180) Alexandria and Tertullian

^v)(ri
(s.
;
(Tov
the
:
saying
elSe^
in
Clement of
cTSe^
TOV Oeov
/jlov
eyyv^
182) ; tov iyyv^ iraTpo^ (MS.
(tou (s.
tov aSeXcpov crov, the saying in Origen o

:
6 Se juaKpav irvpo^),
OTHER TRACES OF Q
187
these air e/uLov fxaxpav airo t^? âcriXeia^ (s. 185) are passages which could be offered for consideration
here.
It is indeed most improbable that the interpolations found in some manuscripts of the gospels, of which two examples have been given at the beginning of the above list, are derived from Q. Seeing that they can have to the original text either of belonged scarcely
St.
Matthew or
which case only could there be any real question concerning their origin from Q they must therefore have been derived either from other To suppose written gospels or from oral tradition. that they were derived directly from Q, the source of
tions in
in
D)
St.
Luke
(cf.
especially the interpola-
St. Matthew and St. Luke, would be to assume a remarkable accident without any justification, seeing
that these passages show no relationship in subjectmatter with Q. The quotations in the Acts of the Apostles and in
of Rome and of Poly('arp more promising material for these time date from a at which still ha-y-e Q may writings been known and when the canonical gospels had not
the epistles of Clement
perhaps afford
yet reached
all parts of the Church, or at least were not everywhere recognised as canonical. It is therefore remarkable that the five sayings which are quoted
in these writings have introductions of essentially the same character as is here seen
:
Acts XX. 35
/uLvrjjiioveveiv
Tov Kvpiov
Îtjcrov,
^]
on
re tcov Xoyoov
avTo<s clTrev IS/laKapiov icrnv
/jLoXXov SiSovai
Xafj-âveiv,
188
1 Clem.

xiii.
:
juLoXicrTa
/uLejuLvrjimevoi
twv Xoywv
Tov Kvptov
*ItjG-ov, 01/9 iXaXrjcrev SiSclctkcov CTrieiKeiav
KOI jULaKpoOujULiav ovrm yap elireV 'EXeare "Iva eXcrj^ ovtco TroirjOri6tJTy ad)LeT "iva acbeQn ujmiv cog Troieire,
a-erai vfxlv wg SlSore,
ovrwg
ôOrjorerai vjuliv wg KpLvere,
ovToag KpidrjcrecrOe-
cog
yjpria-TevecrOe,
ovrcog )(^pr](TTvOr]~
aerai
VJULIV,
vjuliv
juiirpw fxeTpelre,
ev
avrw
fxerprjOija-erai
1 Clem. xlvi.
fxvijcrOrjTe tcov
TOV KVploV
eKLV(p'
^JULCOV
rjv
CLTTeV
el
\6ycov tov 'Irja-ov y^P' OvOl TW avOpWTTO)

imrj
KoXov
/ulov
avTu>
iyevvtjOr]
rjv
rj
hva
tcov
ckXcktcov
fjLiiXov
G-KavSaXlarai.
KpeiTTOV
elg
avTcp TrepireOrjvai
OaXacrorav,
r}
Kcd
KaTairovTicrOrji/aL
fjiov
ii.
:
Ttjv
eva
TCOV
kXKtwv
c.
oiacTTpeyât.
/jLvrj/uLovevovTcg
Polyc.
wv
elirev
o Kvpiog
KOI
SlSdcTKCOV
acbeOrjo-eTai
/ULT]
KpLVT,
%a
fXrj
KplO)]T'
eXerjQyJTe'
a(j)ieT,
vjuliv
iXeaTe,
Iva
/iXTp(p
JUiTpeiT, aVTljULTpt]0r](r6Tai VfllV
KOI
OTl'
jJ.aKapioi
ol
irTcovoi Kai
ecTTiv
ol Sicoko/ulcvoi eveKeu oiKaioavvtig^ oti avToov
Oeov. r} âa-CXela tov 1 Clem. ii. iravTeg eTaireivocppovetTe

:
VTroTaarrj
(rojuLCVOL
juLoXXou
rj
VTrOTaarcrovTeg,
rjoiov
oioovTeg
Xajm/SdvovTeg TOig e(j)oSioig tov

fxevoL Koi irpoareyovTeg^
^picTov
dpKOv-
Tovg Xoyovg ovtov

cnrXayyvoig.
CTriêXcog
Tolg ve(TTepvL(JiJ.ivoL rJTe
There
is
no doubt that
in all these passages the
referred to as a compilation, sayings of our Lord are and the form of the quotations suggests that this compilation was crystallised in a written document tov which bore the title, " 'Irjarov,'''' and
Koyoi
Kvplov
was regarded as giving the authoritative teaching of
OTHER TRACES OF Q
189
our Lord.^ In such a case identity with Q would be But, in the first place, we can practically proved. here only arrive at a certain degree of
probability;
in the second place, close examination of the subjectmatter of these sayings is not favourable to the
" It is more blessed hypothesis ; for (a) if the saying, " to give than to receive stood in Q, why has St. Luke not taken it up into his gospel ? (yet this is
not a very weighty objection) (b) in Polycarp the formula of quotation and the quotation itself (the latter only partly and freely reproduced) are most for Polycarp probably derived from 1 Clem. xiii. has made constant use of the epistle of Clement
;
( Clement. Alex. Strom.,"

;
ii.
18,
is
also
dependent
upon the same passage) (c) the first saying quoted by Clement of Rome in the parts which have no direct parallel in St. Matthew and St. Luke (eXeare
'iva
eXerjOfjTe, a(piT Lva

v/uliv
0)9
acpeOu
v/jliv
o)? Troieire,
ovroo
vjuliv
iroitjO^creTai
ft)?
SiSore,
ovrcog
SoOrjcreTai
vjuliv)
-^^prjcrrevecrOe,
ovroo^ ^^ycrTeuOô-eraf
may
very
but the part in which it coincides in subject-matter with Q, as we have given this source above, has a different wording. In place
well have
stood in
of
fjLtj
KpiveTe,
ha
/jlvj
KpiOfjre,
cbj
KpiO^crea-Qe
we have
Kpl/ULari Kplvere, It Kplpere, ovroog KpiOrjcrea-Qe.
ev
w yap
may, however, be objected that Clement here has simply omitted a phrase or so, and for the rest has
followed another translation
Iva
1
of
suit
but
fxr]
Kplvere,
kt\.
does
not
at all
his
context.
The
" After having written this I see from " Theol. Jahresbericht for 1905 (iii. Abt. s. 246), that Harris, and lately Lake (in " Hibb. Journ." iii. 332 ff.), have preceded me in commending this
hypothesis.
190

Q
remains therefore uncertain,
(d)
dependence upon
" Clem. passage of Clement (I neglect Alex. Strom.," iii. 18, because it depends upon Clem.
The second
Rom."*') reproduces sayings which are found in all three evangelists they may, nevertheless, have also stood in Q ; indeed, we have shown that the allied
words
in
avayKV} Si^ ou avOpcoiro)
eXOeiv
tol
(TKavSaXa,
irXrjv
ovai
tw
to (TKavSaXov epyeTai, probably stood
Q
:
{vide section 53).
St.
Mark
oiial t^j
xiv.
St.
21
av-
24
is
Matt. xxvi. as St. Mark

after
St.
Luke
xxii.
Clem. Eom.
oval Tip dpdpiawip
ixeipip'
22
o5
oval Tip dp-
dpUTTCj} iKcivip 5t'
(except that ^p
Opibirip iKelpip 5i'
KaXbu
fj.7)
fjp
Od 6 Vlbs TOV
6p(j}irov
CLV-
added
irapadidorai
6
vibs
T.
avTip
p^6t]
el
i)
iyep-
Trapadi-
KaXby),
[soil.
iva tCjv
jXOV
SoTai' Ka\6yai>T(^
el
dpd.}.
iKXeKTClP
ovK iyevvrjdrj 6
CKapbaXiuaL.
&v$pu}7ros iKeivos.
St.
Mark
&>'
ix.
St.
6,
Matt,
:
xviii.
St.
Luke
xvii.
42
6s
(TKavrCov
first
as in
1,2:
eiTTtP
dvipbtKTov
KpeiTTOP
Tip
fjP
av-
doKlcrji
^va.
St.
Mark, then
ds
'
TOV Ta (XKdv{XT}
irepLTedijpai
fxiKpGjv
Toirwv
Tn<TTv6vT(t)v
4/j,4
5aXa
ir\T)P
iXdeip,
5t'
fidXop Kal KarawoPTiadrjPaL,
tQv
ITLffTevbvTWV,
i<TTiv
crvfxcp^pet
oial
'
o5
KoKbv
TUi
avT(^
avT(^
fj.acrd'^
tva
KpefxijXos
ipX^TO-f-
Xvirtel
ha
tCop ^/cXe/CTcDv
fiaWovel
vrepiKeL-
TcXei
Xidos
avTip
p.ov 5ta(rr/3eât.
/JLijXoi
6vtKb%
dvLKbs
irepl
top
jj.vXt.Kbs
avTov vepl rhv rpdxvôu Tpdxvôv aiiTov Kol ê^\7]- /cat KaraTTOVTiaOy
rai
els tt^v
TreplKeiTai,
Trepl
ddXaa-
iv
TTJs
Tip
TreXdyei
daXdacrj's.
Tbp TpdxrjXop aiTOV Kal ^pplTTTai,

els TTjP
aav.
ddXaacap,
Toi-
oval
dirb
Tip
KbcTfXlp
ha
(TKavbaXiari
flLKpCjP
tCov
cTKav-
TUP
Ti*}P
odXcop'
yap
dpdyKT] iXdelp to.

ttXtjv
Pa,
(TKdpdaXa,
oiial Tip
5t*
dpdpuirip
o5 t6 (TKdpSa-
\ov ipx^TM,
OTHER TRACES OF Q
The
in
191
interpretation of the phenomena presented the above table is difficult. It is possible that
Clement erroneously understood the saying concerning Judas in a general sense and combined
it
wrongly with
little
;
the
ones,
it
is,
" elect "
concerning offending reproduced by him as however, also possible that not

saying
freely
Si
the
only the general clause, avayKrj iXOeiv ra orKavSaXa,

TrXrju oval ro)
avOpcoTro)
ov to ctkolvSoXov ep-êTai,
stood in Q, but also something concerning offending the elect in just that double form in which Clement
gives it (this would then be the more ancient form, while St. Mark has introduced the special reference
St. Matthew and St. Luke had St. Mark to Judas) and Q before them, and have on the whole followed
;
the former in that they have reproduced from Q Yet only the general saying concerning offences. this second explanation is far less probable than
the
hit
for (1) it is strange that they have both the same solution of the problem (yet in upon St. Luke xvii. 1, 2, the order is different from that
first
;
in St. Matt, xviii. 6, 7)
(2)
we can form no
;
definite
conception of the wording of this hypothetical text in its two halves of Q (according to Clement)
it
is
extremely tautologous, and accordingly gives
the impression that these two halves were originally

separate from one another and came from different sources (just as it is in the three gospels). Lastly, we have the cKeivcp at the beginning, which tells a
tale.
There is therefore at least no surety that we have Q before us here, however attractive the hypothesis may be and though it may claim the
192
support of what seem to be translation-variants. {e) Neither can we well claim for Q that it is the
source of the second half of the quotation in Polycarp
;
for though "juaKapioi oi tttcoô/" (without to? Trvev /uLan) answers to the wording of Q (and of St. Luke), yet
SiwKO/uiei/oi
Gvenev
SiKaioo-vvrjg,
which
is
found
in
St.
Matthew, cannot be proved to have stood in Q.

Accordingly we must reluctantly abandon the hope
of recovering from these quotations, which seem to presuppose our gospels, anything which certainly belongs
to
there
is,
in fact,
no
sufficient
basis of proba-
" bility for the hypothesis that these \6yoi rov Kvpiou " is here one of The case identical with are Q. Îrjcrov
very moderate possibility, and it is permissible only with considerable reservation to claim the quotations
in 1 Clem,
If,
xiii., xlvi.
for Q.^
however, our investigation of these passages leads to such unsure results, the uncertainty is very much greater in regard to the " Agrapha " which are In all found in writers from Justin downwards.
these cases it is more probable that these sayings have been derived from the gospel of the Egyptians, the gospel of St. Peter, or other sources, than that This specially they were directly taken from Q.
holds good of the sayings discovered by Grenfell and Hunt, and likewise of those in the Clementine
thought certain that "Xoyot kt\.''^ in Clement signifies a book, which must therefore be identical with Q, it will then be necessary to assume a separate recension of Q, which It is in was afterwards amplified from the canonical gospels.
If it is
1
the
title of
favour of this hypothesis that in St. Matthew (and so also probably in Q) the Sermon on the Mount is introduced with the words:
idlSaffKey
airoi/s
X^yuv,
Q AND
ST.
MARK
We
193
Homilies, though it is possible that elements of great know that the antiquity are preserved therein.
gospels mentioned were
read in the second and third centuries, while we have no such knowledcre Therefore in each particular case the concerning Q. burden of proof rests with him who advances the
still
claims of
but with Resch and others of his way
of thinking one seeks in vain for real proofs.^
VI.
The
Essential Characteristics
of the Con-
tents OF Q. Comparison of Gospel of St. Mark.
with the
In the comprehensive chapter of his Einleitung

in die drei ersten Evangelien,"
ss.
73-89, Wellhausen
St.
has
made a complete comparison of Q and
Mark.
Since, according to him, mutual independence is " not to be thought of," he discusses the question of priority and decides in favour of St. Mark. Compared with
St.
1
Mark
the content of
is
everywhere, or almost
we
In 2 Clem. v. Let me bring forward yet another instance. read: \^yet 6 Kvpios' "Eo'eade <hs dppla iv /xâip Xvkiov. This form of the saying seems to be more ancient than the form which we have ascertained for Q in section 19 idoi) iy<h dTroariWcj v/j.d$ ws
:
But without regard to the fact that 2 Clem, has probably used an uncanonical gospel which was certainly not Q (probably the gospel of the Egyptians), we have already seen above, pp. 13, 174 f., that the saying is perhaps not to be assigned to Q, but that its presence in St. Matthew and St. Luke is to be
irpbâra iv
fxâ-cp
Xvkcov.
The gospel of the Egyptians (the 2 Clem.) is on the whole certainly gospel, that is, which is used by secondary to Q, indeed to the Synoptic Gospels yet, like the gospel
attributed to another source.
;
of the
Hebrews,
it
has preserved some very ancient elements.
iy4
everywhere, secondary, and presents the traditions concerning Jesus in a form which had already ad-
vanced in the direction of definite Christian dogma and of ecclesiasticism. I, on the contrary, beheve the in I show can that following pages that Wellhausen in his characteristic of Q has unconsciously allowed himself to be influenced by the tendencies of St. Matthew and St. Luke, that he has attributed to
what belongs to these
gospels,
St.
and that
in not a
few passages he has preferred
Mark on
insufficient
The conclusions at which I have arrived grounds. stand therefore in strong opposition to the results of
his criticism.
with St. Mark we must base on those passages which certainly our investigation the probable constituents of Q belong to Q in the second line for our must be marshalled
In
comparing
review.
St.
tist,
begins with the preaching of the Bapthe baptism of our Lord, and a summary account
Mark
of a forty days^ temptation of our Lord in the wilderness ; Q, with the preaching of the Baptist (the baptism of our Lord) and a detailed account of a
temptation of our Lord to disbelief in His Messianic vocation, which took place after a forty Even if, as is prodays' abode in the wilderness.
bable, the baptism of our Lord stood in Q, it does not necessarily follow that St. Mark and Q are de-
pendent upon one another for it may very well have happened that at a particular epoch these sections were the regular passages with which the catechetical tradition of the sayings of Jesus the Messiah began
;
Q AND
(St.
ST.
MARK
195
Here, however, the subject-matter the more original, for St. Mark only Q cler^rly introduces the Baptist in order that he may point forward to the " One,"" while Q first describes
i.
Luke
is
4).
of
Mightier
the preaching of the Baptist concerning repentance and judgment, and then only attaches the reference " to the " Mightier One that was coming. Besides, St. Mark is guilty of hysteron-proteron in his description of the
Coming One
as one that
would baptize
with the Holy Ghost, while Q speaks of Him as of one who would appear with the fire of judgment and
would thoroughly purge His floor.^ Similarly, in to it the of the can neither story regard Temptation, be proved that Q is dependent upon St. Mark, nor can it be asserted that in St. Mark the Temptation
is
conceived as being non-Messianic in character,^ nor can the narrative in Q be claimed as a later legend.
If the story of the Temptation, with the voice from heaven in the form, " Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee," stood in Q, it is then natural
that the devil should address himself to Jesus as the
Son of God, and should wish to upset His faith in His Divine Sonship. There is no need to suppose that this must have been a later tradition than the shorter account of St. Mark, which always arouses the suspicion that St. Mark here knew more than he has
priority of Q is here recognised by Wellhausen (s. 74). Wellhausen {I.e. ) makes this assertion but if the Spirit which descended upon Jesus drives Him into the wilderness, where He is tempted for fortry days of Satan, surrounded by the uncanny creatures of the desert, while the angels supply Him with food, this can then be no ordinary temptation but is the period far
2
;
The
excellence of
Messianic temptation.
196
told us,^ for legend is not accustomed to work by a method so concise and allusive.^
The Sermon on the Mount now follows in Q. Mark here aiFords us only four parallel sayings.^
writes
(iv.
St.
He
24)
ev
w /merpw
juLeTpeire
/uLTpt]6r](TTaL
vfjdv (just
as in Q, section 8). of connection with his context

^
out Again, in ix. 50 -: koKov to aXa?* eav Se
The circumstances may be conjectured to have been as St. Mark was obliged to touch upon the fact of the Messianic temptation by Satan, since it belonged to the stereotyped material of catechetical instruction (St. Luke i. 4 trepl wv
follows
:
was, however, known to him, not in the narrative of Q but in another form. If the narrative of Q had been known to him, the trait of fasting could not have been omitted by him, nor could he have mentioned the wild beasts and
Karrjx'Ô'ijs
Xdywv);
it
the angels in his short summary. St. Mark presupposes a legend where there was no mention of our Lord's fasting in the wilderness, where, on the contrary, it was recorded that He was fed by angels, so that there could scarcely have been a place therein for a temptation by means of hunger. Nothing is said of the nature
of the temptation of
therein
is
uncertain
but
Satan
that
the wild beasts played a role
that St.
them
is
more than probable.
Mark knew something about The "Gospel of Jesus Christ,"

;
according to him, first begins with verse 14 in a double introduction, verses 1-8 and 9-13, he simply says what is absolutely necessary concerning the Baptist and his testimony, and concerning the Divine Sonship of Jesus. The wondrous "âvratrfa" (Theodore of Mopsuestia) of the story of the Temptation in Q is independent of St. Mark, and may have arisen at any time after the year a.d. 30 i.e. it possibly belongs to the primitive tradition. 2 It is quite another question whether the story of the Baptism (Spirit and voice from heaven) was the oldest form of the tradiI am with Wellhausen of the conviction that it was not, tion. rather that it has taken the place of the more ancient story of the But this question cannot be discussed here, as Transfiguration. it belongs rather to the period of development that lies behind Q and St. Mark. 2 And in the case of three of these it is only probable that they stood in Q.
Q AND
:
ST.
MARK
197
TO aXag avaXov yevrjTai, ev tlvl avro apTvaere ; while Q, section 47, reads v/uLeis ecrre to aXa^ [r^? 7^?]* cav Se TO dXag [xwpavQn^ ev tlvl aXLaStjcreTaL. Here, in the first place, we notice a genuine translation-variant, " as the " salt to and next, that Q
interprets
is
referring
s.
the disciples.
as
St.
This
probably the original reference,

again out of connection 6 XJî/o? 'Iva viro tov ep-êraL
iirl
Wellhausen
also recognises ("
Mark
iv.
21 we read
with his context

jULoSiov
. .
Mark,"
82).
In
/ul^tl
TeO^ ou^ Iva Q, section 31, we find ov avTov viro tov juloSlov aXX'
:
Tt]v
\vyviav TeO^ ;
In
Kaiovariv
iirL Trjv
\vyvov Km
Xv^vlav, Kai
TiOeaariv
Xa/uLTrei
irac-Lv
Toig ev
Tij
oiklol.
In St.
Mark
" the " light
St.
represents the teaching of our Lord, in St. Matthew the good conduct of the disciples (this is secondary) but this is only the interpretation of St. Matthew.
it
Luke, who gives the saying twice, gives 16) with the same significance and (viii.
first
in
the
same connection
(xi.
as
St.
Mark, and a second time
13),
according to Q, without reference to the

JTius
disciples.
mQ
Q
St.
unexpressed, and
compared with St.

lation-variants.
airoXvcri] Ttjv
the reference to the disciples was was therefore not secondary zvhen Mark. Here also note the trans-
Mark
writes
(x.
11
f.)
o? av
eV
avT/jv
'
yafxyjcrt] aX\}]v, /ixoiyûTaL KOL eav avTrj airoXvcraara tov avopa avTrjg
yvvaiKa avTOv kul
probably more correctly, kol eav tov avSpog avTt]<} Km bXKov 'ya/x^Jcr?;], yuvrj eêXOi] ascertained for the text of have Here we juLOL-)(aTm.
yaiJ.y](Tii
oKKov
[or
cltto
in section
52
[eyco Xeyco
iroiei
vjuliv]
Tray
6 clttoXvcov
TTjv
yvvaiKa
avTov
avTriv
jJLOiyevdrivm,
Km
o's
eav
aTToXeXvfxeDjv
yajurjai],
juoi-âTaL.
Wellhausen's
lys

this verse
judgment on
depends upon the supposition
that the words immediately preceding it in St. Luke Se ecmv tov ovpavov kol Trjv yrju TrapeX(evKoirwrepov
Oeh' t] TOV vofjLOv fxlav Kepaiav Trecreiv, xvi. 17) are to be regarded as explaining, or rather confirming, the But verse statement of the verse concerning divorce.
17 belongs, as
:
is
shown by the
Se,
to verse 16,
and
is
intended to correct the seeming Antinomianism of the words 6 vojuog koI ol 7rpo(prJTaL jae^pi 'Icodvvov, while
the saying concerning divorce then follows without have therefore no surety that any connection. even St. Luke intended that verses 17 and 18 should
We
As for Q, it is inconceivable that be taken together. they stood together in that source, for St. Matthew presents them in complete separation in v. 18 and
32.
St.
Then
again,
Mark
x.
of the saying
his wife
it is more than questionable that forms the starting-point for the version " He who divorces in Q. St. Mark
says
and marries another commits adultery against her, and likewise she that is divorced and marries Q says " He who divorces again commits adultery." his wife makes her an adulteress [because she will marry again], and the new husband also commits That there is a difference here is clear, adultery." but it is not to be sought where Wellhausen sees it.
:
According to Wellhausen, in St. Mark'*s form the adultery lies not in the divorce but only in the but this is quite improbable, for marrying again (1) it is opposed to the context in St. Mark (verses 19), and (2) it is artificially read into the words of St. Mark. And besides, especially in an Oriental
;
environment, a second marriage was sure to follow a
Q AND
divorce.
ST.
MARK
199
and Q does not
Therefore the difference between St. Mark lie in this point, but rather in the
circumstance that St.
Mark
declares the
husband and
the wife, if she marries again, to be guilty of adultery, while Q condemns the wife who marries again and her
Yet this difference is only in appearhas only left unexpressed what was selfevident according to my opinion, this writer intended " He who divorces his wife to say (not only makes himself guilty of adultery, but besides) calls a twofold
new husband.
;
ance
Q
;
she that is divorced together adultery into being The with her new husband are guilty of adultery."
:
^ saying is then one of pregnant conciseness and force ; while the saying in St. Mark is feeble in comparison. Thus Q, section 52, is certainly not derived from St.
Mark
x.
11
f.
It follows, therefore, that neither is
52 founded upon St. Mark x. 1-9, but in the most favourable case it must be assumed that there was in Q an account parallel to that of St. Mark, of which Q 52 formed the conclusion. Nevertheless, the verse requires no other context than that given in St.
Matthew
'^ppeOt]
o? airoXvan
rrjv
SoTCD avT^ aTrocrrdcriov.
Yet the context
yvvaiKa avrou, in Q could

St.
scarcely have been quite like this.
These are the only passages in which
Mark
affords a parallel to those parts of St. Matt, v vii. which belong to Q ; for the theory that St. Mark
1 St. Matthew alone has preserved it so ; St. Luke has abeady modified the first half of the saying in accordance with the form St. Matthew, however, has also offended in that in St. Mark.
he has inserted irapcKTbi "Koyov iropveias an interpolation which is self-evident, and yet, as it stands, quite out of place in the
context.
200
xi.

may be
left
25 is the germ of the Lord's Prayer on one side.-^

If
of the
we now investigate the contents of the passages Sermon on the Mount which stood in Q
(of the first-class sections 38, of the second-class sections 9, 10, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 41, 47, 49,
52), we notice scarcely anything which might not pass as primary tradition. But Wellhausen is of another opinion {vide his note on St. Matt. v. 1 ff.).
51,
He
in
finds
that just as
runs parallel to St.
Mark
the preaching of the Baptist (the Baptism) and the Temptation, so is it also with the Sermon on
the
Mount,
for
both documents
now proceed
to
give a programme of the preaching of our Lord, Q a manifesto which is evidently an artificial fabrication, St. Mark (i. 15) a short and unassuming general
summary of
preaching. the two is not simply formal but extends also to the subject-matter. In St. Mark our Lord's theme
the same as that of the Baptist, namely, juLerdvoia men are warned to repent by the rousing proclamais
"
the ever-recurring subject of our Lord's And the difference which exists between
tion of the near approach of the Kingdom of God. In Q, on the other hand, our Lord, unlike St. John,
1 The Lord's Prayer does not belong to those passages which can almost certainly be claimed for Q if, however, in a shorter form {vide section 27) it belonged to Q, it cannot have taken its origin from- the single clause of St. Mark xi. 25, which corresponds
;
to the so-called fifth petition. This clause says absolutely nothing about the content of the prayer, and is thus related in form not
vi. 12, but to the saying in St. Matt. v. 23, 24 (which, Yet it of course confirms however, is more ancient in form). the genuine character of the so-called fifth petition as it is found in St. Matthew {vide infra for a more detailed discussion).
to St. Matt.
Q AND
ST.
MARK
201
shows not the reverse but, even in the very beginning of His ministry, the obverse of the Kingdom with it He entices men. He proclaims it of God
;
He begins not with tidings of great joy. a stern warning to the whole Jewish nation but with blessing to His disciples.*"
as
good
Here we
at
all
must
events
first object that St. Matthew did not regard the Sermon on the
Mount
as a detailed substitute for St.
Mark
i.
15,
seeing that he himself has given us in a passage preceding the Sermon on the Mount the words
(iv.
17)
airo
Tore rjpâro 6
i'lyyiKev
Îrjcrovg
Ktjpvcrcreiu
koi
tcou
Xeyeiv*
fAeravoeiTe'
Still less
yap
rj
BacriXeia
ovpavwv.
Q pretation assigned these passages of Q to a much later position in his gospel, indeed has distributed them
of
can we speak of such an interby St. Luke, seeing that he has
And next, even according throughout his work. to Wellhausen, St. Mark i. 15 contains a flagrant hysteron-proteron from which St. Matthew and
St.
preached the fulfilled and the the time is Gospel of God, saying, of God is at hand believe the and Kingdom repent ye,
:
writes
Luke, and therefore Q, are free for " Jesus came into Galilee and
;
St.
Mark
GospeV
saying it " But if we take this into consideration, Gospel." then the whole question presents a quite different appearance from that given it by Wellhausen in
his
St.
estimating the full meaning of this does not do to pass by the mention of the
When
representation
of the contents of the verse

also has
in
from the very begintaken the of ning up "message joy" into the theme
St.
Mark.
Mark
202
of our Lord's message ; he also shows at the very " first the " obverse of this message, and indeed in a much more secondary form than is ever found
But where the word " Gospel never occurs. it seems to me a most extraordinary proceeding to set the whole Sermon on the Mount, as Q has given it, side by side with the short sentence of
in Q,^
St.
"
Mark
i.
Beatitudes^
15.
in
The " gospel "

it
is
in
signifies
the
fact,
appears in Q, hear and see

:
section
14
The
. .
blind
the proclamation which " Tell John what ye receive their sight, the
lame walk
Why
to
should
not
the poor receive good tidings." Q be justified in setting this
message of good tidings in the forefront in contrast the message of the Baptist ? seeing, moreover,
that
its
historical
if
character
cannot
be
disputed.
And
stern
even
more summons to repentance than appears in Q, why need we therefore regard the attractive side
reality
this preaching of good tidings was in deeply set in the framework of the
of the message as something especially secondary ? Again, is not the whole Sermon on the Mount
together with the Beatitudes also a most powerful How indeed are we to summons to repentance ?
conceive
It could
of
our
Lord"'s
prea;ching
of
repentance
not have consisted simply in the repetition of the word " repent," it must have pictured in glowing colours the blessedness of conversion and
^
Wellhausen's
"
discussion
of
the
"
Gospel
2
the
Mark seems to me word much the same as St. Paul.

in St.
significance of the word St. Mark means by correct.
Here, therefore, the difference from St. possibly can be.
Mark
is
as great as
it
Q
of the new
in the
life
!
ANB
And
ST.
this
MARK
is
203
just
what we
find
Sermon on the Moiint.^

:
But a second fault is detected in this sermon it must be regarded as a sermon addressed to the
Christian
community
i.e. it
presupposes the union of
and compact society. This is, in my opinion, true of St. Matthew but not of Q. According to St. Matthew and St. Luke the Sermon
Christians in a distinct
on the Mount was spoken to the disciples (in the presence of the people) it was therefore so given in
;
Now it is true that, if we stretch Q upon the Q. Procrustes' bed of chronology, a discourse to the disciples occupies a strange position here at the
but, in the first place, we do not know beginning whether in Q something may not have preceded the Sermon on the Mount, and secondly, chronological tests ought not to be applied to Q. Q of course did not begin with the end but with the beginning, nor did it conclude with the beginning but with the discourses on the Second Coming apart from this, has no further influence upon however, chronology which is a collection of disQ, heterogeneous simply
; ;
courses
and
in groups.
sayings, for the most part bound together If Q was a compilation of the sayings of
of giving authoritathat (and principally ethical), it is not that this discourse to the disciples was strange great set in the forefront as being the most important of all.
tive teaching
our Lord,
made with the aim
Certainly the Christian reader was intended to say to

^
There
is
no want of sternness either in the Sermon on the
Mount
or elsewhere in
the "
"
âa/cdpios
stands in contrast to
fearful warnings.
204
himself
:
" All the promises and commandments here addressed to the disciples apply to thyself," but it does not necessarily follow that the compiler has
coloured his reproduction of the sayings of our Lord with a view to contemporary readers. Taking first
where
only the sections of Q that are certainly genuine, is such colouring to be found in the Beatitudes
(section 3) in the sa3dng concerning the blow upon the cheek and the cloak that is taken (4), in the
direction to give to him that asks (5), in the command to love one's enemies (6), in the Golden Rule (7), in the prohibition of judging and the similitudes
(8), the Good and Tree and the House (11)? Corrupt upon the Rock and upon the Sand (12)? But, object Wellhausen and others, in the last Beatitude mention is made of persecutions which are also implied in the saying Here we come to concerning love to one's enemies.
of the
Mote and the Beam
a question of principle.
In modern criticism of the
Gospel narrative,
thing which
is
it
constantly happens that every-
at
once
possibly be a hysteron-proteron pronounced to be such with absolute
can
This seems to me to be a form of criticertainty. cal conscientiousness which leads to critical narrowmindedness.
of
Of
course there are

in
numbers of instances
hysteron-proteron suggestion of practical aim

hysteron-proteron, and the
the
aims
the merest gospels or purpose leads to a gospels follow practical
yet
it
saying corrected
after
in
by no means follows therefrom that saying must have been coloured and
accordance with
the circumstances of
its
later times.
Very often the saying receives
de-
Q AND
which
it is
ST.
MARK
205
sired practical significance

set
from the very context in without any change from the hand of the editor. Must it be that Jesus could not have said to His disciples, " Blessed are ye, when men
revile you,
and persecute you, and say all manner of " you falsely ? Surely even in the lifetime of Jesus the disciples must have experienced such treatment again and again, and in the most varied forms and it seems quite impossible that He
evil against
;
should not have spoken about it. cannot understand the objections
I confess that I
that are usually made to such sayings, and in their removal, as a matter of principle, from the genuine sayings of our
.-^
Lord, I discern a most serious error By this method of destructive analysis we are left at last with only
the critic himself; for, considering the likeness which naturally existed between the circumstances of the first
disciples
and of the
little
later
community,
it is
possible
trouble to object to everything as hysteron-proteron. Again, in reference to the persecutions which the
with very
view,
also
it is
to be noticed that
Sermon on the Mount has in we do not read, " So
have they persecuted me," but " So persecuted they the prophets which were before you." In Q, sections 3-8, 11, 12, nothing is to be found which must be assigned to secondary tradition. How
does
it
stand with those sections of the Sermon on
Mount which can only with probability be The direction, " Ask, and it shall assigned to Q ?
the
1 It is another question whether these sayings in certain cases are not coloured by the circumstances of later times this seems
to me, of course, certain.
206
be given you," together with the similitudes of the Bread and the Fish (section 28), the Light and the Bushel (31), the saying concerning the eye as the
light of the
(32), the great discourse concerning the anxiety (35), warning against laying up treasure on earth (56), the Adversary and the Judge (39),^
body
the Strait gate and the Narrow way (41), the Salt that had lost its savour (47), the warning against
masters (49), the word concerning the permanent obligation of the Law (51), the saying concerning divorce (52), and lastly, the Lord's Prayer
serving two
remain to be considered.^ In section 28 there it nothing that can be objected to as secondary is, however, well worth noticing that the disciples also are reckoned among the We have Trovrjpol. discussed 196 sections 31, 47, and 52. already (pp. ff.) In sections 32, 35? 36, 39, 49, even the sharpest eye will discover nothing that Jesus could not have said. " The But on section 41 Wellhausen remarks
(27), still
is
;
:
eschatological colouring
St.
in
St.
Matthew
strait gate is
is
here, just as it presupposed as something
Luke disappears in The does in vi. 19.

known, for
it
the needle's eye of St. Mark x. 25, as we shall see in St. Luke. At a still later time Jesus Himself has
become the Door

St.
1
(St.
John
to
x.).
From
the
'
one gate
'
Matthew
passes on
the
two ways/ leaving,
Note the threat with which it concludes. Perhaps also the word concerning the leaders of the blind (section 9), and the saying that the disciple is not above his St. Luke has both sayings in his Sermon on the master (10). Plain St. Matthew has the first in chap, xv., the second in the charge to the disciples in chap. x. (this may have been its original
2
;
position).
Q AND
'
ST.
MARK
207
however, the <gate' in the singular and reserving it for if Lachmann's reading of vii. 13, the ' narrow way which I have followed in my translation, is correct.
The
favourite Jewish metaphor of the ' two ways is not derived from some such foreign source as the Greek
'
legend of Hercules, but from Ps. i. 6, and originally from Jer. xxi. 8." I gladly agree with the last remark,
and am only sorry that there
is
in these days
need to
in
make
it;
but
I
ca,nnot follow
Wellhausen
St.
what
for
precedes.
can neither hold the text of
Luke
the more original (vide supra, pp. 67 f.), nor does it seem to me permissible to bring in the "needle's
eye" here.
The "gate" and

:
the
"way"
need, in
my opinion, no interpretation every one must at once understand what they mean, seeing especially
that they are sufficiently explained by " the many The eschatological colouring is, and " the few." moreover, clear enough in the version of Q (St.
"
Matthew), and nothing secondary can be found in

the simile that
is
used.
In the saying of section 51 concerning the permanent obligation of the Law, Q has given expression to our Lord's attitude towards the Law.
We
may not
ultimate does not
interpret this saying as pointing to an abolition of the Law, for the emphasis
lie
meaning is and earth abide.
on the contrary, the point that the Law abides as long as heaven
upon
this
There is no ground for disputing that this was really what our Lord meant and yet on the in St. Mark no such saying is to be found " Heaven contrary, it is written in St. Mark xiii. 30 words shall not and earth shall pass away, but
;
My
208
If it is proposed to bring this saying pass away.'' and it is into comparison with the saying in Q
there can then almost impossible to avoid doing so be no doubt where the secondary traits are to be found. There still remains the Lord's Prayer.^ Whether
Q is, as we have already shown, quesand its tionable, original form is a matter of controIf follow the short form which we have we versy. of a common prayer, and the character given above,
it
ever stood in
in
mains.
a certain sense of a stereotyped prayer, still reBut it is far too hasty a proceeding because
of this to regard the tradition as secondary. Even Mark our Lord directs His to St. according disciples
to pray, and I doubt whether in the East a prophet or teacher has ever given directions concerning prayer
Wellhausen rewithout giving a pattern prayer. marks " Jesus could not give to His disciples a stereotyped form for congregational prayer, because
:
they did not yet form a congregation (" Einl.," s. 87). But does it follow that the Lord's Prayer is a congregational prayer because it is a common prayer ?
"
and did there not exist among the companions of our Lord a close bond of discipleship which even during common life ? Our his lifetime united them in
ja.
knowledge of the nature of the common fellowship that existed in this circle of disciples must be far more
1
than he (sections 9, 10), arouse no justifiable suspicion. A sceptic on the will suspect a hysteron-proteron in the second saying presupposition that our Lord could have said nothing which might also refer to the circumstances of a later time.
disciple
The sayings concerning the leaders of the blind, and that the is not above his master and must expect no other fortune
Q AND
detailed before
ST.
MARK
209
we can have the
least justification for
asserting the impossibility of a prayer being given them by our Lord. It may, of course, be admitted
Lord's Prayer in the form given in St. and indeed even in St. Luke, is liturgical in Matthew, is and character, accordingly a congregational prayer
that the
but this does not hold good of the short form. This in can be that form, my opinion, presents nothing
objected to in point of genuineness. Judged in detail and as a whole, all that is presented as teaching of our Lord in the Sermon on the
Mount
is
bears the stamp of unalloyed genuineness. It at a St. that time Paul was when astonishing
actively
engaged in his mission, and when the problem of apologetics and the controversy concerning the Law were burning questions, the teaching of our Lord should have been still so clearly and distinctly
preserved in the memory of Christians in the simple force of its essentially ethical character.
The didascalia given in the Sermon on the Mount were immediately followed in Q by the story of the Centurion at Capernaum (section 13). How little the
compiler of
words
fairly
s.
Q cared for chronology is seen from the which our Lord here looks back upon a long period of ministry. Wellhausen (" Matt.,""*
in
is
36)
St.
Mark,
of opinion that Q here, in strong contrast to lays the greatest emphasis upon the miracle
wrought simply by a word and at a
distance, and, moreover, he thinks that the centurion may be a In regard to the latter point, duplicate of Jairus.
the
stories
seem to me far too different to allow
210
but
of the experiment of deriving one from the other ; Wellhausen's first assertion demands detailed
examination.^
(1)
When we
consider the import of this section in
the context of Q, we cannot but wonder that it stands in Q at all if its point lies in the miracle. On this is falls of of it out the which Q, supposition sphere
elsewhere a compilation of discourses.^ (2) If one looks more closely one sees that the
point of the narrative does not lie in the miracle of healing, but in the great faith of the heathen centurion (just as in the story of the Canaanitish
woman) in the unlimited power of is the word of our Lord testifying
oui*
Lord;
for
it
to this faith, not
the word of healing, which forms the climax of the The word of healing comes in haltingly at narrative.
the close St. Luke.
m St. Matthew^
and
is
not even mentioned in
(3)
This in
itself is decisive
enough, but we
have above perhaps proceed a step further. as left the to the conclusion (p. 77) question open of this section in Q. St. Matthew concludes it much in the same way as the story of the Canaanitish
We
may
woman
kcu
co9
elirev
Îrjcrov^
tm
eKaToi'Tapû
Kai laOr] 6 iratg
[vTraye], ev Til
eTrtcTTeucrag yevtjOrjjo) <tol

eKelvr].
writes quite summarily wpa with three thus in his own style) (and participles, Kai oIkov ol Tov ii v7focrTp\âi/T9 7rji/.(pOePTg evpov
St.
:
Luke
^ We may at the same time question whether St. Mark really would have rejected a miracle wrought at a distance {vide the Canaanitish woman).
of a long
In the Beelzebub section the miracle only gives the occasion and mo^Jt significant discourse of our Lord.
Q AND
TOP SovXov vyialvovra.
conclusions
is identical.
ST.
MARK
is
211
in these two
Not a smgle word

This
What very strange. then may we suppose was the conclusion of Q ? cannot tell. Since this is so, it seems to me to be not
We
nothing at
too bold an hypothesis to assume that in Q either all was said about the cure, or that in this
source there
stood
in St.
something quite
different
from
at
what we read
alternative
all
is
Matthew and St. Luke. ^ possible, and not improbable

;
Either
it is
events certain that the concluding verse, both in
St.
Matthew and
is
also
in
St.
Luke,
is
suspicious.
surprising that they have both independently of one another given the story the conclusion which we now read.
Neither
it
If the point of this passage lies in a short saying of our Lord, in which He testifies to the receptivity of a Gentile, and if the miraculous cure takes a
secondary place, having been either not narrated at all or described in some other form, then there is
nothing strange in the fact that the narrative occurs in Q,^ nor can it be described as containing tradition
which is secondary to that of St. Mark. The Baptist had already proclaimed in warning tones that God could raise up from the stones children to Abraham, and the story of the Canaanitish woman (St. Mark)
affords an important parallel to our section.
* In the case of the Canaanitish reluctance in performing the cure.
woman, our Lord
also
shows
2 Wernle (" Synoptische Frage," s. 232) thinks that we are forced to conclude that the section was interpolated in Q at a later time, seeing that it conflicts with the Judaistic tendency of
Q ; but Q does not bear the traces of a Judaism which would not allow the expression of such appreciation of faith iu a Gentile.
212

passages in the gospels referring to the sending of the disciples contain much tradition of a
The
forth
secondary character, but it does not therefore follow that the event itself is impossible or improbable however certain it is that we have here an intermixture
of later elements.
St.
Wellhausen says (" Mark.,"

:
s.
46, on
twelve only make an exff.) and afterwards are just as dependent and periment, as the before, although passive experiment is a success.
vi.
Mark
"
The
In fact, Jesus did not institute experimental missions But the fact of the as an exercise for His seminary."
sending forth of the disciples itself is too strongly attested by the twofold tradition in St. Mark and Q to
being summarily rejected, nor is it in itself improbable that our Lord thought that, in the short space of time allowed Him, He must provide for the
allow of
its
widest possible circulation of His message of the near Yet we are not here conapproach of the Kingdom.
cerned with the fact itself ; the question for us is only the relationship of the account in Q to the account in
St.
Mark.
They
are, partly in subject-matter, partly
almost verbally, identical, and are combined together in St. Matthew, but in St. Luke (chaps, ix. and x.)
they
are
kept
parallel sections
In the apart from one another. where the text of Q can no longer be
ascertained with certainty (therefore they are included in brackets in our construction of the text), the chief
difference
is
that St.
while
does not.
Mark allows a staff and sandals, The version of St. Mark seems to
had
arisen in actual
me
to reflect a relaxation which
Q the missionary charge to the disciples practice. was preceded by the story of two men, of whom one
In
Q AND
ST.
MARK
It
is
213
first
offered himself as a disciple
and the other wished
to bury his father (section 17). sake of the two sayings of our
in the
is
related for the

it
Lord that
contains,
" former of which the expression " Son of Man found for the first time in Q. The sayings bear
the
stamp of perfect genuineness.
Then
followed
(section 18) the saying concerning the greatness of the harvest and the paucity of labourers. Wellhausen
" The harvest elsewhere is s. 44) remarks the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. If by the lord of the harvest we must understand that
(" Matt.,"
:
signified, then the prayer does not quite correwith the active intervention of Jesus who, in spond what follows, Himself sends forth the reapers."'' This
is
God
however, it does not seem objection has some weight to me to be decisive against the originality of the tradition the simile of the harvest can well have
:
been variously applied by our Lord Himself. In the to the there would be a missionary charge disciples most important difference between St. Mark and Q
if it
were true that the former speaks only of the

:
private mission in houses, while Q speaks also of the mission in cities. Wellhausen (" Luk.," s. 49) says
public mission in the cities is later than the secret mission in the house, just as the reception into the city is later than that into the house. Accordingly St.
priority over
vi.
"The
Mark, who speaks only of the house, has the Q for it is not doubtful, and is indeed
;
correctly recognised
by
St.
ff.
and
St.
Luke
x. 1
be compared together." cities did not stand in the place of the mission in the
Matthew, that St. Mark are variants which must But in Q the mission to the
ff.
214
house, both stood together side by side. This is not redundant, nor is it in the strictest sense tautologous. The
horizon of our Lord*'s missionary outlook included cities as well as households, vide the Woe against Chorazin, cannot therefore see Bethsaida, and Capernaum.
We
is
why directions concerning the mission in cities should be later in date than those concerning the mission in
the houses
;
in
practice, as
shown by the most
ancient records, both phases of the mission coincided in point of time. But the whole presupposition that
to
wanting in St. Mark is According to Wellhausen there is in St. Mark vi. 10, 11, no difference between oiKia and toVo?, this however is not, in my opinion, the
the mission in the
cities
is
me
very questionable.
interpretation that first suggests itself, rather totto^, as usual, signifies city," but the mission in the city and in the house are conceived as one and the same ; and
thus no real difference can be discovered here between

St.
Mark and
be more
The warning in Q, that it would Q. tolerable for Sodom in the Judgment than
for the perverse cities (section 22), presents no diffiI pass by section 24 (vide supra). In section culty.
Son of Mark. Wellhausen's argument to the contrary (" Matt.," s. 62 f.) is not convincing. In section 34*, which otherwise shows
; ;
Q proclaims that words spoken against the Man will be forgiven this is wanting in St. This fact is in favour of the priority of Q
34^
all
the signs of the earliest tradition,
it
is
possible
that the duty of confession of the person of Jesus may be a secondary trait; but it is not necessary to " I will suppose this, and the promise acknowledge Him in the presence of the angels of God" (thus at
:
AND
ST.
MARK
215
the Judgment), sounds very primitive. The same must be said of section 38 it is possible to regard it as a vaticinium ex eventu ; but why might not our
:
foretell the result of His preaching, seeing that other prophets have made similar predictions ? He must have seen how that even in His lifetime His
Lord
preaching had brought division into families and had I separated those who were nearest to one another.
pass
by the
quite certain
closely related section 45, because it is not that it belongs to Q. In section 46
proteron,-^
(Bearing the cross) we have probably a hysteronbut certainly a primitive one. The saying
concerning the finding and losing of the soul (section

47) presents no difficulty.
These passages which we have here discussed briefly have some other parallels in our second gospel, apart St. Mark also writes, from St. Mark vi. 7-11.
iav
ov yap ea-riv KpvTrrov, parallel to section 34* (iv. 22) jUfj %a (pavepcoOu' ovSe eyevero airoKpvchov^ aXX' 'iva eXOi] eh (this looks like a translation-variant
:
(pavepov of an identical Semitic text), again parallel to section
46
(viii.
34)
e'l
rig
deXei
ottlctci)
julov
eXOeiv, airapvr]-
cradOco eavTOV Kai aparoo tov crraupov OeiTco fjLoi, again parallel to section
avTOv
Km
aKoXov-
57
(viii.
35)
6?
iav OeXn
Tt]v
"^v^rjv awcrai, ctTroXicrei
avT7]v'
o? ^'
&v
^ The hypothesis of a reference to the custom that one condemned to be crucified was compelled to bear the transverse beam of his cross is, of course, not satisfactory. On the other hand, we
perhaps conjecture, as Reinach has lately pointed out again, that the crucifixion of the righteous man, in accordance with the well-known passage in Plato and Ps. xxii., had become a typical
may
and widely spread conception.

establish this hypothesis.
Yet much
is
still
wanting to
21(5
airoXecrei

Ttjv
-^vyriv
arcocrei
avTOv
eveKcv
ejuou
Kai tov
avrijv, lastly, parallel to section evayyeXioVf 24 yet this saying did not perhaps occur in Q at all 09 dv e/me Se'^^rjrai, ovk e/xe Se-êrai oXXa (ix. 37)

itself
TOV airocrTelXavTa
/jlc.
Nowhere here does Q show
secondary to St. Mark, indeed the contrary is the case; for the anachronistic addition, eveKev ejuLov
Kcu
TOV evayyeXiov,
commandments
upon
is Hence in these foreign to Q. to the disciples Q is neither dependent
St. Mark nor secondary when compared with that gospel. It is not surprising that identical sayings should be found here and in St. Mark ; for these
directions of our
Lord
certainly stood in the forefront
of tradition, and could not but be received into every
compilation thereof.
There now follows the great discourse concerning the Baptist (sections 14, 15), occasioned by the question brought by a deputation of St. John''s disciples ;
to this there
is
no parallel
in St.
is
Mark.
so
The
story,
together with the discourse, bears at the same time so
in the first place because of the candid genuineness admission of the doubt of St. John ; then because our
important, and clearly the stamp of
work
Lord's ministry of healing appeals as His characteristic ^ (thus involving the near approach of the King-
dom of God) and lastly, because, together with a most valuable account of the Baptist, we have here from the mouth of our Lord an appreciation of his Only the words, 6 ê fxiKpoTepo? person and mission.
;
^ The considerations which Wellhausen advances in order to prove the probability that the words are to be understood allegorically, do not seem to me to have much force.
Q
v Til âcriXeLa
AND
ST.
MARK
the
217
tov Oeov
/ulciIôop
hysteron-proteron (from Christian community); whether they are really so
avrov eariv, look like standpoint of the
cannot be ascertained, for we do not know how far In St. Matthew it our Lord went in this direction. is indeed very probable that /SacriXeia tov Qeov has much the same significance as eKKXtja-la, but can we
Now follows the passage with say the same of Q ? the wonderful comparison between children at play and the nation which advanced such peevish claims
upon
Wellhausen presses the double ?X0ei/ and argues " The tenses for John and If then John here beJesus are exactly the same.
its leaders.
in section 15,
If this kind longs to the past, so also does Jesus." of argument is intended to prove that the discourse
belongs to a later time than that of our Lord, I do Our Lord's ministry had already not understand it. lasted a considerable time, and His life (in contrast
to that of St. John) was in the full view of the public
eye.
Why
then could
?
He
speaks here
or,
rather, in
not have spoken as He what other way would

?
Wellhausen have
Him
speak
This discourse
also, in
my opinion, bears both as a whole and in detail the stamp of originality. There is nothing that can be
said against
it,
except that
tliat is
it
proteron, but
no objection at
mai^ possibly be a hysteronall ; the less so
" lôv seeing that the words avOpwiro^ (payo^ Kai oivo" do not exactly suggest the prevalence here of TTOT?;? It is also a good sign that nothing later tradition.
is
St.
recorded concerning the result of the question of John, so that the Baptist is, as it were, left in a
state of doubt.
218
It
is

possible that section
23 (the
Woe
against the
The " Swdjuei^ at yevojuevai cities) now followed in Q. " are what make the cities so inexcusable. It ev vfjuv
the same idea upon which emphasis is laid in the answer to St. John in the preceding section (the acts
is
if in spite of these He is of our Lord compel faith rejected, the reason can only be hardness of heart) ; also the statement that Tyre and Sidon would have
;
repented is to be compared with section 30. thus perceive that these sections are closely bound
together, so far as their subject-matter by one and the same idea.
is
We
concerned,
to
following section (25), the great thanksgiving Father, is at present regarded by many critics as altogether secondary, indeed as a Christian
The
the
hymn. I cannot bring myself to agree with them, and I am glad to see that Schmiedel also judges otherwise (" Das vierte Evangelium," 1906, s. 48 if.). As to whether the section is genuine word for word, who is there that can assert this and who can prove it ? But it can be shown that it contains conceptions which fit in with our Lord^s genuine sphere of do not know when it was that these thought. words of exulting joy were uttered. They stand in sharp contrast to the preceding section. Our
We
Lord here thanks the Father that He has neversuccess for His message and theless met with success " can only mean this) in His teaching (for " ravra The rejection and that among the simple folk. on the part of the wise and prudent, and the rejec-
tion
of these prudent ones by our Lord, are traits
Q AND
ST.
MARK
219
which are certainly neither unhistorical nor abnormal (they find their echo in St. PauFs first epistle to the " ravra " " knowIf, however,
" " or " doctrine," the meaning also of " Trdvra ledge it signifies, as indeed we see from what is thus fixed
Corinthians).
signifies
" the Wellhausen is follows, knowledge of God." " In this context there is no correct in saying reference made to power but to knowledge, to insight
:
into
divine
things, to
all
the true nature
All doctrine and

'
knowledge
is
with
of religion. the Jews
7rapaô(Ti<Si
the TrapaSoa-ig, however, of Jesus pro-
ceeds directly from God, not from men." Our Lord " most probably not here uses the word " Tlar^p " " ^just as in the introduction 7raT}]p juov
is
irarep
nai t^? 7^9'" The absolute use of Kvpie Tov ovpavov " the Father, the Son " is likewise found in St. Mark
32) character
(xiii.
and
of
:
conclusion
"
Q No man
accordingly no sign of the secondary as compared with St. Mark. The
hath knowledge of the Father
except the Son, and to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him," says nothing about an "eternal" relationship between the Father and the Son, but It does not simply expresses an historical fact.
beyond the line which is drawn in St. Matt, 16, 17 (vjuLwv fJLaKapiOL oi odtOaXfxol, otl ^Xeirovcriv kt\.), in St. Matt. xi. 911 (concerning the Baptist), and in St. Matt. xii. 88 if. (a greater than Jonah and Solomon). The union in this exultant
lie
xiii.
thanksgiving
of
elements
of
ecstatic
elevation,
of
which individual examples can be found elsewhere, or is Jesus the only one is no sign of secondariness
to
whom we may
not ascribe ecstatic utterance such
220
as

one expects from
The every great prophet ? thus contains that can be objected saying nothing be used as one of the to, and may therefore
most important sources of our
knowledge
St.
of the
find
personality parallels to
parallel
restless
of
our Lord.
traits
;
In
of
Mark we
with
to
separate the whole
the saying,
evangelist
but no
his
this
and hasty temperament was incapable reproducing such an utterance.^
of
The Beelzebub
section (29),
for the sake of the
which is given not miracle of healing but of the

;
Mark in St. Matthew Luke the Markan text is so intermingled with Q that one can only make certain of remnants
discourse, has a parallel in St.
St.
and
of the latter source.^

discover secondary
(pOa(Tv
(j)'
There
in
is
an
inclination
clause
:
to
traits
ij
in
the
apa
Kai
vjua^
jSacriXeia
ejuov
tov Oeov, and in the

e/mov
ecrriv,
saying
juLrj
firj
wv
is
juer
ejmov
/car'
(Tuvaycov fxer
(jKopirlYei,
for in
the former
described as already present ; and in the latter there is a proclamation of the dogma
the
Kingdom
"extra
original
1
ecclesiam
nulla
salus,"
ix.
so
that
it
is is
less
than
St.
Mark
40 ("
I.
He who
not
For further detail vide Excursus

(xi.
The
continuation of
this saying in St. Matt. as its real continuation.
28-30)
is
regarded by
many
critics
But
if it is so,
has St. Luke omitted it ? It was just to him. Besides, its connection with verses 25-27 is rather superficial than essential. The question of its genuineness is not affected by the decision that it is independent of the preceding
verses.
*
and if it stood in Q, why what would have appealed
This
is
especially so at the beginning.
Q AND
against you
if
ST.
MARK
221
But St. Mark also says, is for you"^). indeed only indirectly (iii. 27), that the kingdom of Satan is drawing to its close, because the " strong man " is now bound ; the direct statement ought
not to be treated in contrast as a later developIn regard to the following ment of the thought. has one no yet thoroughly ascertained its saying,
with its context in St. Matthew and Luke it is therefore still less possible to say what was intended by the saying in Q. I do not see " why we must suppose that the saying implies exti'a Even if, as is probable, ecclesiam nulla salus." are to be interpreted in and a-Kop-Trl'iêiv (Tvvdyeiv
connection
St.
;
accordance with the metaphor of a flock (a-vvdyeiv is also used of grain [section 1] in the discourse
of the Baptist), yet these are well-known prophetic termini techiici for the leading of Israel to God and their alienation from Him, into which we have
no right without
tical significance,
special reasons to read
an
ecclesias-
Matthew thus understood them. Moreover, our Lord certainly more than We had better once spoke of His own crvvdyeiv.
even
if St.
neglect altogether a comparison of this saying with the seemingly contradictory saying of St. Mark ix. 40
(St.
Luke has both
sayings)
for these sayings occur
in
different contexts
and could both of them have
been quite well spoken by our Lord. If, however, it is thought that we must not desert the principle of the critical school, which in such cases aims at
unification, then
we may
is
well ask whether the
more
original
^
saying
not
the
one which
is
first
exclusive
person.
According to D.
The Greek codices have the
S22
disciples the preof at Jesus. least can be brought Arguments rogative "" forward on either side, hence " non liquet Lastly, in the passage which is appended in Q, the ironical
:
!
and which does not transfer to the
criticism of the results of exorcisms
is
so paradoxical,
so singular,
and without
all
"
"
Gospel
significance,
that no one will dispute
its originality.
concerning the sign of Jonah (30), if the artful interpolation in St. Matthew, we only remove This evil and is of peculiar simplicity and force.
section
The
adulterous generation must repent, and if in frivolity it seeks for signs, it receives only the preacher of reyet a greater than pentance, as did the JSinevites Jonah ; nevertheless it abides unrepentant. What objection can one wish to make against the genuineness of this discourse
?
^
The sections which now follow, 33, 43 (the Woe against the Pharisees and the announcement of judgment
false
upon
Messiahs
Jerusalem), 56 (the warning against the discourse concerning the Parousia), ;
58 (Whosoever hath, to him shall be given), 37 (The coming of the Son of Man as a thief in the night the faithful and unfaithful steward), and 59 (The
;
a
In
it
2
disciples will judge the twelve tribes), so far as we Section 58 can judge, formed the conclusion of Q.^ ^ The story of the refusal of the demand for a sign also stands in St. Mark (viii. 11 f.), but in an entirely independent form, which cannot have been the source of Q. St. Mark says nothing of the sign of Jonah in the reply with which the demand was dismissed
trait
which with
it is
St.
Matthew
its bitter irony cannot have been invented. transformed, because in its summary plainness
seemed
And
also the
if
to the evangelist insufficient and unsuitable. two parables of the Great Supper
and of the
Talents,
they really stood in
{vide supra, pp. 119 H.).
Q AND
is
ST.
MARK
^23
Sections 33, 34, also found in St. Mark (iv. 25). have been discussed above (pp. 103 ft., 168 ft*.). The flagrant anachronism, which Wellhausen thinks must
be accepted in the case of Zacharias, is in all probability Sections 33, 43, not to be laid to the charge of Q. the same is are already eschatological in character
;
true of 56, 37, 58, 59.
The warning
against false
;
but Messiahs in section 56 mai/ be an anachronism Otherwise they all this does not mean that it is one. bear the stamp of genuineness, and stand in brilliant
contrast to the detailed eschatological discotirses in St. The promise to the Twelve that they would Mark.
rule Israel after the Parousia,
most
clearly
shows the
discourses
Jewish horizon.
has
transmitted
no
concerning the Passion.
There now remain only the
isolated sayings
26,
can no longer dis40, 42, 44, 48, 50, 53, 54, 55. If in St. Matthew section cover their position in Q.
in place of St. Mark iv. 13 (reproach of the disciples), this implies nothing for Q, seeing that St. Luke has the saying in a quite diflerent place The saying itself shows no trace of 23^
We
26 stands
24). later colouring, neither

(x.
do the three parables of the
Mustard Seed, the Leaven, and the Lost Sheep in sections 40 and 48 they give rather the impression
;
The saying that the Gentiles of exquisite originality.^ would sit at meat with the Patriarchs in the Kingdom
1
Fide Jiilicher
"
Gleichnisse II."
s.
569
ff.,
314 ff. The parable
of the Mustard Seed, which also stands in St. Mark (iv. 30-32), is somewhat shorter and more concise in Q than in the second
gospel.
224
of God, while the sons of the Kingdom would be cast out (section 42), presents a thought similar to that of The sympathy with the Genthe Baptist's warning. tiles does not pass beyond the bounds which the
prophets of the Old Testament had already reached ; The the figure of the feast is genuinely Jewish.
in saying concerning pride (section 44) the The Mark. statement St. concerning position of the in the and Law the history of religion Prophets
is
also
found
and the saying combined with it wherein " " is marked off, from John until now the epoch of later the arouse composition ; but the suspicion " three stages, Prophets, John, Jesus," are also disin section 14, and there the genuineness tinguished
(section 50),
Here of the distinction can scarcely be disputed. no of with have means judging certainty again we
what our Lord could say and could not say, strange " though this marking off of a period from the days until of John now may seem (the saying must have after the death of the Baptist, and also been spoken
"*'
stands in St.
section 14).
Luke
at a very
it
is
much
later point
than
Besides,
difficult to ascertain the
Does it wording and the significance of the saying. until the and Law lasted the mean that Prophets Has John ? or that until John, they prophesied " " " were the same as they signification they lasted " in force," or as " no more new prophets appeared
"
"^
What is meant by The Kingdom of God is taken by " " storm ? and who are those " who take it by storm ? The original character of the expression is a strong
guarantee for the genuineness of the saying itself. No more can be said. The short saying, " It is necessary
Q
whom
AND
is
ST.
MARK
in
225
that offences come, but woe unto the
man through
wanting we do what context it stood in Q. Is Judas referred to (scarcely so), or has the saying a
they come/"* not know in
clearness, because
The twofold command in secgeneral significance ? tion 54, in which each half is quite independent of
the other,
St.
is
Matthew has made Q
an excellent example of the way in which serve ends which are foreign
to that source.
sinning brother by this means one may be able to save a brother ; again, Q taught (2) that one ought without limitation to forgive personal injuries at the
said
(1)
One ought
to
cmrect the
hand of a
brother.
St.
Matthew has here introduced
the community, and has established a rule of ecclesiastical discipline. Cases of sin, injury, and wrong
were certainly not of rare occurrence in the
circle of
the disciples, and there is no reason why our Lord should not have expressed Himself concerning their
treatment.
St.
Mark
St.
The
Mark
ev
Besides,
last
we have
instances of the kind in

is
saying which remains

it
section
:
55.
has also transmitted

ajutjp
eêre
iricrTiv Oeou,
Xeyco
vfxiv,
on
(xi. 22, 23) b? av enr^ T(p

Koi.
opei TOVTCp'
juLi]
apOrjTi
koi
/SXi'jdrjTi
ig rrjv
OaKacrorav,
irKTrevrj,
SiaKpiOri
t^ KapSla avroUy
aWa
on
No one can ever earrai avrcp)rylverai, prove that this version of the saying is preferable to that of Q (eav h^r]T6 ttlcttiv oj? kokkov o-Lvaireco^,
o
XaXel
epiT TO) opi TovTco' jULerajSa evSeu
e/ce?,
Kai
/uLera/S}]-
aerai).
This comparison of Q and St. Mark, as well as our examination of the subject-matter of Q, have in no
226

Q
is
instance led us to conclude that

St.
dependent upon
Mark, and
from
scarcely ever to acknowledge that Q, the historical point of view, is inferior to St.
Mark
in several instances, indeed, they have con; vinced us of the superiority of the former to the There exists, of course, a relationship between latter.
Q and
is
St.
Mark, even a
literary relationship,
but
it
confined to only a few sections and is evidently indirect i.e. both have received and delivered some
tradition in the
same
fixed form, but as a rule in a
different translation.
upon Q
for if there exists a relationship of direct dependence between the two this would be the only
possible hypothesis
this
is
The dependence
of St.
Mark
is
also difficult to establish
for
nowhere demanded, and the attitude assumption of St. Mark towards Q would in this ca.se be almost Whether St. Mark had knowledge of unintelligible. much that has been taken up into Q, whether, moreover, he betrays this knowledge in some passages of his work, whether behind St. Mark (and known to
him) there did not
lie
compilations of sayings of our
Lord that had strong points of similarity with Q, are different questions which might well be answered in
the affirmative
;
but that this evangelist made use of
The most striking be able to prove. instance of relationship between the two the simiQ, no one
will
larity in the order in the need not be in any way
opening sections of each
a literary relationship, as
we have already remarked, but
is explained from the customary order of catechetical instruction in The Galilean horizon, within the apostolic epoch.
which
seems
to
move more
exclusively
than
Q
St.
fact.^
AND
ST.
MARK
as
227
an historical
Mark, must be simply accepted
This definitiou of the relationship between Q and St. Mark agrees essentially with that of Holtzmann, Wernle, Bousset (in a review of Wellhausen's Einleitung in the " Theol. Rundschau"), and of Jiilicher but Jlilicher (Einleitung^, s. 320 ff.) believes that he is compelled to make some important concessions to Well;
hausen's criticism.
is
He
finds that this scholar has
extremely probable that the edition of Q used St. Luke was posterior in time to St. Mark.
by
St.
shown that it Matthew and
In support of this
theory, he adduces the story of the Temptation, of the centurion at Capernaum (healing at a distance, which it is implied presupposes a more developed craving for the miraculous than the
simple stories of healing in St. Mark), the "undoubtedly later" version in Q of the saying " Whosoever is not with Me, &c.," also of the saying concerning blasphemy, and of the saying concerning In these cases, however, he assumes no literary dependence. light.
:
There
is, of course, nothing against St. Mark's having sometimes given a tradition in a more original form than Q, but among the instances given they have been already discussed above I can recognise scarcely one of which this is true. The saying concerning blasphemy in Q, when compared with St. Mark, does not seem " " secondary ; the light in Q had no reference to the disciples (this reference was first introduced by St. Matthew) whether the two sayings, "He that is not with Me is against Me," and "He that is not against you is for you," ought to be confronted with one another at all is doubtful, and even if they are so confronted, the decision as regards priority is uncertain ; in other places, at all The pericope events, the latter trait counts as the more original. concerning the centurion has its point not in the healing at a distance but in the faith of the Gentile, and the story of the
Temptation in St. Mark most probably presupposes a fuller deJiilicher then scription and one which differed from that of Q.
(s.
321
f.)
proceeds to sketch a conjectural history of the origin
which he holds a development by successive steps as probable at a distinct moment in the history of this development on the the plan of St. Mark is supposed to have influenced Q other hand, it seems natural, indeed quite necessary, to explain St. Mark's neglect of so many important discourses of our Lord from the circumstance that a compilation of discourses was already " in the hands of the faithful. Accordingly Q would be both older
of Q, in
;
;
228
Chronological arrangement in detail should not be looked for in Q. Except in the introduction and in
the collection of eschatological discourses at the close, the prevailing arrangement is an arrangement accord-
ing to subject-matter, and probably even this does not hold good everywhere. The choice of material and its arrangement were determined by the needs of
Christian teaching
ing
though
in
more especially of ethical teachno means exclusively, for in these by

the relation of Jesus to
all
sayings and
discourses
powers
heaven and earth

''Irja-ov,^
comes
to
expression.
which give a clear impression of His message in all its manifold aspects. The "" " not narrated. are but Q in SvpdjuLi9 presupposed, character occupies the mean position between an
They
are
Aoyoi
Lord and the form of the written gospels, and so Q could not have prepared the way for the latter. and younger than St. Mark however, the common elements of St. Mark and Q are so slight in extent and in importance, that
amorphous
collection of sayings of our
definite literary
;
simply not worth while to take up again and again the hopetogether a linen and a silken texture both of which indeed are something far more than mere collections of I entirely agree with the last remark, also separate threads." with the premise that Q grew by separate stages but I consider it unnecessary to assume that St. Mark influenced Q at a definite moment in its development. Absolutely the only evidence for this hypothesis is found at the beginning of Q, and this is not
it is
less task of knitting
suflQcient.
^ To characterise Q as a mixture of discourses and narratives would be incorrect. Apart from the story of the Temptation, which serves as a prelude, in the other six narratives the story This is especially serves only as an introduction to the discourse.
Lord concerning the Baptist, and

is it
obvious in the story of the centurion, in the Testimony of our in the Beelzebub section. Nor
otherwise with the other three narratives (sections
17, 30, 54).
CHARACTERISTICS OF Q
gospel-type
229
that
the
had been Messiahship
first
come
into
existence
after
the
time
sayings, miracles,
and Passion, proof of created by St. Mark for Q

;
cannot possibly be regarded as a completion of St. Mark''s gospel, and the gospel-type, after it had once
(compare the apocryphal with the canonical gospels). An inquiry into the character of the subject-matter of Q will confirm this verdict. I shall attempt in
arisen, established itself with sovereign authority
what follows
to
summarise the main characteristics
of the contents of Q.
The great sermons, which take up so much of the space and form the principal part of Q (corresponding to St. Matt, v. vii., x.), comprise directions to the disEverywhere
ciples (first in presence of the people, then privately). where the interests of Christological
apology did not as yet preponderate, the interest in

the commandments of Jesus stood in the foreground. can see that this is so from the time of St. Paul
We
to Justin, but
we can
trace it
still
further.
Naturally
the Christians set themselves in the place of the disciples, and applied to themselves what was once said
And yet we find in Q very few traces of conscious or unconscious modification of the sayings.
to these.
Ecclesiastical
organisation and the Church, as St. Matthew knows them, do not appear in Q. The sayings apply to the individual even when they are
addressed to a multitude.
tianity with
The
controversy of Chris-
Judaism
as
between two distinct religious
principles, the opposition of the old and new precepts, are wanting ; only in reference to divorce does Jesus
go beyond the Law.
Elsewhere
it
is
said that the
230

abides so long as heaven and earth remain.-^ horizon and Jewish sentiment are also
in the fact that the bliss of the
Law
The Jewish
shown
Kingdom of pictured as a sitting at meat with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and in the promise to the apostles that they should rule the twelve tribes of Israel. But
God
is
the opposition to the present generation in Israel, to the " evil and adulterous generation," which would
bend the men of God to

against
its spiritual
its
will,
and the
conflict
rulers the Pharisees, are
nowhere
more sharply brought out than

children of the
in this source.
The
Kingdom
will
be cast out
;
weeping
and gnashing of teeth await them it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha than for Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, and a fearful Woe is
launched against the Pharisees. The expression of friendliness towards the Gentiles who in place of the children of the Kingdom will feast with Abraham
fits
without
difficulty
into the
picture, or rather
offers
no greater
the Prophets. The same (â similar purport 'remarks apply to the emphasis laid upon the faith of The commandments in detail, the Gentile centurion.
difficulty found in
than earlier utterances of
though they are
so different
a spirit one spirit in its austere assertion of the unique claim of goodness, in its recognition of the absolute sovereignty of
theless breathe one
and and the same
so manifold, never-
Good
that
is,
of
God
in the heart, a spirit
which
declares itself in humility, in trustful prayer, in love

1
The Law and the

lot to suffer
Prophets.
The
is
3,
persecution lays special stress, vide sections
Their
latter stand in the foreground. the point upon which our Lord 33, 43.
CHARACTERISTICS OF Q
and
231
placability, in the renunciation of earthly rights, earthly goods, and earthly cares, and lastly, in the
Neither is there lacking a sense of the necessity of repentance ; for this is implicit in all these commandments (vide supra, pp. 201 and f.),
readiness to suffer.
moreover, strongly emphasised in section 30 (cf. Taken as a whole, we have here our Lord's 23). own rule of life and all His promises a summary of
is,
genuine ordinances transforming the life, such as is not to be found elsewhere in the Gospel. Their noblest characteristic is their implicit assumption of
the self-evidence of their claim, because man belongs to God ; in this lies the force of their appeal. It is not otherwise in the sections belonging to the
great charge at the sending forth of the disciples. The words are austere and stern in tone scarcely
;
the terrifying prospect lightened otherwise than by reference to the " World to come," or by the On earth comfort that the foe cannot kill the soul.
ever
is
nothing but the fate of the Prophets is to be exGod's good and gracious will, and His pected.
providentia circa miniinum, until then all is over ;
is
recognisable only
He
never
when makes up His
account; yet He gives "good things" to those who ask Him for them, and He knows the needs of His
children.
In these discoui'ses and sayings the term " the " is of It Kingdom of God frequent occurrence.^ is regarded as belonging to the future in section 12
(Not
all
Kingdom
1
that say Lord, Lord, shall enter into the of God), in section 16 (Proclaim that the
Q and
St.
Mark agree
in this characteristic.
232

of
Kingdom
God
is
nigh at hand), in section 42

in the
(Gentiles will sit
down with Abraham

the
children
King-
dom
will
of
God; but
:
of
the
Kingdom
be cast out), also in section 33 (Ye shut the Kingdom of God ye yourselves enter not in, and
ye prevent others from entering),^ and in 35 (Seek ye after the Kingdom of God, and all these things But in the four will be [there] given to you).
remaining passages
it
is
it
is
otherwise.
said that
the
deliverance
In section 29 from the power of
the evil spirits implies that the Kingdom of God In the had already come among the people. of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven parables
(section 40) it is represented as a growing power, an influence gradually leavening mankind, and this conception makes it possible to regard the new
epoch which dawned with the active ministry of our Lord, succeeding the mission of the Baptist,
as already the epoch of the Kingdom (as if present ; This conception has nothing to sections 14, 50).
Whatever the do with that of the " Church." Oeov Kal ol /SiacrTai. words tov âarikela /BiaêraL, mean, avrrfv they certainly do not may apTraCovcTLv sound ecclesiastical. If, however, any one finds it
:
rj
" the Kingdom impossible to accept the antinomy is future and yet present," argument with him is The sovereignty of the eschatological point useless.
not impaired by this antinomy only this for not be must exclusively in sought sovereignty
of view that
is
dramatic eschatology to which Q also bears testimony, with the result that the message of Jesus
^
The eschatological sense
is
not certain here.
THE PERSONALITY OF OUR LORD

is
233
stunted in the interest of a meagre and inferior Behind and above the dramatic eschatology " that God is guided by stands the " eschatology
unity.
justice in His rewards and punishments, and that His will is expressed in the moral law, to which man
must
offer
himself a living
is
sacrifice.
The proof that Q

and an ancient
source,
essentially
homogeneous
ultimately based upon the nature of its description of the personality of our Here the following observations may be Lord.
is
made
(1)
As has already been noticed above (pp. 170 f.) Even if omits any reference to the Passion. of the probable object the compilation namely, to ^' record the A.6yoi tov kvolov 'I/ycroi/, oi)? eXaXrjcrev
SiSaaKcov'^''
be
it
kept well in view, this
is
still
an
However, extraordinary circumstance. ordinary circumstance is a fact from which we cannot

this
extra-
proves at all events that we have to do with a very ancient compilation.^

escape,
and
sceptic acquainted with the comparative history of religions perhaps find even more here. He will argue as follows The most ancient source which we possess for the life of Jesus knows nothing of His death upon the cross. This is the more strange in that we have here no amorphous collection of sayings, but one which begins with stories telling us of a consecration to MessiahIf ship and of a Messianic temptation successfully withstood. this source had an historical introduction, it must also have possessed an historical conclusion i.e. it must have given a narrative of the Passion if this really happened. Seeing that no such narrative is given, the Passion did not really take place. This doubt receives confirmation when it is once considered that the Passion (and that indeed as a death upon the cross) is bound up closely with the Resurrection, and together with it formed in certain circles a constant element in the history of the Christ (long
will
:
OF THE
UNIVERSITY
234
(2) In close connection with what has just been said comes the observation that Q has no interest
in
the
Christological apologetics such as would explain choice, the arrangement, and the colouring of
discourses
the
and sayings
St.
it
contains.
In
St.
this
Q
St.
shows
itself
absolutely different
Matthew, and
John.
St.
Mark, Luke here stands
from
nearest to
but this gospel cannot well be com-
pared with Q, because its chief interest, the description of the supernatural mission of healing,
is
quite
the
in
wanting in Q (though it evidently forms background here). All that is Christological Q, after the Messiahship (Divine Sonship) of
;
before the time of Jesus) and when it is further considered that the Kesurrection and all that is connected with it is absolutely untrustworthy, and is simply the result of the projection of dogma
into the realm of history,
and when,
lastly, it is
remembered how
mysterious and questionable are all the announcements of the Passion in the gospels, and how uncertain and full of discrepancies is the narrative of the Passion itself. If all these circumstances are taken into account, we only adopt half measures in claiming from the ideal story of the Christ only the element of the Passion for the historical Jesus, while rejecting the rest. We must rather make a clean sweep of everything, obliterating also the " The proof that our most crucified under Pontius Pilate." clause ancient source knows nothing of the Passion, imprints the seal of truth upon our critical operation. From Q we can only conclude that Jesus suddenly vanished in a more or less mysterious way. This indeed is hinted at by the words of Q (St. Matt, xxiii. 39),
uncertain,
how
Ye shall not see Me henceforth until ye shall say, Blessed is He I regard it as quite that Cometh in the name of the Lord." possible that we shall very soon have to listen to this or to similar The beginning is already made. In fact, there are absurdities. far too many possible explanations of this remarkable limitation
of Q, and above all, our knowledge of Q far too uncertain to allow of the building
"
and up a
of its conclusion
critical
is
theory upon
such a foundation.
THE PERSOxNALITY OF OUR LORD
235
our Lord has been established in the introduction (the stories of [the Baptism and] the Temptation),
only implicit, receiving its determination from the introduction (with the exception of section 25 and the Announcement of the Second Coming).
is
This of itself is a proof that the compilation in Q was intended solely for the Christian community and was addressed to those who did not require the assurance that their Teacher was also the Son of God. Of course
the apologetic epoch of Christian doctrinal tradition dated from the first origin of the Christian com-
munity,
but
there
is
no
need
to
assume
that
apologetical interests affected the details of that This indeed tradition from the very beginning.
is
just
what
is
shown
in Q.
(3) But although Q was not compiled in the interests of Christological apologetics, it is nevertheless
in discourses and sayings in which prominence is given and special attention drawn to the personality of Jesus. The following
rich
special
is
sections are to the point

(19),
1, 2, 12,
1315, 17, 18,
22-26, 29, 30, 31, 34% 34^ 37, 38, 43, 45, 46, What do we learn from these ? 50, 5Q, 59. After St. John had drawn attention to the One coming after him who was greater than he, and had described him as one who would appear with
the
the
fire
eschatological
of judgment (in complete agreement with phase of the Messianic expectaof
tion),
then probably proceeded to narrate the our Lord, together with the descent baptism of the Spirit and the voice from heaven, by which
He
was marked
off as the
Son of God (the
INIessiah)
236
in

the sense of Ps.
ii.
7.
The
use here
all
made
ideas
of of
the
word from the Psalm
excludes
Q then pre-existence and of a miraculous birth. goes on to describe how the Son of God (the Messiah) at once approved Himself as such by standing the
test of
temptation by Satan. i.e. our Lord is Messianic
The temptations
tempted
to
use
are
His
miraculous power to break through the limitations imposed upon Him, the Messiah, to test Him ; to win for Himself acceptance by working a miracle
of display in reliance upon the angelic help that
had been promised
Him
He
to
submit
Satan in order that at one stroke
He
Himself to might become
Lord of the
earth.
resists all these
Now
begin the Aoyoi

is
'Ij/ctoi',
temptations. the question of Christo-
logical apologetics
answered and done with.
In the Sermon on the Mount, which as a whole lies above the level of a prophetic manifesto, the
personality of our
Lord comes into prominence at

describes
set
two
light
it
points.
He
which ought to be
His teaching as the on the candlestick that
may give light to all (section 31), and it is by the obedience to His commandments, which is treated as the same thing as doing the will of the Father^ that
1 In section 6 we read, "That y6 may be children of your in section 25, Father," and "Be ye merciful as your Father" God is four times called simply the Father, or " Father, Lord of heaven and earth" (as compared with "the Son"), in section 27 " the disciples are instructed to address God in prayer as Father" ; " How much more will the Father (6 i^ ovpavov) give in 28 we read,
;
good things," and in

above passage
doubtful here.
(12),
35,
"Your Father knoweth
of all these things."
"My
it
but
that ye have need Father" is thus only found in the must be remembered that the text is

it
237
is decided whether a man is building his house on a rock or on sand ; the mere saying " Lord, Lord," is
worthless (12). The story of the Centurion which
now
follows (13)
is
intended to give an instance not so much of the miraculous power of our Lord as of the faith of
Gentile
;
the
it
wondrous
claims
forces
only shows us implicitly that Jesus stood at His command.
absolute
faith
and
finds
it
not in
Israel,
story, and this among context of the broke the alone, sayings which story stand in St. Matt, v.vii. and viii.x., it accordingly
but
the Gentiles.
If this
gains extraordinary significance, but this significance
not Christological. In the charge to the disciples, and in the two sections which precede it (17 and 18), the special
is
significance of the personality of our
Lord
is
stated
again only indirectly but the more impressively. Now is the field ripe unto harvest (18), but the to be a labourer means to follow labourers are few Jesus wherever He goes, even to the extreme point
;
of destitution,^ and to follow Him renouncing all earlier relationships, even that to one's own father " I am come not to bring peace, but the (17) ; for sword, and to set nearest relations at variance with
Notice that the saying: "Foxes have holes, &c.," sajB nothing of the following even unto death, but only unto the bitterest In section 46 however poverty. What a sign of genuineness
^
!
there the bearing of the cross is demanded as the necessary form of discipleship. It is, as already noticed, the only referred to in Q, As passage iin which the death upon the cross is " I send has been shown, it is not certain whether you as sheep " He that receiveth into the midst of wolves," and you, receiveth
it is
otherwise
Me, &c.," stood in Q.
S38
another'' before
confession

(38 and 45).
;
Jesus
those
must be confessed
that
men
for
only
make
such
at
acknowledged Angels (34^). Capernaum " is " lifted up to Heaven by our Lord's ministry in that city, Chorazin and Bethsaida have seen works such as had been wrought in no mighty
will
be
by Him
the
Judgment
before
the
their
other city with the result that the judgment upon unbelief would be only the more terrible.
Jesus begins a new epoch He is the touchthe sign of final decision and judgment
these
besides
With
stone,
for
all.
In
sayings,
the
mention
of
the
Messianic acknowledgment at the Judgment, we find " the expression " Son of Man used three times (17,
34^' ^)
^
;
while
it
occurs four times elsewhere in
(15, 30, 37, 56)" The Son of Man hath not where to lay His head," " The Son of Man will acknowledge those who confess Him," " word said against the Son of Man will be forgiven," " The Son of Man
and drinking," " As Jonah was to the the Son of Man become a sign to this " The Son of Man cometh at an hour generation," when ye expect Him not," " As the days of Noah, so also will be the coming ,of the Son of Man." Three of these sayings are eschatological in character but the four others seem to deprive this circumstance of its significance. We must acknowledge that in Q the phrase has become simply a term which our Lord ordinarily used when speaking of Himself. Seeing that Q pays no regard to chronology, this
came eating Ninevites, so
is
Yet
it is
doubtful in section 34.
THE PERSONALITY OP OUR LORD

source
339
is not suitable as an authority upon which to base investigations as to the period at which our Lord Such investigations began so to describe Himself.
can only be based upon the Gospel of St. Mark. Q, however, gives some help in that we learn from this source how completely and quickly the consciousness,
that there was once a time when our Lord did not so
name Himself, had vanished from
tradition.
There
can scarcely be any doubt as to the sense of the If in Q the only historical passages expression in Q.
word
historical, that
is,
in
the narrower sense of the
of the testimony of the Messiah coming (of the Baptism), and of the Messianic temptation, and if then abruptly " and repeatedly the expression " the Son of Man
Baptist to the
crops
are the narratives
up
in the collection of sayings, it necessarily
follows that in
the term can
mean nothing
else
than "the Messiah."^
The compiler
uses
of Q,
when he himself
speaks, never
he speaks simply of Jesus (not 6 or of " o The latter term is used X^zcrro?." Kvpiog) in the introduction to the sections concerning the
;
the term
The references to the personBaptist (14, 15, 50). of in this our Lord discourse, and in the great ality to the Father, are the most important thanksgiving
in the
^
whole collection of sayings.

still
Our Lord here
the
it is very probable that also in never had any other meaning. Of course one cannot be sure that Jesus always called Himself Son of Man in those passages where Q makes Him thus speak of Himself. It is, for example, more than doubtful that Jesus used the expression in section 15, when before in the same discourse (section 14) He had plainly enough avoided auy Messianic self-designation.
am
of the opinion that

it
mouth
of Jesus
240
appeals to His worl<:s (as in section 23 to His Svvd/uLeig). These are the works of Messiah; but the open de" is avoided. claration " I am the Messiah To these " works belong also the and tttw^^ôI evayyeXiôvrai,'''' it is this which is either exclusively or principally
referred to in the Beatitude "
(TKavSaXicrOiJ ev eimol^''
jmaKOLpiog
(ttlv o^
dv
jultj
which
in
must naturally be
In the following the of the high passage appreciation Baptist, who is as all the represented surpassing prophets, is ulti-
understood in a Messianic sense.
mately based not upon the real greatness of the man himself but upon his office as forerunner; this again gives indirect expression to the Messiahship of Jesus,
which
in
is
fully disclosed in the sentence that the least
of God is greater than John. " The the Accordingly, simple contrasting phrases "" " The Son of Man came," cannot be came Baptist understood as implying equality in the contrasted
the
Kingdom
subjects in a passage whose genuineness is guaranteed " The Son by the unique information it affords us
:
eating and drinking, and they say. Behold a man gluttonous and a winebibber, a " friend of publicans and sinners This definition
of
!
Man came
of the significance of the Baptist, in contrast to the prophets on the one hand, arjd to our Lord on the
other hand, removes all cause for hesitation in accepting the genuineness of the saying that the Prophets and the Law lasted until John.
It
is
said
time. Who product indeed would defend the exact verbal accuracy of
is
question discourse
(vide supra,
return yet again to the historical that this whole pp. 216 f.)
the
of a later

!
241
such a discourse But, on the other hand, we must bear in mind that in Q it stands in the midst of a context whose interest is purely ethical, and that Q's
aims are not those of apologetical Christology.
We
must further remember that it is purely a petitio principii to assume that our Lord could not Himself have spoken concerning matters which also in after times claimed men's attention and were the subject
of their discussion.
Why
is
could
He
not have given
expression to His views concerning the Baptist just as we read in Q, seeing that the context (St. Matt,
xi.
46 and
xi.
1619)
as
trustworthy as
it
is
possible to imagine it to be ? confess that He was simply
Must we
not, indeed,
compelled to express Himself concerning the Baptist, and that there is nothing extraordinary in the fact that He on the one hand subordinated St. John to Himself, and on the other ranked him above the Prophets ? Nothing else,
however, nothing more of essential importance, is said about him, with the exception of the scarcely genuine
That in the background of the ttTTo t6t eo)? apri. whole discourse there lies the presupposition " I am He," affords no ground for suspicion if so, one must
;
draw the pen through the whole content of the gospels. The following pericope (section 25), to which section 26 perhaps belongs, has been already discussed above from the Christological standpoint (pp. 218 ff.). It forms the climax of our Lord's self-revelation, and yet it does not assert more than that He had been
permitted to bring to the simple ones the knowledge that knowledge which He alone as the Son of God (the Messiah) was the first to receive, and which He
242
The was now revealing to whomsoever He willed. in are which the blessed pronounced disciples saying because they see and hear what all the Prophets (and kings) had desired in vain to see and hear,
again brings to light the final and absolute character of this knowledge of God, and at the same time testifies to the fact that our Lord (vide the
once
preceding paragraph) really did reflect upon the renot only in lationship of the past and the present reference to the Law but also to the Prophets.
This also appears in the Beelzebub section (29) ; for if in our Lord's exorcism of devils through the
power of the Spirit of God, the Kingdom of God had already appeared upon earth, then it followed that a new epoch had dawned, the epoch, namely, of Messiah. He needs not to give Himself this name, nor does He assume it the facts speak for themselves. Here again He is proclaimed to be the sign of decision and of judgment for all (vide supra^ p. 238) in the words " He that is not with Me is It is the against Me." same thought which is expressed in the next section " As Jonah was to the Ninevites, (30) in the words
so
am
I also to this generation
"
repentance preacher who is greater than and the who is wiser than Solomon. The Jonah, king of first the Second is touched thought Coming upon
the the concluding sections, and with it is combined the revelation of the Messiahship ; this is found in
in
1 The seeming discrepancy that also in Q our Lord points to His Swd/ieis and ^pya, and yet declares that no sign should be given to this generation, is no discrepancy at all. He will not have wonders and signs wrung from Him by this generation any more than by Satan.
but
the preacher of

section 43
e'lTTijTe'
:
243
ore)
ov
jul^
fxe 'ISrjTe
aw apri
co9
av
(Jjû
in ^v ovo/maTL evXoyjjiULevo^ 6 ep^6iJ.evo9 Kvpiov,
section
37 where it lies at the foundation of the whole section, and in section 56 where it likewise In the first section the dominates every sentence. destruction of Jerusalem (of the Temple ?) is also foretold, but only in words quoted from a more
In the second section the thought ancient prophecy. of the Second Coming is employed to enforce the
need of watchfulness, of preparedness, of conscientious

in the third section a description is ; of the world at the Second Coming state of the given and of the just as it was in the days of Noah
faithfulness
a warning
awful suddenness and unexpectedness of that coming Peris also given against false Messiahs.
;
:
haps the last saying that stood in Q is section 59 " Ye, that follow Me, shall sit upon twelve thrones, This saying tribes of Israel." twelve the judging
affords us the strongest imaginable testimony that Q is dominated by the belief in the Messiahship of
Jesus
the fact of the Messiahship
is
proved in the
introduction, it is presupposed as self-evident from beginning to end of the work, and in the eschatological discourses it
is revealed by Jesus Himself. " of the source, as the compiler Christology understood it, presents a perfectly simple and conThe compiler of Q could not sistent picture.^
The "
as teacher
Only in section 10 does our Lord describe Himself (indirectly) and His disciples as pupils nevertheless this relation;
ship is implicitly presupposed also in other places. The existence of this relationship, side by side with that of the Messiah to His subjects, presented no problem to the compiler, who simply The Messiah who brought the subordinated one to the other.
revelation of the
knowledge
of
God could
only reveal by teaching.
244

;
imagine otherwise than that Jesus was the Messiah, all the consecrated as Son of God at the Baptism stand out of his therefore, against compilation, sayings we think away the introthis background. 7/*, however,
duction,
the
resultant picture
is
essentially
different.
We
before us a compilation of sayings in which the speaker is a teacher, a prophet, one who is
now have
more than a prophet the Ji7ial decisive Messenger of God; but so surely as He demands unconditional obedience to His commands, in which the Will of God is expressed, and calls upon men to follow Him, so little does He do this with the expressed self- witness " I am the Messiah." Rather He points simply to His miracles and His works (in so far as He does not count upon the self-evidence of His commands in
:
their appeal to the hearts of therefore neglects the term "
His hearers). If one " Son of Man which was certainly used by our Lord, though we cannot be sure that it is genuine in any particular saying Jesus first asserts His claim to the Messiahship in the
sayings at the close of the source, hut only in connection with and under the imagery of the Second Coming; He who already in His present state of existence is
more than a prophet and greater than John, He who is the Son, will be the coming King and Judge.
Critical investigation of the accounts in St.
Mark
seems to compel us to the conclusion that our Lord during the first and longest period of His ministry
at
did not speak of Himself as the Messiah (because He first neither regarded Himself as Messiah, nor indeed could so regard Himself) and even rejected
the
title
of Messiahship
when
it
was applied to

sessed
245
Himself, but that, on the other hand. He was posby the strongest conviction that as a messenger
was entrusted with a mission of decisive and that He knew God as none other knew import, Him a conviction to which He again and again gave and that at a later period after He had expression
of
God He
accepted at Caesarea Philippi the confession of the " Thou art the Messiah " i.e. Thou wilt disciples
:
be
henceforth (though indeed still with reserve until the entry into Jerusalem) called
He
""
He from
Himself the Son of Man, and with growing confidence proclaimed His Parousia, i.e. His Messiahship. There is nothing in the compilation of discourses in Q, if only we neglect the introduction, which can be alleged to be discrepant with this picture of gradual We cannot, it must also be acknowdevelopment. from derive Q certain testimony to the detailed ledged,
accuracy of this picture, because
pays such slight
regard to chronology ; nevertheless Q also bears witness to the main position, in that in the sayings collected in Q the Messiahship is only clearly expressed under the form of the Parousia,^ and in that in 1 The absence of this important passage in Q suggests that we
should not exaggerate its importance. Besides, the question of St. John, together with the answer of our Lord in Q, can be regarded as a parallel to the passage in question. 2 The great thanksgiving to the Father could be in point of time posterior to St. Mark viii. 27 ff., but this hypothesis is not
careful and reverent application of obvious that our Lord's consciousness of Sonship must have preceded in time His consciousness of Messiahship, must indeed have formed a stepping-stone to the In spite of all that has been deduced from the apocalyptic latter.
necessary.
With the most

it is
psychological methods,
and dogmatic Messianic conceptions
of the times,
we must
assert
that the consciousness of Divine Sonship and of Messiahship could
M6

Lord claims
these sayings our
but because this is unthinkable the present Messiah He works the works of God and proclaims His com-
faith not because
He
is
mandments.
VII. CONCLUSION
THE ORIGIN AND THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF Q
we consider Q apart from its introduction are dealing (sections 1 and 2), we see at once that we there with a document of the highest antiquity is here no need of proof; but even if we take into
If
our view
is
little
difference
together with the introduction, there The idea in the final verdict.
Jesus was endowed with the Messiahship at the Baptism had, as St. Mark shows, already taken form in the apostolic age and in the circle of the
that
how early we do not know. An disciples idea so impressive and so incapable of proof or of disproof could have taken form and have established
immediate
itself in
the Christian
community at a very
early
date.
to
The view indeed which preceded it, according which Jesus was declared by God to be the
idea
Messiah by means of an act of glorification, is an which had already completely lost its significance
for
St.
Mark,
while
St.
Matthew
and
not have existed together from the beginning ; for the consciousness of Messiahship never meant anything else for our Lord than a consciousness of ichat He was about to become. In His soul the
this
consciousness of what He was must have come first, and only when had attained to the height of consciousness of Sonship could the tremendous leap be taken to the consciousness of Messiahship.
HISTORICAL VALUE OF Q
St.
247
Luke knew no more of

St.
it
than what they read

fact
in
Mark.
Further,
the
that
our
Lord
throughout the principal part of His ministry had not represented Himself as being the future, and still less the present, Messiah, was afterwards found
to
be
to
no
difficulty
at
all.
:
The
"
disciples
needed
only say stand Him," and this is just what they did say. The cases of discrepancy and confusion which we
find in their own and their disciples'* reproduction of particular stories and discourses, and which have led to the adoption of such strange subterfuges and harmonising hypotheses in the interpretation
to themselves
We
did not under-
of the Markan accounts, did not exist for those who were provided with this refugium ignorantice} St. Mark indeed knows as little of a development
in
Q he also, like Q, Divine Sonship (the places of our Lord's active at the beginning Messiahship)
our Lord's consciousness as
the
revelation
;
of the
ministry, and it is only because of the careless and naive fashion in which one may say he has gathered together and heaped up his materials in strange contrast with the energy with which he follows his main purpose and finds it vouched for in the most discrepant narratives that we (against the will and intention of St. Mark) receive any hint of
stages of development in the ministry of our Lord.
Q,
in
*
compilation
{vide
us,
of
sayings
originally
written
Aramaic
These show
Wellhausen, Nestle, and others),

of their
however, the relative faithfulness
record.
248
its
This is shown by belongs to the apostolic epoch. form and contents, nor can I discern any reasons for a contrary opinion ; in particular, the destruction of Jerusalem
already
occurred.^
than
is
St.
Mark.
not here presupposed as having moreover, more ancient is, The iiifluence of '^ Paulinism'''' which
is
It
so
strong in St.
Mark
is
entirely
St.
wanting, and
accordingly the
main theme of
Mark
that
Jesus,
His death and resur7'ection, form the own gospel is not to he found in Q}
content
of His
that
was composed in Palestine

horizon
his
is
It is evident
its
Jewish and
St.
Palestinian
quite
obvious.
in
Mark,
No proof however, gospel can be given of any literary relationship between This is an indication that we the two works.
wrote
Rome.
must not
sible
set
Q
in
too
incomprehennor used it, even though he wrote at a place far distant from
already long that St.
early ; circulation
for
it
it
is
Q had
been
Mark
neither
knew
it
Palestine.
Is Q of apostolic origin ? I can make no new contribution towards settling this question. That Papias (like Eusebius) in the well-known
passage (Euseb.,
Matthew,
is
Presbyter Seeing that
39) means our St. very probable ; whether, however, the meant this St. Matthew, is doubtful.
Eccl.,''
iii.
" Hist.
our
St.
Matthew
cannot
have
been
1 Moreover even iu passages peculiar to St. Matthew sayings occur which must have taken form before the destruction of
Jerusalem.
2 There is surely no need for me to notice the theory that Q was intended as a complement to the Gospel of St. Mark, who had gathered together all the tradition within his reach.
249
:
composed by an Apostle, and that the tradition ^larOaiog ^/Spa'i'Si SiaXeKTO) to. Xoyia crvveraPaTO, already dates from about a.d. 100, 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 for or against cannot

so-called
be
corivincing reasons either discovered. From the
clude that behind the
charge to the Apostles we can only conwritten record there stands

of
the
memory
an
apostolic
listener.
But who-
ever the author, or rather the redactor, of Q may have been, he was a man deserving of the highest To his reverence and faithfulness, to his respect.
simple-minded common-sense, we owe this
priceless
compilation of the sayings of Jesus. Our knowledge of the teaching and the history of our Lord, in their main features a,t least, thus
depends upon two authorities independent of one
composed at nearly the same time. they agree their testimony is strong, and On they agree often and on important points.^
another, yet
Where
the rock
are
of their united
critical
testimony the assault of
destructive
to
views,
however necessary
research,
will
these
easily
self-satisfied
ever
be
shattered to pieces.
And yet again how different are these two sources On the one hand St. Mark wherein page by page
the
student
is
reduced
to
despair
by the inconand the

historical
1 Compare especially the historical background references in numerous sayings in Q.
250
sistencies,
the discrepancies, and the incredibilities of and yet without this gospel we should be deprived of every thread of consistent and concrete
the narrative
and on the other hand,

conception of the
historical information concerning the life of Jesus ; this compilation of sayings,
which alone affords us a really exact and profound

teaching of Jesus, and
is
free
from bias, apologetic or otherwise, and yet gives us no history. In St. Mark an almost complete to distinguish between what is primary or inability between what is trustworthy or questionsecondary, able, an apologetic which grasps at all within its reach, to which everything is welcome and right and yet at the same time a feeling for detail and for life, and even where this feeling is not present, the actual preservation of these traits in Q, on the
other hand, a many-sidedness in reference to that which is the most important, which quite com" pensates us for the want of history." Which is the more valuable ? Eighteen centuries
of Christianity have their answer is true.

in the sayings
of
question, and portrait of Jesus as given has remained in the foregrcmnd}
answered
this
The
The attempts which have been made to replace it by that of St. Mark have met with no success they will
;
lead ever and again into the abyss of confusion, they will come to nought through their own inconsistency.
The
collection
of sayings and
St.
Mark
must remain in
Above all, the power ^ but the former takes precedence. the to exaggerate tendency apocalyptic and eschato^
This
is
drawn by Wellhausen
so even with the sketch of the personality of our in his History of Israel.
Lord
251
to sublogical element in our Lord's message, and ordinate to this the purely religious and ethical This elements, will ever find its refutation in Q.
source
the authority for that which formed the theme of the message of our Lord that is, the revelation of the knowledge of God, and the moral call to repent and to believe, to renounce this and nothing the world and to gain heaven
is
central
else.
We
its
cannot
tell
how long
this compilation
remained
It
in existence.
Its traces in St.
Clement of
Rome and
found
in writers after his
time are not certain.
grave in the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, and probably elsewhere in some apocryphal gospels.
St.
Mark
alone could not have supplanted it;
but
the narrative type of gospel, which was created by the second evangelist and which answered to the
needs of catechetical apologetics, no longer allowed the separate existence of a compilation of sayings.
The
final
blow to the independent existence of
was
dealt
when it was incorporated in the gospels of St. Luke and St. Matthew. In St. Luke it exists, split up and dispersed throughout the gospel in subin St. Matthew servience to the historical narrative it was treated in more conservative spirit, though in some important passages it has suffered more from revision and shows clearer traces of the particular In most skilful fashion often bias of the evangelist.
;
or by an arrangement of only by means of an accent the first the context which seems quite insignificant of discourses evangelist has made this compilation subservient to his own special interest in the Christian
252
has
community and its organisation, while St. Luke, who much more frequently altered the wording of his
has
nevertheless
its
source,
essential
kept
so
closely
to
is
it
in
points that
original
character
more
clearly perceived in his reproduction.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
Translation of
II
(When John saw many [or the multitudes] coming Ye offspring of vipers, to baptism, he said to them) who warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance and think not [begin not] to say within yourselves
:
We
the
have Abraham for our father

is
you that God

children to root
able
of these
for I say unto stones to raise up

;
Abraham.
trees
;
Already the axe

tree
is
laid
to
every bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and I indeed baptize you with water cast into the fire. unto repentance ; but he that cometh after me is
of the
therefore
that
mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, he will baptize you with (the [Holy] Spirit and) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will with fire.
thoroughly purge his threshing-floor and will gather

1
The numbers are those

All that
it
of the
of dots preceding a passage
Greek text on pp. 127-146. A line shows that its original position in Q is
is
uncertain.
is
otherwise uncertain
placed in brackets.
of quite short also a doubt in 16, 19, 24,
must be remembered that in the case sayings, whose position in Q is doubtful, there is whether they belong to Q at all. Such are found
In general,
26-28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39-42, 44, 47-55.
253
254
his

wheat into the barn, but the chafF he
fire
will
burn up
with
unquenchable.
(The baptism of Jesus, together with the descent of the Spirit and the voice from heaven.)
2.
up by the Spirit into the wilderness tempted by the devil, and when he had fasted forty days and forty nights he afterwards hungered, and the tempter said to him If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread, and
to be
:
Jesus was led
he answered
alone.
It
is
written,
Man
shall not live hy bread
Then he taketh him with him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and saith to him If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down
:
for it
is
written,
thee,
cerning
lest
and
shall give his angels charge conin their hands they shall hear thee up
He
haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.

:
Jesus
said to
him Again it is written. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again he taketh him with him to an exceeding high mountain and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, and All these will I give thee if thou wilt said to him me. And Jesus saith to him It is written. worship Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt
:
:
thou serve.
And
6, 7,
8,
the devil leaveth him.
3, 4,
5,
11,
12, 9, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36,
39, 41, 47, 49, 51, 52.
(He taught his disciples in the presence of the multitude as follows)

:
TRANSLATION OF Q
Blessed are the poor, for theirs
is
255
the kingdom of
God;
Blessed are
they that mourn, for they shall be

they that hunger, for they shall be
comforted
filled
Blessed are
;
when they shall revile you and perand say all manner of evil against you you and be exceeding glad, for great is rejoice falsely in heaven for so persecuted they the reward your which were before you. prophets
Blessed are ye,
secute
;
;
turn to
to
Whosoever smiteth thee on the (thy right) cheek him the other also, and if any man would go law with thee and take away thy coat let him have
also.
thy cloke
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow from thee turn not away.
Love your enemies and pray for I say unto you your persecutors, that ye may become the sons of your Father, for he maketh his sun to rise upon the evil
:
and the good (and sendeth rain on the just and the For if ye love those which love you, what unjust).
Do not even the publicans the reward have ye ? same ? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others ? Do not even the Gentiles Ye shall therefore be merciful as your the same ? is merciful. Father
All things whatsoever ye would that
men
should
do unto you, even so do ye
also
unto them.
256

;
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what and with judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you. But why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy
brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye ? Or how wilt thou say to thy
Let be, I will cast out the mote from thine the beam is in thine own eye ? and Thou eye, cast out first the beam from thine own hypocrite, eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote from thy brother's eye.
brother
:
tree is known from the fruit. Do they gather thorns or from from thistles ? Even so figs grapes tree forth excellent but fruit, good bringeth every the corrupt tree bringeth forth bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
The
bring forth excellent
fruit.
(Not everyone that saith unto

shall enter into the
me
Lord, Lord
kingdom of God, but he that doeth the will of my Father.) Everyone therefore
that heareth these
my
he
words and doeth them,
I will
shew you to
whom
is like.
:
He
is
like (or in place
of the last twelve words
man who
rain
built his house
came down, and winds blew and beat upon that house, and not; for it had been founded upon the rock.
everyone
that heareth
these
be likened) to a the rock. And the upon the floods arose, and the
shall
it fell
He
And
my
words and doeth
not, shall be likened to a man who built his And the rain came down, house upon the sand.
them
and the
floods arose,
and the winds blew and smote
TRANSLATION OF Q
upon that house, and
thereof.
it
fell,
257
fall
and great was the
If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the
ditch.
(Father, give us this day our bread for the coming day, and remit us our debts, as we also have remitted
to our debtors,
and lead
us not into temptation.)
Ask, and it shall be given you seek, and ye shall For ; knock, and it shall be opened to you. everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh
;
find
and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, of whom his son shall Or if he shall ask bread, will he give him a stone ? If then ask for a fish, will he give him a serpent ? ye being evil know how to give good things (gifts) to your children, how much more will the Father from heaven give good things to those who ask him.
findeth,
not light a lamp and place it under a but bushel, upon a lamp-stand, and it giveth light to
all
Men do
that are in the house.
The light of the body is the (thine) eye ; if then thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light ; but if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall
A
258

If therefore the light
be darkened.
which
is
in thee
be darkness, how great will the darkness whole outlook of the soul] then be
!
[soil,
in the
Be not anxious for Wherefore I say unto you shall nor what for your body, what eat; ye your life, Is not the life more than meat and on. shall ye put Look at the ravens (or the body than raiment ? of the the birds heaven), they sow not, neither reap nor gather into barns, and God feedeth them. Are
:
much better than they ? Which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his stature and why are ye anxious about raiment ? Consider the
ye not
;
They toil not, neither do unto you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed as one of these. If then in the field God so clothe the grass which is to-day, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, will he not much
lilies,
!
how they grow

;
they spin
but
I say
more you, O ye of little faith ? Therefore be not What shall we eat ? or What shall anxious, saying we drink ? or Wherewithal shall we be clothed ?
:
For
after all these things do the nations (of the world) seek for your Father knoweth that ye have But seek ye his kingdom, need of all these things.
;
and
all
these things shall be
added unto you.
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth consume, and where thieves but lay up for yourselves break through and steal treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth
:
TRANSLATION OF Q
;
259
consume, and where thieves do not break through nor steal for where thy (your) treasure is, there will thy (your) heart be also.
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou

art in the
way with him ; lest the adversary deliver thee to the judge and the judge to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. (Verily) I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the last farthing.
Enter in by the narrow gate for wide (is the gate) and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and
;
many
there be that enter by
it.
Because narrow
is
the gate and straitened the way that leadeth to and few there be that find it.
life,
Ye
have
lost its
are the salt (of the land) ; if however the salt savour, wherewith shall it be salted ?
cast out
It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be and trodden under foot by men.
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.
(Verily I say unto you)
Until heaven and earth
260

away
pass away, one iota or one tittle shall not pass from the law.
(I say
maketh her an
that
is
Everyone who divorceth his wife adulteress, and whosoever marrieth her divorced committeth adultery.
unto you)
:
(After he had spoken into Capernaum, and a
these
words), he entered centurion came to him

:
Lord, my servant lieth beseeching him and saying in the house sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. He saith to him I will come and heal him. But
:
the centurion answered and said Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter beneath my roof;
:
but only say the word For I also am healed.
and
a
my
servant
shall
be
man under
:
authority,
:
having soldiers under me, and I say to this one and to another Go, and he goeth Come, and and to my slave he cometh Do this, and he When Jesus heard he marvelled and doeth it.
; ;
:
said to those that followed
(Verily) I say unto you,

faith.
Not even
hast
in
Israel
have I found such

:
(And
as
Jesus said to the centurion

believed,
[Go thy way]

unto
thee.
thou
the
be
it
done
And
servant was healed in that I'ery hour.)
17, 18, 16, 20, 21, 22, 19, 34^,
34^
38, 45,
46, 57, 10, 24.

I will follow thee whither(One said to him) thou goest and Jesus saith to him Foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests
:
soever
TRANSLATION OF Q
but the Son
head.
:
261
of man hath not where to lay his Suffer me first to Another said to him but he saith to and father go away bury my him Follow me, and let the dead bury their own
;
:
dead.
He
harvest
saith
is
to
them
(or
to
his
disciples)
The
pray send
great but the labourers are few therefore the Lord of the harvest that he
;
forth labourers into his harvest.
Go and
is
preach, saying, that the
kingdom of God
at hand.
(Carry no purse, no one by the way).

.
scrip,
.
no
if
it
shoes,
When
;
and greet no however ye enter

is
into a house, salute

let
it and come your peace upon

;
the house
but
if
it
worthy, be not
worthy,
let
your peace return to you again.
(Abide in the same house, and eat and drink for the labourer is worthy what they give you)
;
of his meat.
(.
Into whatsoever
city
is
ye
set
enter
and they
receive
you, eat that which

:
before you and
say
The kingdom of God is at hand. to them But into whatsoever city ye enter and they receive you not, go out into its streets and say Even the dust of your city which cleaveth to our feet do we shake off and leave it to you). (Verily) I say It will be more tolerable for the land unto you of Sodom and Gomorrha (or in place of the last
:
:
262
six

words
:
Sodom)
in
that day (or
in
the
day
of judgment) than for that city.
Behold
of wolves.
send you forth as sheep in the midst
Nothing is secret which shall not be revealed, and hidden which shall not be made known. What
I say unto you in darkness speak forth in the light and what ye hear in the ear publish upon the house;
tops.
And
but
of
be
not afraid of those that

kill
is
kill
the
body
afraid
cannot
the
able
soul
but
rather
be
soul
him who
in
to
destroy
?
both
and body
sold
for
Gehenna.
Are not two
(five)
one farthing (two farthings)
And
sparrows not
one of them shall fall to the earth without God. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Be not (therefore) afraid, ye are of much more value than sparrows. Everyone therefore who shall confess me before men, him will the Son of man (or I)
:
also confess before
ever shall deny me before the angels of God.
And
whosoever
it
the angels of God; but whosobefore men, him will I also deny
shall
the
Son
of man,
shall
speak a word against be forgiven him but

;
whosoever shall speak (a word) against not be forgiven him. Spirit, it shall
the
Holy
Think ye that
came to send peace on the earth
TRANSLATION OF Q
263
I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughterin-law against her mother-in-law. (And a man's
foes are those of his
own
household.)
father or mother more than me, not worthy of me and he that loveth son and daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.)
(He that loveth
is
Whosoever doth not take

after
his
cross
and follow
me
is
not worthy of me.
He
that findeth his
life shall
it.
lose
it,
and he that
loseth his life shall find
The
servant
disciple
disciple
is
not above his master, neither the

lord.
It
is
above
that
his
sufficient
for
the
the
he become
as
his
master,
and
servant as his lord.
(Whosoever receiveth you receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth
me
receiveth
him that
15.
sent me.)
14,
50,
But when John heard
in the prison the
works of
:
the Christ, he sent by his disciples and said unto him Art thou he that cometh, or do we look for another ?
564

he answered and said unto them
:
And
Go
tell
John
what ye hear and see, the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have
and blessed is he good tidings preached to them no of find cause whosoever shall stumbling in me. on their he were And as these began to speak way, What went ye John to the multitudes concerning
;
:
out into the wilderness to behold
reed shaken
?
by the wind
But what went ye out to see

!
man clothed in soft raiment ? Behold they that But why wear soft raiment are in kings^ houses went ye out ? To see a prophet ? Yea, I say unto This is he of whom you, and more than a prophet Behold I send my angel before thy face^ it is written
!
who
shall prepare thy
way
unto you, there hath but of women a greater than John (the Baptist) he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater
;
before thee, (Verily) I say not risen among those born
than he.
The prophets and the law were until John ; from then until now the kingdom of God suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force (or From the days
:
of John until
now the kingdom of God,
&c.
for all
. . .
the prophets and the law prophesied until John).
To what
is it
like)
shall I liken this generation (and to what It is like unto children sitting in the
:
market-places, which cry unto their fellows, saying
We
piped unto you, and ye danced not we mourned For John unto you, and ye beat not the breast. came neither eating nor di'iuking, and they say He
;
:
TRANSLATION OF Q
hath a devil
!
^65
The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners And wisdom is justified of her children.
!
23.
Woe
saida
!
unto thee, Chorazin woe unto thee, BethFor if the mighty works which were done in
!
you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would Yet long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes. for unto it will be more tolerable (I say you) Tyre and Sidon (in the day of judgment, or in the judgAnd thou Capernaum shalt ment) than for you. thou have been exalted to heaven ? To hell thou
:
shalt be cast
down
25.
I thank thee, Father, Lord and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and prudent, and didst reveal them unto babes yea [I thank thee] Father, for so it All [all knowledge] has seemed good in thy sight. been delivered to me by my Father, and no one hath known (the Son except the Father, neither hath any one known) the Father except the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.
At
that time he said
of heaven
26.
for they hear
Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and (your) ears, ; (for verily) I say unto you that many
^66
prophets (and kings) desired to see the things which ye see and have not seen them, and to hear the things which ye hear and have not heard them.
29.
(He healed) a dumb man possessed with a devil, (so that) the dumb spalce and the multitudes (all)
every kingdom which is divided cometh to desolation and if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out ? therefore they shall be your judges. But
marvelled
against itself
if I
is is
the
by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then indeed He that kingdom of God come upon you. me is and he with that not against me, gathereth
.
. .
not with
is
me
scattereth.
Whenever the unclean

:
he passeth through dry spirit it not, findeth (then) he saith places seeking rest and house I will return unto mine whence I came out;
gone out of a
man
and when he is come he findeth it empty (and) swept and garnished. Then he goeth and taketh to him seven spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there, and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first.
30.
(They
he said
:
said)
We
An
evil
would see from thee a sign. But and adulterous generation seeketh
and a sign shall not be given to it except of For as Jonah became a sign to the sign Jonah. so the Ninevites, shall also the Son of man be to this
after a sign,
generation.
The men
of Nineveh shall stand up in
TRANSLATION OF Q
267
the judgment against this generation, and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of
The Jonah, and behold here is more than Jonah. of the shall in the south stand judgment queen up
against this generation and shall condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the
wisdom of Solomon, and behold here

Solomon.
40.
is
more than
like ? and to unto a grain of what It mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field, and it grew and becometh a tree, and the birds
is
Unto what
shall
I
the kingdom of
it ?
is
God
liken
like
of the heaven nested in
its
:
branches.
shall I liken
(And again he
of
said)
It
To what
like
the
unto leaven which a ? kingdom took and hid in measures of meal until woman three
is
God
the whole was leavened.

44.
that exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
42.
He
you They shall come from the east from the and west, and shall sit at meat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God
I say unto
:
268

;
shall be
but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out weeping and gnashing of teeth.
.
there
48.
What think ye ? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them has strayed, will he not leave the ninety and nine upon the mountains, and having set out doth he not seek that which is strayed ? And if
he happeneth to find it, (verily) I say unto you that he rejoiceth over it more than over the ninety and nine which had not strayed.
53.
*
It is necessary that occasions of
come, yet Woe unto the man occasion of stumbling cometh.

54.
stumbling should through whom the
If thy
thee,
brother sinneth, rebuke him

hast
brother.
if
he hear
If my gained thy brother sinneth against me, how oft shall I forgive him ? Until seven times ? Jesus saith unto him I
:
thou
...
say unto thee, not until seven times, but until seventy
times seven.
55.
*
If ye have faith so great as a grain of
Be seed, ye shall say to this mountain hence thither, and it shall be removed.
:
mustard removed from
TRANSLATION OF Q
33, 43.
269
They bind together heavy burdens and them upon men's shoulders, and they themselves not touch them with a finger.
. .
.
lay
will
Woe
dom
in,
unto you, Pharisees
for ye shut the
king-
of
God
before
nor even do
for ye yourselves enter not suffer them that are entering in to ye

;
men
enter.
Woe
unto you, Pharisees
for ye tithe mint, anise,
and cummin, and neglect the weightier matters of the law, judgment and mercy.
Now ye Pharisees, ye cleanse the outside of the cup and platter, but within they are full of extor.
.
.
tion
and
excess.
unto you, for ye are as tombs which appear not, and the men that walk over them know it not. (Woe unto you, Pharisees for ye are like unto tombs that have been whitened which outwardly
!
Woe
indeed appear beautiful, but within are full of dead men''s bones and all uncleanness.)
For ye build the tombs of the If we had been in the days of and say prophets our fathers we would not have been partakers with So that ye them in the blood of the prophets.
unto you
! :
Woe
bear
witness
of
those
who
against yourselves that ye slew the prophets (now
are
fulfil
sons
the
measure of your fathers)!
Wherefore also the Wisdom of God said / send you prophets and wise men and scribes sovie of them ye will slay and persecute ; that there may come upon
:
to
you
all the blood
shed upon the earth
from
the blood
of
270
Ahel

to the blood
of Zacharias, whom ye slew between
the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you. All Jerusalem ! these things will come upon this generation. Jerusalem! which Jcilleth the prophets and stoneth those
often zvould I have gathered as a hen (gathereth) her even together, thy chicJie7is under her wings, and ye would 7iot. Behold is left unto you desolate. I house (For) your say unto
that are sent to her
!
How
children
you
(it
Ye
shall
shall not see me from henceforth until come when) ye say Blessed is he that
:
cometh
in the
name
of the Lord.
56.
If then they say to Lo ye not forth.
you
!
Lo
he
is
in the desert
Go
chambers For as the lightning cometh forth Believe it not. from the east and is seen even unto the west, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. Whereis
he
in the secret
soever
the
carcase
is,
there
will
the
eagles
be
gathered together.
As were
the
of the Son of
the days of Noah, so shall be the coming For as in the days before man.
and giving
entered
the
flood
flood they were eating and drinking, marrying in marriage, until the day that Noah
the ark, and they knew not until came and took them all away, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. There shall be two in the field, one is taken and one is left; two women shall be grinding at the mill, one is taken and one is left.
into
TRANSLATION OF Q
37.
271
But know this, that if the master of the house knew in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched and would not have suffered his house
to
also
have been broken through. (Wherefore be ye at an for hour that ye think not the ready, AVho then is the faithful Son of man cometh.)
and wise servant
whom
his lord
hath
set over
his
household to give them their meat in due season ? Blessed is that servant whom his lord when he
cometh
if
shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, But that he shall set him over all that he hath.
that
(evil)
lord
tarrieth,
and
servant shall say in his heart My shall begin to smite his fellow
:
and shall eat and drink with the drmiken, the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth
servants,
not,
and
shall
cut
him asunder and appoint
his
portion with the hypocrites.

58.
To him
and he
(to everyone) that shall have abundance ;
hath it shall be given, but from him that hath

shall be
not, even that
which he hath
59.
taken away.
Ye who
1
follow
me
shall
sit
upon twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.^

Perhaps the parables of the Great Supper and the Talents
stood in
{vide supra, pp. 119
ff.).
272
EXCURSUS
On the
X.
I
xi.
Sayings in St. Matt.

21, 22)
25-27
(St.
Luke
AND
St.
Matt.
xi. 28, 29.
The
in
contents of these sayings justifies us their text, the most ancient history of subjecting their tradition, and their significance, to a minute
peculiar
examination.
This
is
the more necessary
in
that
in the last years it
has been asserted with increas-
ing confidence that these sayings are not genuine. This question cannot be brought nearer to its soluThe exegesis tion without the closest investigation. of these passages, which had come to a standstill,
has been set in motion again by the researches of Schmiedel and Wellhausen, which afford us most valuable hints.^
Beitrage z. Einl. i. d. bibl. Schriften," 1832, i. " Die Semisch, apostolischen Denkwiirdigkeiten des M. *' Kritische Unters. iiber die Justin," 1848, s. 364 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, " Das Ev. Marcions Evv. Justins usw." 1850, s. 201 ff. ; Volckmar, "Canon of N. T.*, "1875, p. 133 if.; 1852," s. 75 if.; Westcott, "Supernatural Religion'," i. p. 401 ff. ; E. Abbot, "The AuthorCf.
1
Credner,
;
**
s.
248
ff.
Zahn, "Tatian," 1881, ship of the Fourth Gospel," 1880, p. 91 ff. " " s. 148 f. ; Evangelienzitate Kanonsgesch." i. s. 555 f. Bousset, Justins d. M., 1891," s. 100 ff. ; Resch, "Texte u. Unters.," Bd. " H. Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. NTliohen Theol.," 10, 2, 1895, s. 196 ff.
; ; ;
i.
H. Holtzmann, "Die Synoptiker," 3. Aufl., 1901, " ff. Matth.," 1904; Schmiedel, "Das 4. s. 238 Wellhausen, the editions of St. Matthew and St. s. 48 f. 1906, Evangelium," Luke by Blass. The verses are treated as a hymn by Brandt (" Ev.
1897, S.-272
;
ff.
Geschichte," 1893, s. 562, 576 f.), Pfleiderer (" Urchristentum," 1902, i.2 s. 435 f., 576, 667 ff.), Loisy, and others.
EXCURSUS
273
in the first place confine ourselves to ascertaining the text of the sayings according to the Greek manuscripts^ there is scarcely any doubt as to the result
If
we
we
arrive at.
St.
The
first
saying runs as follows

St.
Matthew.
croi,
Luke.
o"o<,
jôiJLo\oyoviJ.aL
'EÔyaoXoyoyyCtai
Trarepf Kvpie rod ovpavov Koi T^s" yrjg, on eKpv\l/a<; ravra cltto (Todywv Kai
o-vvercov
iraTep, Kvpie tov ovpavov Km Tt]9 y^9) OTL aireKpvâ<s
TavTa
(TvveTcov
aTTO
crocpcov
Kai
Kai
ctTre/caXuxf/'a?
Kai
aTre/caXuxJ/a?
vai,
avra
vrjinoi^.
vai,
6 irarrip,
avTa
OTL
v}]7rioi^
6 iraWjp^
OTL ovTcog evSoKia iyivero

e/ULTrpocrOev
crov.
julol
ouTm
iyevcTo evSoKia
/noL
ejULTTpl
Oe. crov. ocruev
iravra
viro
Tov
7raTp6<s
TrapeSoOt] koI [/u-ov],
TTOLVTa
TTapeSoOtj
VTTO
ovSeh 7nyuwcrKL tov vlov ovSe tov el /ULrj 6 iran'ipf

iraTepa ti9
fxr]
TOV TraTjOO? [yao?^], Kai ovSeh yivwcTKeL tl^ ecTiv 6
eTriyivcocTKei
(p
ei
o VL09 Kai
eav povAtj-
/mr] 6 TraTyp, Kai Tig icTiv o iraTrip ei /arj o viog Kai (t) av povArjTai o uiog
VLO^ el
Tai 6 VLO^ airoKaXvyâi,

fiov
airoK aXvypâi,
om.
t?.
iraTep
om. F^
evSo-
Kia eyeveTO offerunt multi et boni testes TrapeSoOtj
juLOL
nonnulli
Codd.
TrapaSeSoTai
pro
VTTO
KII
/uLov
/ulol
airo
om.
.
.
D
.
Ti? ecTTiv o 7raT)]p

vLog
t/? (TTiv
U and one
s
cursive.
274
We accordingly see that St. Matthew and St. Luke must have used the same source, namely Q, in a similar The text in St. Matthew, recension and translation.^ in the two places where it differs from that of St.
Luke, seems to be preferable, for
(Kpv\p-a9>a7reKpv\âg, eTriyivoodKeL cocTKei t/? ecTTiv o Trarijp).
it
is
the simpler
tov
iraTpa>yiv-
Also
the
introduction
to
the
saying
shows
common
St.
Îtjarovg
source.
:
Matthew
elirev
:
'Ei^
eKelvw
T(p
Kaip(p
aTroKptOelg
Luke TTvevjuari tw Here also

St.
Ej^
avTri
rij
copa
t^yaWiacraTO
T(p
ayi(p Kai
it is
CLirev*
certain that St.

avrii
Matthew
is
is
to be
preferred
for {ev)
r^ wpa
a favourite ex-
pression with St. Luke (seven times), and is intended to be more exact than ev cKelpo) rep Kaip^, though it is true that the latter phrase is found again twice in
Likewise ijyaWida-aTO (ayaXXlacri^) is of frequent occurrence in St. Luke (seven times in the lastly, gospel and the Acts, once in St. Matthew) "" is the addition of " tm TrvevjULari rw ay'm genuinely " At this time therefore ran Lukan. The
St.
;
Matthew.
original
Jesus answered and
said.''
But the
situation
pre-
supposed is different in St. Matthew and St. Luke. In the former the thanksgiving stands in contrast
with the denunciation of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Jesus had, after all, found souls symCapernaum
:
pathetic
to
His teaching, and for

In
St.
this
He
offers
thanks to the Father.

1
Luke
also
the de;
evSoKia tyeuero ifxrpoadiv aov is

coi.
a peculiarly obvious Hebraism
iôfioXoyov/J-ai
also is poor Greek,
EXCURSUS
;
275
nunciation of the Galilean cities comes indeed shortly but in between, this evangelist before (x. 1215) inserts the record which the disciples returning from
their mission give concerning their success, and connects with this the thanksgiving of our Lord.
St.
first,
so that
Matthew connects the second saying with the we must suppose that he regarded it as
first
the continuation of the

in St. Luke.
It is wanting saying. to the Greek According manuscripts it runs as follows

:
Aevre
irpo's
fJ-e
iravTe'i
01 KOTTlCOVTeg Kai 7r(p0pTl(T'
/aevoi,
v/uLa<!.
Kayo)
avairavaca
apare
vfjLa^
eyctoy],
tov
Kai
'C.^yov
juiov
[ctTr'
(p''
fiaQere
ci/ull
otl irpav^
KOI Taireivo^ Ttj

up}j(TeT
Kapha^ kul
raf?
avaircwcriv
y^v^âh
IJ.OV
vjULwv.
yap ^vyo^
yj)r](yTO<i
jJLOv
TLOV
to (popeXacbpov ecmv.
Kai
TrecpopTLO-fj.,
(Ital.
Vulg.)
ecrre
a7r'
ijULOv
om.
X.'"'
have
the second in higher degree sayings a poetical rhythm, and in their construction remind us of the poetical form of sayings in the
Both
Psalms and Prophets but from this point of view they are not unique among the sayings of our Lord indeed, not a few sayings have a similar form.
;
276

II
Is the
form that has been arrived at above
really
the most ancient attainable form of the two sayings, In the so that we may at once proceed to exegesis ?
case of the second saying,
first
and of the
first
half of the
saying, the question is to be answered in the the second saying in the earliest times affirmative
was much less often quoted than one might expect but not in the case of the second half of the first saying; here we are rather led by indirect tradition (partly also by the Versions) to an older form of text, whether it be an older form of the text of St. Matthew and St. Luke or a form which is independent of them.
We
are here in the fortunate position of
knowing the
wording of the saying (the whole or some portion of it) as it was read by Marcion, by the Marcosians,
by Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, the Clementine We have in addition Homilies, and by Eusebius.
the ancient versions.
We
and
shall first consider the first half of the saying,
shall begin
with Marcion.
Here we have certain
knowledge that we have before us in the main, not extra-canonical tradition, but the text of St. Luke ;
though
altered
it
is
true
we
also
in
many
passages
in
accordance with his
know that Marcion has own

:
peculiar tendency.
iv.
25, supported
Marcion read (according to Tert. important points by Epiphanius)
ev')(apL(TTw
Kvpie
((joi Epiph.) (kgi eôjuoXoyov/mai, Tert.), Tov ovpavov^ otl aTrep fjv Kpvirra (TO(poi9 Kai
crvvero?^, aireKaXvyâg vrjiriois.
vai,
6 iraryjp,
on
ovTcog
EXCURSUS
eyevero evSoKia
277
aov [the last six words are cjuLirpocrOev attested for not directly Marcion, but follow from the which VOL 6 irartm Epiphanius gives, and from the
silence of
point].
(1)
in
Marcion's text
the addition of
both authorities as to alterations at this differs from the canonical

evyâpia-rw
Kai,
(2)
in
the
absence of Trdrep, (3) in the absence of koI t>/9 yrjg, and avrd (4) in reading direp ^v Kpvina (hence Kal must also have been wanting). Numbers (3) and (4)
are alterations for the God of due to tendency Marcion must not be " Lord of the earth," neither did He hide the true saving knowledge, but it lay On the other hand, (1) and (2) cannot hid of itself. be explained as due to the teaching of Marcion. Of these four variants the first {evâpLo-roi)^ but without eôfxoXoyov/jiai) is found once in Epiph. Haer. 40, 7, and perhaps also in Tatian, but never elsewhere. In Tatian, however, the word is doubtful. Ephraem
;
writes
("Evang. Concord.," p. 116, Moesinger): " Gratias in Graeco dicit ago tibi, pater coelestis Gratias ago tibi, deus pater, domine cceli et terrae." In respect to the first word Ephraem therefore noticed
The reading ev-âpia-Tw could no difference of text. was not very because have arisen, easily eô/uLoXoyovjuiai it seemed even objectionbecause indeed intelligible was a word that naturally sugable. l^v-)(api(TTU) took its place, as in Epiphanius. and itself gested " " De. Orat.," 5 to " eôjuLoXoyovjuai 'la-ov Cf. Orig.,
ia-rl
Tw "
is
ev-âpicTTw.''^
The second
variant
(om.
found in the canonical Lukan text in irdrep) F^ (vide supra) irdrep is also wanting in Clem Horn,
also
;
xviii.
15
the text there (Simon
Magus
speaks)
is,
278
however, a mixture of the canonical text and that of Marcion (vide hifra), so that it cannot count as an
independent witness.
bably only accidental-^
The
it
omission in
is
F^
is
pro-
wonderful that in the
MSS.
has not more frequently fallen out before Marcion thus stands alone with his omission. Kvpie, The third can scarcely assign any weight to it.
irdrep
We
variant (om. t?? 'y^?) is found also in Tatian, who besides omits Kvpie (this very Kvpie but not rrjg yrjg is also wanting in Clem. Hom. viii. 6, where St.
Peter speaks). not accidental "
The
;
absence of t??
ytjg
in
Tatian
is
he has substituted the usual expression " for this was his version for the irarep ovpavie There can be no connection fuller but rarer phrase.
here either with Marcion or with Clem.
Hom.
viii. 6,
where the absence of Kvpie is probably only a mistake. Thus Marcion's Kvpie tov ovpavov may be regarded as due to tendency, while Tatian 's irarep ovpavie may be described as nothing more than a gloss.^ The fourth variant is also found in Clem. Hom. xviii. 15 Simon
;
Magus
quotes
airep
Tjv
Kpvirra
crocpois,
ciTreKaXvypâg
avra ktX., and in the context is therefore corrected by St. Peter. Elsewhere in the Homilies Simon Magus adduces elements characteristic of Marcion ; he here
quotes according to the text of Marcion.
ought not to be asserted that Trare/o is wanting in "a" since at this place a small gap (an undecipherable passage?) occurs in "a." [This gap occurs only in St. Luke; in St. Matthew, according to Belsheim, "a" reads "pater." Note by
*
It
(Vercell.),
Translator.]
2
It is possible that Tatian,
whose system required a
distinction
to be
made between God and a Demiurgus, changed

into irdrep oOpdyie,
Trdrep, Kijpte t,
oip. K. T. 7.
EXCURSUS
The
other variants in the
:
279
half of the sa3ing
are as follows
first
eôjuLoXoyyja-ojUiai
the Marcosians in Iren.

li.
i.
20, 3
(perhaps in accordance with Sirach

portance).^
of no im-
c.e.f.fF.^ i. domine pater (of no importance, because the transposition was one that easily suggested
:
itself).
deus
pater
domine
the
reading which,
accord;
ing to
Ephraem (I.e.), was offered by the Greek but this is most improbable, seeing that none of the manuscripts that have come down to us present this
Yet in Clement of Alexandria (" Paed." i. we read 32) iraTep, 6 Qeo<5 rod ovpavov Koi TtJ9
:
reading.
6,
ytjg,
but this
is
probably only a free quotation.^

:
ovpai'cov
^
Kai
ovpavwv probably
:
the
an
Epiph. I.e., rtjg y>]^ kul tcov 'y>/9 Marcosians (in Epiph. the plural is oversight, but scarcely so with the
Marcosians).
ravTa wanting among the Marcosians, but only in the Greek text (of no importance) ; L. reads avrd.
:
wanting in Syr. Sin. (but only in the " and in Clem. Horn. text of St. Matthew), in e " ^ Confiteor." The Latin translation reads 2 " thus TTcire/) Kvpie" was also understood as an Hendiaduoin ;
Koi (Twerijov
:
:
the heathen in " Macarius Magnus,"

yi]S
TTO.T'fip
iv.
7,
(CTTiv
debs,
virb
rod viov ufioKoyriTai,
writes: Stl ovpavoO kuI " Hdrep Kijpie tou

order.
'.
ovpavov Kal TTjs yT]i^^ Xeyovro^. ^ So in the Latin text the

;
Greek has the usual

D.
iirb JocpCiv Kal
'Atto crvveTuv Kal
cro(pQ>v'.
5vvo.tC}v
1* (both
of
no importance).
280
(bis^
;

but in Clem. Horn.
in its place,
and
in
stands viii. 6 irpea-^vrcpcdv^ both places in Clem. Hom. the

prjirioig,
. .
word
ran
:
drjKaCpva-Lv
occurs with
.
so that the text

OtiXaôva-iv.
aocpcov
The
explained from the circumstance that the following parallel clause has only one substantive ; it is thus due to reflection. This
omission
is
omission of " koi
Trpea-jBuTepcov " is a-vvercov
vrjirioig
tine Homilies;
presupposed by the reading of the Clemenit was felt that in v^tioi crocpol
.
the contrast was not striking enough, and therefore was (in a truly mechanical fashion) added Trpea-jSuTepoi
to a-o(pOh so as to
make the
contrast exact
then
it
was
felt
and
16).^
so
We
drjXdôvre^ therefore learn nothing here in regard to
that a second word was required with vrjirioi, was chosen (from St. Matt. xxi.
the original text. The formal incongruence only goes to prove that this original text really read Kai crocpoov
crvveTcov
.
vrjiriois.
avrd
wanting in Tatian (of no importance).

:
is
found again
;
the Marcosians in Irenaeus (ova, ova, 6 iraTi'ip julov in the New Testament in St. Mark xv.
29)
they also omit the following

crov
ovrco^,
cfxirpoa-Oev
evSoKia
iyevero.
In
spite
[wanting of these differences we

[jlol
in
reading on the Latin]
may
not
assume a translation-variant in this verse, seeing that We cannot tell how the Marcosians also had evSoKia.
^
(iv,
Only one manuscript prefixes Kal. " Macarius It is noteworthy that the heathen in Magnus" " Kat with St. Matthew: in exact accordance first 9) quotes
avra
vt/tt/ois,"
&rrK6.\v\pas
but then continues:
et
awb
rCjy
aoipCiv
EXCURSUS
281
these readings arose, but as they are quite isolated we can scarcely assign any weight to them.
yiyovev (for eyevero) (of no importance).

Result
:
only
Epiph. Haer. 65, 6
TTie first half
of
the first
saying
is
trans-
mitted hy St. Matthew (and St. Luke) in its most ancient attainable form^ also the address iraTep, Kvpie rod KOI T?9 -yv?? is most probably more ancient ovpavov
:
than
all
other variants.
to the second half of the
Again the introduction

first
It is of imsaying presents a few variants. portance that both Justin (Dial. 100) and Hippolytus
(c.
variant
later
Noet. 6) give This TrapaSeSorai for TrapeSoOi]} lies in a direction which we shall notice
on
it
aims at translating an historical action into

timeless
the sphere
of the
and
transcendental.
avro,
For
"
vtto
{rod irarpos:)
irapa (this
is
(in St.
Luke) reads
Hippolytus
Again, while ij.ov after is in Tov irarpo^ wanting only one of the uncials of St. Matthew and St. Luke (and besides in one cursive of St. Matthew), it is, on the other hand, wanting in
unimportant).
quotations by Marcion, Justin, the Marcosians (Latin), Hilary, and Victorinus. In the versions it is also want-
"
ing in Syr.^^^^- of St. Matthew, and in a.c.l.Syr.^^"of St. Luke. Hence it follows with great probabilitv that this word was originally wanting in St. Matthew
and
St.
Luke, but was inserted in the text already
Here again the motive of at a very early date. insertion may well have been similar to that of
1
So also Codd. KIT, the cursives
60, 254, p^-r,
-v^scr^
and three
Colbertine
MSS.
(all
only in
St,
Luke).
282

yrapaSeSorai, which however has not made into the MSS. that have come down to us.
the variant
its
way
part of the saying two main may be distinguished, according as either the aorist or the present (1) eyi'O) yivwo-Kci " to or is used, and olSev) {eiriyivijocTKei (2) either know the Father " or to know the Son " stands
:
In the remaining streams of tradition
first.
Differences, moreover, occur in the last clause

(h
(Kai
dv ôvXtjrai
/ctX.).^
Irenaeus already noticed
that the aorist point. eyvw was an heretical forgery, vide iv. 1 " Nemo cognoscit JUimri nisi pater ^ neque patrem quis cognosit nisi Jilius, et cui voluerit Jilius revelare. sic et Matthaeus posuit ^ et Lucas similiter et Marcus idem Johannes ipsum
first
the
He
asserts
The remaining
iv.
variants in this verse are not of

ov8els
. . .
much
importalso
ance.
Iren.
Instead of koI
6,
1
;
oid^
ns
13
(St.
[bis],
Matthew, so
Clem.
Hom.
xviii.
.
e.g.
Marcion in Adamant.), or /cai ovSels the Marcosians in Ir^nseus, i.

Epiph.),
Kai (St.
;
the disciple of Luke, and besides,
we
.
also find
.
20, 3
Marcion in Tertullian,
i.
oCre rts
ovt
in the first clause

fjL-)]dls
ad
tls
(Euseb.
v.
" Hist, Eccl,"

"
2)
and, moreover,
i.
(Clem.,
"
Strom.,"
;
84; Euseb.,
De
Eccl. Theol.,"
12.
or Euseb., 'Eclog.," i. 12) ovdels ydpie.fj. "Clem., Strom.," vii. 109 and in the second clause i. 15, 16)
;
Euseb.,
" De Eccl. Theol.,"

iv.
6,
ovdi [without rts] (Justin [ter]
Marcion in Irenosus,
;
Irenaaus
[bis],
Clem. Alex,
rts
[semel], Epiph.' [bis].

xvii.
xviii. 4, 20).
iv. 3, 13),
i.
wi ovdk ...
(Clem.
Hom.
"
oiirw Kai ovSeis (Euseb., H7)8k

/cat
. .
Demonstr.,"
.TLS (Euseb.,
"
;
De
Eccl. Theol.,"
12 [Marcellus]),
:
Euseb., "Demonstr.," v. 1). It is a peculiarity of Eusebius that he writes thrice el /xr] [xbvoi 6 yevv^crai avrbv iraTrjp ("Hist. Eccl.," i. 2; "Demonstr." iv. 3, 13; **De Eccl. Theol.," i. 12). This looks like an amplification originat[ter]
ov8ds (Epiph.
ing in a Syrian text. The Syrians loved such amplifications. * Irenseus here makes a mistake ; St. Mark has not the saying.
EXCURSUS
cnim
praeterit
283
locum hunc.
esse, sic
hi
apostolis
volimt
describunt
autem qui peritiores nemo cognovit

:
nisi Jilius^ nee Jilium 7iisi pate?' et cui voluerit Jilius revelare, et interpretantur, quasi a nullo cog-
patrem
nitus
et
sit
verus deus ante domini
nostri
sit
^
adventum,
Irenaeus
^'
eum deum
non
esse
qui
feels
a
that
prophetis
Christi."
annunciatus,
dicunt
quite
patrem
Here
of
rightly is different from that of " cognoscit {yivwcrKei), {eyvui) but his assertion that the reading eyvuj is an hereti"*"'
the
sense
"
cognovit
cal
corruption
I
shall
eyvco
first,
is
quite
mistaken,
as
will
shortly
appear.
first
is
which
stands
*
give a list of the passages in " found, and " knowing the Father then of the quotations with eyvca
strangely misunderstood by the critics (even " 149; Kanonsgesch.," 1. s. 555 f.), as if the
This passage
is
s.
by Zahn, Tatian,
censure of Irenaeus were directed against the precedence in order of the clause "to know the Father." This was to him a matter of complete indifference (he himself twice quotes in this order) ; he is only concerned with the difference of "cognoscit" and " cognovit." Again, this passage is usually referred to the Marcosians, because Irengeus in Book I. (20, 3) has quoted the
verse in the version of the Marcosians.
iv.
But
in the context {vide
quoting Justin's work against These Marcion) he is dealing with the followers of Marcion. heretics are doubtless in the forefront of his mind though he may also be thinking of the Marcosians, who had in the main the same reading of this passage as Marcion. Moreover, the two quotations, i. 20, 3 and iv. 6, 1, vary somewhat from one another. Where IrenKus gives the Marcosian version of the saying (i. 20, 3), he
1
ff.
;
iv.
6,
here he
is
writes
kolI
rhv vlov
;
ei
/xt)
6 iraTTjp /cat <^ Av 6 vios diroKa\ij\//ri (so
also
the Old Latin)

^^
in
our passage he represents the heretics as
Nee filium nisi pater, et cui voluerit filius revelare.'* reading: This " nee" is also given by the disciple of Marcion in Adamantius.
284

with
^
:
and
ning
t
"
knowing
the
Son
*"
at
the
begin-
e-yiô)
Tov Trarepa
top viov (without a verb)

;
eyvo)
63 [bis^ Marcosians in Iren., Justin, Apol.j i. 20, 3; Marcion in Iren., iv. 6, 1. TOV Trarepa Tatian ^ eypco tov vlov Euseb., Demonstr., iv. 3, 13 Euseb., Demonstr., v. 1 ; Euseb., De Eccl. Theol., i. 12
i.
. . .
:
(probably " novit

.
also
.
.
Orig.,
").
De Princ,
:
ii.
6,
novit
.
. .
kyvoo
TOV iraTepa
ciple of
Marcion
the disyivwcTKei tov vlov in Adamantius (p. 44, ed.

ttotg tov vlov
van de Sande),
cyvo)
TOV Trarepa
Hist. Eccl.,
yvcorj
Euseb.,
i.
2.
.
.
.
hyvijo
TOV Trarepa Horn., xvii. 4

.
olêv
rov
[ii<?],
vlov
Clem.
xviii. 4,
. .
13
20.
[eyvdi
TOV Trarepa without the parallel clause Clem. Alex., (thus an imperfect quotation) Protrept., i. 10; Paedag., i. 5, 20 and i. 8;
:
^ A dagger marks the passages in which only one verb is found the passages in which the quotation is imperfect i.e. where only one of the two clauses is given are included within brackets. I have paid no attention to the difference between tov Trarepa and
Tt's
iiJTLv 6 Ttar-qp,
because the more circumstantial phrase practically

quite certain;
never occurs. ^ The order
is
"novit" presupposes ^yvu. The "novit" which is found in a few Old Latin MSS. of St. Luke certainly = ^7'w for the great majority of these MSS. give (in St. Luke) "scit." Codex Veronensis (b) forms one of the minority, it reads here: "Nemo novit patrem nisi filius et que .bit [ = novit] fili nisi pater voluerit,
;
.
it
is
not certain that Moesinger's
(Perhaps for "que" we should read "qui[s]" vide "q.") The reading 'i-^vu is also attested by Cod. Vercell. (a) for the " reading here of this important codex vide infra as well as by q."
&c."
EXCURSUS
Strom.,
V. 81^, vii.
285
58
Origen, Selecta in Ps.

c.
[T. 11, p. 393,
Lomm.];
Cels.,
ii.
71,
vii.
44; on St. John, p. (20), 49, 248, 301, 334, 474 f. (ed. Preuschen), &c. ; ^ Concil. Antioch. Samos. c. Paulum Euseb., Eclog., i. 12. ; De Tertull. adv. Marc, ii. 27 {cognovit)
;
Praescr.,
21
(iiovit)].
'\
eyvw TOP Clem. i. 178
vlov
tov irarepa (without a verb)

Paedag.,
i.
Alex.,
;
9,
88
Strom.,
clause
St.
Orig.,
.
c.
.
Cels., vi. 17.
[eyvci)
TOV vlov
without the
parallel
:
(thus an imperfect quotation)

olSe
Orig. on
John, p. 474]. TOV vlov

.
eyvM
tov
iraTepa
Epiph.,
Haer., Qo-^ 6.
Now
first
follow quotations without eyvw. Again we " " Father the which in those knowing give
:
comes at the beginning t yiv(ioaKi TOV iraTepa

verb)
:
tov vlov (without a

.
Justin, Dial., 100.^

. .
f yivcocTKei t/? ecTTiv 6 iraTy^p

:
Tf? o
vlo<s
(with-
out a verb) Marcion [according to Tertull., iv. 25, but according to Iren. and Adamant. of St. Luke. e'VKt), vide supra]^ Cod.
without the parallel TOV TraTepa [yLvo)(TKeL Clem. clause (thus an imperfect quotation)
.
Alex., Strom.,
1
vii.
109.]
"Eyvio is also
later
2
found in other quotations in Origen and even in Alexandrians {e.g. Alexander and Didymus). Justin here expressly says ev ry evayyeXli^) yiypaTrrai. eliriov.
:
286

rov Trarepa
Iren.,
ii.
.
f eiriyLvwa-Kei
verb):
6,
1, iv.
top vlov (without a 6, 3; fragm. Syr.,
XV. (ed. Harvey).

\e7n'yLvw(rKe(,
rov iraTepa
clause (thus an imperfect quotation) Alex., Dives, 8 ; Iren., iv. 6, 6].

OLê
.
without the parallel Clem.

:
Tov Trarepa olSe rov vlov Epiph., Haer., 69, 43; Ancor., 11. rov vlov (without a verb) t otSe TOV Trarepa 4 Hser., 74, 76, 1, Nr. 29 ; 76, 1, Nr. Epiph.,
.
.
:
32.
[olê
without the parallel clause rov Trarepa an Euseb., De (thus imperfect quotation)
. . .
:
Eccl. Theol.,
i.
16.^]
yivijOG-Kei
rU
ecrriv
:
vl6<s
r/j o Trarrip (with-
out a verb)
St.
Luke (with exception of the

.
.
Codd. U, a, b).2 vlov eTnyivuxTKei rov Trarepa: eTriyivaxTKet rov St. Matt, (so also Syr.""-; only one cursive
.
reverses the order)
Iren., iv. 6, 1.
.
t iTnyiv(jo<TKi
rov vlov
olSe
rov Trarepa (without a

:
verb)
olSe
Iren., iv. 6, 7.
. .
.
rov vlov
54,
4.
rov Trarepa
Epiph., Haer.,
t olSe rov vlov
Epiph., Hser., 64, 9
rov Trarepa (without a verb) 76, 1, Nr. 7.

;
^ Variations in Eusebius are also brought about by his use of the text of Marcellus.
" And 2 A who peculiar variant occurs in Syr.î"- of St. Luke knoweth the Son save the Father, and who knoweth the Father " save the Son?" Et quis novit Cf. the Latin codex "q": " and perhaps also " b/* patrem ?
:
EXCURSUS
Codex
In
the
the text
287
Vercellensis (a) here stands quite by itself. St. Matthew) it omits of St. Liike {not
"
knowing
the Son^'' altogether^
and reads : " Omnia
mihi tradita sunt a patre, et nemo novit quis est pater nisi filius et cuicumque voluerit filius, revelavit."
Before
let us
we give our
:
verdict
on
these
readings,
bring together the
the concluding clause 1 Km w dv /SovXijTai 6 vlos aTroKoXvyâi St. Luke, St. Matthew, Iren. iv. 6, 1, &c. &c. (Syr."- in St. Matthew does not read otherwise).
. :
variants
which occur in
2.
KOI
virrei
Syr.^^^-;
dv ôvXrjraL aTroKoXvyâi avTO^ olttokoX Et cf. cuicumque voluerit filius
revelavit"
3.
KCLL
(a).
dv
VLo^
aTTOKaXvyî]
Marcion
Origen
;
the
Marcosians;
Tert.
i.
De
;
Clem. Alex, (septies); Praescr., 21 (" revelavit ")

;
:
(scepe);
Euseb., Eclog.,
Epiphan. (nonnull. loc). dv aTTO/caXvxf/^; 4. KOLL M Epiph. [s^&pius], both " and " knowing the Son.'' after " knowing the Father Nicetas (after 5. Koi. w dv avTO^ airoKoKv^n knowing the Son ").
:
12
Concil. Antioch.
6.
KOL
w dv
VLo<i
aTroKaXvTTTet
Epiph., Haer.,
:
74, 4.
7.
KOI
oh dv Pov\i]TaL 6
oh
fto? a7ro/caXJ\f/ai
Clem.,
6
Hom.
8.
[quater]}
Koi
vlog:
1
vcl (dv) 6 VLO^ a7ro/caXJ\|/^ a7ro/caXJ\|/^ Justin [te?-], Iren. [ter].

xviii.
The passage, Clem. Hom.
7:
Kal
gives it) hv ôvKifrai 6 vibs dTroKoKv-rrTei, ought consideration, because it is a free quotation.
oh (not y as Blass not to be taken into
288

A
1. section of the Marcionites,^ the Marcosians, Justin (in the " Apology "), (Tatian), the Alexandrians
(Clement, Origen [both practically always], and still and Eusebius (practically always) later writers),
agree in
reading eyva). Accordingly eyvoo is the reading which has in its favour the most ancient
testimony.
is
" the hypothesis is supported by the " novit of the ancient codices Vercellensis Latin and very (a) Veronensis (b) in St. Luke, while the remaining Old
stood in St, Luke;^ for this TTie reading eyvto the reading in Marcion's gospel, and suggested by
2.
Latin codices (with the exception of " q ") read "
scit.''
The
hypothesis finally in the other aorists
receives very strong

eKpv^p-a?,
support
aTre/caXu-vJ/a?, e-yeVero,
TrapeSoOr].^
^
According to the testimony o Irenjeus (and Adamantius).

;
We
well believe that Tertullian read yivwaKei ("scit") in his exemplar of the gospel of Marcion but there is no difficulty in
may
supposing that this reading also found its way into exemplars of Marcion's gospel, although ^yvio was welcome to them. The same thing, therefore, happened with them as with Justin, who also gives
both readings.
If,
however, any one feels bound to take up the
position that Tertullian alone presents the genuine and unique still the number text of Marcion who accordingly read yivuicxKei,
of ancient witnesses for
^71/0;
^71*0;.
is
great enough to compel us to
decide that
2
St.
Luke wrote
the opinion of Blass, Keim, Meyer, and Schmiedel. ^ Weiss, on the contrary, asserts that ^yvu) arose from conformaBut why is it that this conformation takes tion with irapedoOrj.
This
is also
place only in the text of St.
That
Luke and not also in St. Matthew ? was supplanted by yivwa-Kei may however also be exciv airoKa\{i\pri, plained from the fact that the following clause w seemed to demand the present tense in the preceding verb.
^yvo)
:
EXCURSUS
289
3. how it was. can, moreover, conjecture that the reading yipwa-Kei arose in St. Luke, from the remarks of Irenaeus in the passage quoted above ; the present made its way from St. jMatthew into St.
We
Luke and estabhshed
itself
there
as
an anti-
It is ah'eady attested by Justin Marcionitic reading. but in a later work (the Dialogue), and it pre-
dominates in
In
ecclesiastical
the
West
eyuco
manuscripts of Irenaeus. disappeared at an earlier date
than in the East.

4.
The
persistence of eyvco
in the East
is
and
its
correct inter-
pretation
quotations
as
where this
especially manifest in those historic aorist was regarded
when applied to the knowledge of the Father (on the part of the Son), and was accordingly preserved, while a present (in accordance with St. Matthew, vide infra) was inserted into the Lukan
suitable
text
as applied to the knowledge of the Son (on the part of the Father), as in A dam an tins (ywcoa-Kei)
and
5.
Ki,
in
Clem.
Hom.
[five
times] and Epiph. Haer.,
65, 6 (olSep).
In the text of St.
Matthew the
present, eTriyivcocr-
stood from the beginning (eireyvoo does not occur in any authority) it was also from the beginning
;
repeated in the second clause, while the cyi/oy in This formal difference St. Luke was not repeated.
between the two gospels explains those instances of mixed text wherein sometimes the eyvco is repeated (vide Eusebius), sometimes the eTnyu'coa-KeL is not repeated (Irenaeus), while the clauses are sometimes conjoined by Kai, sometimes by ovSe. 6. The reading olSev is found only in the T
290

;
Homilies and in Epiphanius,^ somesometimes times once, repeated in the two clauses thus confined to was it Syria and need not therefore is It be considered. probably to be explained from
Clementine
the influence of the Johannine vocabulary.
B
The
first
clause concerning "
in
" knowing the Father stood Marcion (according to Iren., TertuU., and
Adamant.), in the version of the Marcosians, in Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus (but not always), the Clementine
Homilies, Eusebius, in
in
Codex U of St. Luke (and Codex Veronensis), while the clause concerning " " stood first in the text of St. knowing the Son Matthew (with the exception of one cursive, which means nothing), in the remaining authorities for St. Luke, and in Clement of Alexandria. Irenaeus, Origen, the later Alexandrians and Epiphanius,
attest both
tion of the
The soluarrangements of the clauses. these facts seeing problem presented by ^ is that Marcion had the Lukan text before him
knowing the Father" certainly stood first, and that the conWe trary was probably the case in St. Matthew. cannot be quite certain about the passage in St. Matthew, only because we have no instance of quotation of the text of St. Matthew before Irenasus and
that in St.
.
Luke the
clause concerning "
1 The one place in Eusebius is an imperfect quotation, which has no weight. 2 For this very reason it is not permissible to explain the precedence of this clause by the influence of oral tradition or of an
apocryphal gospel.
EXCURSUS
Clement of Alexandria
ever,
is
;
291
the witness of Irenaeus, how-
divided.
In regard to the concluding clause 1. It is certain that 6 vlog was repeated in

:
it
for
the omissions in Syr. ^^^^' in Epiphanius (often) and Nicetas (who substitutes avro^), are of no account in
the criticism of the text.
2.
The
short form a7ro/caXJ\|/>; (for ôvXfjraL airo-
KaXvâi) has earlier attestation than the other, seeing that it occurs in Marcion, in the Marcosian version, a rule), Clement of' Justin (thrice), Irenaeus (as
Alexandria, Origen (often), &c. 3. The form oh av has excellent
Justin,
sponsors
in
Irenaeus
(except
in
one passage), and the
Clementine Homilies, but Marcion cosians do not give it.

4.
and the Mar(âireKaXvêv)

in
The
^^^'',
indicative
airoKaXvirTei
Cod. Vercell. (" revelavit ; so also TertulL, Syr. De Prsescr.,"" 21, but this does not say much), and
once in Epiph.,
this reading.
is
"
too weakly attested for us to follow
Result We have now no means of determining co av o vlog which of the three forms ^ airoKoXvî]
:
oFy
av 6
KaXvyj/ai had different
vlo<i
aTroKaXvyp-rj

ch
dv jSovXtjTai o vio^ airofirst this
is
the original, whether at
clause
forms in St. Matthew and St. Luke, and how these readings were distributed between the two
evangelists.
^
On
the strength, however, of the

is
testi-
the Clementines,
The reading oh av ôvXrjTaL 6 vlbs aTroKaXurJ/ai and thus falls out of account.
only attested by
292
mony
of Marcion, it is probable that S> dv 6 V169 airostood in St. Luke, especially seeing that the Ka\v>\rii Marcosians also give this reading, and that they also (vide supra) have followed the Lukan text.^
D
The
that in St.
iravra
T19
jULt]
result of our investigations up to this point is Luke the saying read as follows
:
julol
irapeooQr)
ei
viro
jutj
ecTTiv
o iraTrjp
Kal
(h
kcu ovê\<s TraTjOo?, eyvta o fto?, Kai ti? icmv 6 vlo9 el
tov
6 warrjp Matthew iravra

:
dv o vlog airoKaXvyÛj but in St.

TrapeSoOt] viro
el
jmrj
.
juoi
tov Trarpog,
Koi.
ovSeig 7riyiv(jO(TKei
tov vlov
el
juli]
o TraTô, ovSe tov
iraTepa
.
tl<s
eTriyivcoa-Kei
.
.
o uio?
TOV vlov
6 viog [vel : tov waTepa o iraTrjp'] kcu w \oLii\

.
dv ôvXfjTai o viog airoKaXvyâi [vel: dv 6 vlog airo-
But can we remain

is
satisfied
with this result
It
impossible, for the following reasons. first consider the Lukan text)
:
(Let us at
do not at all expect to find the clause 1. " " in this connection concerning knowing the Son of it course cannot be said to be a discrep(though
ancy) for this ascription of praise is concerned both at the beginning and the close with the Tcnowledge of God.
;
We
%
*
b.v
The
historic aorist "
"
eyvoo
suits
excellently the
It is possible to suppose that the original form read : <^ (ofs) ôv\T]Tai 6 vlbs aTroKa\6irTiv diroKaXuTrrei, and that from this the
;
two shorter forms were derived but this cannot be proved. AiroKoKv-^rj and ôvXTjrai airoKokvypai, may, besides, be taken as
^
translation-variants, if ov\rjTaL oTro/caXt/ât a periphrasis for the future.
is
regarded as simply
EXCURSUS
293
Son's knowledge of the Father, hut it does not suit so well the Father's knowledge of the Son ; this has been
noticed by thoughtful copyists, who have tried to overcome the difficulty in various ways {vide supra). 3. The clause Kai w av 6 vlo9 airoKa\v>î] only
eyvco tU e<TTiv 6 irarrip el /urj 6 uto?? but not the other clause with which it is connected above in St. Luke (the Son is God^s interpreter and not
suits the clause ovê\<s
His own). This also has been correctly copyists, who have accordingly overcome the
seen by the
difficidty
by
transposition^ (or even by changing vlog into which then refers to the Father).
4.
avros,
In Cod.
Vercell.
of
St,
Luke we even now read
(vide supra) the saying, without the clause concerning " ^ knowledge of the Son.'^
In
my
opinion,
we are simply forced

the zvords
^'
to the conclusion
that in St.
jjit]
Luke
Ka\
tU
ccttlv 6 vlog el
6 irarrip'''' were wanting.^ If they were xvanting in St.
wanting in
however, it whether the
Q;*
is
this
Luke, they were also without Then, goes saying.
relatively insignificant question evangelist is to be regarded as or whether originally responsible for their insertion,
first
1 But the transposition creates a new difficulty, seeing that "the knowing of the Son" now comes before "the knowing of the Father," which is very strange both in itself and in its context. 2 The readings of this codex elsewhere are of great weight. 3
On
behalf of the originality of the words an appeal
is
nciade
rhythmic structure of the saying, which it is said demands them. But even without these words a rhythm is present, and I do not see that with their addition the rhythm is a better one. * This is also Wellhausen's opinion ; but he does not enter
to the
closely into the history of the text.
294

On
this
they were also wanting in the first gospel.^ point one cannot arrive at any definite
decision.
At
all
all
our
events the interpolation is very ancient ; for authorities for St. Matthew and all our
authorities,
except
one,
for
St.
Luke
have
it.
The most
is
that
text
probable, because the simplest, hypothesis " St. Matthew " himself brought it into
the
the
historic
(xxviii.
aorist
into
same evangelist who changed the the present and who wrote
power is given unto me in It is not quite certain what heaven and in earth." it is, however, to the he gave position interpolation first it the that he gave place extremely probable for this is in accordance with the testimony of the
18)
:
" All
MSS., and the history of the text is most simply explained on such an hypothesis. If Greek Christians possessed from the beginning the two forms ouêl? eyvoo rig ea-TLv 6 oJfêl? eTnyivixxTKei irarhp /x>7 6 f/o?, and
: :
TOP vlov
el
/mr]
el
jULt]
VLO^
6 Traryyo, ovSe tov Trarepa T19 eiriyivoiorKet then all the mixed forms of text,
together with their early appearance, are explained in the simplest way.^ The interpolation into the Lukan text of the words " The Son no one save
^
So far as the content

in St.
is
concerned, the clause shows

;
itself as
an interpolation
is
is
Matthew
it
placed at the beginning
as clearly as in St. Luke for if it conflicts with the natural order (it
to the Son that the knowledge of the Father is delivered, and the knowledge of the Son ought not to stand before the knowledge
of the Father) clause is out of
2
;
if it
is
placed at the end, then the concluding

it.
harmony with
have therefore no need to have recourse also to the influence of a distinct oral tradition different from that of the Of course such an influence gospels, or to an apocryphal gospel. remains possible.
We
EXCURSUS
the Father," marks the
at once, while
295
first important step towards been taken almost which must have intermixture,
the
change of the aorist

St.
'iyvdi
into
the present marks the second step.^ The saying thus ran in Q as in
nearly as in
Kvpie
St.
Luke
(or
oltto
Luke)
iô/uLoXoyovjuiaL
"y^?,
croi,
Trare/o,
Tov ovpavov Kai
rrjg
on
Kpv\âg ravra
vrjirloL^'
Kai crvveTOdv Kai a7r/caXi'\{/-a? avra crocpoov 6 on ovrcog iyevero evSoKia Trarrjp,
vai,
e/ixTrpocrOev
crov.
Travra
julol
TOV iraTepa
(p
7rapeS60>j viro tov irarpo^, kou oJêl? eyv(a \yel: ri? eaTLv 6 iraTrip^ ei fj-rj 6 vioi koi
av o vio^ air OKaAvyj/yj.

Ill
The
for
says
<'
source gave
in
situation
which
this
iv cKelvo)
nothing.
rw Kaipcp aTroKpiOeh Îtjcrovg eiirev Nor may we draw any conclusion

the
no information concerning the thanksgiving was spoken, " 6

thanksgiving
from the
1
fact that in the source
In quotations of the passage torn from its context the Lukan form t/s iaTiv 6 irari^p (and rls ianv 6 vl6s) almost everywhere disappears. No weight is, however, to be assigned to this circumThat the original readings should have entirely disappeared stance. in the Greek MSS. of St. Luke, and almost entirely in the Latin
:
is unfortunately by no means exceptional. Compare, e.g., the true Lukan text has disappeared in the Lord's Prayer " {vide Sitzungsber. d. Preuss. Akad., 1904," s. 195 ff.), or how (bpeldiaas in St. Mark xv. 34 has been deleted from the whole tradition of the East (id. 1901, s. 261 S.). The Lukan text has been far more thoroughly corrected from that of St. Matthew than our textual critics are inclined to admit. Our passage also bears
MSS.,
how
witness to this fact.
It is
worthy of note that
St.
John
i.
18 (Oedv
oiSels U}paKev TrcoTrore* 6 fJLOvoyev7]% vlbs 6 ibv els rbv KbXirov tov iraTpbs, cKeivos i^TjyâaTo) has had as good as no influence upon the textual
history of our saying.
^96

Galilean
(or soon after) the condemnation of that the passages are cities, seeing
followed after
the
in a contrary sense.-^ have thus to deal with which an isolated saying has, however, been torn from
We
shown hy the "rayra" at the This fact of itself speaks against the " Christian hypothesis that our thanksgiving is a " such an hymn ; in independent composition this " ravra " would have been avoided.
a
definite context, as is
beginning.
retrospective
The
occasion
first
half of
the
first
saying presents
no
for
giving to that this

addresses
as
act
Our Lord offers thanksthe Father openly are we perhaps to say

objection.
Lord
for
inconsistent with St. Matt. vi. 6 ? He " as Father Father ") and (not of heaven and earth so great is the Divine
is
Him
My
which praise
is
given
the context plainly
shows that the thanksgiving is for something connected with our Lord'*s teaching i.e. His revelation of
God (not with miracles, &c.) ; for it only in regard to teaching that men are called and prjirioi} This distinction, and the statearocpoL
the knowledge of
is
ment that the

^
i/y]7rioi
show themselves
receptive,^
is
Luke, very suitably so far as the thought is concerned, places the thanksgiving directly after the return of the disciples from their missionary journey, but it is quite improbable that this order rests upon tradition, because this evangelist also gives the condemnation of the cities just beforehand.
St,
2
Whether we are
to lay
any
is
stress
article before ao(pol
and
vrjTLoi
questionable.
be interpreted as a limitation (not all simple) its force can, however, also be rendered by the paraphrase " " " from such to such people as are simple." people as are wise
;
upon the absence of the The absence can the wise and not all the
:
The
different
K^TTioi
significance of priinoL (" Peta'im," as in Ps. xix. 8, cxvi. G) is from that of the word with St. Paul. In St. Paul the
are always Christians
who
are
still
undeveloped like children.
EXCURSUS
297
quite in accordance with other sayings of our Lord, and is therefore not peculiar. He, however, praises
the Father, not only for the revelation vouchsafed to the viîTLoi, but also because the Father has hidden
There is knowledge from the wise and prudent. a hai'sh note here which already sounded intolerable
this
it is also heard in other sayings and an indication of genuineness. Moreover, we must here notice the aorists not what God always does, but what He had done on the present occasion in the success of the ministry of Jesus was the subject
is
:
to Marcion, but
of the thanksgiving. Hence some instance of success of this kind, notorious to all, which has not however been transmitted in history, must have preceded the
thanksgiving.
The
val takes
up the
ePojuoXoyovjuLai,
and the
(Tov
The
soul
eyepero ejuLTrpoaOev takes up the thought of the preceding clause.^ overpowering glory of the experience in the
clause
on
ovrcog evSoKia
most naturally constrained the tongue to such

dominates and dethe first half our
repetition in the thanksgiving.^ The first half of the saying
termines
the
second
half.
In
Lord gives thanks for that which had happened (the revelation of the knowledge of God), in the second
half
He gives clear expression to the fact that this revelation had been vouchsafed throiigh Himself; for it was just the success of His own ministry that incited
*
Cf. St. Matt, xviii. 14

v/jlQv.
oCtwj {ovk)
Hcxtlv 6^\r]fia
ifxirpoa-Oev
toO
varphs
'Evdoda reminds us of the
evSoK-rjaa at
the Baptism.
' Also the vocative ird-e/o is taken up by 6 Tarrip, but is this " Thou who a simple repetition 7 May not 6 irar-qp here signify, The word oi/rws can only refer backwards, and art the Father." has nothing to do with the introduction of what follows.
298

to offer praise.
Him
Thus what
follows necessarily
connects with what goes before. The iravra is exactly determined by what goes before and by what follows,
It cannot mean TrapeSoOtj. but only the whole doctrine (the doctrine is paradosis "), the complete revelation of the know" It has been " delivered to Him by ledge of God.^ the Father, and indeed first to Him the Son He has now learnt to know the Father before Him no one knew the Father ^ then through Him to those who
as well
as
"
all
"
by the verb
things
1 We have no choice but either to give Trdfra an entirely unlimited significance (the government of the world, the Messianic povêr and authority), or to refer it to the knowledge (doctrine) as
do Grotius, Hofmann, Holtzmann, Schmiedel, Joh. Weiss, WellThe latter alternative is, however, alone hausen, and others. possible, seeing that the passage proceeds at once to speak, and to speak exclusively, of the knowledge of God, and seeing that
the preceding airoKa\v\pii contrast between (ro(f>ol and
by the a revelation of a knowledge. The objection that Trapadidopai can only be used of human transmission of teaching, and that the word therefore cannot have this sense here (Pfleiderer), is perverse. In St. Matt. " " " xxviii. 18, we do not read i566i] yuot irdaa iôvala Trapedodt]," but
is
unequivocally determined,
to
v-qinoi
which
it
refers, as
ev oupavi^ Kal iirl 797?.

2
The
;
clear
it is
Kal {ovdels ^yvu) after vapedodrj {vTrb toO irarpSs) is not quite easiest to take it as explicative or rather consecutive.
" The knowledge of the Father is included in the delivery of the " complete doctrine," or The knowledge of the Father follows upon this delivery." Weiss, on the contrary, supposes that the clause introduced by Kai gives the essential ground for the iravra /xoi So indeed we are compelled to interpret, if with Weiss wapedSdr].
we accept
the words, "
No man knoweth
the Son save the Father,"
and regard
their position at the beginning as correct; for this clause can be regarded neither as an explanation of nor as giving
But of course we are forced the result of irdvTa fioi irapebbdr}. simply to read into this clause the idea that it gives the ground of what goes before, for no hint of this is given in the passage The words indeed fall quite out of the context. If one itself.
EXCURSUS
:
299
were receptive, of whom it is therefore now true, just as of the Son, that irdvra avroig irapeôdrj. In this train of thought, when it is compared with
the utterances of our Lord, which are certainly genuine, there are two elements which might be regarded as first, the abstract distinction that is drawn strange " in the terms " the Father and " the Son," then the
:
assertion that "
No man
has known the Father save

distinction
is
the
Son."
The same
vioi^,
also
xiii.
(according to Wellhausen) in St.

01
Mark
found 32 (pvê
in
ayyeXoL ovSe 6
el
fxr]
6 Trarrjp),^
and that
a saying which denies our Lord's knowledge of the future, and thus assuredly belongs to the most ancient
tradition.
However, as to the
ovSei^,
it
ought not
to be pressed nor taken as Marcion interprets it, as if it implied a rejection of the prophets of the Old
Testament. Luke X. 24
It
:
says
no more than
is
said in
St.
Kai (Saa-iXei^ jjOeXijcav TrpodytjraL iSeiv d vjueig /SXeVere koI ovk elSav, or in the wôrds
ttoWol
concerning the Baptist and the least in the On the other hand, importance of God.
Kingdom
is
to be
assigned to the aorist eyvco (in distinction from the present). Nothing is said of a relationship of the Son
to the Father that
is
ever abiding
to
say nothing
takes one's stand on the correct text, we should at first expect the passage to run in the following form "All has been delivered to Me by the Father, and I alone have learned to know Him, and
:
he to whomsoever I will to reveal Him." But it is quite intelligible that "the Son" should have taken the place of "I," seeing that " I " showed itself as " Son" in the this very fact of this complete and primary knowledge.
1
Cf. also St.
Luke
of
xxii.
29
'iva
6 irari]p fiov ttjv âaCkdav,

iv
^<j6r]Te
ry
âfftXeiq.
/jlov,
which the "antiquity
Kaydi dtariOefxac viitv Kadu:^ Siidero fioi Kai Tii>rjTe iirl ttjs Tpaire^'rjS fiov "
is
unmistakable.
800
of timeless
on the contrary, this eyvco also stands ; within the sphere of the eôjuLoXoyov/mai kt\. at the beginning our Lord offers thanksgiving to the Father because He has delivered to Him all knowledge, because
:
He
the
the Son
because
He
prjirioi,
is the first to learn to know the Father, the Father has revealed this knowledge to and because it will continue to be revealed
The passage throughout only through Him the Son.^ deals with circumstances of actual historic fact.
If the saying belongs to the best
and most ancient
tradition, it can have been spoken by our Lord only during the later period of His ministry, and it further
presupposes that during this period our Lord upon other occasions called Himself " the Son." This connecessarily be disputed by those who themselves bound not to allow our Lord any suppose other self-designation than that of a Teacher, of a
clusion
will
at the close of His ministry of the Prophet, and Messiah. But the transition from the future designations of Teacher and Prophet to that of the future
Messiah demands, both in the self-consciousness of Jesus and also in outward expression, some middle
term, and
the
it is difficult
to see
why
it
tradition must be
supposed to be in error
designation
when
Son.""
" the
presents us here with If this could mean
absolutely
nothing else than "/ am the present but the Messiah," then it would be unintelligible concrete situation in which om* Lord found Himself
;
limited the sphere of significance of the expression At the preboth for Himself and for His hearers.
1 Note how the two halves of the saying are brought into correspondence by dneKaXv^J/as and aroKa\v\f/y.
EXCURSUS
sent
301
He
is
the Chosen One, the Beloved One, thus the
He that is, soon Son, and therefore in the future will come in the clouds of heaven and will receive the
office
of Messiah, whose function
is
essentially active.
If criticism can produce no valid objections against the tradition that our Lord towards the end of His
ministry called Himself the Son of of Daniel), so, in my opinion, there

for
Man
(in the sense
is still less
ground
genuineness of the tradition that our Lord called Himself " the Son,^'
hesitation
in
accepting the
absolutely impossible to imagine how He could have arrived at the conviction that He was the
because
it is
future Messiah without
knowing Himself as standing in an unique relationship to God. What, however, our Lord in this passage says of Himself as the Son, not in goes beyond what is expressed in other sayings,
first
the thought
1
itself,
but only in
its
pregnant form.^
historical witness to the antiquity,
bring forward an even to the genuineness of this saying. I do not share the confidence with which lately countless conceptions and words of St. Paul are traced back to utterances of our Lord ; but whenever I read 1 Cor. i. 19, 21 {yeypairTai ydp aTToXw TTjv (xocpiav tQv aotpuiv, Kalrrjv avveaLV tQv (rvveruv ddeTrjao} iirel yhp iv ry aocpig, toO deov ovk iyvta 6 KSafJLOs 5ta (ro<pias t6u Qebv, evSSKrjcrev 6 debs Sia ttjs fiuipiai rov Ki^piyfiaros (xCxrai Toiis TTtcTTevovTas), I am ever again struck by the coincidence here both in thought and vocabulary with our saying, though all of course has passed through the crucible of the Pauline mind. Nevertheless, imfrom attaining pressions are deceptive, and are in this instance far " Das to the dignity of a proof. Urchristentum," i.' Pfleiderer,
In
conclusion, I
would with
all reserve also
s.
pendent upon
very probable that the saying is devqirioc is not Pauline {vide supra), and " the specifically Pauline thought that the real knowledge of Christ and of God is hidden from the natural man and is only revealed to human perception by the Spirit of God," is simply read by Pfleiderer into our text, which is concerned with a contrast of quite
435
f.,
thinks that
it is
St. Paul.
But
a different nature.
302

;
The original version of the saying (in Q) may be defended on good grounds but the canonical version " in both gospels is " Johannine in character and indefensible. the of the clause, " no
By interpolation man knoweth the Son save the Father"
before the
clause concerning " knowledge of the Father," and by the change of the aorist into the present, the whole
so seriously complexion of the saying is altered^ altered that even the significance of the Toura and " the Trdvra in the clause " Travra juloi tends irapeSoOr]
to
become a matter of doubt.^ formal likeness of Father and Son, who are distinguished only by the different names, and a relationship of Father and Son which never had a beginning, but remains ever the
same,
now come
absolutely
to expression. Of course we are not thus to obliged interpret the canonical
saying,^ yet we cannot by any method of interpretation make it much less metaphysical.* If the first
^
Note also that by the interpolation the rhythmic structure of
the saying is emphasised. This is not unimportant in reference to the question whether, and in what measure, the rhythms in the
sayings of Jesus are original. ^ In logical consequence an attempt was now made also to change irapedSdi] into irapadeooTai {vide supra, Justin and Hippolytus),
but this correction is no longer found in the manuscripts. 3 We can also interpret the present eTnyivibaKei in St. Matthew, as if it were determined by the preceding irapedodi], and therefore as if it were not to be understood as timeless but as describing
the result of an historical action.
" The s. 441) expounds the passage as follows {'.' Matth.," thus not only the agent of revelation, who imparts the knowledge of God to those who are receptive, but He is also Himself a mystery, which was at first hidden from man and which needed a revealing. The Son belongs to the objects (raura) which are now opened to knowledge. The knowledge of the Son as the only Son of God, in the full sense of the word, is inseparably
*
Zahn
is
Son
EXCURSUS
303
evangelist himself wrote the passage as we read it, then even with the most cautious interpretation of the
his own Christology approached very passage nearly to that of the Johannine writings in one of the most
important points, and it can therefore be only due to his relatively faithful reproduction of his sources that this characteristic does not more frequently appear in
his gospel.
IV
The second
saying, which in St.

first,
immediately after the

of those
has come
Matthew follows down to us only
connected with the knowledge of God as the Father of Jesus and who become sons because they belong to Jesus. It is, however, significant that the knowledge of the Son is mentioned first. This is the new fact, that which distinguishes the present revelation from all which preceded it the fact of a Man whom to know is the way to attain to the knowledge of God. For this very reason the knowledge of God, which is now attainable, is a new We moderns would say With the personality of Jesus a thing.
While, concernreligion, Christianity, came into existence. ing the knowledge of the Father, it is expressly said that the Son alone imparts it, a corresponding statement in regard to the
new
It is, however, obvious that knowledge of the Son is wanting. this knowledge can only be imparted by Him, of whom it is said that He alone possesses such knowledge namely, the Father. The Father reveals the Son as the Son reveals the Father [I]. As, however, the knowledge of the Father and the knowledge of the Son are only two sides of the same mystery which is now revealed, it folloivs that the Father and the Son in fellowship with one another " are both subject and object of the Revelation [the italics are mine].
This is quite enough to help us to a definite decision concerning the historical character of the saying as given in St. Matthew. It is noteworthy that Zahn's exegesis justifies the placing of the clause " concerning knowing the Sou" at the beginning, while this place was really given to it because it was felt to be absolutely necessary not to separate the clause, *'and to whomsoever the Son will reveal
Him," from the clause concerning "the knowledge
of the Father."
304
in the

:
Gospel of St. Matthew. Scarcely any variants found in the versions and quotations (1) In verse 28 Trai/re? is wanting in Tatian (2) in the same author, ^êt qui habetis graves afflictiones (or "onera gravia") was probably interpolated before ^ Koi. (3) in verse 29 Ephraem quotes 7r(popTi<T/uLvoi ;
are
;
*'"'
OTL
i](Tvy6^
eijuii,
Trpav^
Kai
eirieiKrj^
kcu Taireivo^ tii
KapSla, consideration
sm.
The
;
omission of Trdvreg is alone worthy of this omission also occurs in Syr.^"^- and
ejULou
gyj,
'Att'
in verse
29
is,
so far as I
know,
never wanting in the Versions and in quotations ; it is not therefore permissible to delete it on the sole
authority of
fc<
This saying whose Aramaic origin is unmistakis from the able point of view of rhythm still better
(pr. man.).
constructed than the former saying, and is dominated by the conceptions (poprlov and avdiravcrig. It runs
as follows
:
AevTc
TTjOO? jue (Trat/re?)
oi
KOTricovre^ koi
irecpop-
TlCTjULeVOl,
Kctyui)
avairavcrco ujudg'
/mov e<p'
vjulcl^
"A.pare tov 'Qjyov

K.ai
jULaOere
dir'
ejuiou,
on
irpdv's
el/ui
Kal Taireivog
Til KapSla, Ka\ vpri<TTe dvairavcnv raig xj/uâ?? vjulcov
yap ûyog
julov )(^p^](Tt6<s,
Kai
1
TO (popTLOv
JULOV
eXa(pp6u
(ecTTiv).
variants in Pistis Sophia and Agathangelus are of no In Pseudoaccount, seeing that thej are mere paraphrases; " Venite ad me omnes cyprian adv. Jud. 7, the saying reads qui
:
The
sub onera laboratis, et ego vos reficiam . . est enim iugum meum placidum et onus [the African version read sarcina,' vide Tertullian and Cyprian] levissimum.*'
.
'
EXCURSUS
It
is
305
addressed, not to the circle of disciples, but to those standing outside ; yet it has in view, not the
but those who were suffering under the burden of the heavy yoke of ordinances.^ It should therefore be compared with St. Matt, xxiii. 4.
vriirioL (still less
sinners),
The form
of this saying is similar to that of the preAs there the first thought is for the ceding saying. revelation itself, and then this revelation is described as being brought about by the Son, so here there is " rest,'' and then it first a general proclamation of the is attained rest this that said is through the accept-
ance of His yoke. The conception avairava-i^ reminds us of the Beatitudes and of the conclusion of a saying which is handed down in the gospel of the Hebrews
(/3a(Ti\v<Ta^)
eiravaiTava-eTaL^
the
second
half
is
founded upon Jer. vi. 16.^ The outward form minds us of the saying in St. Mark vi. 31 êvre
:
re.
avairava-ea-de,
and the
passage which
situation brings to mind the immediately follows in St. Mark (verse
34)
etêv irokvv o-)(\ov, koI ecrirKayyvLcrQ}] eir^ avrovf,
on
^crav
ft)?
Trpo/Bara
ixrj
e-ôvra Troifxepa.
:
Also the
1 Perhaps this interpretation is too definite ol KoiriCovTe^ signifies " " those who are wearied ; but from the combination in general of TecpopTKTfiivoi and fiddere air' ifiov, it can with probability be deduced that our Lord had in His eye those who stood under the
burden
of Pharisaic teachers
and
of Pharisaic legal observance.

s.
Vide
"
Sitzungsber.
1904,"
175
ff. ;
tw^'^v
avaTravatv,
St.
Matt.
3
xii. 43.
ef.
The whole saying is full of reminiscences of the Old Testament, above all Isa. Iv. 1 (also xiv. 3, xxviii. 12); Jer. xxxi. 25; Note that Jer. vi. 16 is given in an independent Isa. xlii. 2. translation ; for avairavcri.^ is not found in the LXX version of the This is important in connection passage where ayvta/xdi is read.
with the question of the origin of the saying.
306
commandments
concerned
compared with the burdens which were imposed by the scribes, they are a "gentle"^ yoke and a light ^ burden. The " " Kal " before " be taken as and the
are a yoke,^ like all deal with doctrine and life, but
of Jesus
for with these the saying
is
commandments that
judOere consecutive, ma?/ should not be taken as casual ; we trans" Thus will late therefore ye learn of Me,* that I am meek and lowly." ^ In these words our Lord assigns
on
to His personality a significance both in relation to the character of His commandments and also indirectly in relation to their appropriation ; in this point, therefore, there exists a distinct connection in
thought with the former saying. It was just this connection in thought and inward " St. Matthew " to relationship that moved place the one saying directly after the other but this can scarcely have been their original relative posi;
tions, for the situation

^
presupposed in each of the

Commandments)
rhv rpdxoôv tQv
iaxvcafi^v
In Didache
6,
the doctrine (the

Cf.
of Jesus
are called
Treipd^'eTe
"6
^vybs toO Kvplov.^^

9e6v,
also Acts xv.
10: vvv odp rl

ixadrjTQiv,
rhv
oi
iwideLvaL
ijfiQiv
^vyov
is
iirl
8v
oiire
Traripes
the Kabbinic writers, ments.

2
"
yoke
oUre "
"^yuets
fiaaTacrai.
With
a technical term for commandSt.
Xpr)crT6s is
found again in the gospels only in
Luke
v. 39,
vi.
35
1
and
in the latter passage it is used of God, so also in Rom. ii. 4 Pet. ii. 3 (from the Psalms). XprjaT&rrjs is likewise often
used of God. Both the Latin versions and Syr.'''i' translate x/>'?o"r6s in our passage by " suavis." ^ 'E\a0/)6s is only found again in the New Testament in 2 Cor.
iv. 17.
*
Mauddpeiv
iii.
d-irb
i.
Tivoi also in St.
Mark
xiii.
28
(St.
Matt. xxiv. 32)
Gal.
"
Col.
;
Heb.
v. 8.
TaTLv6i
only here in St. Matthew.
EXCURSUS
307
two sayings is different ;^ the first saying is concerned with the knowledge of God and its revelation, the second with directions for the conduct of life besides
;
this,
is
the
first
saying
is
a thanksgiving, the
is
second
derived
it
the cry of a missionary preacher.^ is not certain that the second saying
Moreover,
If from Q, seeing that it is wanting in St. Luke. its inward relationship to the first saying be brought forward as an argument in favour of its belonging to Q, it must not be forgotten that the first saying is unique in Q and does not represent a type of
In favour of its belonging sayings in that source. to Q one might appeal to the fact that while the
beginning of the first saying seems to be fashioned after Sirach li. 1 {eôfJ.oKoyriaroiJ.al croi, Kvpie /3acriXei/), so also the second saying has parallels in Sirach li.
(verse 23 eyy la- are irpo^ /me, verse 26 toj/ rpayjikov vwo ^vyov, verse 27 Kai eupov ejuavru) vTroOere vjuLU)v
:
:
:
But these parallels are too avaTravaiv). Hence the question, of much to be weight. general from what source the first evangelist derived this
iroWr]];
saying,
must remain open.
to assume that this I see from was derived secondary tradition ? saying no convincing reasons for such a supposition certainly not in the form of the saying, for it is mere the most ancient tradition perversity to assert that
Are we, however, compelled
It is
much more
is
original in St. Luke continuation in xiii. 16, 17
more
probable that the continuation of the saying St. Matthew has this (x. 23, 24) but this also does not admit of
proof.
2
AeCre occurs often in
St.
Matthew
it is
not,
to this gospel
among
the writings of the
New
however, peculiar Testament.
308
could not have represented Jesus as speaking in this way, or that Jesus could not have so spoken ; nor
general content, for it cannot be doubted that our Lord regarded those who were plagued with the Pharisaic ordinances as heavy laden, and
in
its
that He promised rest to such persons (the word " souls " Neither, finally, ought not to be pressed).^
tent of the saying
can such reasons be deduced from the specific connamely, that a man after accept-
His yoke would learn of Him that He was for though this peculiar form of self-assertion is unique there is no want of selfassertion elsewhere, even in tradition which is quite
ing
meek and lowly
trustworthy.
^
Here
it
is
probably Messianic,^ and
There was no need to say wherein the rest consisted ; and the question whether it belonged to this world or to the coming Kingdom is not to the point here. If it is certain that our Lord devoted Himself to the relief of the sick and diseased, then these Koiriwvres are covered by the saying. * Isa. xlii. 2 and allied passages probably stand in the background. It is most noteworthy that there is here absolutely no This could scarcely have reference to the cross and the death. been wanting in a Christian hymn of later times. Jesus simply says that meekness and lowliness are to be learned from Him, and
will find rest nothing else. The saying take up their cross and follow Him is at all events later than our saying. Moreover, the seeming discrepancy with those commandments in which great emphasis is laid upon keeping the Law, and with those sayings in which it is said that one must through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God, is rather a sign of genuineness than of the contrary. I know of no proof
that the that
meek and lowly
men must
that the primitive
community
to be light with the exception of 1 John v. 3 {at ivToXal avrou /3ape?ai ovK dalv), a passage which perhaps looks backward to our saying. The solution of the discrepancy in the
and His burden
felt
the yoke of Jesus to be easy
mind of our Lord lies in the thought that by His example, from which men are to learn, the commandments become light.
EXCURSUS
St.
:
309
moreover finds noteworthy support in 2 Cor. x. 1. Paul writes there UapaKoXw vjulu^ Sia r^?
koI
eirieiKela^
tov ^picrTOu. Hence by means of the preaching of the Apostle the irpduTrj<: Koi e-TTieiKeia of Christ had become to the Corinthians something that was not only well known and conTrpavTtjTog
stantly spoken about, but also something that partook If then the even of the nature of a set formula.
7rpavTt]9
KOI
7riiKeia
^piarov had
thus
become
quite a technical term, it is not too much to suppose that St. Paul was acquainted with our saying. The contrary hypothesis that 2 Cor. x. 1 was the
source of the saving would be indeed
adventurous.
is
However, here
sufficient for
also
the
evidence
adduced
not
a proof of dependence.
Of the two sayings the first, which is derived from Q, belongs to the best authority which we our Lord, nor can any valid possess concerning
objections be alleged against its content when once it is restored to its original form. The second say-
ing may come from Q, but it can also come from another source ; it is also most probably not the No proof can be continuation of the first saying.
given that it belongs to secondary tradition. In neither case is the verbal accuracy
tradition
of the
of course guaranteed; but it is decisive for the recognition of the relative genuineness of the sayings that in the first saying the whole emphasis
upon the knowledge of God and its revelathe second upon the yoke of Jesus in the sense of commandments; that, further, in the first
is
laid
tion, in
310
saying the primary condition of the knowledge of God is simplicity, while in the second saying *" is meekness the primary condition of the " amiravai^
and
lowliness;
that, moreover, in
(Pharisaic)
"
perfect
ones
""
both sayings the form the contrast and

within
the
everything is horizon ; and,
strictly
confined
Jewish
Jesus finally, that in the first saying is represented as the revealer of the knowledge of God, while in the second He is represented as the
and pattern of the quietistic virtues without a single reference to the Cross and Passion.^ " one understands what If by the word " Gospel St. Paul and St. Mark understood by this word, " and are not " then these
instructor
sayings
gospel
sayings
have nothing in of Paulinism.

assigning them
common
We
with the specific conceptions have only the choice between
to the creation of a later prophet of the primitive Jewish-Christian community who omits all reference to the Crucistrangely enough
fixion,
or
assigning
them
to
our
Lord
Himself.
Given the two alternatives, there seems to doubt about which to choose.
me no
EXCURSUS
II
Concerning the Voice from Heaven at the Baptism (St. Luke iii. 22)
Even in St. Matthew and St. Luke the Baptism of our Lord by St. John presented a certain difficulty
1 This negative element is in itself a proof that these sayings belong to Q, or at least are nearly allied to that source, for in Q also there is no reference to the Cross and Passion.
EXCURSUS
(vide
J.
II
311
Bornemann, " Die Taufe Christi durch Johannes," Leipzig, 1896), and the fourth evangehst by the method of his description of the event has Also from the almost got rid of the Baptism itself. included was not fact that (1) the Baptism among the articles of the ancient Roman Symbol, and that the event much more (2) reference was made to have from its importance we should than rarely see that in later times the inconvenience we expected In this connection the of the tradition was still felt.
behaviour, for example,
of the African
writers
is
instructive: in spite of the multitude of quotations from the New Testament found in Tertullian, Cyprian,
and the more ancient African
writers, it is impossible to ascertain the words of the voice from heaven as
read by either of these writers, because
it
is
never
quoted by any of them (nor by Novatian).^ But by far the most inconvenient version of the
tradition
must have been that which gave the voice from heaven (after Ps. ii.) in the form vlog jmou
1
(TV
'
arjiJLepov
yeyevvrjKO.
ae
for,
it
unless
sophis-
tical reasonings
were called to aid,
excluded the
miraculous Conception. This version of the voice from heaven is nowhere found in the MSS. of St. Matthew ; but in St. Luke
it is
attested
by
and the Old Latin codices
Vercell.,
Veron., Colbert. Paris., Corbei. (ff.^), Rhedig. Vratisl.^ In agreement with these authorities we find, in the
West, Justin
1
(twice),
Acta
Petri
et
Pauli," 29
Neither
is it
quoted by the Apostolic Fathers and the Clementine
Homilies.
*
According to Epiphanius both versions stood in the Gospel
of the Ebionites.
312
Lactant., Juvenc, Hilary (five times), the translator of Origen (" Horn, in Ezech." 17, 3),^ the author of the pseudo-Augustinian " Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test.,"
Tychon., Faustus in Augustine, and Augustine.^ After the beginning of the fifth century the reading vanishes
completely ; the Vulgate gave it its death-blow. In the East, omitting Justin, who ought also to be reckoned among Eastern authorities, it is not
attested
by Tatian
the
and
Irenaeus, but
is
given by
Apost." (therefore also by the " Apost. Constit."), and by Methodius. With our present knowledge of textual criticism
Clem.
Alex.,*
Didascalia
we are accordingly safe in deciding that the most ancient exemplars of St. Luke's gospel, which were current in the West, agreed in reading the version of
Psalm
ii.,
while in the East this reading was found
only in a few exemplars.
Was this also the reading of Origen himself ? We may not " Comm. in Joh." p. 37 (ed. Preuschen). appeal with certainty to Also Hom. 27 in " Luc." speaks to the contrary. 2 " Illud vero Augustine writes {" De Consensu Evv.," ii. 14, 31) quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc ilia voce
1
:
hodie genui
Filius meus es tu ego quod in psalmo scriptum est te,' quanquam in antiqiiioribus codicihus Grcecis non inveniri perhibeatur [the Greek codices are ipso facto the more ancient for Augustine], tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus
sonuisse,
'
confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intellegendum est " quolibet verborum ordine de ccelo sonuisse ?
^ This of course proves nothing, as Tatian's Diatessaron is a gospel harmony; but Syr.sin. of St. Luke does not give the version according to Psalm ii., nor does the Peshitto. " Paed." i. * It is remarkable that in 6, 25, he gives the two versions one after another, just as in the Gospel of the Ebionites according to Epiphanius. It is uncertain whether the reading is attested in the Epistle to Diognetus, chap, xi, the version of Celsus in Origen, " Contra Celsum," i. 41, is also uncertain.
EXCURSUS
If
also, after
II
313
we now ask what St. Luke wrote himself; here what we have now learned, there can be no doubt about our decision. We know that conformation of the texts of (St. Mark and) St. Luke to the text of St. Matthew not only began very early
was most actively carried on at the time which our manuscripts^ indeed before the time of the before made hy the Fathers; and that the preqtwtations decessors of the most ancient Western manuscripts did not suffer therefrom so much as those of the East.
hut that
it
lies
It
therefore follows that we must insert the voice from heaven, according to the version of Psalm ii.,
into the text of St. Luke.^
K, however,
St.
Luke
wrote
thus,
we
cannot
possibly suppose that he intentionally, and upon his own authority, altered the tradition which lay before
him
in St.
;
Mark
for
(oru el
o vlo?
julov
6 a-yaTr^yro?, iv
(rot
evSoKrja-a)
he could not but have found the version according to Psalm ii. inconvenient, after what he had narrated in chapters i. and ii. He
thus accepted this reading and substituted it for the of the Markan account, because it was presented by a tradition which he regarded as more
reading
credible than, or at least as credible as the tradition contained in St. Mark.

^ Eecourse to an apocryphal gospel or to the hypothesis of a variant translation in oral tradition is not to be commended here, seeing that in critical problems of this kind one must try to confine oneself to known quantities, so far as these exist, and to
make the
best of them. Here, as a matter of fact, they are quite suflScient for the solution of the problem. The hypothesis of a later intrusion of the reading into the Lukan text is improbable,
because of
Canon
of
its content, and has no analogy in Four Gospels had once been formed.
its
favour after the
314
Seeing,
however, that St. Luke directly before directly afterwards follows the source Q, and that it therefore is a priori very probable that an account of the Baptism of our Lord stood in Q,
and
it
is
also not less
voice
from
ii.)
probable that the version of the heaven in St. Luke (according to

derived from
Psalm
is
substituted this version for that of St.
Q, and that St. Luke Mark because
he regarded
it as
more trustworthy.^
From
source
this it follows (1) that St. Luke valued the at a higher rate than, or at least at as high
Mark ; (2) that the story of the Baptism together with the voice from heaven is not an invention of St. Mark, but goes back to a legend which lies behind St. Mark and Q ; (3) that
a rate as he valued St.
this legend had its more origvnal form in Q, for the voice from heaven in the version of St. Mark
(which
is
followed by St. Matthew)
is
clearly seen
to be an attenuated form
version of
^
when compared with the
(St.
Luke).^
that the narrative of the appearance of a light at the Baptism, of which the earliest witness is given in Tatian, also originally stood in St. Luke, and thus also in Q ; but the evidence is not so strong as in the case of the voice from heaven, seeing
It is possible
St. Mark and St. Matthew give nothing which corresponds and that the narrative is wanting in D. * The arifiepov is decisive even though the Markan account may
that
it implicitly. On the other hand, it seems to me scarcely worthy of attention that in Q the Son is spoken of as being "begotten" (as in the first chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke,
contain
there in realistic fashion, but in Q metaphorically), while St. Mark does not give this conception at all. Perhaps the version of the
voice from heaven, according to Psalm ii., has an ancient witness in Heb. i. 5 f ; for this passage perhaps refers to what occurred
.
at the
Baptism
yet this
is
not certain.
INDEX TO THE RECONSTRUCTED
TEXT OF
St.
111. iii.
Q
St.
Matthew.
PAGE
40, 127
1,
Matthew.
PAGE
85, 135,
I
X.
xi.
34-40 2
7-12
l-ll
2-4,
6, 11,
127
iv.
V.
V.
41, 128
.... ....
.
141
146 90 132
14 132,
12
48, 128 53, 137,
xi.
3-13
16-27
13, 15, 18, 25, 26,
5
i
.
144
16,
. .
32
V. 39, 40, 42,
vi.
142, 144
58, 129
63, 136
67,
xi.
133,
44-48
.
vi. 19.
vi.
9-13 20
21-33
1-5,
xii.
22, 23,
25
21,
135 21 136
140
xii.
xii.
27-30, 32
136 140
68 130
4, 137,
140, 144
vii.
xii.
xii.
7-12
8, 130,
33 38-42 43-45
.
vii.
vii.
13, 14 16-18 vii. 21, 24-28 . viii. 5

.
136 67, 142 68, 130

70, 131
xiii. 16,
xiii.
17
31-33
.
.
XV. 14
xvii.
xviii.
22 24 25 26 28
137
137 135
142 130
20
7
71
74, 131
77,
10, 12,
viii.
viii. 11,
5-10, 13 12
xviii. 12,
13
viii.
ix.
19-22 37, 38
.
X.
X.
79,
12,
10
15
X. 12, X. X.
13
.
79,
13, 13,
16
X. 24,
X.
X.
25 26 27-33
.
79,
14,
82,
142 133 133 133 134 134 134 134 130 139 139
315
xviii. 15, 21,
22
xix. 28
xxi. 32.
xxii.
2-11
xxiii. 4, 13, 23,

xxiii. xxiii.
25-3G
12
91 145 28 144 91 143 93 145 95 146 118 119 96, 138 29, 143
29, 143 105, 145
37-39
xxiv. 26-28, 37-41 xxiv. 43-51
31, 141
XXV. 14-30
122
34, 146
XXV. 29
316
St.
iii. iii.
INDEX
Luke.
17
. .
pagb
40, 127
1,
.
St.
Luke.
PAQB
24, 136
53, 137
4,
7
7, 8, 9, 16,
127
iv.
vi.
1-13 20-23
.....
41,
41, 128
48,
128
vi.
vi.
27-30
31
58, 129
vi. 32, 33, 35,

vi. 37, 38, vi.
36 42
129 59, 129 8, 130

9,
vi.
vi. vi.
39 40
44 46-49
43,
28, 130
79, 68,
130
130
70, 131
24-26 .33 xi. 34, 35 X .39,41,42,44,46-52 x 2 X 3-9 X 10 X 22-31 X 33 X 34 X i. 39, 40, 42-46 X i. 51, 53
.
96,
14,
137 138 139
82, 139
vii. 1 vii. vii.

vii.
71, 131
1-10
18, 19
....
74, 131
22-28 vii. 29, 30 vii. 31-35 ix. 2 ix. 67-60 X. 2

20,
X. 3 X.
...
90, 132
14,
132
4
6
X. 5,
X. 7, 8
118 16, 133 79, 133 11, 133 12, 133 13, 134 134 79, 134 12, 134
X X X X X
X
i.
58, 59
ii.
ii. ii.
ii.
18-21 24 28, 29 34, 35

11
.....
... ...
.... .... ....

. .
140 140 66, 140 4, 140 31, 141

21,
4,
85, 141
54,
142
26, 142
67, 142
77,
29,
142 143
119
V.
V.
X X X
16-24
27 35
V. 26,
V. 34,
.... ... ....

.
29, 143
86, 143 53, 143 91, 143

4,
XV. 4-7
xvi. 13 xvi. 16 xvi. 17 xvi. 18
xvii. 1 xvii. 3, xvii.
U4
1-*.
15,
53,
54, 28,
X. 9
X. 10, 11
X.
X.
12
13-15, 21, 22
. .
13,
17,
133 133 134

135
93,
91,
144 144 144 145 145
X. 16
X. 23,
xi.
xi.
86, 135
xvii. 23, 24, 26, 27,
24
.
.
25, 135
34, 35, 37
xvii.
105, 145
2-4.
.63,
23
.
9-13
xi. 14, 17, 19, 20,

xi. 16,
29-32
...
136 8, 136 21, 136 22, 137
33
...
. .
86, 146
xix. 12-27 xix.
122
34, 146 95, 146
26
....
.
.
xxii. 28,
30
TTNTV^"
-^^.
14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
LOAN
Renewed books are
r-*
t
DEPT.
RENEWALS ONLYTEL. NO. 642-3405 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or
on the date to which renewed. subject to immediate recaU.
f*^.
'^jU
.;-
MAR
Zl-br'i 3 A
'
'i
J^.
'<
li
RK'DL D
^
fj^
y
Jl
r/
k
\%
\lf
-^
^
BBS.
^V
3 1975
SEP
CUb WB3 1
5 8
^
General Library University of California Berkeley
LD21A-60to-3,'70 (N5382sl0)476-A-32
^^^
^tm ^7r~^ff~^
2l-95ni-7,'37
^Q
^-^ftjV^^^'^'^P
i^H79
^
m
TUi'Z
^'^
r>
pHcr -^'
i:
>
>.
:^;

Sayings of Jesus, Harnack

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Sayings of Jesus, Harnack

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Crown Theological Library

HARNACK'S THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

i^eh) ^Testament ^tubies

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

LATE SCHOLAR OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD RECTOR OF WINFORD

PUTNAM'S SONS LONDON: WILLIAMS & NORGATE

Printed by Ballantyne ^r' Co. Limited Tavistock Street, London

Luke (Q) both

supplementary observation which I have made

TrXarJ?, irapo^lg^ irapo/uLOiateiVf from St. Luke (a.'Tro/uLda-crea-Oai, ^aX-

the other hand, the

without deep and reverent study of

great for us to expect that these strivings will ever

sections almost verbally identical

Linguistic and Historical Investigation OF the non-Markan Sections common to

characteristics of the subject-matter

discover any trace of

peculiar to St. Matthew or to St. Luke, or in indirect Evangelic tradition ?

essential characteristics of the contents of Q.

YII. The origin and historical value of Appendix. Translation of Q

Index to the reconstructed text of Q

to about one-sixth of the text of St.

been rendered very

Matthew and St. Luke Q ? Or did the former use

stand a person of sceptical mind refusing to concern

Yet, on the other hand, such scepti-

seeks in vain for a proof of this thesis, in so far as its

with work only half done.

Hence the wretched plight

from a contemptible dependence upon history in matters of

have occupied themselves with the

But Wellhausen's astonishment

Before coming to a conclusion

to the most approximately original text of St.

have thoroughly worked

Wellhausen goes too

numerous and important

which the differences between

Luke are comparatively very

include only one saying and two parables.

vireSei^ev airo rrjg

S6PrjT Xiyeiv ev kavTol^'

Xeyco yap vfxiv on Svvarai 6 Oeog k toov XlOccv

a^Lvt] Trpo^ TJ]v /o/^ai'

KoXoV^ eKKOTTTeTai Kal

because the contrast

out of the text after Kapir6v.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

SiaKaOapiei rrjv avTOv Kai avva^ei

avTov (tov) SiaKaOapni

avTOv pr. perhaps wanting, avTou sec. certain, cnro6if}Kr]v

KaTaKavcrei irvpi aa-^ea-Tio.

and efV /uLCTau.), as Mark. The remain-

ayi(p KOI TTvpl.

all events, avpd^ei

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT

Luke perhaps wrote

Kai top juev airov cannot be certain that

the text ran iv TrpevjuaTi dyiw;

by succeeding develop iv irvevfxaTi dyicp.

for this phrase only is clauses which do not

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

V (TOL (TKOTO<S CaTLVy