Skip to main content

Full text of "The style and literary method of Luke"

See other formats





3 1924 008 115 481 









'M'U-ll 6. \ 

a3wZ! I 





Cornell University 

The original of this bool< is in 
the Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 













OxiORD UmvEEsny Pxess 












OxTOBD UmvERSiry Pbesb 



New York 


Reprinted with the permission of the original publisher 

A U.S. Division of Kraus-Thomson Organization Limited 

^ fy/a f f 

Printed in U.S.A. 



The recent linguistic study of the New Testament has been 
folio-wing two lines, both of which have made such terms as 
" BibHcal Greek," " the language of the New Testament," 
seem inappropriate. On the one hand the several canonical 
writers have come to be treated as individual authors, each pos- 
sessing his own characteristics of style and diction. It has been 
recognized that each wrote with a great degree of freedom and 
independence and that their present association in the New 
Testament is due to other causes than similarity in language. 
We may speak of the style of Luke or the vocabulary of Paid, 
but if we would include in a grammar or lexicon all the New 
Testament phenomena, we must remember that we are dealing 
with a collection of writers, not with a homogeneous volume. 

In another direction the category of " New Testament 
Greek " has been broken down by the comparison of secular 
contemporary writings. Especially the study of the papyri 
has shown that the early Christians were not using a special 
"language of the Holy Ghost," but an idiom which, apart from 
personal idiosjmcrasies and from the special Christian and 
Semitic influences under which they wrote, was the common 
language of the Roman empire. Even the more formal and 
literary productions of the age are not to be excluded from 
comparison, since they also embody in var3dng degree the same 
ordinary language. 

The following studies, in accordance with the two tendencies 
mentioned, aim to examine the work of the auctor ad TheopM- 
lum as an individual writer of the Hellenistic age. Attention 
is centered upon his language, as compared with that of the 
literary men of his time, or as displayed in his correction and 
paraphrase of Greek soxirces which he used. 


It is fitting that philological inquiries should avoid as far as 
possible all presuppositions of a theological or historical kind, 
especially such assumptions as rest upon the questionable 
basis of early church tradition or upon the conjectures of 
modern historical criticism. As a rule the linguistic study 
should precede rather than follow the theological and historical 
study. Instead of explaining a writer's language in the light 
of a theory about his identity and interests, we should test the 
theory by an independent study of the language. It is hoped 
that these studies may serve as a basis for such tests. 

Yet even for strictly philological investigations some hypoth- 
eses derived from literary criticism are necessary, and for the 
following pages two assumptions have been adopted. Both of 
them are all but universally accepted by competent scholars, 
and both of them have been justified by the fresh study of the 
linguistic evidence. The first is the assumption that the third 
gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were the work of the same 
author approximately in their present form. The second is the 
assumption, which accords with prevailing views on the Synop- 
tic Problem, that the Gospel of Luke is based upon a Greek 
source substantially identical with our Mark and also upon 
further Greek memorabiha (commonly called Q) which were 
also used by Matthew. But all further theories about the 
unity, origin and history of this latter common material, or 
about other sources for the writings of Luke, have been avoided. 
Who was the author or editor of these two anonymous books 
has been left an open question, although for convenience his 
traditional name, Luke, is often used. The attempts of others 
to show on Hnguistic grounds that he was a physician have 
been separately considered and confuted. 

The negative results of these studies, so far as the question 
of authorship is concerned, will doubtless be disappointing to 
many, — both those who, out of a desire to maintain the apos- 
tolic authority and historical accuracy of these two writings, 
cling to the tradition of Luke's authorship as supporting them, 


and those who, under the temptation that besets us all, dislike 
to admit that such interesting problems are imsolved or insolu- 
ble. But the restraint is good for us, and perhaps these studies, 
with their confession of ignorance on the one hand and their 
limitation to the tangible facts of language on the other, may 
prove a wholesome warning against extravagances in the use 
of linguistic " evidence." 

The aim of this book was to investigate the subjects afresh, 
without full consultation of the many predecessors in the same 
fields. The notes and text will indicate some use of earlier 
works for which acknowledgment should be made. To Pro- 
fessor James H. Ropes, who has given his encouragement and 
guidance since these studies were first undertaken ten years 
ago as part of a thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of 
Philosophy in Harvard University, and to Professor George F. 
Moore, who has made important contributions not only to the 
accuracy but also to the substance of the book, the author 
would express his gratitude. 

EteNRY J. Cadbury. 

Cambridge, Mass., December, 1919. 



The Size of Luke's Vocabulary i 

Literary Standard of Luke's Vocabulary 4 

Some general comparisons, 4. DiflScuJty of securing suitable basis of 
comparison, 8. The analysis in Schmid's Atticismus, g. Ltike's vo- 
cabulary (a to e) analyzed by Schmid's methods, 10. Results of 
comjjarative analysis, 36. 
WoED Lists. A. Common Attic Words, 10. 

B. Words from Individual Attic Writers, 18. 

C. Poetic Expressions, 19. 

D. Expressions Used by the Later Writers, 24. 

E. Expressions Used First or Only by Luke, 35. 

The Alleged Medical Language of Luke 39 

The evidence of Hobart, 39. The selected examples of Hamack and 
Zahn, 41. Word lists, 42. Comparison of Luke with Matthew and 
Mark, 46. Words alleged to be medical found in writers who were 
not physicians, 49. 

Note on the History of the Discussion, by G. F. Moore 51 

Notes 54 

Excursus. Medical Terms est Lucian 65 

Notes 71 



Introductory 73 

Changes in the Order of Sections 76 

Changes of Order within the Sections 78 

Abbreviations and Omissions 79 

Condensation of dialogue, 79. Omission of questions, 81. 



Avoidance of Repetition 83 

In passages derived from Mark: by use of pronouns, 83; by omis- 
sion of repeated word, 84; by substitution of synonjon, 85; by omis- 
sion of article, 85. In passages derived from Q, 85- Parallelism of 
Matthew not original, 85. Omission of synonymous and duplicate 
expressions in Mark, 88. Omission of unnecessary expressions in 
Mark, 89. 

Changes Perhaps Attributable to Religious Motives . 90 
Omissions: Jesus' emotions, 91; the violence and vigor of other 
persons, 92; the discourtesy of Jesus' friends, 95. 

Phrases of Mark Misunderstood or Transferred by Luke 96 
Phrases of Mark misunderstood, 96. Phrases transferred, 98. Ex- 
amples from Hawkins, 99. Other examples, loi. Obscurities due 
to omission, loi. Notes, 103. 

Opening and Close of Sections. Summaries 105 

Prefatory phrases, 106. Concluding phrases, 107. Use of Mark's 
summaries, 108. Repetition of summaries, in. References to 
cures, 112; to prayer, 113. Terms for Jesus' teaching, 113. 

Changes Attributable to Literary Predilections . 115 

Generalization, 115. Freedom from exaggeration, 118. Indication 
of setting, 119. Sayings of Jesus put into the second person, 124. 
Application of parables, 126. Omission of details, 127. 

Structure of Sentences and Use of Conjunctions . . 131 

Preference for constructions with kyepero, 132. Preference for par- 
ticiples: in genitive absolute, 133 ; in place of coordinate verb, 134; 
with article, 13 s; in other uses, 136. Preferences in the use of con- 
junctions, etc. : iva and o&(7T«, 137; 'questions, 138; 374,139; ^a.v und 
Kad6is,i4i; (coiandSe, i42;.Koi7ap, 145; fikv, 145; 5^x01,146; KaL 
in apodosis, 146; -irXiiv, 147; asyndeton, 148. Anacoluthon, 148. 
Sentences made complete, 149. More compact sentences, 151. 

Changes in the Order of Words 152 

Relative position of subject, verb, and object, 152. Position of pos- 
sessive, 153; of numeral, 153. 

Dislike of Barbarous Words and Names 154 

Foreign words retamed, 154. Apologetic phrases with foreign 
words, 154. Explanatory phrases, 156. Foreign words omitted, 
156; translated, 156; not repeated, 157.'fiv, 157. 

Use of Verbs jc8 

Historical present avoided, 158. Imperfect changed to aorist, 160. 
Tenses changed to imperfect, 161. fipxcAiai as an auxiliary verb, 162. 
Miscellaneous changes in tense, 163. Future passive, 164. Other 
changes to the passive, 165. Changes to the third person singular, 


165. Simple and compound verbs, 166. Repetition of the preposi- 
tion, 168. Preferences in use of verbs of speaking: \eya, 168; 
eiirev Se, 169; ?(^7j, 169; Xeytav added, 170; &iroKpiffeis, 170; sub- 
stitution of more appropriate verbs, 171. Avoidance of danfitonai, 
OXi^u, KoJBe{i8<a, Kparkci), 172; of U7ra7w, 173; oiijjkpu, 174. Preference 
for kryyi^w, 174; for iiriKan^avofiai,, dkofiai, \iiro(TTpk4>0), <t>vu, 175. 
Use of verbs of seeing, 175. irpoa^oivkdi, etc., 177. Substitutions for 
epxo/iai, 177; for eijui and 7cvo/tat, 179; for ow^iijm'j i79; for a'ipco, 
181. Selection of more literary sjmonyms, i8r. Less obvious im 
provements, 184. 

Use of Nouns ... 186 

Avoidence of doKaaaa, 186; of diminutives, 186; of late, vulgar, or 
rare nouns, 186; of bf/la., 187. Other changes, 187. Use of Xaosfor 
OT(\o^, 189; of o,vi)p, 189; of Saifioviov, 190; of the plurals, vkfi^ara 
and oipavol, 190; of the feminine, 17 fiaros, 191. 

Use or Pronouns . 191 

Omission of personal pronouns, 191. Certain uses of eis avoided, 
193. Use of aiiTos, 193; oiovros, 194; oi h-fpos a,nd &Wos, 194; of 
iSios, 194; of dXXiyXcdy and iavrov, 195. 

Use of Adjectives and the Ajrticle 195 

Addition of &iras, 195. Use of aftos and Uavos, 196. Other differ- 
ences in adjectives between Luke and the parallels, 196. Omission of 
the article in Luke 8, 16, 197 ; of the article in idiomatic phrases, 198. 

Use of Adverbs 199 

Avoidance of eWi/s, TrdXu', iroXXo, 199; of oCtow and novov, 200. 
Other differences, 201. Double negatives, 201. 

Use of Prepositions 202 

Use of airo for k^, 202; of xpos, 203; of vxiv, 203. Avoidance of 
Kara, 203; of enirpoffOtv, 204; of certain uses of eis and iv, 204. 
Other improvements, 205. 










OxTOBi] Uniysrsity Psess 














OxiOED UmvEKsriy Pbess 




The investigation of which the First Part is here pubhshed was 

made in the years 191 1 to 1913, and submitted as a thesis for 

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Harvard University in 

1913. Pubhcation has been unavoidably delayed, and it seems 

best not to postpone longer the issue of the present part, on the 

Diction of Luke, which has a certain imity and completeness 

of its own. The Second Part will deal with Luke's treatment 

of his soiurces, Mark and " Q," especially from a literary point 

of view, and with the style of Luke as illustrated by parallels 

in the Gospel and Acts. This second and larger part of the 

work will be pubhshed as soon as conditions growing out of the 

war permit; if the hopes of the editors are fulfilled, within the 

next few months. It will contain the author's preface and a 

table of contents to the whole, which can then be bound in one 


G. F. M. 
J. H. R. 


The Size of Luke's Vocabulary i 

Literary Standard of the Vocabulary 4 

The Alleged Medical Language of Luke . . . ... 39 

Notes 51 

Excursus: Medical Terms in Lucian 65 

Notes . . 71 





The size of Luke's vocabulary has been reckoned several times in 
various ways, with results which approximately agree. According 
to the latest count, by Professor Goodspeed, the Gospel of Luke 
contains 2080 different words, Acts 2054. Luke and Acts use in 
common 1014 words, and the total vocabulary of Luke and Acts 
together is 3120.^ The earlier count by J. Ritchie Smith ^ to which 
Professor Goodspeed refers is in some ways more satisfactory. It 
omits proper names, and includes the figures for the other New 
Testament writers. According to this the total vocabulary of Luke 
and Acts is 2697. 
Smith's complete table is as follows: 

Whole number Total Words peculiar 

of words vocabulary to each 

Luke , 3S>239 2,697 71S 

Paul 31,457 2,446 797 

John 27,18s 1,396 212 

Matthew 17,921 i,S42 iii 

Mark 10,720 1,259 77 

Hebrews 4,965 984 150 

Peter 2,689 7S6 115 

James 1,728 644 58 

Jude 432 203 14 

These figures enable us at a glance to compare Luke's vocabulary 
with that of the other New Testament writers; but, as Professor 
Goodspeed remarks, " they are disappointing to the critical student 
because they do not distinguish between Luke and Acts, between the 

' Journal of Biblical Literature, XXXI (1912), pp. 92 fi. 
• Presbyterian and Stormed Review, II (1891), pp. 647 ff. 


Pastorals and the ten letters of the primary Pauline canon, or even 
between the Revelation and the Fourth Gospel." 

For the book of Acts alone Blass's edition supplies a convenient 
lexicon and an enumeration of words. Excluding variant readings of 
the /3-text and not counting proper names, there appear to be in 
Acts 1787 different words. For the Gospel of Luke by itself no 
exact count, excluding proper names, appears to be accessible. But 
the nvunber of different words is very nearly the same as in Acts — 
approximately 1800. For the letters of Paul an independent count 
was made by Myron W. Adams.' 

These figures show that Luke's vocabulary is greater than that of 
any other New Testament writer. This is only natural, since he is 
the most voluminous writer (see the figures in the first column of 
the table above). The only fair test is to compare the figures for 
the Gospel of Matthew with those for Luke or Acts separately. 
These three works are of very nearly the same size, and yet either 
Luke or Acts has a vocabulary about one-sixth larger than that of 

The last column of Smith's table gives the number of words 
peculiar to each writer. The lists in Thayer's Lexicon differ some- 
what from those in Smith, and as they make distinctions which 
Smith ignores, their totals are here given, together with some other 
counts of the same kind: 

NtiMBER OF Words Pecuxiar to Individual Writers 

Thayer Smith Hawkins' Various 

Total Dubious ' Minimum 

Matt 137 21 116 III 112 

Mark 102 32 70 77 71 80* 


Gospel 312 52 260 261 

Acts 478 49 429 413 4145 

Gospel and Acts both . . 61 61 58 

Totals 851 loi 7SO 715 732 


> St. Patd's Vocabulary, Hartford, 1895. His total of 2478, like Smith's, includes 
the Pastoral Epistles, but by means of his lists we have calculated that about 300 of 
the words he counts occur only in the Pastoral Epistles, so that the total for the ten 
primary letters is very nearly 2180. » Horae Synopticae, 2d edit., pp. ig8 ff. 

• Uncertainty due to various readings. * Swete, St. Mark, p. xl. 

' Blass, Ada Apostolorum, Editio philologica, p. 334. 


Tbayer Smith Hawkins' Various 

Pauline Total Dubious' Minimum 

Except Pastoral Epistles 627 34 593 

Pastoral Epistles 197 ' 10 187 

Both groups S3 6 47 

Totals 877 so 827 797 816' 


Gospel and Epistles 133 13 120 

Revelation 156 33 123 108 » 

Both groups 9 I 8 

Totals 298 47 251 212 

Hebrews 169 11 158 150 

James 73 9 64 58 

Peter 121 7 114 115 

Jude 20 I 19 14 

From these tables it appears that the words peculiar to Luke are 
more numerous than, those peculiar to any other New Testament 
writer, unless the Pastoral Epistles with their great number of words 
not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament be included in the 
Pauline canon. Comparing books of equal size only we discover 
that in Matthew, Luke, and Acts the words peculiar to each book 
number respectively 116, 260, and 429, or thereabouts. Mr. Adams, 
using Mr. Smith's figures, calculates the ratio of words pecuhar to 
each writer to his whole vocabulary. He says: " Of the total vo- 
cabulary of St. Paul the percentage of words peculiar to him, as far 
as the New Testament is concerned, is nearly 3^. In the case of 
St. Luke it is nearly 27 ; in St. John and the author of Hebrews it is 
between 15 and 16; in the others, still less." * 

This calculation, however, includes under Paul the Pastoral 
Epistles, which contain a large proportion of aira^ Xe^i/ieva. If, fol- 
lowing Thayer's figures, we exclude these, the percentages will be 
both about the same, between 27 and 28, as the following figures 

Total vocabulary Words peculiar to either 

Luke 2697 750 

Paul 2170 593 

1 Thayer makes a mistake in the addition of his list. ' Adams, op. cit. p. 27. 
' Swete, Apocalypse, p. cxix. * Op. cit. p. 28. 


Outside of the New Testament a few writers whose works are 
about the size of either or of both of Luke's works and whose vocabu- 
laries could be readily counted were examined with the following 


About the Size of Lxjke or Acts Singly 

Teubner pages Vocabulaiy 

Luke about7S 1800I 

Acts " 75 1787 

Letter of Aristeas " 65 1968 

Deuteronomy " 75 1200 (estimated) 

About the Size of Luke and Acts Together 

Teubner pages Vocabulary 

Luke and Acts 150 2697 

Xenophon, Memorabilia 142 2404 

Xenophon, Anabasis i-iv 13s 2431 

Aeschines 190 ca. 3000 

Antiphon 129 155° 


The vocabulary of an author probably affords the best test for com- 
paring him with the various degrees of education and elegance in 
contemporary speech and writing. In matters of orthography the 
corrections or corruptions of scribes obscure the original speUing of 
the autograph. Points of syntax can be more safely used to test a 
writer's style, but here anything like a statistical comparison is out 
of the question. But in the vocabulary of an ancient writer scribal 
changes play the smallest part, and a rough classification is to some 
extent possible. To estimate the literary standing of Luke it is very 
desirable to examine the character of his vocabulary. 

This subject has already been studied in some connections; 
chiefly either as part of an investigation of the language of the New 
Testament, which has been compared as a whole rather than by 
separate writers with the classical Greek language, or in comparison 
with the diction of the other New Testament writers. These two 
methods have led to the following conclusions: First, that the Greek 
of the New Testament in general differs greatly from classical Greek 
and is on the whole of a more popular and uncultivated style, and, 

' The figures are exclusive of proper names. 


second, that the writings of Luke are rather more elegant in diction 
than most of the other writings in the New Testament. But both 
these methods of study have their limitations, and further and more 
definite judgments are possible in regard to the vocabulary of Luke. 
It should be studied separately, and not merely as part of the vocab- 
ulary of that very heterogeneous collection, the New Testament, and 
it should be compared with the vocabularies of other writers beside 
the few comprised in the Christian canon. 

The simplest way of comparing the vocabularies of two writers 
is to discover how many words they have in common. Where lexica 
are available this is easily ascertained. The following list gives the 
approximate proportion of Luke's vocabulary found in several 
Hellenistic writers or collections: 

Greek Comedy 67 % 

LXX, excluding Apocrypha 80 

LXX, including Apocrypha 90 

New Testament (exclusive of Luke and Acts) 70 

Papyri 65 

Lucian 70 

Plutarch 85 

Vogel 1 has made further observations in this field. Of the various 
parts of the Greek Old Testament, Judges, Samuel, and Kings show 
the closest resemblance in vocabulary to Luke; with Second Mac- 
cabees the likeness is very striking.^ Among profane writers akin 
to Luke, Vogel notes especially Polybius, Dioscorides, and Josephus. 
The lexical relations between Luke and Josephus have been studied 
with especial fulness by Krenkel.' In the New Testament Paul and 
Hebrews show the closest likeness to Luke in vocabulary.* 

Such facts and figures may perhaps show some relationship and 
are therefore not without significance, but they have decided limi- 
tations of value. Whether a word used by Luke occurs in another 
writing depends far more on the chance of subject matter and the 
size of the writings compared than on any real aflGinity of language. 

' Vogel, Zur Charakieristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil, 2d edit., p. 11. 

= Ibid., p. S4- 

■'■ M. Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas. Der schriftsiellerische Einfluss des judischen 
Geschichtssckreibers auf den christlichen nackgewiesen, 1894. 

* See for example the lists in Plummer, Luke, pp. Uv ff.; Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 
2d edit., pp. 189 ff. 


Furthermore, such collections as the Septuagint, the New Testa- 
ment, the Apocrypha, and the papyri are of miscellaneous contents 
and character, the works of many authors, and do not represent a 
common standard of culture. Probably half of every writer's vo- 
cabulary is made up of words of such frequent occurrence that any 
other writer is likely to use them. It is only the unusual or uncom- 
mon words that can be expected to have much significance. 

It is often inferred that for New Testament writers such words 
are to be found in the list of words pecuUar to each writer, i. e., not 
found elsewhere in the New Testament. Such a notion is quite er- 
roneous, and the emphasis usually placed upon these words in New 
Testament study seems to the present writer inappropriate. In a 
collection like the New Testament the occurrence of a word in only 
one writer is often merely an accident, and the words so distin- 
guished are not characteristic of him .^ On the other hand, some 
really unusual words or words of significance for a writer's vocabu- 
lary are thus left out of account because another writer in the New 
Testament happened to use the word. 

If the fact that two writers have many words in common can not 
be used as a reliable evidence of afl&nity in vocabulary, it is still more 
dangerous to use this fact as a proof of literary dependence. No- 
where can this be more clearly seen than in the subject we are here 
considering, the vocabulary of Luke. Coincidence of vocabulary 
has been used at various times to prove that Luke wrote Hebrews, 
that he was familiar with Paul's letters, and that he had read Jose- 
phus or the Greek medical writers. Even the evidence of peculiar 
words is unsafe in such argvmients, though it is used very effectively 
by both Krenkel and the beKevers in Luke's medical language. 
Krenkel, for example, to support his thesis that Liike had read 
Josephus, collects a large number of words which in the Greek 
Bible occur only in Luke and are also used by Josephus." 

The uncertainty of all such arguments may be illustrated by the 
following comparison of the vocabularies of Mark and Second Mac- 

' The evidence that this is true may be seen by a glance at the lists in Part IV of 
the Appendix to Thayer's Lexicon. See what is said on this point below, p. 62, n. 78. 

' Josephus und Lucas, pp. 304 ff . It is to be observed that Krenkel excludes from 
his investigation First and Second Maccabees. Were they included, many words would 
disappear from this list. 


cabees as related to that of LiJce. The two books are of about the 
same size. Mark we know was not only read by Luke but was made 
the chief source of his Gospel and in places copied verbatim; Second 
Maccabees may not even have been known to him. Yet according 
to the following figures, both in his general vocabulary and in the 
words peculiar to him, Luke has more in common with Second Mac- 
cabees than with Mark. 

Luke and Mark Luke and 2 Mace. 

Whole number of words in common (o-«) 383(15 ?) 4Si(i2 ?) 

Words not elsewhere in New Testament (o-e) . . 20(1 ?) 74(5 ?) 

Words not elsewhere in the Greek Bible (o-co) . 9(1 ?) 21(5 ?) 

The last comparison is of sufficient interest to Justify giving the 
lists in full. 

PBcmjAs TO Mark and Luke in the Greek Bible 

iv&yaiov Mark 14, 15 = Luke 22, 12. 

/SXijTeoK Mark 2, 22 (v. I.) = Luke s, 38. 

kxTTvilv Mark 15, 37, 39 = Luke 23, 46. 

luarliav Mark s, 15 = Luke 8, 35. 

\iTT6v Mark 12, 42 = Luke 21, 2; also Luke 12, 59. 

avairaplurata> Mark 9, 20 = Luke 9, 42. 

It will be noted that more than haH of the cases are in parallel 


Pecthjar to Second Maccabees and Luke m the Greek Bible 

hyavla Luke 22, 44 (». /.). . eWvyos 

i.v6.irr)pos also Tobit 14, 2 (»./.). J«p6(TuXos 

iainPaWav nerplus 

iurxetv wepipriyvivou. 

&T€p irpea^eia 

aiarripbs TrpouKHvav 

Siavbav avn/eKaivav Acts 7, 26 {v. I.). 

ilarpkx^'-v <rimpo4>os also v. /. in I Macc. I, 6; 

iKT\^pa<ns 3 Reg- 12, 24. 

hriTpmrii awTvyxlivav 

iadriaK 3 Macc. I, 16 {v. I.). inrol^wwivai 

Vogel gives a list of more than fifty words and expressions peculiar 
to Luke in the New Testament and found in 2 Maccabees but not 
in the canonical books of the Old Testament. But many of these 
are found in the other apocryphal books and are therefore omitted 
from the foregoing list. On the other hand Vogel overlooks some of 


the words cited here. Further coincidences between Luke and 2 
Maccabees in the use of words wiU be found in the word lists below 
under avaUu, divariermi, 5iavoiyo3, 5upfirivei)u, ewavayw, eTriaTaffLs.^ 
In view of the dangers that have attended the study of Luke's 
vocabulary in the past it may well be asked whether any examina- 
tion of it can be safely made. Probably it can be done if the method 
of procedure is selected with some care, and if the results are not 
treated too mathematically or made to prove too much. The fol- 
lowing methods were adopted only after due consideration and 
testing, and both the results and the methods by which they are 
reached are submitted here only tentatively and as the means of a 
rough estimate of the character of Luke's vocabulary. 

The natural way to compare the vocabularies of two authors 
seemed to be to confine attention in each author to words of un- 
usual occurrence in Greek literature, or at least to those not found 
in all grades of Greek prose, and to classify these in accordance with 
the class or age of Greek writing to which they seem to belong; 
then by counting the nxunber of words of each class used by each 
author to discover which of the two writers inclined in his distinc- 
tive vocabulary towards the educated, Attic, and older words, which 
towards the more vulgar, less classical, and later words. 

Such a comparison involves the analysis of two vocabularies, for 
example in our case, the vocabulary of Luke and that of at least one 
other Hellenistic . author. Unfortunately most of the numerous 
linguistic studies in Hellenistic literature deal only with grammar. 
For Polybius, Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 
and Plutarch we possess no thorough or well-sifted analysis of vo- 
cabulary, as Schmid has already noted with regret.^ The same is 
true of the two most extensive Jewish writers, Josephus and Philo, 
for neither of whom even a lexicon is available. The vocabularies 
of Jewish and Christian writings, whether canonical or apocr3^hal, 
are either unclassified or have been studied in groups that include 
several different authors. A noteworthy exception is Nageli, Der 
Worischatz des Apostels Paulus? The most thorough and satis- 

' See also W. K. L. Clarke, "Acts and the LXX" in Christian Origins (to be pub- 
lished shortly). ' Schmid, Der Atticismas, IV, 634. 

1 Gottingen, 1905. The study includes only the rarest words, and continues down 
the alphabet part way through the letter c. 


factory work of the kind desired was found to be the analyses of 
vocabulary in Schmid's Atticismus ^ for Dio Chrysostom, Lucian, 
Aristides, Aelian, and the younger Philostratus. That a comparison 
of the New Testament language with the later Greek has been 
greatly facilitated by this elaborate work was recognized several 
years ago by Professor J. H. Thayer,'' but apparently it has never 
been methodically used for this purpose. 
The method of Schmid is as follows: ' 

Words that are of frequent occurrence in the Attic and the better 
literature of all periods are altogether omitted from consideration as 
being of no value for estimating " stilistische Neigungen " of the 
writer. Of the remaining words Schmid makes five classes according 
to their occurrence in extant authors: 

A. Common Attic words, or words occurring in several Attic 


B. Words found only or principally in one prose writer before 


C. Words found in poetry but not in Attic prose. 

D. Words belonging to the post-classical prose, including 


E. Words foimd first in the author under investigation. 

In the lists which follow the same classification has been made of 
the vocabulary of Luke and Acts, extending down the alphabet 
through the letter e. As about three-fourths of Luke's vocabulary 
occurs in the writings of the five authors treated by Schmid, we can 
follow his authority for nearly aU the words which are to be omitted 
altogether from classification and for a great many of the words 
that fall into the first four classes. Where Schmid's estimate of a 
word is obtainable the reference to his work is given. The other 
words are classified as much in accordance with his methods as pos- 
sible. As the date of Luke's work is uncertain it seemed safest to 
include in the last class only words in Luke and Acts that are found 
in no other writer before 200 a.d., which is about the lower limit for 

' Der Atticismus in seinen Eauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halikarnass bis aufden 
zweiten Philostratus (4 vols, and index, 1887-1897). 

' Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, III, 43 (" Language of the New Testament ")• 
' Op. cit. I, 103 n., 400. 


the Atticists treated by Schmid. But of course it is quite possible 
that the words in list D marked only Josephus or Plutarch are also, 
strictly speaking, words first used by Luke. The enumeration 
does not aim to be complete except in the case of the Septuagint ^ 
(as represented by the texts underlying Hatch and Redpath's 
Concordance) and the New Testament." In addition, words 
found in the papyri (except those found only in Christian papyri 
or papyri of the Byzantine period) are marked by the simple 
abbreviation, " Pap." In yiew of the promised lexicon to the papyri 
it did not seem worth while in most cases to give the references for 
the occurrence of these words.' 


A. Common Attic Words or Words Occurring in 
Several Attic Writers * 

^ iyvuffTos 'unknown.' Schmid IV, ii8. — Horn., Pind., 

Thuc, Plat., LXX (Wisd., 2 Mace), Joseph., 
Pap., Inscr. 

'\ayopaios Schmid I, 251. — Ar., Arist. et al., Joseph., 

Strab., Luc, Inscr., Pap. 
aypvirveca Schmid IV, 1 1 8 . — Plat. , Xen. , Theognis, LXX, 

Mk. al., Luc, Philostr., Inscr., Pap. 

t [6.r]Sla] Schmid II, 72. —Plat., Oratt., Hipp., Arr., Pap. 

(See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary s. v., 
who call it a vernacular word.) 

1 The symbol LXX is used for the Greek Old Testament, but if a word occurs only 
in the Apocrypha that fact is shown by adding in parenthesis the exact reference or 
" Apocr." 

' The obelus (t) is used to mark words occurring in the New Testament only in 
Luke or Acts, but is enclosed in round brackets if it occurs in another New Testa- 
ment writing as a variant reading. Words enclosed in square brackets are variant 
readings in Luke or Acts. 

' For a list of the principal collections, see Moulton, Grammar of New Testament 
Greek, I, index; Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. 

* The customary abbreviations are employed. Note that " Ar." stands for Aristo- 
phanes, " Arist." for Aristotle. Abbreviations for the Gospels (in these lists) Mt., 
Mk., Jn. When the word occurs in Luke only in a context derived from Mark or Q, 
or in quotation or reminiscence from the Old Testament, the source is noted in brackets 
at the end of the entry, e. g. — [Q] 



al7iaX6j Schmid IV, 1 20. — Att. poetry and prose, LXX, 

Mt., Jn., Luc, Philostr., Pap. (" common, " 
Moulton and Milligan). 
t airiu with inf. but not ace. of person. Schmid III, 98 

("bewusster Atticismus ")■ — Trag., Plat, 
Ar., Isocr. 
t airiov = airla. Dem., Plat., Joseph., Pap. 

aKor] = o5s. Schmid I, 104 (" diesen Sinn scheint 

das Wort im N.T. nicht zu haben"; but cf. 
Luke 7,1, Mark 7, 35, Acts 17, 20, Heb. 5, 11). 
— LXX (2 Mace. 15, 39) al. 
akevpov Schmid IV, 122. — Hdt., Att. prose., LXX, 

Joseph., Mt., Luc., Philostr., Pap. — [Q] 
t dXXo^uXos Thuc, Plat., Hipp., Aesch.,Com., Polyb., Diod., 

LXX, Joseph., Philo, Pap. 
"f a/j,apTvpos Schmid IV, 123. — Thuc., Dem., Callim., 

Joseph., Luc, Plut., Hdn., Pap. 
dfie/jLTTos Schmid I, 208; II, 75. — Trag., Plat., Xen., 

Dem., LXX, Paul, Heb., Aristides, Pap. 
"l ap,ire\ovpy6s Schmid IV, 123. — ^Ar., Alex., Amphis, Luc, 

Plut., Philostr., LXX, Inser., Pap. 
avaPXeiru Schmid IV, 126. — Plat., Xen., LXX, Mk., 

tdpa/SoXi) Schmidt IV, 126.1 — Att., Dion. Hal., Joseph., 

LXX, Arr., Plut., Philostr., Pap. 
^ avayo) 'vow to gods.' Schmid II, 76. — Ionic and 

older Attic, Aristides, Inscr. 
t ava^rjTio) Schmid III, 100 f . — Hdt., Thuc, Ar., Xen., 

Dem., Plat., Polyb., LXX, Joseph., Luc, 
Ael., Babr., Pap. 
t avaKadi^a intransitive. Xen., Plut., Hipp., Galen, Pap. 

(OP. 939, iv A. D., a Christian letter). 
avaKpivw in forensic sense. Att. (Thayer, s. v.), Paul 

(Nageh, p. 22), LXX (Susanna), Inscr. 
t ivaKpiais Xen., Plat., Oratt., LXX (3 Mace 7, 5), Inscr., 

apaKVTTTU) Schmid IV, 1 26. — Hdt., Plat., Ar., Xen., LXX, 

Joseph., Aristeas, [John 8, 7 10], Luc, Pap. 


t kvLirripos 

t &vaair&03 
t &va<j>aivoixai, 

t &vevplaK03 

t avoiKoSofiiu 


t &fi6w 



t i,irO<TTpi^<ji} 


Schmid I, 2S3 a/. — Hdt., Thuc, Plat., Xen., 

al., LXX, Joseph., Arr., Luc, Ael., PMlostr., 

Plut., Pap. 
Schmid III, loi. — Att. prose, Joseph., Ael., 

LXX (2 Mace. 8, 24). 
Schmid IV, 128. — Hymn. Hom., Att. prose, 

Eur., Ar., Diod., Dion. Hal., Mk., Philostr., 

Plut., Inscr., Pap. 
Thuc, Xen., Polyb., Joseph., Plut., Pap. (OP. 

745 i A. D . , the nearest parallel to Acts 1 5 , 24) . 
Schmid IV, 128. — Att. prose, LXX, Joseph., 

Luc, Philostr., Alciphr., Pap. 
Schmid IV, 272. — Att. prose, LXX, Joseph. 
Schmid I, 253; IV, 128. — Thuc, Plat., Arist., 

Polyb., Theophr., LXX, Aristeas, Paul, Inscr., 

Hdt., Plat., Xen., Trag., LXX (4 Mace 3, 14), 

Joseph., Arr., Plut., Inscr. 
with genitive. Schmid H, 77. — Plat., Eur., 

Mt., Mk., LXX, Arr. 
Thuc, Xen., Diod., Joseph., LXX, Plut., Hdn., 

Inscr., Pap. — [LXX] 
Att. prose and poetry, LXX, Paul (see Nageli, 

p. 14) al., Pap. 
temporal. Schmid III, 102; IV, 131. — Dem. 

al., LXX, N. T., Joseph., Pap. 
'ask,' with infin. Hdt., Oratt. al. (cf. Blass, 

N. T. Gramm., p. 226), LXX, Pap. 
with personal subject. Schmid II, 80 ; HI, 102 . 

— Att., LXX, Mk. 14, 13, Pap. 
Plat., Hdt., Thuc, Hipp., Trag., LXX, Mt., 

Mk., Arr., Plut. 
Pind., Thuc, Xen., LXX, Philo, Paul, Past. 

Epp., Inscr., Athen. 
' turn out.' Schmid II, 80.— Hdt., Thuc, Plat., 

Isocr., LXX, Phil. 1,19, Pap. (PP. Ill, 42 H). 
Plat., Arist., Rom. 11, 15, M. Anton., Arr., Plut. 
intrans. Hdt, Xen., Thuc, LXX (Ecclus. 8,6 

al.), Plut. 



diroxwpifw Plat., Lys., LXX., Diod., Rev. 6, 14. 

apira^ Schmid I, 256. —Ar., Xen., LXX, Mt., Paul. 

apxriyds Thuc, Plat., Isocr.,Aesch., Arist., Polyb., Diod., 

LXX, Heb., Hdn., Inscr., Pap. 
t do-tria Eur., Hdt., Hipp., Arist., Joseph., Plut., Galen, 

t aanivws Schmid II, 87 ; IV, 138. — Plat., Dem., Polyb., 

Diod., Dion. Hal., LXX, Joseph., Aristides, 

Alciphr., Pap. 
a<rira<Tfi6s Theognis, Plat., LXX, Aristeas, Mt., Mk., Paul, 

Arr., Pap. (OP. 471, 67, ii A. D.) 
dri/iafw Schmid II, 88. — Poets and Attic prose., LXX, 

Mk. V. L, Jas., Paul, Jn., Dio Chrys., Luc, 

Aristides, Pap. 
aroiros Schmid IV, 139. — Plat, et al., LXX, 2 Thess. 

3,2, Luc, Philostr., Pap. 
avKi^ofiai Schmid IV, 139. — Hom., Hdt., Att., LXX, Mt. 

21, 17, Arr., Luc, Philostr., Inscr. 
t avffTTipos of men. Plat., Polyb., Dion.Hal., LXX (2 Mace. 

14, 30), Plut., Diog. Laert., Pap. 
avTonaros Schmid IV, 140. — Horn., Hdt., Att. prose,LXX, 

Philo, Mk. 4, 28, Philostr., Diod., Arr., Pap. 
t auroTTTijs Hdt., Plat., Xen., Oratt., Polyb. and later Gk. 

writers, Joseph., Pap. 
"fairdxeip Schmid 1, 112, 257; II,90. — Att., Joseph., Arr., 

Dio Chrys., Luc, Aristides. 
a<t>avl^(a Schmid 1, 112; II, 90; III, 106. — Thuc, Plat., 

Ar., LXX, Mt., Jas., Pap. — [LXX] 
[a<t)opnii] Schmid IV, 141 f . — Att. prose, Polyb., LXX, 

Paul (see Nageli, p. 15), Luc, Philostr., Pap. 
axvpov Schmid IV, 142. — Hdt., Xen., Com., LXX, Mt. 

3, 12, Pap. (" very common," Moulton and 

MiUigan). — [Q] 

Hom., Xen., Theophr., Dion. Hal., LXX, 

'foot.' Schmid III, 107 o^. — Plat., Arist., 

Joseph., Philostr., Ael., LXX (Wisd. 13, 18), 



Podvvos Xen., Lys., Solon, Cratin., Theophr., LXX, Mt. 

12, II ; 15, 14, Galen. — [Q] 
tiSoXiJ (cf. Schmid IV, 282). Thuc, Xen., LXX, 

PovKriiia Schmid II, 91. — Plat., Arist., LXX (2 and 4 

Mace), Aristeas, Rom. 9, 19, Arr., Pap. 
/3pw/xa Schmid IV, 143. — Hipp., Thuc, Xen., LXX, 

Paul et al., Arr., Alciphr. 

yevonai, metaphorically. Schmid I, 113. — Horn., Hdt., 

Soph., Plat, al., LXX, Mt., Mk. 

yvuarbs Plat., Xen., Trag. al., LXX, Rom. i, 19, Jn. 

76MOS Hdt., Dem., Aesch., Mosch. ah, LXX, Rev. 18, 

II f., Inscr., Pap. 

htiv&s Schmid III, 108; IV, 147. — Att., LXX, Mt. 

Upu Schmid IV, 147. — Horn., Soph., Com., Plat., 

Xen., LXX, Mt., Mk., Paul, Jn., Pap. 
deanios Trag., Att. (Bekker, Anecdota Graeca, 1, 90), 

LXX, Diod., Paul (Nageh, p. 26) et al., Pap. 
t devrepatos Hdt., Xen., Polyb., Diod., Inscr. 

"t 8T}iJ,7]yop£Ci3 Schmid IV, 148. — ^Ar., Xen., Plat., Dem., 

Joseph., LXX, Alciphr. 
t StajSdXXw TI.V& Schmid IV, 149. — Hdt., Thuc, Plat., Pap. 
TLvi (TbP. I, 23, ii B. c), Theodotion (Dan. 3, 8). 

t Si&yvcoais Plat., Hipp., Dem., LXX (Wisd. 3, 18), Joseph., 

Arr., Plut., Dio Cass., Inscr., Pap. 
fSiaKoiico Schmid IV, 150. — Xen., Plat, ai., LXX, 

Joseph., Luc, Philostr., Inscr., Pap. 
diaXoyl^onai Schmid II, 93. — Att. prose, LXX, Mt., Mk., 

SianaprOpofiai Schmid II, 94. — Xen. and especially Dem., 

LXX, Paul al. 
Stojuepifw Schmid I, 259. — Plat., Menand., LXX, Aris- 

teas, Mt., Mk., Jn., Luc. 
^8iav6riixa Schmid II, 94. — Xen., Plat., Arr., Aristides, 




t Siauflw 

t Starripiw 

t Siaxupl^ofiai, 

t diepwrau 

t Siwrxvpifo/xai 

t diopduna 

Swarot, 01 


t e'7Ki;os 

t eSa^os 

t elarpixf^ 

t €/c/3oXi7 

t eKKpifiaixai 

Schmid II, 94 o/. — Plat., Xen., Dem., Polyb., 

LXX, Joseph., Luc, Aristides, Ael., Inscr., 

Schmid IV, 151. — Hdt., Att. prose and poetry, 

LXX, Mk. s, 4, Philostr., Luc. 
Plat., Oratt., Com., Arist., Polyb., LXX, Ari- 

steas, Plut., Inscr., Pap. 
Schmid IV, 152. — Hdt. al., LXX, Joseph., Arr., 

Luc, Philostr., Pap. 
Plat., Dem., Aeschin., Polyb., Joseph. 
Schmid IV, 152.— Ar., Plat. Xen. al., LXX, 

Diod., Joseph., Plut. 
Plat., Xen., Dem., Polyb., Joseph., Plut., Dio 

Cass. al. 
Oratt., Plat., Joseph., Dio Cass. al. 
Plat., Arist, LXX, Paul (Nageli,p. 22) al., Pap. 
Hipp., Arist., Polyb., Plut., Diog. Laert., Pap. 
Schmid IV, 153. — Att. prose, LXX, Mt., Inscr., 

Plat., Arist., Mt. 24, 51, LXX — [Q] 
* the rich, prominent. ' Schmid IV, 1 5 5 . — Hdt. , 

Att. prose, Joseph., Philostr. 
Plat, Isocr., Dem., Mt. 19, 23 = Mk. 10, 23. 

— [Mk] 

Plat., Dem., Hyperides, Polyb., LXX, Joseph. 
Hdt., Hipp., Arist., Anth., Diod., LXX (Ecclus. 

42, 10), Joseph., Plut., Pap. 
Schmid II, 98. • — Att. prose and poetry, LXX, 

Aristeas, Inscr., Pap. 
Xen. et al., LXX, Mt., Mk., Inscr., Pap. 
Xen., Thuc, Theocr., LXX (2 Mace. 5, 26), 

Joseph., Lycophron. 
Schmid I, 262. — Dem., Arist., LXX, Luc, Pap. 
Schmid IV, 158. — Hdt. al., LXX, Mt, Paul, 

Schmid IV, 158. — Eur., Thuc, Philo, Joseph., 



t iK\a\iu Schmid IV, 159. — Eur., Dem., Philo, Joseph., 

Philostr., Dio Cass., LXX (Jud. 11, 9 »• 1-) 

iK\eKT6s Plat., Thuc, LXX, Enoch, Mt., Mk. al., Pap. 

iKkoyn Plat., Arist., Polyb., Diod., Dion. Hal., Joseph., 

Aristeas, Paul al., Aquila, Symm., Theodot., 


eKTTPio} Plat., Aesch., Eur., Soph., Arist., Mk. 15, 37 39, 

Philostr. — [Mk] 
iKTvopehonai Schmid IV, 160. — Xen., Polyb., Aeneas Tact., 

LXX, Mt., Mk., Paul, Rev. 
t i'KKooiiai Hipp., Xen., Eur., Com., Plut. 

ili^'Xeiru Schmid IV, 161. — Plat., Xen., Polyb., LXX, 

Mt., Mk., Jn., Pap. 
ifi^avl^u Schmid II, 103. — Xen., Plat., Dem., Aeschin., 

LXX, Mk., Jn., Heb., Inscr., Pap. 
t 'iveoi Schmid III, 120. — Plat., Arist., LXX, Joseph, 

t kvTonnos Plat., Soph.,' Dion. Hal., Hdn., Inscr., Pap. 

ivvKvia^w Hipp., Arist., LXX, Jude 8, Plut. — [LXX] 

i^ai<l>vris Horn., Find., Plat., Dem. al., LXX., Mk. 13, 

36, Arr., Plut., Galen., Babr., Pap. 
4|aXei0w Schmid IV, 163. — Att. prose and poetry, Paul, 

Rev., Luc, Philostr., Inscr., Pap. 
t ef dXXo/ioi Horn., Xen. al., LXX, Joseph. 

t iiravajKes Schmid I, 264. — Hdt., Aeschin., Plat., Dem. al., 

Arist., Dion. Hal., Joseph., Arr., Luc, Plut. 
al. Pap. 
eiravu with gen. Schmid I, 119 ("seit Hdt. in alien 

Schichten der Sprache verbreitet"). — LXX, 
Mt. al., Pap. 
feTrauXts Schmid III, 123.— Hdt., Plat., Diod., Polyb., 

Philo, Ael., Plut., LXX, Pap. — [LXX] 
t ^ireiSijirep Plat., Thuc, Ar., Arist., Dion. Hal., Philo, 

1[ iiriKeiva Schmid II, 108 f. — Soph., Eur., Thuc, Plat., 

Xen., Isocr., Strabo, Luc. al., LXX.— [LXX] 
t ^TTi/Si/SAfw Thuc, Plat., Diod., LXX. 

» Oed. Col. 841 (MSS. not editions). 




t iirivevu 
t iirlvoia 

t iiriairiffiios 

t iirurrpe^ 
t einTpoirri 


t eWvfuos 


t eiiropla 

' recognize.' Schmid IV, 166. — Horn., Aesch., 

Thuc, Plat., Xen., LXX, Mt. al. 
Plat., Dem., Arist., Theophr., Dion. Hal., LXX 

(Apocr.), Joseph., Plut., Hdn. al., Pap. 
Schmid IV, 167. — Horn, and other poets, Att. 

prose, LXX, Aristeas, Joseph., Luc. al., Pap. 
Schmid II, 109 al. — Soph., Ar., Thuc, Xen., 

Plat., LXX, Joseph., Aristeas, Arr., Luc. al., 

' supplies.' Dem., Xen., LXX, Joseph., Hdn., 

transitive. Schmid IV, 169. — Xen. al., LXX. 
Dem., Hipp., Thuc, Polyb., Dion. Hal., Diod., 

LXX (2 Mace 13, 14), Joseph., Aquila, Pap. 
'illustrious.' Schmid IV, 169. — Att. prose, 

LXX, Philostr., Pap. — [LXX] 
Hdt., Thuc, Plat., Xen., Andocid., poets, LXX, 

Philo, Mt. 12, 25, Rev., Pap. — [Q] 
Schmid IV, 173. — Ar., Dem., Lycurg., Theophr., 

LXX, Joseph., Paul al., Luc, Plut., Paus. 
Schmid IV, 173. — Ar., Plat., LXX, Philostr. 
Plat., Xen., Att. poets, LXX (2 Mace 11, 26), 

Joseph., Plut., Pap. 
Xen., poetry, Polyb., Joseph., Plut. 
Schmid III, 126. — Plat., Isocr. al., Mt. 16, 26 

(the parallel passage). Pap. 
'praise.' Schmid I, 267. — Ar., Att., Polyb., 

Aristeas, Luc. 
Thuc, Plat., Xen., Oratt., LXX (4 Reg. 25, 

10 A), Philo, Joseph., Arr., Plut., Aquila, Pap. 
cf . Schmid I, 267. — Ar., Xen., Menand., Diod., 

LXX, Joseph., Pap. (TbP. 678, medical; 

Petr. P.) 
Schmid IV, 176; Lobeck, Phryn. 323. — LXX, 

Jn. 4, 52; Heb. 13, 8, Pap. — [LXX] 



B. Words from the Vocabulary of Individual Writers 
BEFORE Aristotle 


t a.vaXrin\pt.% 



I. From Plato 

'reading.' Schmid I, 299. — Plat., LXX, Ari- 

steas, Paul al., An., Luc, Pap. 
Schmid I, 299. — Plat., Hipp., Polyb., Luc, 

Com., Pap. 
Plat., Polyb., LXX, Aristeas, Philo, Joseph., 

Diod., Paul (Nageli, p. 30), Heb., Plut. 
'forgiveness.' Plat, Diod., Dion. Hal., Philo, 

Enoch, Paul (Nageli, p. 55) al., Pap. 

Schmid I, 299. — Plat., Polyb., Diod., Strabo, 
LXX, Mt., Mk., Jn., Paul, Arr., Plut., Luc, 

Schmid I, 299. — Plat., Diod., LXX., Mt. 11, 
II, Luc. — [Q] 

t Sta/iepier/ios Plat., Diod., LXX, Joseph. 

diavoiyu Schmid 1, 300. — Plat., Arist., LXX, Mk., Luc, 

t hairpajnaTtiioixa). Plat., Dion. Hal. 

t eTrio-</)oXi7s ' dangerous.' Schmid I, 300. — Hipp., Plat., 

Polyb., LXX (Wisd. 9, 14), Joseph., Aristeas, 
Luc, Pap. (?) 

t avTLKoKew 


2. From Xenophon 

in geographical sense {specto). Xen., LXX 
(Ezek. II, I al.), Diog. Laert., Hdn., Pap. 
^Kttxos'TairXao-iwj' Xen., LXX, Mk. 10, 13. — [Mk] 
t iiravayu ' put to sea.' Xen., LXX (2 Mace 12, 4), Pap. 

t [idTtpivbs] Xen., LXX, Dio Cass., Athen., Pap. 



3. From Herodotus 

adeniTos Hdt., Dion. Hal., LXX (2 and 3 Mace), i Pet. 

4, 3, Plut., Vett. Val., Pap. 
t avaMi^s Schmid III, 171. — Hdt., Ael., LXX, Dio Cass., 

Inscr. {avafia^fiovs Syll. 587, 308, iv B.C.) 

4. From Hippocrates 

t avaypv^is Hipp., LXX, Philo, Strabo, Galen, Eccles. 

t avarepiKos Hipp., Galen, Epiphan. 

t eK5i?77€Ojuai Hipp., Arist., LXX, Philo, Joseph., Galen, 

fe/c^iixw Hipp., Herond., Aretaeus, Galen, LXX, Plut., 

Babr., Iambi, 
t [iviaxvos] transitive. Hipp., LXX. 

5. From Thucydides 

^ aycovi^ofiai with infinitive. Schmid IV, 256, 389. — Thuc, 

Diod., Plut., Philostr. 

6. From Demosthenes 

tdo-cIjTws Dem., Joseph., Polyaen., Dio Cass., Athen. 

'\daviaTr]s Schmid I, 309. — Dem., LXX, Joseph., Plut., 

Luc, Pap. 

7. From Isocrates 

\ lKTapa.(T<x<j3 Schmid I, 311. — Isocr., LXX, Plut, Joseph., 

Dio Cass., Luc, Alciphr. 

8. From Hyperides 
t di't/cXeiiTTos Hyperides, Diod., Aristeas, Plut., Sext. Emp., 

Inscr., Pap. 

t ayKok'fi 

C. Poetic Expressions 

Schmid II, 187. —Horn., Trag., Pind., Plat, 
Xen., Mt., Mk., LXX, Luc. al., Pap. — [Mk] 

Schmid I, 318 al. — Hdt., Eur., Plat., Joseph., 
LXX, Luc, Philostr., Pap. 


(t) alvos 

t avaSeiKvvfii 

f ava(j)alvu 

f aironaaaonai 

t airoif/vxo) 

t apyvpoKoiros 

Soph., Eur., Diphil., ApoU. Rhod., Diod.,LXX, 

Jn. al., Plut., Pap. 
'murder.' Schmid IV, 268. — Trag., LXX, 

Rev. al. 
(" poetic and Ionic," Liddell and Scott) —Plat., 

LXX, Rev., Plut., Inscr. (Syll. 835, 8, iv B.C.) 
("Greekpoets," Thayer). — LXX, Mt. 21, 16 

(LXX), Inscr. 
Schmid I, 319. — Poets, LXX, Mt., Mk., Jn., 

Pap.— [Mk.] 
Theophr., Com., Anth., Diod., LXX, Mt. 24, 41 

(from Q), Pap. -[Q] 
Ar., Soph., LXX, Jn., Pap. — [LXX] 
'see again.' Schmid IV, 270. — Eur., Hdt., 

Plat, Ar., Mt., Mk., Jn., Paus., Inscr., LXX. 
Schmid IV, 271 ai. — Soph., Hdt., Xen., Polyb., 

LXX, Joseph., Luc, Philostr., Inscr. 
Schmid I, 320. — Horn., Com., Xen., Polyb., 

LXX, Mk., Luc, Philostr., Pap. (B GUIV, 

1 201, II, ii A.D.) 
active.! Schmid IV, 2 73 . — Hom. , Aesch. , Eur. , 

Schmid IV, 275. — Hdt., Eur., Theophr., LXX, 

Mt. 12, 43 a^., Pap. — [Q] 
Eur., Callim., Xen., Anth., LXX, Mk. 4, 22, 

Col. 2, 3, Vett. Val., Pap. Qewish magic). 

— [Mk] 
Schmid IV, 276 al. — Com., Dem., Polyb., 

Theocr., LXX (Tob. 7, 17, v. I.), Luc. 
cf. Schmid I, 348. — Eur., LXX, Galen. 
Schmid I, 149 al. — Ar., Bion, Hipp., LXX 

(4 Mace. IS, 18), Joseph., Arr., Dio Chrys. 

al., Pap. 
Phryn. (Com.), LXX, Plut., Inscr. (CI 3154), 

Hom., Com., Inscr., LXX, Joseph., Pap. 

' Schmid indicates that this word is absent from the New Testament, evidently 
an oversight. 



aprvu^ Schmid II, 190. — Horn, and the other poets, 

Arist., Theophr., Polyb., LXX, Mk. al., Pap. 

a<T&\evTos Schmid I, 149. — Eur., LXX, Anth., Diod., 

Heb. 12, 28, Dio Chrys., Plut., Polemon, 

[Plat] Axioch. 370D, Inscr. 
ia^earos Schmid I, 322. — Poets, Dion. Hal., LXX (Job. 

20, 26 V. I.), Philo, Mt. 3, 12, Mk., Strabo, 

Luc, Ael., Plut. — [Q] 
fSo-T^juoj metaphorically. Schmid I, 322. — Eur. and 

other poets, Hdt., LXX (3 Mace, i, 3), 

Joseph., Dion. Hal. al. 
tacTpdiTTw Schmid IV, 278. — Trag., Ar., late epic. Plat., 

Xen., LXX, Philostr., Pap. (magic). 
farep Poets and late prose, LXX (2 Mace. 12, 15), 

Plut., Inscr., Pap. 
t avyri Schmid IV, 279 al. — Poets, Plat., Xen., LXX, 

^a4>avTo% Schmid II, 191. — Hom., Pind., Soph., Diod., 

Aristides, Plut. 
t a<f>v(ji Schmid III, 186. — ^mostly poetical; Thuc.,Dem., 

LXX, Joseph., Ael., Arr. 
t axXus Schmid 1, 323 al. — Epic, Polyb., Arist., Aquila, 

Symm., Joseph., Luc, Philostr. 

/Soptw Schmid I, 322. — Hom., Plat., Theocr., Paul 

(NageU, p. 26), Luc, Ael., Plut., Pap. 
jSaffTafw Schmid I, 323. — Trag., Com., Polyb., LXX 

(rare), Mt., Mk., Paul, Rev., Arr., Luc, Pap. 
jSttTos Schmid I, 323. — Horn., Theophr., Ar., Luc, 

Philostr., LXX, Mk. 
jSXeTTw Schmid IV, 281. — chiefly poetical, and then in 

late prose; LXX, Mt., Paul ah, Pap. 
tj8oi;j'6s Com., Polyb., LXX, Philo, Joseph., Strabo, 

Plut., Paus., Inscr., Pap.— [LXX] 

1 Schmid indicates that this word is absent from the New Testament, evidently 
an oversight. 


(t) ^paxloiv 




t jSpiixw or jSpiifcw 
t fipiiainos 

f y'KevKos 


t SiaXaX^w 
t hiakeKrbs 
t havevoi 
t diaviiu 
t Stoirerijs 



Horn., Eur., Arist., LXX, Joseph., Jn. 12, 38 

(from LXX.), Pap. 
Horn., Find., Anth., LXX (Apocr.), 2 Tim. 3, 

15 al, Pap. 
Schmid II, 192. — originally poetical; Polyb., 

Mt. al., LXX., Arr., Aristides, Pap. 
EupoHs, Ephipp. (?), LXX, Mt., Galen, Eccles. 


Horn., Hermipp., Hipp., LXX. 

Aesch., Diphilus (Bekker, Anecd. I, 84), LXX. 

Schmid II, 293. — Soph., Plat., LXX, Mt, 

Schmid I, 324. — Nicand., Arist., LXX, Joseph., 

Luc, Plut., Pap. 
Anaxandrides, LXX, Paul (NageH,pp. 26 f.) al., 

M. Anton. 

' bepossessed.' Philemon, Mt.aZ.,Aquila, Plut., 

Pap. (PLeid. W vi. 30, Jewish). 
Schmid III, 190. — Hymn. Horn., Hes., Eur., 

Plat., Xen., Polyb., LXX, Mt. 23, 4, Arr., 

Schmid IV, 285.— Eur., Polyb., Symm., Joseph., 

Philostr., Alciphr. 
' language.' Ar., Com., Arist., Polyb., Diod., 

LXX, Philo, Joseph., Plut. 
Schmid I, 314. — Alexis, Polyb., Diod., LXX, 

Schmid I, 325 al. — Uom., Eur., Xen., Polyb., 

LXX (2 Mace. 12, 17), Joseph., Luc. al. 
(cf. Schmid I, 325)— Eur., Dion. Hal., Luc, 

Hdn., Aristopho, Plut. 
Aesch., Soph., Xen., LXX, Mt., Mk., Paul 

(Nageli, p. 26) al, Plut. 
'reception.' Machon, LXX, Plut. ('receptacle,' 

Hipp.; 'receipt,' Pap.) 
Schmid III, 193. — "Poetic and Alexandrian 

prose." LXX, Mt., Mk., Ael., Pap. 




t eKderos 

t eKKoKvu^au 


t evveiio} 



t ewaKpoaofjiai 

t eirepxoiiai, 


Aesch., Soph., Ar., Plat., LXX.^ 

Horn., Soph., Eur., Hdt., Arist., LXX, Mt. al., 

Eur., Manetho, Vett. Val. 
Eur., Ar., Diod., Dion. Hal. 
Schmid II, 195. — Horn., Hes., Pind., Soph., 

Eur., Plat., LXX, Joseph., Luc, Aristides, 

Machon, Diod., LXX, i Pet. i, 22, M. Anton., 

Polyb., Inscr. 
Trag., Pind., Hipp., Mt. 10, 14 = Mk. 6, 11, 

Plut., LXX, Pap. 
Schmid I, 327.— Soph., Eur., Anth., LXX, Mt., 

Mk., Arr., Luc. 
Schmid I, 314. — Ar., LXX, Luc. 
Ar., Com. frag., Mt. 27, 59, Jn. 20, 7 (the paral- 
lel passages), Arr., Athen., Ev. Nicod., Pap. 

(BM I, p. no, 826, iii a.d.). 
Theognis, Arat., Polyb., Joseph., Mk. 6, 25; 

Phil. 2, 23, 0pp., Pap. 
Schmid III, 197; IV, 294. — Hom. al., LXX, 

Paul, Luc, Aristides, Philostr., Alciphr., Pap. 
Schmid I, 328. — -Hom., Soph., LXX, Joseph., 

Schmid I, 314 al.^ — Plato Comicus, Test. XII 

Patr., Luc, Philostr. 
Schmid II, 196. — Hom., Soph., Eur., Plat., 

LXX, Joseph., Luc, Aristides, M. Anton, 
with dative. Schmid IV, 295. — chiefly poetical, 

LXX, Pap. 
Nicostratus, LXX, Mt. 9, 16 = Mk. 2, 21, Arr., 

Plut. — [Mk] 
'press upon.' Schmid I, 329. — Hom., Eur., 

Hdt., Ar., Theocr., Paus., LXX, Joseph. 
Hom., ApoU. Rhod., Numen. 

From Mk. i, 24 if the reading is accepted there. 
Schmid assigns this word to the LXX by mistake. 



(t) eiripptTTTW Schmid I, 329. — Horn., Arist., Polyb., LXX, 

Joseph., I Pet. 5, 7 (LXX), Luc, Plut., Pap. 

^TTio-KKifw Schmid I, 329. — Hdt., Soph., Arist., Theophr., 

LXX, Philo, Mt. 17, S = Mk. 9, 7, Luc. 

t iiruTTCLTris = SiSdcr/caXoj Antiphon (Bekker, Anecd. I, 96). 

eiri<l>aivu Schmid IV, 296. — Theognis, Theocr., Dion. 

Hal., Plut., LXX, Tit. 2, 11; 3, 4. 
ipyarrfs Schmid 1, 329. — ^ Eur., Soph., Xen., Polyb., LXX 

(Apocr.), Mt., Paul al., Arr., Luc, Pap. 
t ipeidu Schmid II, 197 al. — Poets, Plato, Polyb., LXX, 

Joseph., Aristides, Philostr., Plut. 
?pi<^os or ipl<f>iov Schmid I, 329. — Bacch., Com., LXX, Joseph., 

Aristeas, Mt. 25, 32 f., Luc, Pap. 
ipireTOP Schmid 1, 330. — Hom., Ar., Pind., Eur.,CaIIun., 

Theophr., LXX, Rom. i, 23; Jas. 3, 7, Luc, 
iroind^o) active. Schmid IV, 298. — chiefly poetic and 

late prose; LXX, Paul al.,An., Philostr., Pap. 
evdvueci) intransitive. Eur., Theocr., Anth.,Symm., Jas. 

S, 13, Plut., M. Anton., Pap. 
fe^xre/Sew Trag., LXX (4 Mace 11, 5), Joseph., i Tim. 

t ev^poavvT] Schmid I, 331. — chiefly poetical; Xen., LXX, 

Luc, M. Anton., Pap. 
t€<^oXXo/iai Hom., Pind. ("rare in prose," Liddell and 

Scott), LXX, Plut., Alciphr. 
ex^Sva Schmid I, 331. — Trag., Hdt., Plat., Hes., 

Aquila, Mt., Luc. 

D. Expressions used by the Later Writers 



substantive; cf. Schmid I, 318. —LXX, Enoch, 

Paul (Nageh, p. 46), Pap. (magic), Diog. 

Laert., Iambi, (the adj. in Aesch., Hdt., Eur., 

Ar., Luc). 
LXX, Mk. al., Aristeas, Sext. Emp. 
LXX, Heb. I, 9, Jude 24, Clem. Rom., Justin 





t ayviafiAs 
t aypavKeu 

TO, a^vfia 

f aipeais 


t aKpoarripiov 


oKiL^aarpov or 


t dXXo7€J'57s 

t dj-d/SXei^w 

f dpaSeif IS 

LXX, Mt. a/., Eccles. 

LXX, Aristeas, Philo, Paul al, Test. XII Patr., 

Pss. Sol. 
' angel.' LXX, Philo, Joseph., Mt. al. 
LXX, Anth., Mt., Paul al, Eccl. 
Dion. Hal., LXX, Plut., Inscr. 
Arist., Strabo, Plut. 
with impersonal subject; cf. Schmid III, 98 al. 

— LXX, Mt. 17, 20. — [LXX] 
LXX, Mt. al. (the adj. in Plat., Galen, Athen.) 
Schmid I, 353. — Polyb., Diod., Dion. Hal., 

LXX, Mk., Paul al., Arr., Luc, Plut., Pap. 
' sect.' Schmid IV, 716.— Epicurus, Dion. Hal., 

PMlo, Arr., Diog. Laert., Sext. Emp., Joseph., 

Plut., Strab. 
Diod., LXX, Joseph., Aristeas, Paul, Arr., Plut., 

Inscr. — [? LXX] 
Polyb., Dion. Hal., LXX, Paul ah, Arr., Clem. 

Rom., Pap. (G i, ii B.C. literary). 
Plut., Philo, Arr., Tatian. 
LXX, Philo, Paul. 
Schmid I, 353. — Symm., Joseph., Arr., Plut., 

Luc, Hdn., Pap. (but in Plat.), 
for the earlier dXd/Sao-Tos. LXX, Mk. al., Luc,* 

Plut., Inscr. 
LXX, Joseph., Inscr. (Jewish). 
Arist., LXX, Mt. 3, 12, Babr. (?), Pap. — [Q] 
substant. Arist., LXX, Paul al., Plut., Inscr. 

(the adj. in Ar., Arist., Plut.). 
LXX, Mt. al. 
Schmid III, 231. — Arist., Demetr. de elocut., 

LXX, Ael., Eccles. — [LXX] 
Diod., LXX (Ecclus. 43,6), Strabo, Plut., Eccles. 
Rom. 7, 9, Eccles., Artemidorus, Sotion, Nilus, 

Inscr. (C. I. 2566), (an epic form is quoted 

from Nicander). 

' Lucian, Dial. Mer. 14, 2, not classified by Schmid. 







t avavrip (p)rjTos 
f avavTip (p)r]T(i)S 




t avevScKTOs 

t aveWeros 

f avdonoKoyeofiai 

(f) avTaTTodona 

t &,VTlKpV$ 

t LvTinerpiu 

t i.VTnra.pipxono.i, 

' a curse.' LXX, Paul, Anth., Plut., Inscr. 

LXX, Mk. 14, 71, Inscr. 

Schmid I, 353 al. — Theophr., Diod., Heb. 13, 

7, Luc, Philostr., Plut. 
intransitive. Schmid IV, 340. — Polyb., LXX 

(2 Mace. 8, 25 al), Diod., Phil, i, 23, Luc, 

Ael., Philostr., Pap. 
Polyb., Joseph., Plut., Symm. 
Polyb., Inscr. (OGIS. 335, 138, ii B.C.), Diod., 

Pollux, Hesych. 
' accumbo.' Schmid I, 354. — Alexis, LXX, 

Diod., Jn., Rev., Joseph., Luc, Pap. 
LXX, Gal. s, 12, Justin, Pap. 
' set forth, declare ' (mid.). LXX (2 Mace 3, 

9), Gal. 2, 2, Artemidor., Plut., Pap (?). 
Schmid I, 354. — Arist., Polyb., LXX, Arr., 

Luc, Plut., Pap. 
without a preceding negative. Schmid 1, 3 54. — 

" im alteren Griechisch nicht gebrauchlich." 

Thuc, Dem., Ar., LXX, Mt., Luc, Philostr., 

Inscr. — [Q] 
Artemidorus, Eccles., Diog. Laert. 
LXX (Judges 6, 29 A), Theodotion (Susanna 

14), Justin, Anaphora Pilati, Pap. (OP 34, i, 

13, 127 A.D.) 
'give thanks.' LXX, Test. XII Patr., ('agree,' 

Dem., Polyb., Plut., Pap.). 
LXX, Rom. 11,9 (LXX), Barnab., Didache. 
Nicomachus Math., Philo, LXX, Rom. 9, 20, 

Schol. Pind., Schol. Horn., Justin. 
Hellenistic equivalent for avriKpi in Horn., 

KaravTiKpi) in Att. Prep., ' opposite.' Philo, 

Pap., LXX (3 Mace 5, 16). 
Luc.,1 Eccles. (cf. Aj'TiKarajuerpew TbP.) 
Anth., LXX (Wisd. 16, 10), Galen, Eccles. 

1 Schmid does not classify. Lucian, Amor. 19. 



t avT0<l)9akiJ,iu 



t airapricTfios 
t dxacTTrafo/xai 
t dxeiXeo/iai 

(= dxetXew) 
t aTreXirtfo) 

t di'TiTTtirTO) Schmid II, 215. — Arist., Theophr., Polyb., 

LXX, Strabo., Aristides, Plut., M. Anton., 
Pap. (LP, D, 21, ii B.C.). 
Polyb., Diod., LXX (Wisd. 12, 14), Clem. 

Rom., Barnab., Apoc. Baruch, Pap. 
adv., cf. Schmid III, 102. — Arist., Polyb., Ael., 
Diod., LXX, Joseph., Heb. 10, 8, Xen. 
Ephes., Inscr. 
Polyb., Diod., LXX., Aristeas, Mt., i Thess. 4, 

17, Plut., Diog. Laert., Pap. 
Herondas, Dion. Hal., ApoUon. Dysc, Pap. 
LXX (Tob. 10, 12 k), Himer. 
Dion. Hal., App., Polyaen., Clem. Alex, (the 

active in i Pet. 2, 23). ^ 
Schmid 1, 156. — Epicur., Anth., Polyb., Diod., 
LXX, Joseph., Dio Chrys., Plut, M. Anton., 
Alciphr., Inscr. 
cf. Schmid II, 176. — Polyb., LXX, Mt., Inscr., 
t airepi,Tfj,r]T6s ' uncircumcised.' LXX, Philo, Joseph, (in a 

different sense, Plut.) 
dTToSe/carow LXX, Mt. 23, 23, Heb. 7, 5. — [Q] 

td7ro0Xt|8w Schmid IV, 342. — Theophr., Diphil., Diod., 

LXX, Joseph., Luc, Philostr., Alciphr., Pap. 
dTTOKdXu^is LXX, Paul (Nageli, p. 43) al., Plut. 

t awoKaTaaTaais Arist., Epicur., Polyb., Diod., Joseph., Aristeas, 
Aretaeus, Plut., Galen, Inscr., Pap. (LiddeU 
and Scott cite [Plat.] Axioch. 370 B.) 
d7roK€<^aXifw LXX, Mt., Mk., Arr., Artemidorus, Dio Cass. 

— [Mk] 
aTOKvKia LXX, Mt. 28, 2 = Mk. 16, 3, Joseph., Luc.,* 

Diod. — [Mk] 
airoaTaffia Diod., Archimedes, LXX, Joseph., 2 Thess, 2, 

3 (Nageli, p. 31), Plut., Justin. 
airo<TTo\ri ' apostleship.' Paul, Eccles. (in other senses in 

Thuc, Plat., Polyb., LXX, Plut., Pap.). 

1 Thackeray, Grammar, I, 260 cites cases from MSS. of LXX. 
» Schmid (I. 380) classes as first used by Lucian. 



'say farewell.' LXX, Philo, Joseph., Mk., 2 Cor. 

2, 13, Aesop, Liban., Jambl., Pap. 
Philo, Joseph., Athen., Cyril, (cf. €K<^opTifw, 

OP, 36, ii, 7,9; ii-iiiA.D.). 
LXX (Apocr.), Paul (Nageli, p. 43), Aristeas, 

Sext. Emp., Clem. Alex., Pap. (cf. avpoffKoir- 

Tos, Inscr.). 
Schmid III, 233 al. — Anst., Polyb., LXX, 

Mt., Paul (Nageh, p. 35) al., Ait., Luc, Ael., 

Philostr., Plut., Alciphr., Diog. Laert., Pap. 
CalHm., Theophr., LXX, i Cor. 9, 10 (Nageli, p. 

31), Dio Chrys., Luc.,' Babr., Pap. 
Joseph., Justin, Inscr. (CIG.4363). ('episcopal,' 

apxKrvv&yoiyos Mk., Inscr. (Jewish), Pap. (gentile; see Archiv, 

II, 430). 
Anth., Dion. Hal., Plut., Mt. 10, 29, Inscr. 


'at variance.' Schmid I, 356. — Theophr., 
Diod., LXX (Wisd. 18, 10), Joseph., Arr., 
Luc, Plut., Vett. Val. (in difE. sense. Plat.). 

Polyb., Diod., LXX, Joseph., Mt., Inscr., Pap. 

Schmid 1, 356 al. — Hipp., Arist., Polyb., Diod., 
LXX (Apocr.), Joseph., Paul (Nageli, p. 23), 
Luc, Philostr., Plut., Pap., Arist., and later 

intransitive. Schmid I, 156. — Arist. and later 
writers, Aristeas, Mt., Paul al. 

'choose, appoint.' Arist., Diod., Dio Cass., 
LXX, Paul (Nageli, p. 35) al., Pap. ('define,' 

' fall asleep.' Heimas al. (' awaken,' Anth.) 

t &iro<j)opTl^onai 

kit pb(T KOTOS 


t dpxt€paTiK6j 


t &<TVH<t)0}t'OS 



1 6.<l>virv6()3 

jSAiTTio-jua Mt., Mk., Paul al., Eccles. 

PaiTTiarijs Joseph., Mt., Mk., Justin al. 

t/3(iros, the Hebrew measure (also spelled |8a5os), LXX 

(2 Esd. 7, 22 A), Enoch, Joseph. 

' Philopatr. Schmid does not classify, as the piece is probably not genuine. See I 




LXX, Mt. 24, 15 = Mk. 13, 14, Rev., Eccles. 
LXX, Mt. 12, 5, Heliod., Pss. Sol., Hennas, 

LXX (Ecclus. Prol.). [Justin] Qiiaest. ad Orth. 

Arist., Polyb., Diod., Philo, Paul (Nageli, pp. 31 

f.), Strabo, Arr., Plut., M. Anton., Pap. 
with ace. of pars. LXX, Paul (Nageli, p. 44), 

Joseph., App., Plut., M. Anton., Babr. 
Artemid. Oneir. 4, 30. 
Schmid IV, 344 f . — Arist., Polyb., LXX (2 

Mace. 12, 4), I Tim. 6, 9 (Nageli, p. 32), Dio 

Chrys., Philostr., Arr., Luc, Aleiphr. (of. 

SyU. 324, 7, Karo/SuSifw). 
Artemid. Oneir., Inscr. (CIG 3499), Pap. (FP 

121, 15, c. 100 A.D.) 

Theophr., Polyb., Diod., LXX, Plut., Inscr. 
LXX, Joseph., Mk., Jn. 8, 20, Strabo, Inscr. 

— [Mk] 
Mt., Mk., Paul (Nageli, p. 44), Apollon. De 

Constr. —[Mk. or Q] 
Arist., CaUicratidas. 
Mt., Mk., Orac. Sibyll., Justin al. — [Q] 
LXX, Plut. 
Schmid I, 357. — LXX, Mt. 20, 11, Jn., Paul, 

Arr., Luc., M. Anton., Pollux, Pap. 
Arist., LXX, Joseph., Mt., Mk., Paul (NageK, 

p. 44) al., Achil. Tat., Inscr. 

^ deiffiSaiftovia Schmid I, 357.' — Theophr., Polyb., Diod., 

Joseph., Luc., Plut., M. Anton., Inscr. 
^dcKaoKTw Schmid IV, 701. — Strabo, LXX, Inscr., Pap. 

SeKarivre Schmid IV, 24. — Polyb., Diod., LXX, Gal. i, 

18, Jn. II, 18, Strabo, Plut., Inscr., Pap. 
deKTos LXX, Paul, Aleiphr., Hennas, Justin, 

t Seano<t>i\a^ Schmid I, 357. — Joseph., Luc., Artemid., Test. 

XII Patr., Pap. 

1 Schmid marks " not in New Testament," by mistake. 


t ^vpaevs 



t yaniaKonat, 

t yvixTTTIS 



drjvapiov Mt., Mk., Jn., Rev., Arr., Plut., Pap, 

Sia/3X^7rw Schmid I, 357.1 — Arist., Mt. 7, 5, Mk. 8, 25, 

Luc, Philostr., Plut., M. Anton. — [Q] 
5td/3oXos 'devil.' Mt. al., Eccles. ('adversary,' or 

'slanderous,' Xen., Andocid., Eur., Arist., 

LXX, Past. Epp., Plut.) 
^ diayoyyi^ca LXX, Clem. Alex., Heliod. 

^ diaypriyopia Hdn., Nilus. 

diodiiKri ' covenant.' LXX, Mt., Paul, a/., also once in 

Ar. (Birds 439). (' testament,' Att., Paul, 

Heb., Pap.) 
diaKplvonai ' doubt.' Mt. 21,21 = Mk. n, 23, Jas. i, 6. 

dt.a\oyi.<xn6s ' thought.' Dion. Hal., LXX, Paul (Nageli, 

p. 32) al., Plut. 
'fdi.avoiyca 'explain.' Dion. Hal., Themist. Cf. LXX 

(2 Mace. I, 4). 
t diairoviofiai. ' be troubled.' LXX, Joseph., Aquila, Hesych., 

Stao-Kopirtfw Schmid HI, 236. — Polyb., LXX, Joseph., Mt. 

al., Ael. (cf. Staff KopTn<Tfws, TbP 24, 55). 
Stao-reXXo/itti ' command.' Arist., LXX, Mk., Pap., (active, 

' define,' Schmid I, 300; Plat. Polyb., Luc, 

Diod., Strabo, Plut., Pap.). 
harayi] LXX (2 Esd. 4, 11), Philo, Rom. 13, 2, Clem. 

Rom., Justin, Inscr., Pap. 
t Siaxetptfo/iat 'slay.' Polyb.,Diod.,Dion. Hal., Joseph., Plut., 

Hdn. (active, 'manage,' Schmid I, 115 al.; 

Att., Pap.) 
htyeipu Schmid HI, 236. — Hipp., Arist., Anth., LXX, 

Joseph., Mk. 4, 39, Jn. al., Arr., Ael., Plut., 

Hdn. al., Pap. (magic). — [Mk] 
dtepuriveiiu ' translate.' Polyb., LXX (2 Mace, i, 36), 

Aristeas. 'explain, 'Philo, Paul (NageU,p.32). 
fSteria Philo, Inscr., Pap. 

'\ SidaXaffffos Dio Chrys.,^ Clem. Hom. (in a different sense, 

Strabo, Dion. Perieg.) 

'■ Cf. Schmid, IV, 343: " vor Arist. hat das Wort, aber in anderem Sinn, nur Plat. 
Phaed. 86 D." 2 Schmid fails to classify. 



t SioSeiiw Schmid I, 358. — Arist., Polyb., LXX, Joseph., 

Anth., Arr., Luc, Plut., Inscr., Pap. 
S6tia^ LXX, Aristeas, Jos., Paul, Mt. 7, 11, Plut. 


56^a 'glory.' LXX, N. T., Eccles. 

So^a^u ' clothe with splendor.' Polyb., LXX, Paul al. 

(t) Sva^aaTaKTos^ LXX, Philo, Plut., Cyril., John Chrys. 
t do)8eKd(l)v\ov Clem. Rom., Prot. Jac. (the adj. in Orac. Sibyll. 

ii, 171 V. I.). 

iyyi^03 intransitive. Schmid I, 158. — Arist., Polyb,, 

Diod., LXX, Paul (NageU, p. 36) al., Arr., 

Dio Chrys., Pap. 
iyKaKeci Polyb., Symm., Philo, Paul (Nageli, p. 32), 

[Clem. Rom.], Euseb., Pap. (BU 1043, i" A.D.). 
fryKOTTTu ' hinder.' Polyb., Paul, i Pet. 3, 7. (in other 

senses, Hipp., Theophr.). 
jeSa^trw 'raze.' LXX, Eccles. ('pave,' Arist., Polyb.). 

— [LXX] 
TO WvT] ' Gentiles.' LXX, Paul (Nageh, p. 46) al. (for a 

similar use in profane writers, see Schmid II, 

217, and cf. CIA, II, 445 ff). 
eiSoAodvTos LXX (4 Mace. 5, 2), Paul, Rev., Didache al. 

iKSiKio} Apollod., Diod., Paul, Rev., Athen., LXX, Plut., 

Inscr., Pap. 
iKS'iKTiffis Polyb., LXX, Test. XII Patr., Paul (Nageli, 

p. 33) al., Inscr. 
iK^rjTeco Schmid II, 217 al. — LXX, Aristeas, Heb. al., 

Aristides, Ael. 
t 'Mangos Polyb., Theodot., Symm., Hermas al. 

iKKK-qffia ' church.' Mt., Paul al. (cf. LXX). 

eKfiaaaa Schmid 1, 359. — Hipp., Trag., Ar., Arist., LXX, 

Jn., Luc, Plut., Philostr. 
^ eKuvKTripi^w LXX, Evangg. Apocr. 

eKireipa^u LXX, Philo, Mt. 4, 7 (from Q), i Cor. 10, 9. 

t iKirXiipuffis Dion. Hal., LXX (2 Mace 6, 14), Philo, Strabo, 

Dioscor., Arr. 

1 [Plat.] Def. 4158 is not of early date. 

' Also Mt. 23, 4 according to text. rec. 


t iKTeveia 



t ifinalvofiat 

t ?>'aj'Tt 

(f) iv5t.Sv<rKu 


(t) ivTpofios ' 
t evwri^onai, 

t ^aaTp&iTTU 

t e^o\tdp(ijo(iai 


LXX, SibyU. frag., Test. XII Patr., Mt., Jude 

' wonder.' LXX, Philo, Mk., Longinus, Stob. 
Cicero, LXX (Apoc), Joseph., Athen., Inscr, 

(IMA. 1032, 10). 
Schmid I, 359. — LXX, Mt. al., Luc. 
for iUa. Schmid I, 360 al. — LXX, N. T., Luc. 

al., Pap. (also in MSS. of Xen. and Lys.). 
LXX, Joseph., Pap. 
' ahns,' Mt., Diog. Laert. (' mercy,' CaUim., 

Dion. Hal., Clem. Rom., Polycarp, Iren., Pap. 
Joseph. Antt. xvii, 6, 5. 
'frightened.' Theophr., LXX (Apocr.), Rev. 

II, 13. ('inspiring fear,' Sc hmi d IV, 291; 

Soph., Philostr.). 
LXX, Pap. (OP. 495, 5, ii a. d.), Inscr. (SyU. 

300, 52, ii B.C.). 
LXX, Joseph., Mk. 15, 17 v. I., Hennas, Inscr. 

(SyU. 857, X3, ii B.C.). 
LXX, Menand., Joseph., Mt., Strabo, Plut., 

Alciphr., Pap. (FP. 12, 20; LipsP 34)- — [Q] 
LXX, Paul, Past. Epp., Hermas, Justin al. 
intransitive. Arist., Theophr., Diod., Diosc, 

LXX, Joseph., Arr. 
LXX, Plut., Anth., Justin. 
LXX, Paul, Rev. al., Enoch, Inscr., Pap. 
LXX, Test. XII Patr., Eccles. 
Polyb., Diod., LXX, Joseph., Paul, Apollon. 

Perg., Pap. (TbP 22, 18, ii B.C.) 
Schmid I, 361. — Joseph., 2 Tim. 3, 17, Arr., 

Luc, Pap. 
LXX, Tryphiodorus. 
' decease.' LXX (Wisd.), Philo, Joseph., 2 Pet. 

I, 15, Justin Dial. 105. 
LXX, Test. XII Patr., Joseph., Plut. — [LXX] 
Schmid I, 361. — LXX, Philo, Joseph.. Mt, 

' Occurs also in Heb. 12, 21, with v. I. herpoiim. 



Mk. I, s, Paul, Jas. 5, 16, Luc, Plut., Pap. 
t i^opKi.ffT'ijs Schmid I, 383.' — Joseph., Luc, Anth., Eccles. 

e^ovOeviu LXX, Paul, Eccles. (of. e^ovSeviu, -6u Mk. 9, 12 

d^ouo-idfco Arist., LXX, Dion. Hal., Paul, Inscr. (CIA. 

t^foxi? metaphorically. Cicero, Joseph., Strabo. (lit- 

eral, Schmid I, 158 al.; Arist., Diosc, Dio 
Chrys., Ael., Babr., Sext. Emp., LXX). 
t ^virvos LXX (i Esd. 3, 3), Joseph., Test. XII Patr. 

t eiradpol^u Plut. 

eiravairavu LXX, Rom. 2, 17, Ael.,^ Arr., Hdn., Artemid., 

Bamab., Didache. 
t iirapxeia Schmid I, 361. — Polyb., Diod., LXX, Joseph., 

Arr., Luc, Plut., Dio Chrys., Inscr., Pap. 
eiravpiop Polyb., LXX., Mt. 27, 62, Mk. 11, 12, Jn., Pap. 

iirideais * putting on.' Arist., LXX, Aristeas, Heb. 6, 

2 al., Plut., Inscr. (' attack,' Plat. al. Diod., 
Dion. Hal., Aristeas, Inscr., Pap. (TbP 15). 
eirtova-ios Mt. 6, 11. — [Q] 

t eTTiTTopeiiopai Polyb., LXX, Joseph., Plut., Pap. 

iiriaKoirri in various senses. LXX, i Pet. 2, 12; i Tim. 

3, 1, Luc' (cf. eiriffKoireia TbP 5, 189, 118 B.C.). 
t eTTto-Too-is * 'attack,' LXX (2 Mace 6, 3). ('care,' Schmid I, 

362; Polyb., Diod., Luc, Pap.), 
t emaTTjpi^u) Schmid I, 362 o/. — Arist. , LXX, Luc. , Philostr. 

t eirio-Tpo^i? 'conversion.' LXX (Ecclus. 18, 21; 49, 2). 

In other senses Thuc, Joseph., LXX, Arr., 
Philostr., M. Anton., Pap. 
imavvayw Polyb., LXX, Aristeas, Mt., Mk., Plut., Vett. 

Val., Pap. (GH 72, iii A. d.). 
t cTTKTxi'w intrans. Theophr., Diod., LXX (i Mace 6, 6 

A), (transit., Xen., Ecclus. 29, i). 

1 Schimd classes as among the words used first or only by Lucian in List E. 
' Schmid does not classify. 

' Dial. dear. 20, 6, the only occurrence of the word noted in profane authors; but 
Schmid does not mention it in his word lists. 

* The word occurs also in 2 Cor. 11, 28, possibly in this sense. 



t ecrdriat,s 




t eiiOvSpofiiu 


t evTopeop,ai 

t €i(f)opiu 

LXX, Mt. 28, I (the parallel passage), Inscr. 

(CI. 9119), Pap. (BM. I p. 132, a horoscope 

dated 81 A. D.; GH 112, 15, Christian). 
LXX, Mt. 24, IS = Mk. 13, 14, Arr., Greg. 

Nyss. — [Mk] 
Arist., LXX (2 Mace. 3, 33), Philo, Pollux, 

Athen., Pap. (BU 16 R, 12, ii A.D.). 
Symm., Heb. 6, 19, Pap. 
with ace. pars. Paul al., Justin, Euseb., Heliod., 

' good news.' Schmid I, 363. — Menand., LXX, 

Mt., Mk., Paul, I Pet. 4, 17, Rev. 14, 6, App., 

Luc, Plut., Inscr. 
Eph. 4, 11; 2 Tim. 4, 5, Eccles. 
Polyb., Diod., Dion. Hal., LXX, N. T. (except 

Johannine writings). Pap. 
LXX, Mt. II, 26, Paul, Inscr. (CI. 5960). 
Schmid 1, 363. — Polyb., Mk. 6, 31; i Cor. 16, 

12, Diod., Plut., Luc, Cleom., Pap. 
Polyb., LXX (Apocr.), Aristeas, Mt., Mk., 

Joseph., Anth. — [Mk, Q] 
LXX, Philo, Pss. Sol., Mk. 14, 61, Paul, i Pet. 

Schmid I, 363. — Arist., LXX, Joseph., Luc. 

(the active is Attic), 
'wealthy,' 'prominent.' Mk. 15, 43, Joseph., 

Plut., Pap. (' comely,' Att. prose and poetry, 

LXX, PauP). 
'be fruitful.' Schmid IV, 358. — Hipp., Joseph., 

Philostr., Geopon., Galen, Greg. Nyss. (' sail 

well,' Luc.) 
'give thanks.' Schmid 1, 159. — Polyb., Posidon., 

Diod., LXX, Philo, Joseph., Aristeas, Paul, 

Arr., Dio Chrys., Luc, Plut., Inscr., Pap. 

' Epist. ii, 9 [iii, 12], 2 (codd., not in editions). 

' I Cor. 7, 3S; 12, 24. Schmid (II, 113) overlooks these instances in the New 



evxapiarla Polyb., Diod., LXX (Apocr.), Com., Philo, 

Paul al. 
t e^Tjjuepta LXX (cf. ^(^ij/iepis in Philo, Joseph., Pap.). 

E. Expressions used first or only by Luke 

t [ayaOovpyiu] 
t alrtw/xa 


t aXiayrjua 
t avaraaaonai 

t direXe7/i6s 
t [airoSeKaTevwY 
t diroffTO/xaTif w 
t aprinuv ^ 
t kpx<-TiK(cvr\% 
t a(j)€\6Tr]s 
t a0i|is 

t jSXTjre'oj' ^ 

1 5ta/caTeX€'7xojuai 
t diairplonai, 

t SievOvfieofjiai, 
t dvffevTepiov 

Eccles. (cf. I Tim. 6, i8, dYa&oepYe'w). 
Pap. (FP III, 8, 95-6 a.d.) 

(cf. aXiayiw, LXX). 

' set in order.' (in other senses, Aristeas, Dio 
Cass., Plut., Iren.) 

' urge to speak.' 

Vett. Val, Eccles. 

' departure.' ' (' arrival,' ' journey,' Xen., Dem., 

LXX (3 Mace. 7, 18), Aristeas, Dion. Hal., 

Joseph., Luc, Tatian, Pap.) 


Eustath., Geopon. 

Byzantine writers. 

' be enraged.' Euseb. (in other senses. Plat., 

Hipp., Ar., LXX). 

' Lk. 18, 12 K* B; cf. iiwaSfKaTdta above, p. 27. The Attic form of the simple verb 
is Secarebui. 

2 The Latin form is used in Vitruv. 10, 5, as ' pulley,' and as a nautical term 
(probably ' foresail ') by other writers, e. g., Javolenus, Dig. 50, 16, 242, Schol. on 
Juvenal, Sat. 12, 69, and (restored by editors) in Sen., Contr. 7, r, 2; Statins, ^ito. 3, 2 
30. Whether originally Latin or Greek the word was taken by Luke from current 

' But the meaning ' departure ' is often possible in earlier occurrences, and in Joseph. 
Antt. ii, 2, 4; Diod. 13, 112 is perhaps probable. 

* Also Mark 2, 22 according to text. rec. 


t i^oijaKoyiw ^ ' promise, agree.' 

feirtXetxw Longus (». /.)• 

t [tipaKiihav] 

As analysed by these lists the part of Luke's vocabulary taken as 
significant for the purposes of the present investigation divides itself 
in the following proportions: 

A. Common Attic words or words affected by the Attidsts 13 7 

B. Words used chiefly by one of the ancient writers , 27 

C. Words found first or chiefly in poetry 87 

D. Worlds belonging to the post-classical prose, including Aristotle 202 

E. Words first used by Luke 22 

These figures may be compared with those of Schmid by means 
of the following tables. Table I shows the number of words in each 
of the above classes for the several authors. Table II affords a 
better means of comparison by giving the same facts reduced to per- 
centages, 100 per cent in each case being the total number of words 
in the writer's vocabulary that are considered significant, i. e. not 
of common occurrence in all grades and all ages of ancient Greek 



Dio Chry- 


n, 244) 

m, 272) 


IV, 428) 

Luke and 




























' EbeUng finds a parallel in TbP 183, ii b. c. 





Dio Chiy- 





Luke and 






























The result at first sight is quite as would be expected. Every ele- 
ment of a Hellenistic vocabulary appears in Luke, but the post- 
classical element is considerably larger than in any of the Atticists 
which Schmid studies. 

There are, however, some considerations that make the difference 
between Luke and the Atticists really less than appears. For on 
examining the list of post-classical words we notice: 

1. There are a nimiber of words found in it which occur in Luke 
only in passages derived from the LXX, Mark, or Q. It is true that 
these words are part of his vocabulary, but in view of their obvious 
origin, especially those in formal quotations from the Old Testa- 
ment, it would perhaps be fairer to leave them out of consideration. 

2. A nimiber of the words in this list are found before 200 a.d. 
only in Jewish and Christian writers, and may therefore be con- 
sidered part of a special local or technical vocabulary of Jewish 
Christian writers rather than a reaUy typical part of Luke's normal 
Greek style. Some of them are plainly Jewish Greek terms as ra 
a^vfia, afiriv, aireplTfiriTos. They also may be subtracted or at least 
discounted in considering Luke's Greek vocabulary. Schmid him- 
self affords some precedent for omitting such words from list D or 
transferring them to E.* In fact his whole attitude towards the 
New Testament — treating its vocabulary as a test of the un- Attic 

' For example, from the vocabulary <jf Lucian, which is the most fully treated of all 
(I, 400), Schmid omits entirely 

ipniterpiu New Testament. 

ewurKo-KTi LXX, New Testament. 



and vulgar,! indicates that the margin of error is likely to be on the 
side of underrating the classical element in its writers. 

But the significant fact about the comparisons is that, in spite of 
this large dilution of Luke's vocabulary with post-classical words, 
it includes also a large number of Attic words — a nvunber quite as 
large in proportion as the same element in at least two of Schmid's 
authors, Lucian and Aelian. 

Of course too much confidence must not be placed upon these 
numerical comparisons of vocabulary. The great variety exhibited 
by the proportions in the vocabularies of the five authors studied by 
Schmid warns us against making too much of slight differences of 
proportion. Apparently the Atticists themselves gathered their 
vocabulary from the different sources in very different ways. 

The value of the study of Luke's vocabulary which we have been 
here undertaking seems rather to lie, first, in the endeavor to select 
from it those words which may be looked on as significant, and, 
second, in arranging those words so as to show the different ele- 
ments in Luke's vocabulary. Besides, it makes possible a safe com- 
parison of Luke's vocabulary with that of various other writers. 
While the results of such a comparison can not be stated more defi- 
nitely than the general impressions of every reader of Luke's work, 
they are at least better founded. And in particular it justifies itself 
by showing that the vocabulary of Liike, while it has its natural 
aflSliations with the Greek of the Bible, is not so far removed from 
the literary style of the Atticists as to be beyond comparison with 

The question may be pertinently asked whether the gulf between 
New Testament Greek in general and Attic or Atticistic Greek is not 

while he lists among the words first used by Lucian 

diroKuXfoi LXX, New Testament, Josephus. 

djticToxiijTos New Testament, Philo. 

IJopKto-T^s New Testament, Josephus. 

Note also his omission of these rare words: 

iiekXaaam New Testament, Strabo, Dio Chrys. 

hravairaiw LXX, New Testament, Aelian. 

' Tliis is shown by his use of a special sign (t) throughout his lists for words absent 
from New Testament Greek, and by his omitting altogether from his summaries of 
lists A, B, and C, in IV, 635-679, words occurring in the New Testament. 


being exaggerated in our day owing to our fresh knowledge of the 
vernacular Greek through the papyri. If so, the exaggeration is 
probably due to two factors, namely, the overrating of the purely 
imitative and classical element in the so-called Atticists, and the 
underrating of the literary element in the vocabulary of the New 
Testament writers. I am inchned to revolt slightly also from the 
extreme view of Deissmann and Moulton, who minimize the Semitic 
or Biblical or Jewish element in the New Testament and ascribe 
such phenomena to the vernacular Greek of the time. I have 
already indicated that much of Luke's post-classical vocabulary 
appears to be due to a distinctly Jewish-Christian language. This 
is probably even more true of his post-classical syntax. And still 
more allowance must be made if it is assumed that in some parts of 
his work he consciously imitates the LXX or Mark. 


In the year 1882, W. K. Hobart pubUshed under the title " The 
Medical Language of St. Luke," an elaborate investigation into the 
vocabulary of Luke, aiming to show, mainly by quoting parallels 
from medical writers, that the language of the third Evangehst has 
a distinctly medical tinge. Some attempts in the same direction had 
been made before Hobart,^ though he was acquainted with only 
one, an article that appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine for June, 
1841. To the large mass of material which Hobart collected no ad- 
ditions seem to have been made since,^ though Zahn and Hamack ^ 
have greatly strengthened the argument by selecting from Hobart 
only the most convincing examples. 

Hobart smnmarizes his argimient as follows: 

" We have in the account of the miracles of healing, or their op- 
posites, in the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, medical 
language employed. 

"In the general narrative, outside of medical subjects, we find, 
wherever we have an opportunity of comparing it with the other 
New Testament writers, that Luke strongly inclines to the use of 
medical language. 

* For the Notes on this Chapter see below, pp. 51 fE. 


" Even where in the general narrative a comparison cannot be in- 
stituted with other New Testament writers, we find words occurring 
uniformly throughout which were in use in medical phraseology, 
and which from habit and training a physician would be likely to 

" In estimating the weight of the argument it should be remem- 
bered that the evidence is cumulative, and that the words adduced 
as examples are very numerous, considering the extent of St. Ltike's 
writings." * 

The evidence of Hobart and the thesis for which it was compiled 
seem to have been very widely accepted by New Testament schol- 
ars. Of recent English writers alone who accept this argmnent (with 
more or less caution) the following may be mentioned: Plummer,* 
Hawkins,^ Knowling,' Ramsay,* Chase,' Peake,!" Stanton," Mof- 
fatt.i'' Among German scholars Zahn and Hamack " have become 
the active champions of the theory, and now Hamack " claims even 
P. W. Schmidt and Clemen as converts, though their conversion 
is apparently hardly complete. The former considers that " a good 
acquaintance with medical art and terminology is the most that can 
be asserted of ' Luke.' " " The latter limits medical characteristics 
to the " We " sections." 

The argiunents of Hobart need testing. A careful examination of 
them was recommended some years ago by Johannes Weiss," but 
has not been forthcoming. Some writers treat Hobart's work with 
respectful attention, others with contempt.'* A few protests have 
been raised against it," but apparently none by English or American 
scholars. What is needed is a complete consideration of all the 
factors involved. This may be a thankless task, but in view of the 
importance attached to the argimient from the alleged medical 
language in upholding the traditional authorship of Luke and Acts 
it is a necessary one. 

A great deal of the material so assiduously collected by Hobart 
has of itself no independent value. There are many words so com- 
mon in all kinds of Greek that their appearance in Luke and Acts 
and in the medical writers is inevitable, e.g., avaipetv, airairtiv, 
airopelv, do-0aX)7s, /3ia, and the like. Hobart attributes Luke's use 
of ixvv to the fact that " in his professional practice, St. Luke would 
have been in the constant habit of employing this word, as it was 


almost always used in the fonnula of a prescription, etc., and thus 
became an ahnost indispensable word to a physician." ^ 

Plimmier has pointed out that of Hobart's long list of words: 

" More than eighty per cent are found in LXX, mostly in books 
known to St. Luke, and sometimes occurring very frequently in 
them. In all such cases it is more reasonable to suppose that Luke's 
use of the word is due to his knowledge of LXX, rather than to his 
professional training. ... If the expression is also found in pro- 
fane authors, the chances that medical training had anything to do 
with Luke's use of it become very remote. It is unreasonable to 
class as in any sense medical such words as adpoi^eiv, olkoti, avaipttv, 
AvoKan^avew , avopBovv, airairelv , airaWaaaeiv, airoKveiv , inzoptiv, 
a<T<l>a\eLa, a(f>eai,s, etc., etc. All of these are frequent in LXX, and 
some of them in profane authors also."^' 

The figures for Josephus are no lower. From Krenkel's lists '^^ it 
appears that of the 400 words in Hobart's index about 300 occur in 
both LXX and Josephus, 27 in LXX but not in Josephus, while 67 
are in Josephus but not in LXX.''' So that Josephus, who as a 
single author makes a fair parallel to Luke, uses mnety per cent of 
the " medical words " listed by Hobart. A comparison of Hobart!g 
list with the lexica of two profane authors of the same period, Plu- 
tarch and Lucian,^ shows that over ninety per cent of the hst is foimd 
in one or both of these two authors. Of the remaining thirty or forty 
words few seem to have any strikingly medical signification in Luke. 
It is clear, therefore, that Hobart's hst contains very much that is 
without significance, many of his words being common words with- 
out any special medical use. While he shows most diKgently that 
the words he catalogues are employed by the medical writers, he/ 
does not show that they are not employed by other writers with no|> 
professional training. Even those who accept his argument realize) 
this. " He has proved only too much," says Hamack.''* 

Yet it is frequently argued that even when the worthless ex- 
amples are subtracted from Hobart's list the residue is still quite 
suflicient to prove his point, that when the material is thoroughly 
sifted, as Weiss reconmiended, cogent proofs will still remain. For 
this reason Zahn and Hamack have selected the most striking ex- 
amples, and it will evidently be more just for us to confine our argu- 


ment to their selections. For further examination we shall divide 
their examples into four general groups: 

A. General words 

B. Medical words 

C. Ordinary words used in a medical sense 

D. Longer expressions 

In the following lists " H " means that the example is cited by 
Harnack, " Z " that it is cited by Zahn. Since most of this chapter 
was written, a similar list of selections has appeared in Moffatt's 
Introdtiction to the Literature of the New Testament (191 1). Many of 
them are coincident with the selections of Hamack and Zahn, the 
others are generally less convincing.^^ Some of them are referred to 
incidentally throughout this chapter and in the Excursus appended 
to it by the letter "M." 

In these lists the occurrence of words in Lucian, Plutarch, Jose- 
phus, and LXX is noted, but the citations from Josephus are not 
exhaustive as there is no complete lexicon of his works. A few other 
notes are appended to the words and expressions in all the lists. A 
complete account of the occurrences of these terms in non-medical 
writers would occupy a great deal of space. 

A. General Words 

[a'^uvla] (hz) LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

avaKaBi^w " (hm) Plut. 

kvLipv^LS (hmz) LXX. 

airo4^vxu (hmz) LXX, Joseph., Luc. 

aairia (hmz) Joseph., Plut., Luc. {Gallus 23 v. I.) 

affLTos (hz) Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

Arevl^u (z) LXX, Joseph., Plut, Luc. 

MOeia (h) LXX (freq.), Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

iKTveoi 2^ (hz) Joseph., Plut. 

eioPvxoi 2' (hmz) LXX, Plut. 

ifiTTviu (hz) LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

ivoxKiu (mz) LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. (freq.) 

iiai(j)vrii (z) LXX, Joseph., Plut. 

emueXcos (hm) LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

^uoyovioi 5" (hz) LXX, Plut., Luc. 



•fjniOavris '^ (hz) 
dipixri (hm) 
iKfias (mz) 
KaraKkeio) (z) 
KOTa^iiXw (hmz) 
Kkivapiov '^ (h) 
KXiy?? (h) 
kKiviSiov '^ (h) 
Kpa^^aros (h) 
ofloj'Tj (hz) 
odoviov (hz) 
oxXew (mz) 
•KaptvoxKio} (z) 
irXiinfjiVpa (mz) 
7n'oi7 (hz) 
irpoahoKOLW (hmz) 
•KpoahoKia (mz) 
irpoapriywiii (mz) 
Ttt (TiTia (z) 
<rT77ptfw (h) 
avKapiLvos (mz) 
frvKoijopia '' (mz) 
i^u/XTriTTrw (mz) 
TpavfiaTL^o) (z) 
ijiro^uvvvfu (hm) 

avaxripos (hmz) 
are/cws (z) 
SvaevTepiov '* (z) 
ey/cuos (z) 
eXKos (hz) 
ikKoofiat (hz) 
iSpws (z) 
KpaiiraXri (hmz) 
oXoKkripia '^ (hz) 
■wapaXeKviievos (hmz) 
prjyp.a (mz)- 

LXX (4 Mace. 4, 11') 
LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 
LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 
LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 
LXX, Joseph., Plut. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 
Joseph., Plut; (freq.O, Luc. (Asin. 2) 

Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut. 

LXX, Plut. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 


LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

LXX, Plut., Luc. 

LXX, Joseph. {Anti. viii. 7,40./.), Plut. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 
LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 
LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc 

B. Medical Words 

LXX, Joseph., Plut. 
LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut. 

LXX, Plut. 


LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

Plut., Luc. 

LXX, Plut. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 



ffirapyavba (z) 
areipa (z) 
ff4>vdp6v '' (h) 
rpaO/io (z) 
iSputriKAs (h) 
xAff/iO (h) 
XPtis (hmz) 

LXX, Plut. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 


LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

C. Ordinary Words Used in a Medical Sense 

aSwaros (h) 
avaKviTTU (hm) 
avopBou (hm) 
dxaXXdffffw (mz) 
ctiroXuw (h) 
&iroxo3pi(i} (z) 
apxai = iripara '* 
AxXiis (hmz) 
PXaiTTU (hmz) 
eKaraais (hmz) 
eirt/SXeVw (hmz) 
hnfieKioiiai (hmz) 
lirilxiKeia. (hz) 
^T/pioj' = Ix'Sva ^2 
t(TTr]fu, (hz) 
KadaiTTU (h) 
[jcarajSatj'w] (hz) 
KaraSioi (z) 
KaTaTTtirrw (hmz) 
ddwdofiai, (hz) 
TrapaxPWtt (hz) 
TTi/iirpdojuai (hmz) 
piwTO) (hmz) 
<tk6tos (h) 
ffvKKaiJ.^at'O} (z) 
(Twexo/iat (hz) 
(ruo-r^XXw (h) 

' crippled,' LXX, Plut., Luc. 

of recovery, LXX, Joseph., Plut. 

of recovery, LXX, Luc. 

of recovery," Joseph., Luc. 

of recovery, LXX, Joseph. 

of recovery. 
(hz) LXX, Plut. 

of blindness,'^ Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

of physical injury, LXX, Joseph., Plut. 

' fit, trance,' LXX, Plut. 

' examine,' " Plut. 

of medical care, Luc. 

of medical care, LXX," Plut., Luc. 
(hz) Plut., Luc. 

' stop, stanch,' « Plut. 

' infect.' " 

' faU,' of liquids, LXX, Joseph.^^ 

' bandage,' LXX (Ecclus. 27, 21), Joseph. 

' fall,' of persons, LXX, Joseph., Luc. 

of pain, LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

of sudden change in health, Joseph. 

' swell,' LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

of convulsions. 

of blindness, LXX, Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

' conceive,' LXX, Plut., Luc. 

' be afflicted with,'« LXX, Joseph., Plut. 

' shroud.' « 


D. Longer Expressions 
irvperbs M^as (hmz) 
7rXi7pi7S X^Trpas (hm) 
?X« €" Ttto-Tpl « (z) LXX 

iTuXXajujSdj'w h> yaarpl (z) LXX (Gen. 25, 21 v. l.).*^ 
[dpbfi^oi. aifiaTos] (h) " frequent from Aesch. down." 

^TTixew ekaiov Kai olvov (hz) (^ttixco) gXaioj', LXX, Plut.) " 
els iiaplav vepirpiirw ^^ (hz) Luc. 
Karatfiiponai virvci), etc. (hmz) Joseph., Plut., Luc. 
irvperoi (hz) (plural) Joseph., Plut., Luc. 

aireireffav Xeirides (hmz) (diro7riirTW,LXX,Joseph., Plut., Luc.) 

(XeTTij, LXX, Joseph., Plut.) 
aaiToi SiaTeketre *^ (hmz) 
rp^fia fie\6v7is " (hmz) (jpiiiia., Polyb., Joseph., Plut.) 

03€X6j'r7, Plut., Luc.) 
ov&tv aroTvov, t'l cltottov (hz) LXX, Joseph., Plut. 
opoSiSw/xi eiruTToXriv (mz) 
ovK S.<rr)iMs ttoXis (hmz) 

In reviewing these lists anyone familiar with the common vocab- 
ulary of Hellenistic Greek will easily see that there are few words 
in them that are of imusual occurrence. The notes indicate that 
for several of these even the medical writers do not offer satisfactory 
parallels. List B can not be given too much weight, as it is natural 
that any writer's description of purely medical matters should find 
parallels in the books of medicine. And if there is any argument 
from the cases (List C) where Luke uses words in the same technical 
sense as do the doctors, this argument is more than offset by the 
many cases quoted by Hamack, Hobart, Moffatt, and Zahn them- 
selves in which words that have a special technical meaning among 
the doctors are used by Luke in an entirely different sense.*^ 

List D is no doubt the most specious of all. The first two ex- 
amples, which Harnack calls termini technici for " great fever " and 
" acute leprosy," are not very convincing when Luke's fondness for 
the adjectives niryas and irXripris is remembered; *^ ohSiv arowov, rl 
CLTOTTov, seem to be regular expressions for something " out of the 
way," i.e., either criminal or disastrous; ^ civaSlSwfu iirurTokqv and 
similar expressions are common in the papyri." ovk Ha-riijas was 


evidently a common litotes and perhaps especially applied to a man's 
origin. ^8 Is it likely that Luke got these last two phrases from the 
letters of Hippocrates, five hundred years old ? *' 

Hobart, Zahn, and Harnack all group together the differences be- 
tween Luke and the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark, and 
make a special point of them.^" These differences, it is claimed, 
show the marks of a physician. The examples are of two kinds: 

1. Substitution by Luke of synonyms of medical character. 

2. Additions, omissions, or changes in the description of patients 
or cures that show an interest in medicine. 

I. In comparing the language of Luke with the synonyms in 
Mark or Matthew, the fact that the term in Luke is found in the 
medical writers does not prove that he was a physician, for a well 
educated person such as Luke evidently was, even without special 
medical training would use more technical terms than a less edu- 
cated person. The general difference between Luke and the other 
synoptists is shown elsewhere to be a marked difference in culture.'^ 
Harnack admits that three of the examples that he quotes as sub- 
stitutions of medical synonyms are also verbal improvements, viz. : 
plrpav Luke 4, 35 for airapa^av Mark i, 26 

■irapaKe\vn&os Luke 5, 18 for irapoKvTiKos Mark 2, 3 

yevonevos kv a-Yuviq, [Luke] 22, 44 for fip^aro kKdaix^etaOai 

("unclassical") Mark 14, 33 
Zahn recognizes verbal improvements in two : ^^ 
KKivihov Luke 5, 19, 24 for KpaP^aros Mark 2, 4, 11 

iKfids Luke 8, 6 for pl^av Mark 4, 6 

Three other examples are in accord with the known preferences of 
the Atticists: 

j8€X6>'?? Luke 18, 25 forpa(^ts Mark 10, 25, Matt. 19, 24*' 

KaKus 'ix<^v Luke 7, 2 ior fiaa-avi^dixevos Matt. 8, 6 ^* 

irXrujLfivpa Luke 6, 48 for /Spoxi? Matt. 7, 25 ^' 

The only other examples of this kind in Harnack and Zahn are: 
wpocrpi)yvviJ.i Luke 6, 48,49 for Trpoa-wiirTW Matt. 7, 25-27 

wpoffpTiyvviJU, wpoaKdirra 




Luke 8, 44 
Luke 20, 12 


for ^rjpalvoi 

for 6epw 

Mark 5, 29 ^^ 
Mark 12, 5 

But pvffis is found in the parallel in Mark (5, 25), and dipu is used 
by Luke in the same context (20, 11). The remaining examples have 
been considered in the lists above. Note that both Josephus (B. J. 
i. 17, 4) and Lucian (Philopseud. 31) use a-vinrlirTO}, as does Luke (6, 
49), of a house falling in. 

On the other hand a number of good medical terms are found in 
Matthew and Mark but not in Luke. Here are a few examples, 
those limited in the New Testament to one or both of these evange- 
Hsts being marked as in Hobart by an asterisk. * 

* ayKLarpov 

Matt., name of a surgical instrument. 

* aifioppoeco 

Matt., substituted for o5(ra iv piiaei 
Mark, Luke. 

al'juaTos in 

* a.vr)6ov 

Matt. (Hippocr., Theophr et al.) 

* tL^pi^U 



Matt., Mark, once elsewhere in New Testament 

(i Cor. II, 30). 


Matt, (once in Luke also, from Q) 


Matt. (Dioscor., et al.) 

* epexjyonaL 


* KoXo/36w 

Matt., Mark, " properly to amputate ' 
Mark 13, 20). 

" (Swete on 

* KvXKos 

Matt., Mark (Hippocr.) 



* Kosvurl/ 


* nvpi^co 



of paralysis, Mark. " 

* ■n-po(rKe<j)6.\ai.ov 


* TTvpeWw 

Matt., Mark. 


Mark, Paul (see J. A. Robinson, 
p. 264). 


* (TKbiKr}^ 

Mark (for the medical use of the word, 
p. 43-)^^ 

see Hobart, 

* (Tuvpvi^u 

Mark (Dioscor. and very late writers 



2. The other arguments for the medical language of Luke based 
on a comparison with Matthew and Mark are such general differ- 
ences as the following: 

" In the description of Jesus' healing work Luke sometimes writes more 
fully than does Mark, and with greater vividness." (Zahn, p. 146.) 

"Luke often indicates how long the person healed had been afflicted." 
(Zahn, p. 147.) 

" In the cure of the epileptic boy (St. Luke, 9, 38 ff. = St. Mark 9, 17 £F.) 
St. Luke adds in the description of the patient: k^a'ut>vris Kpa^ei {scU. the evil 
spirit) . . . Kal /idyii dirox'Jp" ox' avrov cvvrpi^ov airov." These " inter- 
polations elucidate the description of the disease by telling of symptoms that 
are characteristic of epilepsy." (Hamack, pp. 183, 186 f.) 

" The addition in both these cases (Luke 6, 6; 22, 50 f.) that it was the right 
hand and the right ear respectively is a token of exactness which is specially 
intelligible in a physician." (Hamack, p. 185.) 5' 

But there are some converse facts in a comparison of the s)Tioptic 
Gospels that these writers do not mention: 

In Luke 4, 39 = Mark i, 31 = Matt. 8, 15, Luke aloUe omits the 
fact that in curing the woman Jesus took (Matt, touched) her 
hand.'" In fact Luke frequently omits reference t(^ touching or 
laying on of hands where Matthew and Mark mention it.''^ Again 
with all his " special interest in methods of healing " Luke does not 
mention (9, 6) as does Mark (6, 13) that the twelve on their mission 
of preaching and practicing anointed their patients with olive oil. 
In Matthew (8, 6) the patient healed at the request of a Capernaum 
centurion is plainly described as TrapaXuriKos, but in Luke (7, 2) 
merely as one very sick and about to die ((ca/cws exuv ^/xeXXep reXeu- 
Tciv). It is Matthew (5, 39), not Luke (6, 29), that says "right 
cheek " in Jesus' dictum on non-resistance.'* 

Even in the healing of the epileptic boy referred to by Hamack, 
as just quoted, the facts turn quite the opposite way. As in the case 
of another demoniac (Luke 8, 26 ff. = Mark 5, i ff.), Luke omits 
or expUcitly contradicts all reference to a self-destructive tendency 
on the part of the patient. Here he also omits such symptoms as 
deafness, dumbness, foaming, grinding the teeth, pining away, fall- 
ing and rolling, death-like coma on the ground.'' He also omits 
from Mark the question and answer in reference to the duration of 
the disease {iraiSiAOev , Mark 9, 21), and the statement that Jesus 
took the patient by the hand (Mark 9, 27), and commanded the 
spirit not only to leave hrni but never to return.'* Still Hamack 


asserts (p. 187); " Very nearly all of the alterations and additions 
which the third Evangelist has made in the Markan text are most 
simply and surely explained from the professional interest of a phy- 
sician. Indeed, I caimot see that any other explanation is even 
possible." " 

Examples of medical language in an author to have their fullest 
weight should be words that are used elsewhere only or mainly in 
medical writers. Hobart not only includes many words used fre- 
quently by other than medical writers, but apparently is at no 
pains to show that many of Luke's words are used principally or 
exclusively by medical writers.'' Zahn speaks of his examples as 
" words and turns of phrase found elsewhere only in the medical 
books," " but does not make plain which of them fulfil this descrip- 
tion. It is certain that nearly all of them do not.'' 

The selected examples of Hamack, Moffatt, and Zahn do not im- 
press us with their technical character. Yet even if we accepted 
them as medjcal terms, the argument derived from them would not ^ 
be fully convincing. It is still possible that they could have been 
used by a non-medical man. We have no way of knowing how far 
medical language had penetrated into the vocabulary of every day 
life. The vocabulary of the doctor and the layman always coincide 
to a considerable degree. We know how many of the simpler medi- 
cal terms are found in common speech to day, especially on the hps 
of educated men, and we may well think of conditions in the first 
century as in this respect much like our own. It is entirely possible, 
then, that much medical language had already become part of com- 
mon speech." If we are to accept the definition of Hobart as to 
what constitutes a medical term, we have already seen that many 
such words are foimd in the LXX, Josephus, Plutarch, and Lucian. 
Kennedy indicates that about ten per cent of the more uncommon 
words in the LXX are to be found also in Hippocrates. His propor- 
tion for the New Testament as a whole is nearly as large.*" In his 
study of the Atticists Schmid finds constant aflUiations in vocabu- 
lary between them and Hippocrates and the other medical writers.'^ 
Medical borrowings have been asserted for Polybius '^ and even 
for Xenophon's Anabasis.** Many Latin authors also use medical 


Any sound argument for the medical bias of Luke's vocabulary 
not only must show a considerable number of terms possibly or 
probably medical, but must show that they are more numerous and 
of more frequent occurrence than in other writers of his time and 
degree of culture. Even were we to accept Hobart's long list of 
medical terms, it remains to be proved that the examples are more 
abundant and more strikingly coincident with medical language as 
we know it than those which could be collected from Josephus, 
Philo,86 Plutarch, or Lucian. " The evidence is cumulative," «« but 
it must also be comparative. Otherwise the conclusions will be 
thoroughly subjective. «' The question that presents itself, there- 
fore, is not whether there are many parallels between the diction of 
Luke and that of the medical writings, but whether these parallels 
/ are more numerous or more striking than those which can be found 
\i non-professional men, writing with the same culture as Luke and 
on similar subjects. If not, the argimient of Hobart and the rest is 
'' useless. 

So far as I know this test has never been applied to the question 
of the medical language of Luke. To apply it fully for only one 
other author would be a large task^ requiring the " remarkable in- 
dustry " of another Dr. Hobart. Yet at least a rough test should be 
made. In an excursus appended to this chapter is given the result 
of a preliminary investigation of the "medical language" of Lucian, 
carried on in the manner of Hobart, Harnack, and Zahn. Lucian was 
chosen as being nearly a contemporary and a fair parallel to Luke. 
Both writers have a large vocabulary ^' and a ready command of 
Greek. Lucian was an Asiatic Greek who travelled into the western 
world. This is also the tradition about Luke the physician.^' But 
otherwise the test was chosen entirely at random. 

The results given are very incomplete. But a complete study is 
here not necessary, as we are trying to learn, not whether Luke is a 
little more medical in diction than his nonprofessional contempo- 
raries, but whether the difference is striking. And the test case quite 
sufi&ciently proves that it is not. The style of Luke bears no more 
evidence of medical training and interest than does the language 
of other writers who were not physicians. This result, it must be 
confessed, is a purely negative one. It is probably futile to try to 
carry the argument further, as Clemen does, and to argue from the 


language of Luke and Acts that a physician could not have written 
them.'" One cannot know to-day what an ancient physician could 
not have written. Of course the absence of marked medical traits 
does not prove that a doctor did not write Luke and Acts. To 
judge from the fragments that remain, Ctesias, the physician, uses 
no more medical language in his historical work than did his 
contemporary Xenophon, the soldier and historian.'^ So Luke, 
" the beloved physician " and companion of Paul, may have written 
the two books which tradition assigns to him, though their Greek 
be no more medical than that of Lucian, " the travelling rhetorician 
and show-lecturer " ; but the so-caUed medical language of these 
books cannot be used as a proof that Luke was their author, nor 
even as an argument confirming the tradition of his authorship. 


^ Editorial Note. — The earlier discussion turned on the question whether 
"Luke the physician" (Coloss. 4, 14) was the same Luke to whom tradition 
ascribed the third Gospel and the Acts (Iren., Euseb., Jerome), or, as Erasmus, 
Calvin, and others surmised, another person, expressly distinguished from the 
Evangelist by the designation "the physician." The titles of two i8th century 
dissertations belong to the bibliographical inventory; viz., J. G. Winckler, Dis- 
sertatio de Luca Evangelista medico (Lips. 1736, 4"), and B. G. Clauswitz, De 
Luca Evangelista medico ad Coloss. iv. 14 (Halae Magdeburg. 1740, 4"). The 
former is duly catalogued in the long list of this multitudinous author's publi- 
cations (e.g., in Meusel), and down to the middle of the 19th century it was 
regularly cited in the " literature " on Luke, but I discover no evidence that 
anybody had seen it in the meanwhile. Clauswitz is likewise unattainable, but 
some of Ms illustrations of the Evangelist's medical knowledge are quoted by 

Wettstein, in his edition of the New Testament (1751; I, 643) wrote: "Exer- 
cuisse medicinam Paulus ad Colossenses testatur. Eusebius autem et Hiero- 
njrmus addunt fuisse natione Sjrrum Antiochensem: utriusque non obscura 
prodit indicia in scriptis suis." The evidences he adduced of Luke's profes- 
sional use of terms (especially in Luke 4, 38, Acts 13, 11) became classical, and 
those who plough with his heifer have, as usual, such faith in him that they 
deem it superfluous to look up his references or even read his quotations; other- 
wise some one would have discovered that Galen does not say that physicians 
make a technical distinction between big fevers and small ones, but — in two 
places — that " big fever " is an inaccurate expression (since the nature of a 
fever is not defined in quantitative terms), though common among physicians 
(,De comp. medic, per genera, iii. 2, Vol. XIII, pp. 572 f. Kiihn; De different, 
febrium, i. i, Vol. VII, p. 275; see also his commentary on Hippocrates, 
Aphorism, i, ad Aphor. 11, Vol. XVII. ii. p. 388). Inaccurate expressions are 
quite as likely to be in popular use as to be exclusively professional. In fact, 


in the 17th century a physician (Guil. Ader, De aegroUs et morhis Evangelicis, 
Toulouse, 1621; reprinted in Critici Sacri, Lond. 1660, Vol. IX, col. 3679 f-), 
writing about the miracles of healing in the Gospels, remarked on Luke 4, 38, 
(rvvexofikvri irvpercf fiey&kcii, " EvangeUsta loquitur ut vulgus, qui magnas 
febres vocat, quas Hippocrates in Epidem. & com. 4. sec. 13. acut. dicit acutas, 
continuas, causonides, ardentes. Quarum fecit duo genera Galenus: Exquisi- 
tam nempe, vel notham." 

Till after the beginning of the 19th century, Luke's medical language was a 
standing topic in the principal Introductions to the New Testament. J. D. 
Michaelis (Einleitung in die gottUchen Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 4 Ausg., 
Gottingen, 1788, pp. 1078 f.), citing Clauswitz, adduces irvperbs fieyas (Luke 
4, 38), ayuvia (Luke 22, 43), and &x>-vi (Acts 13, 11), as examples of the 
author's professional knowledge. J. G. Eichhom {Einleitung in das Neue Testa- 
ment, 2 Ausg., Leipzig, 1820, p. 625) disposes of these instances with a com- 
monsense observation. See also Winer, Biblisches Realwoerterbuch, 3 Aiifl., 
Leipzig, 1848, II, 34 f. 

In the collections from Greek authors to illustrate the New Testament, of 
which the i8th century was prolific, many of the supposed technical medical 
terms in Luke and Acts are illustrated from authors not suspected of medical 
learning; it would perhaps be possible to match in them aU the words in Ho- 
bart's list which have even a superficial plausibility. 

Learned physicians, who should be the best judges, have seldom contributed 
even their opinions on the question whether Luke was of their guild. The few 
pages which Dr. John Freind (1675-1728) gives to the subject have therefore 
an especial interest, for Freind knew the Greek medical writers not through 
indexes or by skimming their pages for an extraneous purpose, but as both a 
practitioner, and a historian of ancient medicine, and was besides one of the 
most accomplished Grecians of his time. In his History of Physick from the 
Tims of Galen to the beginning of the Sixteenth Century (1725-26), the first part 
of which deals with the Greek physicians, Freind remarks that " St. Luke's 
Greek comes nearer to the ancient standard than that of any other of the Evan- 
geUsts" — a superiority which he attributes to Luke's Greek medical reading; 
and that " no doubt merely because he was a physician, when there is occasion 
to speak of distempers or the cure of them [he] makes use of words more proper 
for the subject than the others do." Of these peculiarities of Luke's diction 
Freind gives several illustrations (4 ed., London, 1750, I, 222-225). It is 
noteworthy that among these none of the words and phrases which have 
recently been signalized by laymen as technical terms of Greek medicine are 
mentioned; in fact, no instance of a technical term or technical use of terms 
is adduced. Luke writes irapaKeKviikvos iastead of irapaXuTiKOs, " a word 
never used by the ancient Greek Writers " (not particularly medical writers; 
compare the popular use of j/e^piriK^s, Galen, De nat. fac. i. 13 [II, 31 Kuhn]; 
ixTTepiKds, Galen, De loc. affect, vii. 5 [VIII, 414] — midwife's and woman's 
word) ; icrrrj ^ fivcns, " more simple and more direct as weU as more Physi- 
cal"; iS,TO T&vras (instead of diecTdoBriaav, kiTu^ovTo), "the word that is 
peculiarly proper for healing "; of the centurion's servant, " St. Luke tells us 
that they found him not only recover'd, but vyiaivovTa, in perfect health"; 
so also in Luke 8, 55, kiria-rpexl/e t6 irvevfia [her breath came back], " which 
he puts in, no doubt as being the first sign of coming to life." " The same 


accuracy of expression we may see in regard to the lame " (Acts 3, 7). In 
Liike's account of the woman who had the issue of blood (Mark 5, 26, TroBovaa 
inrd iroW&v larp&v Kai dairavija-aaa rb. -rap' iavTtjs, Kal nrjSiv dxjiekridiiaa 
&W6. liSWov e£s to x^'^pov 'tKBovaai), Luke gives these particulars " quite 
another turn, and softens the passage very much in regard to his faculty, and 
instead of relating how much she suffered by the several Physicians, or how she 
grew worse upon her remedies, he says only that her distemper was above the 
reach of any of them to remove it; ovk icxv<riv air' oidevos BepaTrevdfjvai." 
So also irpo(Tava\6iaa(Ta is a more " proper expression " for paying a doctor's 
biU than Mark's 5a7ravi7<rao-a (" squandered." The miser in Anthol. xi. 171, 
reckons the doctor's pay and rl voaS>v bairavq,, and concludes that it is cheaper 
to die). 

Freind observes that Basil, " whom his own continual iUness made a phy- 
sician," has a great many allusions and similes taken from the art; and he is 
inclined to think — as others had done — that the historian Procopius had a 
medical education, " for in some things relating to Physick he is remarkably 
more minute and circumstantial than we find any other historian is," as he 
shows by numerous examples. 

Mr. J. K. Walker, in the " Gentleman's Magazine " for 1841 (Part I, pp. 585- 
587), refers to Freind as " Frend, a medical writer " (!), and repeats some of 
Freind's illustrations, adding others " which show with equal certainty the 
professional bias of the learned Evangelist, that have, as far as I know, escaped 
attention." His list contains: vdpiairLKos, irapa\eXvp,kvos, a,xX6s, wapo^vcfios 
(!), /cpanraXij, awexop^ivri (Luke 4, 38), taais, wvperois Kat 5v(revT€pi<i. (xvv- 
exop.evo$; Luke's manipulation of the story of the woman with the issue of 
blood (from "Frend's essays"); and the manner of Herod's (Antipas) death, 
GKoskriKoPpwTOs (Acts 12, 23). James Smith (Voyage and Shipwreck of St. 
Paul, I ed. 1848; 4 ed. 1880, pp. i flf.) regards Luke 4, 38 {avvexop.kvq irvperQ 
fiejaXu), Acts 13, 11 (dxXiis), and the woman with the issue of blood as con- 
clusive; and Lightfoot (on Coloss. 4, 14) deems a reference to Smith suflScient. 
Hayman (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, art. " Medicine," Vol. II [1863], 
pp. 298 f. n.) quotes part of Freind's examples, without reference to the source. 
ITius the matter stood when Hobart undertook his painstaking investigation, 
designed to prove that the third Gospel and Acts were written by a physician, 
therefore by Luke the companion of Paul, thus giving the discussion a new, 
apologetic turn. 

In his book, and in the subsequent discussion, one consideration of funda- 
mental importance is overlooked. Modem medical terminology is a barbarous 
artificial jargon, consisting partly of terms that have come down from the 
Greeks, in Greek or translated into Latin, partly of invented terms, coined 
after the pattern of the ancient, in a Greek or Latin which is often palpably 
counterfeit. Many medical terms, especially the older ones, have come into 
common use, frequently supplanting, at least in polite discourse, native Eng- 
lish words that mean exactly the same thing; and in recent times various 
agencies of vulgarization have made the lay public acquainted with hundreds 
of doctor's words, which they use — or abuse — with a self-satisfied feeling 
that they are talking the professional lingo. 

Greek scientific terminology is the contrary of all this. Its technical terms 
were native, not foreign; they were not invented, but were real words of the 


living language, and in considerable part the everyday names for the thing, 
more exactly defined, if necessary, but not diverted from their meaning. When 
the teachers of medicine had occasion to designate things for which the com- 
mon speech had no satisfactory name, they made descriptive terms from 
common words by derivation or composition, conformably to the genius of the 
language, with that creative freedom in which Greek surpasses all other tongues. 
The meaning of such words, if not their technical definition, was at once evident 
to every Greek. These were real words, too, and could C9me into general use 
unhampered by barbarous form or occult significance. 

Wilamowitz-MoeUendoril ("Die griechische Literatur," in Die Kultur der 
Gegenwart, I, 8, 2 edit. 1907, p. 59), writing of Hippocrates, justly says: " Offen- 
bar muss sich erkennen lassen, dass bereits eine ganz scharfeTerminologie ausge- 
bildet ist. Das kann das Griechische (oder vielmehr lonische) schon so friih, 
zweifellos fiir viele Teile der Naturwissenschaft. Das Latein hat es zu einer 
Terminologie liberhaupt nur in der Jurisprudenz gebracht; die modemen 
Sprachen bringen es zu keiner, es sei denn, sie borgten bei diesen beiden: sie 
brauchen Kunstworter, Surrogate, statt der lebendigen, unmittelbar bezeich- 
nenden, die das griechische Sprachgefiihl licht erfindet, sondem findet." 

The ignoring — or should I say the ignorance? — of this elementary fact 
has ludicrous consequences. Thus Walker, Hobart, Hamack, Zahn, and 
Moffatt, put down KpanrdXr; among the words which show Luke to be 
versed in Greek medical Uterature. But KpaiiraXr] is not a technical term 
coined by physicians to designate mysteriously the puking and the dizzy 
headache that come after a big dinner and much wine; it is — as these scholars 
might have read in Galen in so many words (/cpatxaXas . . . wavres ol 
"EXXTjces ovofia^ovaL rds e| o'ivov ^Xafias rrjs K«<^aX^s, actually quoted in 
full by Wettstein on Luke 21,31, the verse in which Hobart and his pedisequi 
discover it to be a medical word! ) — the vulgar word for that very vulgar ex- 
perience. Luke did not have to go to medical literature on the diagnosis and 
treatment of the ailment to pick up a word that was, so to speak, lying in the 
gutter, any more than Aristophanes consulted Hippocrates to know what to 
call the consequences of a protracted symposium. And /cpatirdXi; is only a 
peculiarly crass example of a pervasive fallacy in the discussion of Luke's 
" technical language." — G. F. M.] 

* See, however, Plummer on Luke 6, i {tp6ix<a); 6,40 (jcarapTliw) and 8, 23 {&<jnnrv6ij), 
' fall off to sleep '). As. a recently added example should perhaps be mentioned irpi/Mjs, 
Acts I, 18, which according to Chase, Hamack, and Rendel Harris is to be understood 
not in the sense of ' headlong ' but as ' swollen,' like the form irptiaeds from Tlimpriiu 
' swell,' which has been conjectured for the passage. (See F. H. Chase in Journal of 
Theological Studies, XIU (1912), 278 ff.; Rendel Harris in American Journal of Theol- 
ogy, XVin (1914), 127-131, and the references there given.) But Chase admits that 
" in a cursory search, I have not discovered any instance of the adjective Trpijnjs in 
medical writers in the sense of ' swollen,' ' inflamed.' " Hobart (p. 186) had already 
collected a number of examples that show the use of the adjective by the doctors in the 
sense of ' headlong,' frequently connected by them with frirrios. It is obvious that 
Httle weight can yet be give to this example. As curiosities may be mentioned the 
arguments drawn from alleged medical language to maintain Luke's authorship of 
Hebrews (Franz Delitzsch, Commentary, 1857 [Eng. trans., 1868-70]), of the Pastoral 


Epistles (R. Scott, The Pauline Epistles, 1909, pp. 339-341), or of Second Peter 
(Selwyn, St. Luke the Prophet, 1901, p. 150 n. i) and Ephesians {ibid., p. 103). 

= Zahn, Einleiiung in das Neue Testament, 3d edit. Quoted hereafter (with some ref- 
erence to the German) chiefly from the English translation, New York, 1909. See 
especially III, 160 ff., 82 f . Hamack, Lukas der Arzt, Leipzig, 1906. Quoted (with 
some reference to the German) from the English translation, Luke the Physician, Lon- 
don, 1907. See pp. 13-17 and Appendix I. 

* Hobart, pp. xxxv f. 

^ St. Luke (International Critical Commentary), 1896, pp. Ixiii f. 
^ Eorae Synopticae, 1899, p. 154; 2d edit., p. 189. 
' Expositor's Greek Testament, 1900, II, 9-1 1. 

* S. Paul the Traveller, 1900, p. 205; Luke the Physician, 1908, chap. i. 
' Credibility of Acts, 1902, pp. 13 f. 

'"' Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 1909, p. 127. 

'^ The Gospels as Historical Documents, Part II, 1910, pp. 261 ff. (very guarded). 
^ Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 1911, pp. 263 f., 298 ff. 
'' Hamack, Luke The Physician, p. 14, n. 2; "I subscribe to the words of Zahn 
[Introduction, III, 146], ' Hobart has proved for every one who can at all appreciate 
proof that the author of the Lukan work was a man practised in the scientific language 
of Greek medicine — in short, a Greek physician.' " 

" Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte, 191 1, p. IS- (Eng. trans.. The Date of 
Acts, 1911, pp. I ff.) 

'* Festschrift zur Feier des 4S0-jahrigen Bestehens der Universitat Basel, J910, pp. 16 f. 
This is about the position taken by Stanton. 

^* C. Clemen, Hibbert Journal, VIII (1910), 785 f. Compare the earlier and more 
direct answer of the same author to Hamack's Lukas in Theologische Rundschau, X 
(1907), 97 ff. 

" Meyer's Commentary, Lukas, 8th edit., p. 74. " Eine methodische Sichtung des 
Materials und Zusammenstellung des wirklich Beweisenden ware erwiinscht." 
'' Julicher, Einleitung, pp. 407 f. (Eng. trans., pp. 447 f.). 

" See the articles of P. W. Schmidt and Clemen cited above (notes 15 and 16), and 
the protest of Thumb, quoted below (note 79). See also a few pertinent criticisms by 
Preuschen in Berliner philol. Wochenschrift, XXVIH (igo8), col. 1429 S. 

2° P. 253. Examples could be multipUed indefinitely; e.g., on {m-ep^v Hobart says 
(p. 185), " This word was very familiar to a physician, being the neuter of iirepQos, the 
feminine of which, inrepi^, was the name of the palate," etc.; (p. 272) " iTrofcicvu^t is 
peculiar to St. Luke. ... He is the only Vriter who employs this particular com- 
pound of iiivvvtu for undergirding a ship. . . . The word iTto^iivmiu was a very com- 
mon one with medical men " — apparently in the participle, b inreiuKiK (i/iijy), the 
membrane lining the thorax (pleura). 

^ Plummer, op. cit., p. bdv. J. Naylor, " Luke the Physician and Ancient Medicine," 
in Hibbert Journal, VII (1909), p. 29. says: " three hundred and sixty out of Hobart's 
four hundred words were to be found in the Septuagint, and many of them would have 
been used by any intelligent Greek writing on the same themes." His figures, amount- 
ing to ninety per cent, probably include the Apocrypha. 
22 Josephus und Lucas, lists II and HI, pp. 302 ff. 

2^ Thus 40 more of Hobart's words, or ten per cent more of his Ust, appear in Josephus 
than in LXX. Krenkel does not include i and 2 Mace, with the LXX, and his lists 
are otherwise not quite reliable, but they give a simple and approximate answer to our 



" D. Wyttenbach, Index graecitatis in Phitarchi opera, Leipzig, 1835. Lucianus 
ex recensione Caroli Jacobitz, Leipzig, 1836-1841. Vol. IV. Index Graecus. 

^' Lukas der Arzt, p. 122 n. 

26 One of them, trkTeaev, rests on an inferior reading in Acts 13, 11. 

" "In this intransitive sense its use seems, with a few exceptions, to be almost alto- 
gether confined to the medical writers, who employ it to describe patients sitting up in 
bed." (Hobart, p. 11.) But laymen used it in the same way as is shown by the scene 
at the death-bed of Socrates (Plato, Phaedo, 60 B, ivaKaSi^d/jiivos els riiv K\ivr,v awe- 
Kan'pe tA o-KiXos) and of Philopoemen (Plut. 368 A, avvayaytiij> /xAXis iavrdv inr' Aade- 
velai i.vmiSiiiv). Cf. Plut. Alex. 6tl D; Xen. Cyneg. s, 19 (of a hare). 

28 Occurs twice in the parallel passage in Mark and frequently in Greek writers, see 
p. 16. 

2» " Ahnost altogether confined to the medical writers, and very seldom used by 
them." (Hobart, p. 37.) To judge from the examples cited by Hobart it means in 
medical writers to cool off, to have a chill; in Luke it means to expire. So in LXX 
(Judg. 4, 21 ». /., Ezek. 21, 7); Babr. 115, 11; Herodas 4, 29. 

'" " Used in medical language to signify ' producing alive, enduing with life.' " 
(Hobart, p. ISS-) In this sense the word is common in all " profane " Greek, but Luke, 
in accordance with the idiom of the LXX, uses the word in the sense of ' keep alive, 

'' TIlJivBavris occurs in Dion. Hal., Diod., and Strabo; iiiiiSvris is a much commoner 
word, used by Thuc, Aristoph., Polyb., Luc, Dion. Hal., Dio Cass., Alciphr. al., and 
by Galen in the two passages cited by Hobart, p. 27. 

^ " Besides this passage in St. Luke, KXiviptov appears to be found in only two other 
Greek authors, viz. Aristophanes and Arrian." (Hobart, p. 116.) But Hobart does 
not cite medical parallels for xKipapiov, kKIvti, kXipLSlov or xpififfaros. Both dnnmutive 
forms occur in M. Anton., Artemidor., and Pollux. 

'' No example of this word is quoted by the lexica or by Hobart, p. 152. The latter 
cites Diosc. Mat. med. i. 181, but he uses avKbiiopov and iiopia = cruKaiiivka. 

^ The word in this spelling is not quoted from the doctors by Hobart, p. 52 f., nor 
is it found elsewhere except in Moeris who condemns it. But Svaarrtpla is found in 
Polyb., Joseph., etc., as well as the doctors. 

'5 " The noun S\oK\ripla does not seem to be used in the medical writers.'' (Hobart, 

P- I93-) 

'6 Acts 3, 7 (Tisch., W. H.). Found elsewhere only in Hesychius. Hamack (p. 191) 
says: " ^<l>vSp6v is a very rare word (e.g., Passow does not give it) ; " but he then emends 
(?) <r4>vp6v in Hobart's example (Galen, Medicus, 10 bis) to a4)x^p6v and quotes it as a 
parallel. Z(j>vp6i', the reading of Text. Recept. in Acts, I.e. is found in LXX, Joseph., 
Plut., Luc, and other non-medical writers as well as in Galen, /. c. 

" In some of Hobart's examples the disease is the subject of ^iraXXdaaca as in Acts 19, 
12; [Plato] Eryx. 401 C; cf. Soph. Antigone, 422. But in most of them the disease is 
in the genitive as in Joseph, (e.g. Antt. vii. 8, i, rax^cos dxoXXo7i)(r«7ffoi rijs vlxrov), Luc. 
(e.g. Abdic. 26, Uo nal rabrriv Kni dxAXXarre ?Si; t^s vhaov), and other writers. 

'* Eurip., Hipp. 762; Herodot. iv. 60; Plut. Cicero, 47, Cato, 38; LXX Qudges 9, 34) ; 
and in Philo, Diod., e< oi. Usedin Acts 10, 11; 11, s of the comers of the sheet. "The 
technical expression in medical language for the ends of bandages." (Hobart, p. 3i8.) 

'• Cf. Erotian, Lexicon Eippocrat. s.v. i,-xKvSiSa- dxXOs Xi76Toi iroid tis iftaipwais 
Kal (TKorla irepl rois d^daXjuois, (!is Kal 'Onrjpos & r§ e' rq: 'IXidJos ttnttrlv • [1. 127] dxXiv 
S' at Toi dir' 6<t>9a\iiQi> IXov, 7} vplv brijev. 



*" Luke 9, 38. But the word here means rather ' pity ' as in Luke i, 48 and often 
(over 100 times) in LXX, as is shown by the parallels, Mark 9, 22, ptyfiSrjaov airXayx- 
vurSels, Matt. 17, 15, i\iri<rov. For the medical use, see Plut. Quaest. conviv. 682 E, 
quoting Hippocrates. 

" Used in Prov. 3, 8 as parallel to Icuris. 

** Cf. Suidas: OTipla xal to, Sixera, iSx'«, <t>a\&yyia, S<t>as. 

*' Luke 8, 44, where it is an intransitive verb. So Plutarch, Consol. ad Apoll. 106 F 
(of a river). To judge from the examples in Hobart, pp. 14 ff., repeated by Hamack, 
p. 186, the medical writers used the verb in this sense transitively. Cf. Pollux, IV, 178. 

" It is to be noted that Ramsay {Luke the Physician, pp. 63 f .) disputes this meaning 
of the verb and the argument drawn from it. It means, he says, simply ' fasten upon.' 
Preuschen also notes that apparently Acts uses the active, but the doctors, when they 
mean ' infect,' use the middle. 

*' E.g. Job 38, 30, T&x'^v . . . Tj KwraPalva uairep vSccp l>kov\ Ps. 132, 2 <is libpov 
. t6 KaTOL^aXvov iiri •jr(jyY03va . . . 3 cbs dpdaos 'Aepfioiv 1} Kara^alvovaa kirl to. optj 
^liiv; Joseph. Antt. ii. 16, 3 opffpoi t' dir' oipavov KorkPaivov. 

*' " Many exx. in Passow s.v. awkxoi, I. a." Grimm-Thayer. Cf. note SS- 

" Hobart (pp. 37 f.) says that this word " is found only once in classical Greek in 
the sense it bears in this passage [Acts 5, 6], ' to shroud.' Eurip. Troad. 378: t^ttXok 
avvarTdXTiaav.'' But the doctors use the word to mean ' bandage,' ' compress,' ' con- 
tract' In these or other senses the word occurs in LXX, Luc, Plut., and other writers, 
and in the New Testament in 1 Cor. 7, 29, but not in Luke or Acts. 

*8 Luke 2r, 23. But it is also in the two parallel passages, Mark 13, 17 and Matt. 
24, 19, and twice besides in Matt. 

*' XaiiPliva in yaarpl and avWanPavia alone are common in LXX in this sense. 

"' LXX (Gen. 28, 18, arkxteviXaiov); Plut. Pericl. 16, iXaiov kwix^ova-i.. 

61 " This compound of rpkirav, though often used in medical language, is not em- 
ployed exactly in the same sense as in this passage." (Hobart, p. 268.) Cf. Joseph. 
Antt. ii. 14, i eis bpryiiv (irept)T/)oirei'; ix. 4, 4 Tois irapdiiras «s x^P'''' irtpiirpept. 

'^ This exact phrase occurs in Galen, where it appUes to voluntary fasting or dieting. 
In Acts 27, 33 it applies to an enforced fast, perhaps sea-sickness. See Madan in 
Journal aj Theological Studies, VI (1904), p. 116. 

" No exact parallel of this phrase is given by Hobart, p. 60; the nearest, toO kotA 
■riiv PeKbviiv rpiiiiaTos, means the puncture made by the needle (Galen, Sang. in. arter. 

2 [n, 708]). 

" See for examples, the notes above on ipxal, kioj/ixio, 'ariP\kiru>, iwoyovka, irepi- 
rp'etnii, ffuo-T^XXw and compare the following: 

Medical Use 

Luke's Use 


cure (Hobart) 



" a current medical term which is applied 

apparently a nautical term 

to all conceivable objects." 



operate (Hobart) 

(middle) slay 


failure of pulse, etc. (M) 

see Luke 16, 9; 22, 32. 

of auscultation (M) 



be epidemic (Hobart) 



roll up a bandage (M) 

roll up a book 


laceration, rupture (MZ) 

fall of a house, ruin 


concurrence of symptoms (Hobart) 

. concourse of people 


treat medically, relieve, succour (Hobart) 



The evidence of such words as these is ambiguous, to say the least. Granting that the 
words had a technical sense in the medical profession, would not a doctor be the least 
likely to use them with a different signification ? Would an English physician be more, 
or less, likely than a layman to use in their non-medical sense such common words as 
appendix, eruption, operate, pulse, stool, ward ? 

^' With 171' (Tvvtxoiikvri TTVperif iity6.\<f substituted by Luke (4, 38) for irvpkaaovaa. 
(Mark i, 30) ; compare (i>bp<f fteyi.)uf iniptlxovTO, Luke 8, 37. On the former passage Har- 
nack, p, 184, says, " the medical writers distinguish between ' slight ' and ' great ' 
fevers; therefore, the epithet ' great ' in St. Luke is by no means insignificant." In 
reply to this we may quote B. Weiss, Das Leben Jesu (Eng. trans., 1894, II, 89 n.): 
" This is generally regarded as suggestive of Luke's calling of physician, without con- 
sidering that by no diagnosis could he determine from Mark's laconic account imder 
which of the kinds of fever distinguished by his Galen this case was to be classed. 
[See note i. — Ed.] The consideration was much more Ukely to occur to him that a 
fever to cure which Jesus employed iniraculous aid could not be an easy one to get rid 
of." To judge from quotations in Hobart the doctors used for severe fevers the adjec- 
tives 6{6s (pp. 32, 53) ^27 ™'' *?^w ivofia^ofikvoiv irvpcrwv, 178 bis, 210, 233) and 
<70oSp6s (pp. 56, 71, 178) rather than iikyas. 'Zvvkxoiiai. TniperQ is found in Joseph. 
Antt. xiii. 15, s; Oxy. Pap. 896, 33 (316 a.d.) 

The argument for jrX^pijs X^irpas is stated thus by Hobart (p. s) ^ "It would seem 
that St. Luke by employing two distinct terms irX^pTjs \kirpas and \eirp6s in his ac- 
count of these two miracles intended to draw a distinction between the diseases in each 
case, either that the disease was of a more aggravated type in one case than in the other, 
or else of a different variety. Now we know that leprosy, even as early as the time of 
Hippocrates, had assumed three different forms (dX<^6s, Xefeij, and /itXas), ' and it is 
probable that in the time of our Lord the disease, as it existed in Palestine, did not 
materially differ from the Hippocratic record of it.' (See Diet, of the Bible, Art. 'Leper.') 
nX^pijs, in this connection peculiar to St. Luke, is frequently thus used in the medical 
writers. Hipp. De arte, s, fal irX^pees ttjs vbaov, Hipp. Coac. progn. 187, 7rXi7pcEs ourot 
tUrl wiov." Few of Hobart's examples are, however, really parallel. Cf. Soph. 
Antig. 1052, T^s vbaov ifKi]prii I0us. 

" LXX, Prov. 24, ss (30, 20), 2 Mace. 14, 23; Joseph. Antt. -n. 5, 2, and often; 
Polyb. viii. 27 (29), 6 et al.; Plut. De Alex.fortuna, 341 C et al.; Philostr. ApoUon. vii. 
II, vii. 39; Epictet. iii. 2, 17; Theophr. Hist, plant, i. 1, 3; Dion. Hal. De comp. verb. 
25 ter, et al., illustrating both uses of the word as appUed by Luke. For a number of 
other examples, see Wettstein on Luke 23, 41 and Acts 28, 6. (The reference Judith 11, 
II, should be Job 11, 11; add Job 27, 6), Moulton and MiUigan, Vocabulary, s. v. 

'' kvaSMvai 'aruTToXiiv Oxy. Pap. 237 bis; Fay. Pap. 130; icaSiSoi'at ljrKrT6XuM» 
Oxy. Pap. 63, 532; 1295,15; Tebt. Pap. 448; Giss. Pap. I, 69, 4; hvaSiSbvai TriTTiuaov 
Oxy. Pap. 1063, and scores of other expressions for delivering receipts, contracts, wills, 
agreements, etc. With Acts 23, 33, compare Oxy. Pap. 486, 11, &,v^aKa tQ KparlaTtt 
ifyeixbvi<i>bpuiv. Cf. Joseph. Antt. xvi. 10, 9; Diod. xi. 45, i.v&aKt toIs bjibpots t&s 

'* Strabo has o6k amjiios rbXis several times; Plutarch has obx fio-jj/ioi [Hvepanroi] 
Philo, (t>v\ii oiK iariiMs, and i^ iktveipicv taws Kal otK itri/iiuv [iraTipuv], Dion. Hal. 06/c 
i^riiioiv trarkpwv, oiiK &<rriiwi iriXets, Achilles Tatius iXeMepis re fly koi irbXeas oix 
taiiium. If the expression in Acts 21, 39, must be considered the echo of something, it 
is much more natural to compare it with tanv yip oiic fi<rj)/ios 'EW'^vay 7r6Xis at the 
beginning of a famous play (Eur. Ion, 8) than with the less similar phrase in the 


Hippocratean Epistles (Epist. lo, Hercher, ula iro\lo>v obK iirriiios) . See W. Nestle, " An- 
klange an Euripides in der Apostelgeschichte," in Pkilologus, LIX (1900), pp. 46 ff. 
Of Josephus Krenkel (p. 249) says that, " bei ihm die Litotes o6k iarjiios sehr beliebt 
ist," and gives nine examples. Cf. Lucian, Pseudol. 4, Beds oix i iurriiiiTaTos, Eurip. 
Here. Fur. 849, &viip S' oiic &<rriiios. 

'' Of course the letters of Hippocrates are not genuine any more than are the letters 
of other literary and political figures of the classical era in Greece. But in confuting the 
argument of Hobart and his followers I have taken no advantage of the fact that a 
large part of the Hippocratean writings are spurious (Alfred Gudeman, "Literary 
Frauds among the Greeks," in Classical Studies in Honour of Henry Drisler, pp. 56 f., 
69). Galen recognized only eleven as genuine (Comm. in Epidem., Praef. ad lib. vi.), and 
speaks of the forgeries as of quite recent date (Comm. in Hippocr. Be offic. med., p. ^, 
xBis Kal ■irp<^v). The other medical writers from whom Hobart quotes are " Aretaeus, 
who lived in the first century after Christ, probably in the reign of Nero or Vespasian; 
Galen, a.d. 130-200; and Dioscorides, who lived in the first or second century of the 
Christian era." (Hobart, p. vii.) It is not likely that their writings were known to 
the almost contemporary evangelist. These objections would probably be met by the 
assertion that " Greek medical language was particularly conservative in its character, 
the same class of words being employed in it from the time of Hippocrates to that of 
Galen " (ibid., p. xxx), and that Luke and the other medical writers of his time were 
drawing on the current terminology of their profession. If anything like literary de- 
pendence is to be thought of between Luke and the doctors it must be remembered that 
at least in the case of Galen, from whom so many of the examples are quoted, the re- 
lationship will have to be the other way, for Galen's date was about 200 a.d. Hamack 
himself recognizes this. In quoting two striking parallels from Galen to the parable 
of the Good Samaritan he says (p. 190 f.): "One might almost imagine that Galen 
had read St. Luke. This is not impossible for he had to do with Christians." Norden, 
Aniike Kunstprosa, pp. 518 f., thinks it probable that Galen read the Gospels, and he 
quotes a very interesting fragment in which Galen himself refers to the parables of the 

'" Hobart, pp. 54-85; Zahn, p. 147; Hamack, pp. 182-188. 

^ See below. Part H, passim. 

'^ Introduction, IH, 136, n. 13. 

^ Lobeck, Phryn. p. 90. 

" Lucian, Soloec. 6. But kokus Sxo''''"s of Mark i, 32, 34 becomes AaOtvovpras in 
Luke 4, 40, and lo-xai-ois ?x« of Mark 5, 23 becomes &TWini<TKS', Luke 8, 42. 

'* Lobeck, Phryn. p. 291. 

«' In the same passage, Luke substitutes Bepairtiw for Mark's ixfitKiai, though the latter 
was according to Hobart (p. 2) "in constant use in medical writers as opposed to p\i.TTa," 
and the former " in the strict sense as a medical term means ' received medical treat- 
ment ' " (Ramsay, Luke the Physician, p. 17), a meaning that it will not possibly bear 
in this passage in Luke. Note the correct use of these two words in the two texts of 
Tobit 2, 10. 

" See Ropes, James, p. 305. 

** For some others of these words in Matt, and Mark Hobart himself supplies medical 
examples, e.g. fiiT)9oi' (p. 37), appaffros (pp. 22, 46, 203), SivKl^a (p. 239), Kifiivov 
(p. 230), -irvpiiTira) (pp. 3r, 33, 85, 98, 121, 196, 213, 272). 

^» Note also the suggestion of Burkitt, Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 159 n, 
in regard to Matt. 5, 29, 30: " It seems to me probable that Luke the Physician pre- 
ierred to leave out the metaphor of amputation." 


'" It is of just this verse that Hamack (p. 184) says that Luke " has, therefore, an 
interest in methods of healing." It is of the next verse that Zahn (p. 147) says, " It 
is Luke alone . . . who notes that the healing was accomplished by the laying on of 
hands (4, 40), where mention of this act is not made in Matthew (8, 16) or in Mark 

(i, 34)." 

" This point will be discussed in Part 11. 

" Notice also that the reed which in Mark 15, 19 is used to beat Jesus on the head 
is in Matt. 27, 29 put in his right hand as a mockery of the regal sceptre. In the saying 
on offences occurring twice in Matthew, once the warning is against an offending eye 
or hand (18, 8, 9), once against an offending right eye or right hand (5, 29, 30). The 
first version of the doublet is apparently from Mark (9, 43-47), the second form pre- 
sumably from Q. Shall we say then that Q here shows a doctor's interest, or that John 
does because in the account of Malchus' ear he like Luke names it as the right ear 
Qohn 18, 10) ? John (s, s; 9, i) also indicates the duration of diseases that Jesus 
cured, and exact data relative to recovery (4, 52, cf. 11, 39). 

And even were such details more numerous in Luke than in the parallels the motive 
might well be literary rather than medical. So the Chronicler in editing the books of 
Kings adds the exact year when Asa " was diseased in his feet " (i Kings 15, 23 = 2 
Chron. 16, 12), and the fact that Uzziah's leprosy "broke forth in his forehead" 
(2 Kings 15, s = 2 Chron. 26, 19), all of which embellishments are purely literary 
according to Torrey, Ezra Studies, p. 234. Such changes of Mark by Luke, Wemie 
calls simply legendary. See his comments in Die synoptische Frage, pp. 28, 29, 33, 
on Luke 4, 33; 6,6; 22, 50 respectively. 

" The best parallels to the features of Mark not found in Luke in these two cases of 
possession are in the two authorities on epilepsy that Hamack (p. 187, n. i) refers to 
in Hobart (p. 17 f.), viz. Hippocrates, Morb. sacr., I, 592 f., Kiihn, and Aretaeus, Sign, 
morb. acut. i. 5, cf. Sign. morb. diut. i. 4. The following are the Greek words: 

Mark (but not Luke) Hippocrates 

fiXaXo)' &<t)ua'6s imv 

ixppl^a, iut>pl^a>v (Luke luri. d0pou) i.<t>pUi., i4>pds ix rod <rT6naTos ixpia 

Tpifei Tois 6S6vTas oi dS6vTfs awriptlKiun, 

fori T?s 7^s haiXUro roiai itoai Xcucrl^ct 

ixTfl veKpds ivafikia imtnp i,irOdvliirKav 

Sia iravrds vvkt6s Kal ijiikpas . . . livKpil^av he wktHv ^0$ Kal xiKpayer ri iih> vbicrap rii 

Si neB' ^nipav 
KaTOKirTwi' iavrdv \lBois 

woWiiKis Kal <ls TTvp airdv ifiaXtv xal ds Sdara itl rt Suaupov Spuvres 


Ku4>ov Papvi/Kooi 

^palverai irflpdmk vivos alaS^irios 

5td Tavris vvkt6s xal ijiiipas iypinrvoi. 

ix T&v ianin(lu>v (Luke Ik t^s ttAXcus) ii6:vdponm, iitlieni 

Hippocrates also describes the effects of the " sacred disease " on patients of different 
ages, including those " with whom it has grown up and increased since youthj[(&iri 
raiSlov)." Cf. ix waiSidetv in Mark. Note also that Luke 9, 39, substitutes the simple 
\afifiira for Mark's technical term for catalepsy KaToKifin (9, 18; see references to 
Celsus in Swete ad loc). 


" Wende, Die synoptische Prage, p. 24, says of this passage; " Die ErzShlung vom 
Epileptischen, die bei Mr 16 Verse umfasst, erzahit Lc in 7 Veisen, da ihre Einzel- 
heiten ihn nicht interessierten." 

'• Ramsay in general accepts the medical language of Luke, but the proof of it drawn 
from Luke's changes in Mark he does not " remember to have seen adequately dis- 
cussed." His own treatment of these will scarcely supply the want. He sa3rs {iMke 
the Physician, p. 57 f.) : 

" Even in passages that have been taken over by Luke from the Source which we 
still possess almost in its original form in the Gospel of Mark, wherever there occurs 
any reference to illness or to the medical treatment of sick persons, Luke almost in- 
variably alters the expression more or less, as in v, 18 he changes the term " a paralytic " 
of Mark ii, 3 to " a man who was paralysed." He could hardly ever rest satisfied with 
the popular imtrained language used about medical matters by Mark. 

In some cases the change does not imply really more than is contained in the 
original Source, and amounts only to a more scientific and medically accurate descrip- 
tion of the fact related in the Source. But in other cases a real addition to knowledge 
is involved, as appears, e.g., from the following examples: 

1. Mark iii, i speaks of a man with a withered hand; Luke vi, 6, adds that it 
was the right hand: the medical mind demands such specification. 

2. Luke viii, 27 adds to Mark v, 2 that the possessed man had for a long time 
worn no clothes: this was a symptom of the insanity that a physician would not will- 
ingly omit. 

3. Li Luke viii, 55, the physician mentions that Jairus' daughter called for food 
(cf. Mark v, 42). Various other examples occur.'' 

Of the three examples given by Ramsay in this passage the first has been considered 
above; the second is a case where Luke according to his custom (see Part H) anticipates 
a detail which needs explanation in the sequel, the symptom of nakedness is implied 
in the liiarurnivov of Mark 5, 15; the last is apparently a mistake, for the request 
that food be given to the girl is found in Mark 5, 43, as well as in Luke. Pfieideier has 
curiously enough made just the converse mistake by overlooking the passage in Luke. 
He says (Primitive Christianity, U, 23) that Mark alone has preserved this little touch 
of realism. It is moreover Jesus, not Jairus' daughter, who in both Gospels calls for 
food for her. 

" Out of Hobart's list of more than 400 words I find only five which he speaks of as 
altogether or nearly limited in use to medical writers. In three of them he is followed 
by Hamack (pp. 188, 193 f.). These three have already been examined above: iwaxa- 
Bl^u (note 27); bolftrxfi) (note 29); amr&CKa (note47),and found unsatisfactory. An- 
other case of Hobart's is krur-xioi, of which he says (pp. 80 f.) : " With respect to this 
word it is remarkable that outside of the LXX its use in the transitive sense, ' to 
strengthen,' is confined to Hippocrates and St. Luke. All other writers who employ 
it do so in the intransitive sense, ' to prevail,' ' be strong.' " But in its transitive sense 
the word occurs apparently only once in Hippocrates (£«x), but in the LXX more 
than fifteen times, while in Luke it b found only in the very doubtful passage, P^uke] 
22, 43, 44. In Acts 9, 19, on the other hand, it is used in its common intransitive sense. 
The fifth example is ftxpopiu, Luke 12, 16, 'be fruitful,' of which Hobart (p. 144) sajrs, 
" used in this sense by St. Luke, Hippocrates and Galen only." But it is used in this 
sense in Josephus B. J. ii. 21, 2 and Philostratus, Apollon. vi. 39; Imag. ii. 34 (cited 
by Schmid, Atticismtis, IV, 358), and in Geopon., Greg. Nyss., and other later writers. 
In Lucian (Lexiph. 15) it is used in a different sense of ships (though Passow confuses 
this with the New Testament passage). 


Hamack makes this claim of one other word, but with as little foundation as the 
cases abready considered. He says (p. 178; cf. Moffatt, p. 299 n.) : " Nor is it without 
significance that the heat is described as ekpnv; for this word, rare, I believe, in ordinary 
use, and only found here in the New Testament, is among physicians the general term 
used for eepuSnis, as Hobart (p. 287) shows by very numerous examples." But an 
investigation of the actual occurrence of the two synonyms shows that while in Plato 
and Aristotle ekpftri occurs less often than dip/idrvs, it occurs more often than depiidrvs m 
Greek comedy and lyric poetry, in LXX, in Plutarch and Lucian (see p. 66) ; it occurs 
also in Josephus, Aristides and Aelian, and according to Lobeck {Fhryn. p. 331) in 
Ctesias, Pherecrates, Philo, Arrian, etc. It should be observed also that etpiibrris 
occurs frequently in medical writings, as in Galen, Humor, comm. ii. 22 (XVI, 283) bis, 
and passages cited in Hobart, pp. 67, 81, 82, 83, etc. 

With regard to the expressions KaTo^tpbiuvos inrvifi /Safel and KartvexSds i-ird rod 
fiTrrou, Acts 20, 9, Hamack (p. 180), says: " Hobart has (pp. 48 ff.) pointed out that 
this word, peculiar to St. Luke in the New Testament, is so usual in medical phraseology 
(and only in it) for ' falling asleep ' that the word ' sleep ' is often omitted. . . . 
Passow also only gives medical authorities for KaTa<j>kpe(r8ai and Karcupopa in the sense 
of sleep." But Wettstein alone gives examples from Aristotle, Josephus, Diodoms, Plu- 
tarch, Lucian, Alexander, Herodian, Parthenius, and Eustathius. On the other hand 
Thayer {s. v.) considers both expressions in Acts to have a different meaning from that 
found in the doctors and other " profane authors." 

The best illustrations of words not found outside the writings of Luke and the doc- 
tors, <7vyKvpla (" rare," Hobart, p. 30) and AvurepiKSs (" very rare," Hobart, p. 148), 
appear to have been overlooked by Hobart's followers. Except for later writers these 
words are cited from no other sources. See also List 4, p. 19, 

" Introduction, HI, 162, n. 5. In the German, "Worten und Redewendungen die 
nur auch bei den Medicinern gebrauchlich sind." 

" It is doubtful whether the argument for the medical language of Luke gains much 
from the fact that the examples used are sometimes found only in Luke among New 
Testament writers. It is with particular emphasis that Hobart and Moffatt star words 
peculiar to Luke, and Hamack and Zahn remark frequently, " occurs in the New 
Testament only in the Lukan writings," " is not met again in the New Testament," 
" here only in the New Testament.," etc. It must be confessed that in all lexical study 
of the New Testament such facts have played an important part; but it seems to the 
present writer that their significance has been greatly overestimated. It must be re- 
membered that the New Testament is, linguistically at least, a merely accidental col- 
lection of a very limited number of books, on a considerable variety of subjects. As a 
result the words peculiar to any New Testament writer (as may be seen from the lists 
in the Appendix to Thayer's Lexicon) are many of them words common in all periods 
of Greek writing, and typical neither of the vocabulary nor even of the grade of culture 
of the author. The words characteristic of a New Testament writer are a very different 
kind of list, and cannot be determined without reference to the LXX and profane Greek 
as well as to the other writers in the New Testament. If Luke's medical knowledge 
is to be proved by his diction, the proof examples should be shown to be both char- 
acteristically Lukan in this sense and characteristically medical. What words belong 
to the latter category it is difficult for us to know to-day. Perhaps it is safe to assume 
that the early glossaries to Hippocrates include the terms in his works which would be 
obscure to a layman in the age of Luke. Of over 1700 such words in the combined index 
of Franz's edition (Leipzig, 1780) of the glossaries by Erotian, Galen, apd Herodotus, 


only one word, Starplfiav, is cited as a medical terni in Luke by Hobart (p. 221; on 
p. 16 f. he declines to take Tvevna, Luke 8, S5, in the sense of " respiration " which the 
glossaries give it for Hippocrates). See also note 39. 

" Cf . A. Thumb, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellmismus, Strassburg, 
1901, pp. 22s f. 

" Fiir Quellenuntersuchungen innerhalb der hellenistichen Literatur ergibt sich 
noch ein anderer Grundsatz: man darf den Wortschatz zweier oder mehrerer Schrift- 
steller, sofem er dem Bestand der Koivij zugeschrieben werden muss, nicht beniitzen, 
um die Abhangigkeit des einem von anderen daraus zu folgem. . . . Dass Lukas eine 
Reihe medicinischer Ausdrucke gebraucht, die bei Hippokrates und andern Aerzten 
sich finden, beweist kein Studium der medicinischen Schriften, sondem hochstens die 
Kenntnis der iiblichen medicinischen Terminologie: aber manche der Ausdrucke wie 
exeiK iv yaarpl (vgl. neugr. h7a<TTpi)voiJiai.), iymos (neugr. ebenso), o-reipa, oder iSt- 
\6vri (letzeres statt ^a4k fiir die Nadel des Chirurgen, neugr. /SeX6w) sind jedenfalls 
so allgemein gebrauchte Bestandteile der gesprochenen Sprache gewesen, dass ihnen 
uberhaupt kein Wert fur quellenkritische Feststellungen zukommt." 

'" Kennedy, Sources of New Testament Greek, pp. 32 f.; cf. pp. 63 f. 

81 See the word lists throughout this work. Schmid says (Atticismus, IV, 659): 
" Dass die Schriften des Hippokrates auch von Nichtmedicinem in der Atticistenzeit 
noch gelesen wurden, zeigen mehrfache Entlehnungen einzelner Ausdrucke des H. bei 
unseren Autoren; sie waren nie vergessen; aber einen starkeren Einfluss auf die 
Diktion der Atticisten hat H. nicht geubt; nur eine vox Hippocratea, dpaiAxjjs, kommt 
bei mehreren von ihnen vor." 

^ Gotzeler, De Polybii elocutione, p. 15 f., cited by Schmid, I. c. Wunderer in his 
PolyMos-Forschungen, Part I (Leipzig, 1898), pp. 88 f., also finds evidence of medical 
knowledge in phrases and proverbial expressions of the historian. Although he con- 
fesses that the Hellenistic age was characterized by a " VeraUgemeinerung der medici- 
nischen Kentnisse,'' even among the laymen, he adds, " Polybios legt iiberall, wie ich 
an den bemerkenswerten Vergleichen zeigen werde, besonderes Interesse fiir medici- 
nische Fragen an den Tag und muss in der That eingehende medicinische Studien nicht 
bloss in der Jugend, sondem auch wahrend der Abfassung seines Geschichtswerkes 
gemacht haben." 

" Th. Beck in Correspondenz-Blatt fur Schweizer. Aerzte, XXXV (1905), No. 24. 

^ On medical language in Seneca, for example, see K. F. H. Marx, " UebersichtUche 
Anordnung der die Medizin betreffenden Ausspriiche des Philosophen L. Ann. Seneca," 
in Ahhandl. d. k'dnigl. Gesdlschaft der Wissensch. zu Gottingen, XXII (1877); C. S. 
Smith, Metaphor and Comparison in the Epistulae ad Lucilium of L. Annaeus Seneca, 
Baltimore, 1910, pp. 39 ff., 100 ff.; D. Steyns, Etude sur les metaphores et les comparai- 
sons dans les oeuvres en prose de Seneque le philosophe, Gand, 1907. 

'* Wendland, Urchristliche Literaturformen, p. 335, asserts: " Aber diese [arztlichen] 
Kenntnisse gehen nicht fiber das Mass hinaus, das bei gebildeten Laien vorauszusetzen 
ist. Eine umfassende, meist fiir ein weites Publikum bestimmte medizinische Litera- 
tur, darunter zahlreiche von Laien verfasste Schriften, auch offentliche medizinische 
Vortrage haben eine gewisse Vertrautheit mit arztlicher Kunst und Terminologie ver- 
breitet. Philos Kenntnisse auf dem Gebiete gehen erheblich welter als die unseres 
Autors [Lukas], und doch ist er kein Arzt gewesen." 

*' Hobart, p. xxxvi; cf. Plummer, p. Ixiv. 

*' The necessity of comparative evidence is recognized by Zahn {Introduction, III, 
130 n. i) in a similar linguistic argument — the alleged dependence of Luke on Jose- 



phus — but he does not seem to have applied the prindple to his own arguments on 
the dependence of Luke on the medical writers. In refuting the argument of Krenkel, 
he says: " His method is not to be commended. . . . The only list of words which 
really belongs here is that of the words common to Luke and Josephus, not found in 
the LXX. And this would be significant only if very familiar words were excluded, such 
as are found quite universally in literature since Homer." And he suggests that ' it 
would be necessary to compare other authors known not to be dependent on Josephus, 
who might show points of resemblance to Luke in content and form," such as Philo, 
Polybius, and the historians that followed, down to Herodian. " If this extended in- 
vestigation should show a special resemblance between Luke and Josephus in language 
and style," it stiU could be explained otherwise than by interdependence. 

Zahn goes so far in this inconsistent attitude toward the theories of Krenkel and 
Hobart that he even rejects the same example when proposed by the former, but ac- 
cepts it as an argument from the latter. I refer to his treatment of parallels to abr&irTcu 
yaibitaioi, Luke i, 2. He says {Introduction, III, 82 f., n. 5): " Luke's language does 
show the most striking resemblance to that of the medical writers from Hippocrates to 
Galen, as has been conclusively shown by Hobart. This is noticeably true in the pro- 
logue. . . . Hobart cites from Galen not less than 11 instances of abrbrrrii yevbiuvm, 
yhiarBcu., yfvMai." But a few pages later (p. 130, n. i) he rejects Krenkel's list of 
parallels to Luke from Josephus because it contains very familiar words, " such as 
are found quite universally in literature since Homer. ... In this class belongs also 
ofrrArnjs, Luke i, 2, upon which Krenkel (pp. 55, 56, i°s) lays weight; whereas it is 
used by Herodotus, iv. 16; Polybius, i. 4, 7, iii. 4, 13, and frequently — generally with 
ylveaOai,, as in Luke." 

^ Schmid, AUicismus, 1, 431 n., says: " Es giebt wahrscheinlich keinen griechischen 
Prosaiker, dessen Wortvorrat reichhaltiger wilre, als derjenige des Lucian. Die Zahl 
der von ihm angewendeten WSrter betrSgt beilaufig 10,400 (bei Plato etwa 9,900, bei 
Polybius etwa 7,700)." For the size of Luke's vocabulary, see above. Chapter I. 
Schmid is, however, scarcely right in assigning to Lucian a larger vocabulary than any 
other Greek prose writer. Plutarch apparently uses more than 15,000 words according 
to a rough calculation in Wyttenbach's Lexicon. 

" Hobart (p. xxxi) notes that both Luke and the medical writers came from Asia 

•» Some of Clemen's ai;guments are of interest: 

" Truly the author of these writings employs some medical terms in their technical 
sense, but in a few cases he uses them in such a way as no physician would have done. 
E.g. in the description of Christ's prayer in Gethsemane his sweat is compared with 
SpSfiffm altiarm KaraPalvovrfs trrl rijv Y?") i-C not with great drops of blood, as the 
English version has it, but with clots of blood, which here of course not even for com- 
parison's sake can be thought of." " Could a Greek physician represent the good 
Samaritan (Luke 10, 34) as pouring on the wounds of the man who had fallen among 
robbers oil and wine ? " (Hibberl Journal, VIII (1910), pp. 783 f.). On 6nrtrt(ra» 
\eTties, Acts 9, 18, he writes: "Ein Arzt musste doch wissen, dass dabei nichts vom 
Auge abzufallen braucht." (Theol. Rundschau, X (1907), p. 102.) 

" At the beginning of his treatise " On the Natural Faculties " Galen explicitly 
deprecates and renounces the use of technical terms: " We, however, for our part, are 
convinced that the chief merit of language is clearness, and we know that nothing 
detracts so much from this as do unfamiliar terms; accordingly we employ those terms 
which the bulk of people (ol xoXXoI) are accustomed to use." [Brock's translation, in 
Loeb Classical Library, p. 3.] 



The object of this study is to investigate the diction of Lucian for 
medical tenns after the manner adopted by Hobart, Hamack, and 
Zahn for Luke. 

Of the 400 words in Hobart's index, 300 appear in the index to 
Lucian. It would be natural to suppose that there are 100 words in 
Lucian but not in Liike that could with equal propriety be called 
medical terms, so that the total size of his medical vocabulary would 
be no smaller than that of Luke.^ 

Of the 100 specially selected examples chosen by Zahn and Har- 
nack, nearly half are found in Lucian's works. They are so marked 
" Luc." in the hsts above, but it will be worth while to quote a few 
of the cases in full: 

airoil'vxii'V is used in Lvike 21, 26 in the meaning ' faint, fail,' and is cited by 
Harnack (p. 197) and Zahn (p. 161) as a medical term. " But medical writers 
use airofpvxfiv of being chilled, not of swooning or expiring." (Hummer, ad. 
loc.) See the examples in Hobart, p. 166. So Lucian, Vit. auct. 25, and else- 
where, uses it of limbs growing cold or stiff, like Niobe's. 

Lucian, Dial. mar. 7, avopOiiaa^ 5i avri)v 6 'Epfirjs yvvaiKa TrajKakqv avBis 
kiroLriae, referring to the restoration of the heifer lo to the form of a woman. 
" Avopdovv Likewise is the usual medical word for the restoring of the members 
or parts of the body to their natural position." (Hamack, p. 189, referring to 
the story of Luke 13, 11 ff.) 

In Lucian, Ocyp. 45, the lame (xf^^&s 41) attendant is called iirripinis ^ a,8u- 
varos yoyyi/^oiv ykpuv. " The man of Lystra, lame from his mother's womb, 
is described as an avijp ASivaTOs roh irotriv (Acts xiv, 8). See the medical 
examples for adiivarof in Hobart, p. 46." (Hamack, p. 193.) 

Lucian, Herm. 86, Toaahrtiv axXuc awoo'eurafiei'os' tQv onnaTwv. "Hobart, 
pp. 44 f . shows that axXus, according to Galen, is a distinct disease of the eyes." 
(Hamack, p. 193). 

Lucian, Tox. 43, 6 Xkiav d^ets kKtivov fiiitBvrJTa. Cf. Luke 10, 30, ot Xporoi 
airrj\doi> a.<t>evTes ijixtBavii. On iiixiBviji, see above, p. 56, note 31. This, and 
not iiiindavris as Hamack says (p. 190), is the word used by Galen. 

Lucian, Philopseud. 11, iirb kx^vr)s SrixSevra . . . to Brjpiov SaKilv. "The 
fact that the viper (^x'^vo) is called driplov is not without significance; for 
this is just the medical term that is used for the reptile. . . . Hobart further 

* For the notes on this chapter see below, pp. 71 f. 


remarks Qoc. cit., p. 51) that ' Dioscorides uses Bvpi^SriKTOs to signify bitten 
by a serpent ' " (Harnack, p. 178). Similarly in Lucian's Dipsades a reptile 
like the ix^dva (4) is called driplov (6), irlnirpaadai is used of the swelling from 
the bite (4) as in Acts 28, 6 (cf. Hobart, p. 50, Harnack, p. 179), and other 
medical details are mentioned with apologies to the medical poet Nicander (9). 

Lucian, Dial. mar. 11, 2, ij Okpiiri Axi toO irhpos. Cf. Acts 28, 4. " Nor is it 
without' significance that the heat is described as OkpiJ,-q; for this word, rare, I 
believe, in ordinary use, and only found here in the New Testament, is among 
physicians the general term used for depudrris, as Hobart (p. 287) shows by very 
numerous examples." (Harnack, p. 178.) As a matter of fact the doctors use 
depn6rr]s also, e.g. Galen, Humor, comm. ii. 22 (XVI, 283 bis). See above, p. 62, 
note 76. 

Lucian, Dial. mart. 28, 2, oretpa Kal ixyovos Ster^Xeaas. On crreipa see Zahn, 
p. 160. With the construction of diareXkij} (" very much used in medical lan- 
guage " — Hobart, p. 278) compare aairoL SiaTeKetre, Acts 27, 33 in List D 
above (p. 45). 

Lucian, Dial, mereir. 2, 4, ^s vtvov KaTr)vexOr)v. Cf . Acts 20, 9, Karcupepofievot 
liTryCj? fiadet* . . . KaTevexdds a,x6 toD iirvov. " Passow only gives medical 
authorities for KaTa^epea^dai in the sense of sleep; cf. the multitude of instances 
quoted by Hobart (from Hippocrates to Galen), some of which closely coincide 
with the passage we are considering." (Harnack, p. 180.) One of Hobart's 
instances has Karevex'^ivTas eix \)Trvov, but none use iirvc^ or airo rov virvov. 

" Let it be observed that Luke avoids the following terms for sickness which 
are not customary with medical men, /uaXa/cia, jSatravos, ^aaavi^eadaL (Matt, iv, 
24, viii, 6, ridiculed by Lucian, Soloec. 6)." (Zahn, p. 160.) 

Lucian, Vera hist. i. 22, cuXXajSj to en^pvov. For avWaixfidvoj without 
kv yaffrpi of conception see Luke i, 24, 36; Zahn, p. 160. 

Lucian speaks of lunatics, Philopseud. 16, KaTairlirTovTas irpds rijv crek^vriv 
. . . Kal a<j)pov^ Tn/iTKafikvovs rd arofia. Tox. 24, tXeyero 3^ aal KaTaTrLwreiv 
TTpos riiv (Ti\rivr]v ai^avonkvrjv. " KaTairiTTCi) — here only in the New Testa- 
ment — can also be vouched for from medical language (Hobart, pp. 50 f.)." 
(Harnack, p. 179.) " KaTaTriirTfi,v, peculiar to St. Luke, is used of persons 
falling down suddenly from wounds, or in epileptic fits." (Hobart, p. 50.) 

Though all these general observations are significant, yet for any 
comparison of Lucian with Luke it would not be fair to match the 
whole extent of Lucian's writings against Luke's work of only 150 
pages. One point in Hobart's argument is that his " examples are 
very numerous considering the extent of St. Luke's writings." Are 
the " medical terms " of Lucian as nimierous proportionately as the 
medical terms of Luke ? 

To answer this question a small section of Lucian was examined 
more minutely for comparison. Three pieces, the Alexander, the 
second part of the True History, and the Death of Peregrinus were 
chosen purely on the basis of subject matter as forming a kind of 
parallel to Luke's stories of miracles and travel and martyrdom. 


The total extent of these three writings of Lucian is about half that 
of the works of Luke. 

In this limited section of Lucian were found about 115 of the 
words considered medical by Hobart, or over one-fourth of his entire 
list. It was also found that these words occur about half as often 
in this section of Lucian as they do in Luke's work of twice the size. 
In other words, the frequency of occurrence of these words is about 
the same in the two writers. And this fact is all the more remark- 
able in view of the fact that many words are included which are 
distinguished by Hobart as especially frequent in Luke and used 
by him much oftener than by other New Testament writers.^ 

Still more remarkable are the figures for that other class of words 
on which Hobart lays so much weight — the words peculiar to Luke 
in the New Testament. About 75 of this class, or about one-fourth 
of all the words starred by Hobart, are found in the section of Lucian 
examined, and, as for frequency of occurrence, it actually appears 
that these words " peculiar to Luke " occur at least twice as often 
in Lucian as they do in Luke himself. The times of occurrence of 
these 75 words in the three writings are very nearly as follows: 

Luke 50 

Acts 75 

Lucian (section the size of Luke or Acts) . . 150 

But of course it is not necessary to hmit our study of medical 
terms in Lucian to those words which happen also to occur in Luke. 
The parallel should be made quite independently of Luke, but after 
the manner and method of Hobart, Harnack, and Zahn, especially 
the two last. Accordingly, from the 75 pages of Lucian examined, 
I have formed four lists of words corresponding to the four lists 
formed for Luke from the examples of Harnack and Zahn. In ad- 
dition I have compiled a fifth list of the kind already suggested,' of 
words whose use in extant writers seems to connect Lucian with Hip- 
pocrates and the doctors. It wiU be remembered that such a list 
has not been produced for Luke. Those who put weight on the 
evidence of words in Luke but not in the other New Testament 
writers wiU observe that these words occur neither in Luke nor, with 
few exceptions, elsewhere in the New Testament.' 



A. General Words 

1. Words of rare occurrence but found in medical writers. 

2. Words used frequently by doctors, or akin to such words. 

3. Words used by doctors as technical terms. 

iivaxaivu, cf. Hobart, p. 33. 
kviixLu, Aret. al. 

yoKaKTudris, Hipp. 

yepovTiov, Hipp. al. 

StaiTtt, ' diet,' Hipp. 

Siairviu, cf. Hobart, p. 236. 

Siaffrjiro}, Theophr. Hist, plant. 

Siepeido], cf. Hobart, p. 280. 

iyxpiu, of eye salve. Rev. 3, 18. 

ivTepi.6}vr], Hipp., Arist., Theophr. 

i^upos, Hipp. al. 

iiriSrinia, cf. Hobart, p. 188. 

KaraKklais, ' a way of lying in 

bed,' Hipp., cf. Hobart, p. 69. 
Karbinv, Hipp. al. 
Kavais, ' cautery,' Heb. 6, 8. 
KoiKaivo}, of ulcers, Hipp. 
KoWa, cf. Hobart, p. 128. 
Kopcovri, ' apophysis of a bone ' 

(term. tech.). 

/ioXii/SSiTOS, Hipp. al. 

ddovivos, cf. Hobart, pp. 218 f. 

ijuixXw^Tjs, Theophr., Caus. plant. 


irepirviu, cf. Hobart, p. 236. 

aKi\l/is, of medical examination, 

(TKevaaTos, cf. Hobart, p. 232. 

ffKiWa, Hipp. al. 

ffvyKoW&u, cf. Hobart, p. 128. 

a-i;»'a7W7eiis, a kind of muscle, 

rpviraci), Hipp. al. 

Tvp^ri, Hipp. al. 

virepirip,ir\rip,i, Hipp, al., cf. Ho- 
bart, p. 107. 

i'KOirinirXrjp.L, cf. Hobart, p. 107. 

iTTotjjpiTTO} , rare outside of Ludan, 

but found in Galen, 
xaij/co, cf. Hobart, p. 33. 


B. Medical Words* 
dXeli^dpjua/coj', medical writers Ko\oKvvdri {k6Xokvv6i,vos) , Bio&c. 

&.<rapKos, Hipp. al. 

iWifiopos (iWePopl^u) 
ifiica, Rev. 3, 16 

Kivv&ficanov (Kivvaixisfiipos) , Rev. 




naX&xn, medical writers 
fir]pb%, Rev. 19, 16 
* Diseases, medicines, and parts of the body. 


C. Obdinary Words Used in a Medical Sense * 

aKoirov (sc. ^pnanov), 'painkiller,' Alex. 22. Cf. Galen's work, 

irepi oLKbiruv, and elsewhere in Galen. 
dpMOYiJ, ' joint ' of the body, Alex. 14. Only Galen XIX, 460, cf . II, 

734, ed. Kiihn, are cited in the lexica for this meaning. 
dpTijpia, ' wind pipe,' Alex. 26. Frequently so in the doctors. 
SHj-yfojuai, of the post mortem account, Peregr. 44. Cf. Hobart, 

pp. 229 f. 
SptMuj, of drugs, Peregr. 45. Hipp., Theophr., Diosc, Galen. In 

Hipp. Fract. 769 it is used without 4>a.pnaKov in the same sense. 
iiriffKoiriu, of medical examination, Peregr. 44. So used by Galen.' 
(TTpovQiov, as name of a plant, Alex. 12. " Name of plant in Hipp., 

Theophr., Diosc, et al." (Passow, s.v.). Contrast Luke 12, 6. 
4/vxp6v (without CSwp), ' cold water,' Peregr. 44. Hippocr. et al. 

So Matt. 10, 42, but not Mark 9, 41, nor in Luke. 

D. Longer Expressions 

irvperds na\a a^oSpos, Peregr. 44. 

\evic6s rijv xp(>°-v, Alex. 3. 

veKpiKus T^jv xpbO'V ^xc*, Peregr. 33. 

koiXj) 71 x^'i-P 

eis p,avlav ifi^aWu, Alex. 30." 

aaiTos eKadi^eTo, Vera hist. ii. 24. Cf. Acts 27, 33. 

SiareXiu xpwiU«»'os, Alex. 5. Cf. Galen, Comp. med. sec. loc. vii. 2 

(XII, 19, Kiihn), <j>app,6.Koi.s xP^/J-^voi. SiareXSicnv , cited by Hobart, 

p. 278. 
ffKuKijKuv ^iaas, Alex. 59. " aKuXri^ is used both of worms in sores 

and of intestinal worms," Hobart, p. 43, quoting this passage. 
hvaiadriTus 'ix^i-v, Vera hist. ii. i. Hipp. 
<Tvp,p.\](i} t6 arbna, ibid., ii. i. Hipp. 
6 iarphs p,eraKkriBels , Peregr. 44. " These two compounds of KaX^co 

[euTKoKiu, neraKoKiu], pecuhar to St. Luke, were used in medical 

language for ' to call in ' or ' send for ' a physician," Hobart, 

pp. 219 f." 

* By both Lucian and the medical writers. 


E. Special List Connecting Lucian and the 
Medical Writers '^ 

1. Words apparently found elsewhere only in the medical 

2. Words foiuid in no writer before Polybius except Hippocrates. 

dX^a Hipp. al. 

&lj,^v(airiu Hipp., not in Attic writers. 

€Tri/3pexw Theophr., Diosc. 

iinx^iaiyci Stephanus quotes only Hipp, besides. 

ruMiTomov Diosc. ; Passow cites no other authors. 

Ka.raBiiKiiv(j3 Lexica refer only to Luc. (ter) and Hipp. 

KaTappaiTTU Hipp., Galen. 

KoKKiipiov Hipp., Galen., Diosc, Rev. 3, 18. 

Kopxj^T) Lexica refer only to medical writers besides. 

liaaTixn Theophr., Diosc. 

irpoaoKiWu Aretaeus and later writers. 

crvWelfioixai Hipp., Arist. 

4>h)yix6s frequent in Hipp. 

The following observations may also -be made: 

1 . Hippocrates is directly referred to in Vera hist. ii. 7, 'iTiroKpaTei 
t43 K<^Cf) larpQ. 

2. Vera hist. ii. 47 closes in much the same way as Galen makes 
his transitions between the seventeen books of his De usu partium, 
e.g.. Book vi, ad fin., irepl S)v airavruv 6 ecfie^fjs rQSe X670S e^rtyqaerai,. 

3. The preface to the Alexander has a certain resemblance to the 
preface of Dioscorides' Materia medica. This, it will be remem- 
bered, is the preface that Luke is said to have imitated.^' Its re- 
semblance to Luke and Ludan is equally close. 

4. If the medical coloring of certain passages is to be examined, 
as Harnack, pp. 15 f, 176 ff., examines the story of Acts 28, 3-10, 
probably Alex. 21, or Peregr. 44, 45, would make a sviflBicient parallel. 

5. Harnack (p. 175) suggests as one of the traces of the author's 
medical profession that " the language may be coloured by the 
language of physicians (medical technical terms, metaphors of 
medical character, etc.)." For medical technical terms, see Lists 


B and C; for metaphors of medical character, see 0. Schmidt, 
Meiapher und Gleichnis in den Schriften Lukians, 1897, pp. 13 ff. 

6. Harnack (p. 176) says that these signs will " compel us to be- 
lieve that the author was a physician if ... in those passages 
where the author speaks as an eyewitness medical traits are espe- 
cially and prominently apparent." In Peregr. 44, 45, and in many 
other places where the medical traits are most numerous, Lucian 
also is writing as an eyewitness — even in the True History ! 

These suggestions do not exhaust the passages in Lucian, but 
probably they are enough for our purpose. Already they match 
in nearly every detail the evidence produced for the medical pro- 
fession of Luke. And if the amount of Lucian examined should be 
doubled so as to equal in extent the writings of Luke, and if we 
then should " spend a lifetime " in going through the twenty-five 
volumes containing the writings of Hippocrates, Galen, Dioscorides, 
and Aretaeus, with occasional glimpses at Theophrastus, to collect 
the occurrences of words and note coincidences ip their usage or 
combination with this part of Lucian, there can be no doubt that 
such an investigation could produce a volume quite as large as Ho- 
bart's, and that the best examples selected from it would be found 
quite as cogent as those of Harnack, Moffatt, and Zahn, to prove 
by his " medical language " that Lucian was a physician. 


1 The following words occurring in Luciak but not in Luke or Acts are explicitly 
mentioned as medical terms by Hobart himself in the course of his book (pages of 
Hobart in brackets): iydiv (8i), ASv/jila (280), AvaSoais (260), kvaveim (240), hiairvta 
(236), AyopTrdfu (244), fitr/CTjcris (263), arajcros (222), arovos (241), &tl>opos (144), 
fiifipixTKia (42), SioxXaa (232), Soxeiov (158), IJopTrdfco (244), 'ajy^peboi (260), hriTW- 
pixTOi (93), c8(#iopos (144), KaravaXlaKU (16), KaTOp66w (262), AXi/tXijpos (193), xiifw 
(62), irfipos,' Sea, -axns (148 f), irpSxfipos (202), o-Kcudfo), (232), awtSpibu (260), 
avvrapdaata (93), avvTpk4ia (223), avvTVxla (30), TopaxtoS))S (93), UTroSoxi (158), 
inren-apaaaa (93), 0op(5s (i44)> iA<»*" (62). 

2 inrnpeTTis is a medical term, according to Hobart, p. 88. 

' " The compounds of veleiv were used by the medical writers." (Hobart, p. 103.) 
* " Hobart also makes an attempt to prove by examples that irvos ^aBis is a 

specific medical phrase; but I pass this by." (Harnack, p. 180, n. i). The phrase 

occurs in Lucian, Tim. 6. 

6 " &,pp6s is used by Hippocrates and Aretaeus in describing the symptoms of 

epilepsy." (Hobart, p. 17.) 


« E.g., Times in Luke Acts Lucian 

ivaipiw 2 l8 4 

Stipx"!*'''!' '" ^' ^ 

lio/iai II 4 2 

KaraPalvo) 14 ^9 * 

n-{Ai7rXi7^( 13 9 ^ 

9rX?9os 7 16 9 

irdi' 23 32 2 

irifw IS 13 I 

ijrApxti) IS £5 _3 

no IS7 27 
But excluding these nine words the 108 other words ocair approximately 

102 149 226 
or nearly twice as often in Lucian as in either half of Luke's work. 

Totals 212 306 2S3 

' See p. 49. 

» The exceptions are marked on the lists by the New Testament references. Five 
out of the eight are in Revelation. It should be observed that in compiling these lists 
" medical terms " actually occurring in Luke as well as in Lucian have been excluded. 
' Cf. knffXiira, above p. 44. 

•" Cf . Acts 26, 24, rd jroXXi <r« "ypAja/iOTO tU yiavlav wtpirpkira, which Hobart (p. 268) 
considers medical, though he confesses that Trfpirpkiru is not employed exactly in this 
sense by medical writers. But kiivheTot and i/xfiiWa), which Hobart also considers med- 
ical words (pp. 130, 137), are probably used by the doctors as in Lucian. Note 
Hobart's quotation from Galen : Sxrirtp Kal toJs «tj iniKifijilav re Kal dTroirXTj JioK iiqiUn 

The nearest parallel to Acts, l.c., is not in the doctors but in Lucian's Abdicatus 30. 
This passage has apparently been overlooked by commentators (Wettstein does not use 
it, though he illustrates trfpnp'eirav by two other passages in Lucian). In referring to 
the countless forms of madness (jivpla tUif, cf . Aretaeus, cited by Hobart, p. 267, itavlris 
Tpbvoi ttSoTi piv pvploi) and its various causes he says: Y^oKras Si Kal Si.a06\ii Sxaipos 
Kal 6pyil 4X0705 iroXXiitis kot' olKtluv tpTretrovira tA piv TpSrrov Siirdpa^tv, tlra /car' 
S\Lyov is pavlav ■mpiirpepi. Not only is this passage full of other words which Hobart 
would call medical (besides iiafioKi), ilKoyos, ipirlvTw, Starapdirau, occur in equally 
medical connections in the next few lines 'Mirn, iToreKio), aarripla, inroKKluKrw, Btpa- 
mla, dporixyos iiravipxopai) , but the whole piece is written from the doctor's view 
point with the most delicate sympathy for his professional sensitiveness. 

" cltr/caXib) also is used in this sense in Lucian: i larpis tl<rK\riBd.s, Pseudol. 23; but 
not by Luke, tlaKaKoTl>.pivoi oiv aiToi)s i^ivurfv, Acts 10, 23, the only occurrence in 
the New Testament. 

" This list of words, intended to illustrate the criticism of the examples used for the 
medical language of Luke, contains words " found elsewhere only or mainly in the 
medical writers " (see above, p. 49). Of course the cases given are only those found 
in the 75 pages of Lucian examined for this purpose. The total number of words of 
this kind to be found in all Lucian's works may be estimated with the help of the word 
lists in Schmid's Atticismus as considerably over 100. 
" lAjsuAUfPsalteriumjuxta Bebraeos Hieronymi, 1874, p. 165. 










OxroKD Universxty Pr£SS 














OxiosD UtnvEssrry Fkess 




The First Part of this study of the Style and Literary Method 
of Luke, issued by itself in 191 9, is an investigation of the 
character of the Diction of Luke and Acts in general, and with 
particular reference to the question whether peculiarities of 
the author's diction sustain the opinion that he was a member 
of the medical profession, as has been held by a considerable 
number of scholars. The Second Part completes the investi- 
gation by a minute examination of the Treatment of Sources 
in the Gospel of Luke. The pagination of the two parts is 
continuous; and for the convenience of previous purchasers 
of the First Part who may wish to bind the two together, a 
title-page and table of contents to the whole, with the author's 
preface, are inserted in copies of the Second Part issued sepa- 
rately. An edition of the complete work is simultaneously 
issued by the Harvard University Press (1920). 

G. F. M. 

J. H. R. 



Introductory 73 

Changes in the Order of Sections 76 

Changes of Order within the Sections 78 

Abbreviations and Omissions 79 

Avoidance of Repetition 83 

Changes Perhaps Attributable to Religious Motives . 90 
Phrases of Mark Misunderstood or Transferred by Luke 96 

Opening and Close of Sections. Summaries 105 

Changes Attributable to Literary Predilections . . . 115 
Structure of Sentences and Use of CoNjxmcTioNS . .131 

Changes in the Order of Words 152 

Dislike of Barbarous Words and Names 154 

Use of Verbs 158 

Use of Nouns 186 

Use of Pronouns 191 

Use of Adjectives and the Article 195 

Use of Adverbs 199 

Use of Prepositions 202 





The starting point for any study of Luke's method of using sources 
is a comparison of Luke and Mark. In the second Gospel is pre- 
served to us, substantially as it was in the hands of our Evangelist, 
one of those " accounts concerning the things fulfilled among us," to 
which he refers, and the one which he used as his chief single source. 
The survival of this source gives us an unusually secure basis for the 
study of editorial method. In most other cases the source is known 
only through the derivative work, and the editorial method can be 
inferred only from the finished product. In the Gospel of Luke we 
can confront the author's work with his source, so that the changes, 
rearrangements, and additions which he has made can be certainly 

The advantage of this field for the study of redactorial method 
is increased by another fact. The closeness with which Luke follows 
Mark, as compared with the freedom of paraphrase and embellish- 
ment in other ancient writers, gives us a sustained assurance 
throughout extensive sections of his work that this dependence is 
really there; for whenever (as in a few cases in Luke and usually in 
ancient writers) the divergence from known sources becomes quite 
considerable, the suspicion always arises that some unknown source 
is being used to supplement or even supplant the main source; or at 
least that the latter has gone through some intermediate stage be- 
fore reaching our author. 


There is no reason to suppose that Luke knew any later form of 
Mark than that which we possess. But an element of uncertainty- 
would be introduced into our comparison of Luke and Mark, if, as 
some have maintained, the copy of Mark used by Luke was an earUer 
form of that Gospel, a so-called " Urmarcus." This is not the place 
for the discussion of a theory which s3Tioptic study has practically 
destroyed, though it is still kept alive by a few scholars in a kind of 
artificial respiration. The differences between the " Urmarcus " 
and our Mark are probably so small that they would be sufficiently 
accounted for by scribal changes in a few successive copjdngs. They 
are to be sought where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark, their 
common somrce.^ But these cases are not very mmierous, and 
many of them may equally well be ascribed to identical corrections 
of Mark made independently by both Matthew and Luke. 

In all cases of agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark, 
whatever the presumed cause, great caution must be used in postu- 
lating the primitive form of the Marcan text,^ and these cases are 
so few that they justify us in supposing that elsewhere Luke and 
Matthew followed a text that is substantially our Mark. And here 
the general accuracy that we may presume of all the New Testament 
text is an additional advantage possessed by the comparison of Mark 
and Luke over the comparison of any other two ancient books out- 
side the New Testament, either or both of which rest on less trust- 
worthy textual tradition. 

The comparison of our Gospels is not a new problem, nor is the 
special relation of Luke and Mark an unexplored part of the more 
general field. But the examination of this question has often been 
made in a fragmentary way, and the results have often been left so 
unclassified that there is good reason for collecting at least some of 
the phenomena in such a way that some general observations can 
be made on the editorial method of Luke. In harmonies and com- 
mentaries, Luke's changes in the matter derived from Mark, no 
matter how fully they are indicated, necessarily follow the order of 

' For a list see Allen, Matthew, pp. xxxvi-xl. 

^ For an attempted classification see, Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, II, 
pp. 207-219; Wernle, Synoptische Frage, pp. 45-61. Especially noteworthy is the list 
of passages where Matthew and Luke agree with the Western text of H^ark but differ 
from the current text. 


the text and fail of general classification. There are, no doubt, 
many changes that allow of no classification, or could be classified 
in more than one way, but there remain a great number of phe- 
nomena that allow of collective treatment, and they should be so 

It must of course be confessed from the start that the relation of 
Luke to Mark is not merely a literary problem. There can be no 
doubt that some of the changes made by Luke in Mark are due to 
historical reasons, others are due to the general motives of the 
author — to his so-called " tendencies " — i.e. for doctrinal reasons. 
In so far as these changes are not of a stylistic or literary character, 
they lie outside the scope of these studies. But the exclusion must 
not be too strictly made. On the other hand the discovery of non- 
literary tendencies in New Testament writers is made entirely too 
easy in some schools of criticism, and should be attempted only after 
the hterary habits of the writer have been carefully examined. The 
question may often be raised whether a single detail, or even a re- 
peated phenomenon in Luke, supposed to show some special rehgious 
or social interest, may not be merely styhstic or artistic. In the 
following investigation of Luke's relation to Mark it will therefore 
be best to limit the examination to matters that may be only of the 
latter tj^e, including, however, cases for which the motive may 
also be different.^ Only on such a basis can the further motives of 
the editor be separated and established. And whatever the classi- 
fication of the changes, it must not be assumed that they are neces- 
sarily due to conscious motives. An ancient author in paraphrasing 
a source naturally used his own style and language, and even his own 

^ Short but valuable lists of literary changes in his sources made by Luke are to be 
found in Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa, pp. 486-492, and in Wernle, Die Synoptische 
Frage, pp. g S. The most complete study of the sort here attempted is the work 
of J. H. Scholten, Het paulinisch Evangelie, 1870; quoted here from the German trans- 
lation (with considerable additions and changes by the author), Das Paulinische Evange- 
lium, i88r. Although the value of this work is somewhat lessened by the author's ad- 
diction to certain theories of Sjmoptic criticism now generally abandoned, and by ex- 
cessive emphasis on the " heidenchristliche paulinische Tendenz " of the third Gospel, 
it may still be recommended as a mine of interesting and suggestive material. And, as 
it is but little known to modern English reading students of the question, the publica- 
tion of similar investigations made independently does not seem superfluous. A few 
of Scholten's lists have been added with proper acknowledgment, and references have 
been given to some others. 

' A single exception to this limitation is made in the section below on pp. 90-96. 


reKgious prepossessions, without realizing in every case of change 
the significant contrasts. Such a study reveals most strikingly the 
subconscious, spontaneous workings of the mind. Nor must it be 
supposed that changes of this sort are carried out with regularity 
and uniformity throughout the work. The author will sometimes 
correct his source in a certain way, and sometimes leave the same 
expression or thought in his source unchanged. The many excep- 
tions that we shall find to what is plainly the usual literary practice 
of Luke will abundantly illustrate this point. Not infrequently in 
a single passage Luke will leave unchanged at its second occurrence 
a word or expression in his source that he has just modified.* 

Changes m the Order of Sections 

It is well known that sections of Luke derived from Mark and 
those of other origin are arranged in continuous blocks and not 
interspersed as in the Gospel of Matthew. Thus, in general: Luke 
1-2 are pecuKar to Luke; Luke 3, 1-6, 19 are from Mark; Luke 6, 
20-8, 3 are not from Mark; Luke 8, 4-9, 50 are from Mark; Luke 
9, 51-18, 14 are not from Mark; Luke 18, 15-24, 11 are from 

Our present study has to do with the order of the material in the 
three sections derived from Mark, viz., 3, 1-6, 19; 8, 4-9, 50; 18, 
15-24, II. 

Li the first place we may observe that these three sections repre- 
sent three consecutive and almost continuous sections in Mark, 
viz., Mark i, 1-3, 19; 3, 20-9, 41; 10, i to the end — that is, sub- 
stantially the whole Gospel. Of course there are some omissions 

1 Scholten comments particularly on this phenomenon, e.g., p. 19, n. 3, on the change 
of TTViv/ia i.KiJBapTov, Mark s, 2, 13, to iaiiiiviov, Luke 8, 27, 33: "Da sich Lucas 
hierin selber nicht gleich bleibt (s. 8, 29), so wird noch sichtlicher, dass er nicht 
selbststandig schreibt, sondem als Corrector den Text des Mc. verandert hat;'' p. 38, 
" Mt. 8, 6, 6 TTois itov . . . Lucas setzt dafiir 7, 2, 10: SovKos, lasst jedoch iraU in 
der Rede des Hauptmannes stehen. Ein Beweis, dass er corrigierte; " p. 47, " Bei der 
Vergleichung von Stellen, welche Lc. mit Mt. gemein hat, fallt femer die Vertauschung 
des iiuxS6s, Mt. s, 46, mit der paulinischen xAp's 6, 32, 33, 34, ins Auge, welche jedoch 
bei dem Evangelisten (6, 23, 35), aus leicht erklarlicher und ofter vorkommender 
Unachtsamkeit, unterblieb"; p. 56, "Zu beachten ist die Veranderung der 'Vogel 
desHimmels'Mt. 6, 26in 'Raben' Lc. 12, 24a . . . Dass die Veranderung absichtlich 
ist, geht daraus hervor, dass Lc. 24b in tJbereinstimmung mit Mt. 26 'Vogel' schreibt." 
See also p. 113, on Mark 2, 6, and the references there. 


from Mark by Luke, especially the great omission of Mark 6, 45-8, 
26; but as these do not disturb Mark's order, they may be left out 
of accoxmt here, and, considering the sections dependent on Mark 
in blocks, we may state this as our first observation on order, namely, 
that neither the great insertions in Luke nor its great omissions from 
Mark disturb Mark's general order. Within the large blocks, also, 
the sections of Mark generally succeed one another in the same order 
in Luke, even when additions or omissions in the latter Gospel might 
be expected to change the order. A detailed list of the parallels 
need not be given here, for they can be readily found in harmonies, 
e.g., in the " Parallelenregister " in Huck's Synapse. The regular 
coincidence in order is most st rikin g 

The exceptions to this order are, therefore, few, and demand 
special notice. They are principally the following: ^ 

1. The accoimt of the imprisonment of John the Baptist, which 
occurs in Mark 6, 17-29, is found in Luke, greatly abbreviated, 
after the accoimt of John's preaching (LiAe 3, 19-20). 

2. The sa3dng about the true kindred of Jesus in Mark 3, 31-35 
is found in Luke 8, 19-21 after, not before, the parable of the sower 
and its sequel (Mark 4, 1-25 = Luke 8, 4-18). 

3. The call of the Twelve in Luke 6, 12-16 precedes, in Mark 3, 
13-19 follows, the summary of travel and healing in Mark 3, 7-12 = 
Luke 6, 17-19. 

4. The prediction of the traitor in Luke 22, 21,-23 follows, in 
Mark 14, 18-21 precedes, the Last Supper (Mark 14, 22-25 = 
Luke 22, 15-20). 

5. The denial of Peter in Luke 22, 56-62 precedes, in Mark 14, 
66-72 follows, the trial before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14, 55-65 = 
Luke 22, 63-71). 

The motive in at least two of these cases is clearly the desire to 
conclude at once a subject when it has been introduced. Thus Luke 
anticipates the actual imprisonment of John the Baptist by insert- 
ing it immediately after the accoimt of John's teaching. Again, 
Luke anticipates the denials of Peter by bringing them in at once 
upon Peter's entrance into the court of the high priest, while Mark 

1 Omitting such passages as Luke 4, 16-30 and s, i-n, which do not appear to be 
derived from Mark 6, 1-6 and i, 16-20, though somewhat akin to them in subject 


narrates the trial to its conclusion before coming back to Peter and 
his denials. 

But the infrequency of such transpositions only emphasizes the 
general parallelism of order between Mark and Luke. 

Changes of Order within the Sections 

Within the several sections Luke adheres as faithfully to the order 
of Mark as he does in the order of the sections themselves. As a 
rxile the details follow each other in much the same succession, even 
in cases when the structure of the sentence has been considerably 

In the following cases Luke, in introducing an incident, brings in 
explanatory details which Mark gives only later: 

In Luke 5,17 the presence of the Pharisees and lawyers is mentioned at the beginning 
of the story of the man cured of paralysis; in Mark 2, 6 the hostile spectators are men- 
tioned only after Jesus has aroused their ire. 

At the healing of the withered hand the Pharisees are only mentioned by name as 
they leave the synagogue to plot with the Herodians (Mark 3, 6), but in Luke 6, 7 these 
spectators are named before the cure. 

Mark tells the age of Jairus' daughter after she was healed (Mark s, 42) > Luke 
before (Luke 8, 42). 

The number fed by the miracle of the loaves is stated by Mark (6, 44) after, by 
Luke (9, 14) before, the miracle takes placje^ 

Luke 8, 23 mentions Jesus' sleep before the storm rose, Mark 4, 38, only afterward. 

Luke 4, 31-37 adds -irSXiv rfis TaXiXafos to Ka<t>apvao{iii (Mark i, 21) at the beginning 
of the story of the demoniac in the synagogue, but omits ttjs TaXiXafas from irtplxt^pov 
in the concluding summary. 

Luke 4, 42 mentions the pursuit of the crowd before the arrival of the disciples, 
Mark i, 37 mentions it afterward. 

The women who followed Jesus from Galilee are mentioned by Luke in his company 
during the Galilean ministry (Luke 8, 1-3); in Mark they are first mentioned at the 
cross (Mark 15, 40, 41 = Luke 23, 49). In Luke 24, 10 = Mark 16, i the situation is 
nearly the reverse, for Luke mentions by name the women at the grave only after their 

Bethsaida, Luke 9, 10, whether correctly used or not, is without doubt from Mark 6, 
45, a later section, which Luke omits when he comes to it. 

In Luke 23, 2 the priests accuse Jesus before Pilate puts the question, " Art thou 
the king of the Jews ? " In Mark 15, 3 their accusation is told only afterwards. 

There are a number of minor transpositions in Luke's narrative 
of the Passion, when it is compared with Mark. A list of twelve has 
been collected and carefiiUy discussed by J. C. Hawkins in Oxford 


Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 8i ff. He attributes them to 
the use by Luke of an account of the Passion other than Mark's. 
But the transpositions enumerated by Hawkins are generally cases 
where Luke has anticipated something which is mentioned later in 
Mark. The frequency of this phenomenon seems to warrant the 
inference that he habitually read a whole section of Mark, and 
indeed perhaps the whole Gospel, before composing the correspond- 
ing section, or his own Gospel.* Thus he was able to rearrange the 
details of a story so that such explanatory matters as the age of 
Jairus' daughter or the number of men who shared the bread and 
fishes can be given before the miracle itself is described. 

Perhaps further evidence of the same import is furnished by places 
where Luke distinctly prepares the way for something that in Mark 
is sudden and unexplained. Thus in Mark 3, 2 (= Luke 6, 7) it is 
said that they " watched to see if Jesus would heal on the sabbath," 
but Luke 6, 6 has already dated the incident on the sabbath. Again 
in Mark S, 15 ( = Luke 8, 35) it is said that they found the demoniac 
cured and clothed,^ but Luke alone had prepared the way for this 
by mentioning (8, 27) as a symptom of his madness that he had not 
worn a garment for a long time.* 

Abbreviations and Omissions 

A number of instances may be quoted where Luke by omission, 
by combination, or by putting into indirect form, considerably 
shortens the dialogue of his source. 

' Wemle, SynopHsche Frage, p. 9: "Daraus wird deutlich, wie vollstandig Lc seine 
Quelle beherrscht, bevor er sie aufnimmt. Er ist kein Abschreiber, der Seite nach Seite 
seiner Vorlage umschlagt und abschreibt. Er hat sie erst vollstandig von Anf ang bis zu 
Ende studiert und in sich aufgenonunen." Ibid., p. 26: "Er hat jede Erzahlung erst 
volljg durchgelesen und dabei kleine ZiigeVdie wir bei Mr erst allmahlijch kennen lemen, 
hervorgeholt und an den Anfang gestellt" Wemle suggests that Luke's fipxwy, 18, 18, 
is due to the fact that he read through Mark lo, 17-22 to the end before writing his 

" This addition by Luke is one of those changes in Mark which Harnack {Luke the 
Physician, p. 182) attributes to his medical interest. But it is plain from liiaTLaiikvov 
in Mark s, iS that the second evangelist also had this symptom in mind (see above 


' For converse phenomena, i.e., cases where Luke's transpositions or omissions make 

Mm more obscure than Mark, see below pp. loi ff. 



Mark i, 37 xal \iyov(nv airif Sri irivrts 

fTjToCffti' (re. 
Mark i, 44 xal \iyei airif 6pa niiSfvl 

irriSiv ttirns. 
Matt. 8, 6 [Q] Kal \iyiiii>- Kbpu, d rati fiov 

PkffKriTai ... 7 Xkya airif kryi) t}iSin> 

diparrebau airbv. 
Mark 4, 39 Kal tlirtv . . . aiinea, wttfil- 

Mark $, 8 iXeytv yap airif- t^fKBe rb 

■mitviia ri ixiSaprov ix roD iv0pi)irov. 
Mark 5, 9 X^a air$- Xc7i(!)i' Byoiii pm, 

tri TToXXot iaitep 
Mark 5, 12 nal TapaciXeirav airdv Xiyov- 

Tis • Triiifpov 4juas fls rois xo'povs, tva els 

airois tUri'XOantv. 
Mark S> 23 jropa/coX«t . . . Xiyuiv Sri rd 

6vyi,rpi6v jiov iirxi^rus 8xei, K.r.\. 
Mark 5, 28 iXeytv yip 6ri. iiv i^ujuai 

K&v Ttav Ifiarltov airov ao3$7i<ropau 
Mark 6, 31 Kal \iyei airoXs' deSre ipiis 

airol Kar' ISlav els ipr)pav rdrov Kal iva- 

vaiaaaBe bMyov. 
Mark 6, 37, 38 Disciples — Shall we go 

and buy bread ? Jesus — How many 

loaves have ye ? go and see. Disciples 

— Five and two fishes. 

Mark 8, 29 "Kirfei airif' <ri el 6 xP'^'^rbs. 

Mark 9, 16 Kal iirripiyniirev airois- rl 
avv^Tjrelre irpbs airoist 

Mark 9, 21-25 Jesus — How long has he 
had this ? Father — From childhood, 
etc. Jesus — If possible I all things are 
possible to one who believes. Father 

— I believe, help my unbelief. Jesus 
(to the spirit) — Deaf and dumb spirit, 
I bid thee come out of him and enter 
him nevermore. 

Mark 9, 33 imipiira airois- ri iv r% iSif 

Mark 10, 24 vb.'h.v AroKpiSels l^iyei ai- 
rois- riKva, K. T. X. 

Mark 10, 49 b 'Iriaovs eXirev- ijiavliaare 
airbv, Kal tfttavovaiv rbv rwl>Kbv \kyovres 
air^- Blupaei, iyape, ijiwvei tre. 

Mark 11, 33 &T0Kpi8kvres . . . \iyomiv 
oix olSaiiev. 

Mark 13, i Xeycc airif els ruv iiaSiiriiv 
airov- 5iii,<rKa\e, Ue Torairol \Woi Kal 
irorairal olxodonal. 

Luke 4, 42 omits; cf. ol iix^o' ^iref^row 

Luke s, 14 Kal airbs wap'iyyet^iv airif 

peilSevl elrrelv. 
Luke 7, 3 ipwriav airbv 6wus i^Siiv Sia- 

aiiatj rbv SovKov airov. 

Luke 8, 24 omits. 

Luke 8, 29 jTopijT'yeXXei' y&p rif weinari 
rif ixoB&prif k^eSBeiv iirb tov i,v6pinrov. 

Luke 8, 30 6 Si elirey Xeywij', iri daijhBep 
Sai/ibvia iroWi, ds airbv. 

Luke 8, 32 Kal vapeK&Xetxav airbv tva 
hrirpkj'ji airoZs els bielvovs eUreSBetv. 

Luke 8, 42 vapeKb,\a . . . iri Bvyirrip 

povoryeviis fjv airif, k.t.X. 
Luke 8, 44 omits. 

Luke 9, 10 omits. 

Luke 9, 13. Disciples — We have not 
more than five loaves and two fishes, 
unless we go and buy bread. 

Luke 9, 20 eVrev- rbv xpta-riK rov Beov. 
Luke 9, 37 omits. 

Luke 9, 42 omits. 

Luke 9, 47 omits. 

Luke 18, 24 omits. 

Luke 1 8, 40 4 'Ii;<roDj bci^euirey airbv 
ixBrivai irpbs airbv. 

Luke 20, 7 i,TreKpW7i<rav ptii etSivai viSev. 

Luke 21, s Kal rivuiv 'Keybvruv rrepl tov 
Upov Sri \t8ois KaXoZs Kal ivoBtfiaaiv 



Mark 14, -j. IX«7oi> -ydp- ji^ fa/ rg ioprg, Luke 22, 2 l^/JoCfro -ydp Tdp XoAk. 

^^irore larat Bbpv&m toO XooS. 

Mark 14, 19 ^pfaKro . . . Xk^av . . . /tiiTi Luke 22, 23 (jp^avTo avv^rinlv . . . t6 tIs 

*y«!>; ipa till. 

Mark 14, 45 ■irpo<Te}iSi)v ain-QXiya- ^afi- Luke 22, 47 ^yyura/ rif 'IijiroO 0iXq<rai 

pel, Kal KaTt<t>l\ri<ra> airiv. alrrbv. 

Mark 15, 14 o2 5* xepio-o-Ss fepofov o-raft- Luke 23, 23 ol Si trixtivTo . . . aXTobiitvoi. 

puaov ainhv. ainiv irTavpuBijvai. 

Note also the omission of dialogue parts in Mark 9, 28 f., Mark 
12, 33-34a, Mark 14, 31- 

Somewhat similar is Luke's condensation of sentences in dialogue 
even when no change of speakers is involved. This is shown in his 
treatment of questions (mainly rhetorical), especially when the 
questions are associated with their immediate answer or with another 
question. Both these arrangements Luke to some extent avoids.^ 

Mark i, 27 tI errtp toCto/ diSax^l Kaivif 

KttT^ k^ovtrlav K. T. X. 
Mark 2, 7 r£ oh-os ovru XaX»; |3Xa<r0i)- 

Mark 2, 19 /tii Sivavrai ol viol rod i>viul><i- 
voi, iv (} 6 wiJuj>los Iter' airSn' hartv, 
injimiav; iaov xp^vov ixovaiv rbv vvfi- 
(ftiov fter* afrrajv, ob dvvavrai vrjiTTebeLV. 

Mark 3, 33 ris hmv ^ livriip p.ov Kal ol 
&Se\it>ol liov; 34 ... Mt 4 l"l'"IP /">" ""i 
ol iSfkifml ftov. 3S Ss &" iroiijaxi tA 
dSvrj/ta Tov Beov, ovtos dSeX^ds pov Kal 
&5eX0i) Kal fiiinjp karlv. 

Mark 4, 13 o6i£ otSare ripi irapapoMiv 
Tobrrpij Kal ttus iraaas ras Trapa/SoXcts 

Mark 4, 40 ti itOuyi hrre; oinm ixert 

Luke 4, 36 ris & "SirYOS oSros, Srt b> i^v- 

altf, K. T. X. 
Luke S, 21 t£s kanv ovtos & XoXei /SXo- 

Luke 5, 34 m4 SivaaOe rois vlois tov 

t'vp<l>(avoSj ky ^ 6 vvfitftlos per' ainGtv 

ktTTiVf TTOiTJirai VTiffTeveiv [-eOtrat]/ 

Luke 8, 21 piiTTip pov Kal ASeX^oI pov 
o^Toi eUriv ol t6v \&yov tov Beov kKohovTes 


Luke 8, II ifTTiv Si 08x17 'h Tapa/SoX^. 

Luke 8, 25 TOV i jrterrw ipav; 

Mark 8, 36 tI yi,p i>4>eKa avBpwTrov 
KepSfjaai Tin Koirpov S\ov Kal I^JipiuBijvai. 
Tipi <pvx^v airrov; 3T ti yi.p So'i ivBpioiros 
dprdXXa-yjao Trjs ^uxfls ainov; 

Mark 9, 19 «os irAre Trpds vpas taopai; 
tots irbrf h/^pai vpO>v; 

Luke 9, 25 tI yhp Jj^EXcTrat 6,vBpb3iros 
KepSijffas t&v Kbtrpov ^ov, kavTbv Si 
&TroKkaas fl ^TjpucBeis; 

Luke 9, 41 eias irbre ioopai irpbs ipas xal 
Avi^pai ipS)p; 

1 Twice in tlie parable of the wicked husbandmen, Luke does not follow this practice. 
In 20, IS, 16, following Mark 12, 9, he writes, " What then will the lord of the vineyard 
do to them ? He will come and destroy these husbandmen," etc. In 20, 13 the pro- 
prietor says, " What shall I do ? I will send my son." The question here added by 
Luke (t£ iroiiiau) is characteristic of Luke's parables;, cf. 12, 17; 16, 3. 


Mark 12, 14 i^ttrnv Sovvai Krjvaov Kal- Luke 20, 22 ?{e<rTii' wos KaUrapi ^pov 

aapi fl 06; Su/Ltec fl /i^ iwiitv; dovpai fj 06; 

Mark 14, 37 SI/jaiK, xaBMas; obic Xaxv- Luke 22, 46 t£ KoBeiStre; 

eras /ifai' wpai* ypTjyoprjffaL; 

Mark 14, 63 rl 8ti xpefav ^xoMt" /iapri- Luke 22, 71 t£ ?ti i'xoM"' l^apTvplas 

puv; 64 TiKoiaaTi Trjs fi\a(r(t>rifilas- ri XP^I'O-"! f*™^ T"'' Mo(i<raii€V iiri rod 

ipXv <t>alverai; <rTbp.aTO% airov. 

Note also Mark 11, 32, compared with Luke 20, 6. 

Even single questions disappear under Luke's recension, being 
changed to commands or statements. 

Mark 2, 18 biarl 01 p.aJBriTal 'lukvvov Luke S, 35 ol liaSriral 'loii.vvov vqaTtbov- 

. . . yTjarebovo'iv K. -1 . X/ irtp K. t. X. 

Mark 4, 38 oi /j4Xa trot 6ti ivoWbiieSa; Luke 8, 24 iToKSiiifSa. 

Mark 5, 35 tI in o-k6XX«s t4» ii.Si.aKa- Luke 8, 49 /iijitert uKiiWe rdv SiScurKoSov. 


Mark 5, 39 xi BopvPtiaBi Kal KKalere; Luke 8, 52 /i^ Khaitrt. 

Mark II, 17 oi T^YpaTrroi 3ti 6 oIk6j a""^ Luke 19, 46 -t'eypaiCTai- Kal iarai 6 

K. T. X. oIk6s fWV K. T. X. 

Mark 12, 26 oIik ivkypwre iv rg j8i/3X<() Luke 20, 37 Mwiicr^s tp.iimi<ra> «ri t^s 

Mwiitr^ws ^i tou ^Atov k. t. X ^krov K. t. X. 

Compare also the questions in Mark 12, is; 12,24; iSi 12; 16, 3, which are alto- 
gether omitted by Luke. The saying of the lamp and lampstand occurs in Mark (4, 
21) as two rhetorical questions, and in the corresponding verse of Luke (8, 16) as a 
statement. But the saying was also in Q, as is shown by its occurrence in Matt. (5, 
is) and its recurrence in Luke (11, 33), so that its affirmative form may be due to this 
source rather than to Luke himself. 

In passages derived from Q also Harnack finds a tendency in 
Luke to avoid rhetorical questions. In his Sayings of Jesus, p. 6, 
referring to the three instances in Luke 12, 23, 24, 28, where Luke 
has no rhetorical question parallel to those of Matt. 6, 25, 26, 30, 
he says, " St. Luke removes the rhetorical question for the sake of 
smoothness ( a correction which, as we shall see, he makes in other 
places)." Cf. also, p. 69. The " other places " appear to be Luke 6, 
32, 33 = Matt. 5, 46, 47; Luke 6, 44 = Matt. 7, 16; Luke 15, 4 = 
Matt. 18, 12; 1 Luke 17, 4 = Matt. 18, 21, 22. 

Therefore in cases where the situation is reversed, Matthew hav- 
ing the declarative and Luke the interrogative form, there is possibly 

' In Matt. 18, 12 = Luke is, 4 the double question of Matthew can hardly be 
original as Harnack {.Sayings, 92) thinks. For the first question tI ipXv (<rot) ioKti; is 
Matthean as shown by its addition to Mark in Matt. 22, 17, 42; 26, 66 (where Mark 
14, 64 has tI i/uv (jtalvcrai;). Note also Matt. 17, 25. 



a presumption that Luke is more original (cf. Harnack, Sayings, 
pp. 26, 86), as Matthew also has some tendency to remove questions 
(see Allen, Matthew, p. xxxiii). 

The passages are Matt. 15, 14 = Luke 6, 39; Matt. 7, 21 = Luke 6, 46; Matt. 10, 
34 = Luke 12, si; Matt. 13, 31 = Luke 13, 18, 19 (so also Mark 4, 30); Matt. 13, 
33 = Luke 13, 20, 21. But in three of these cases Nicolardot {Les de redac- 
tion, pp. 148 f.), and in two of them even Harnack (Sayings, on Matt. 7, 21 = Luke 6, 
46; Matt. IS, 14 = Luke 6, 39), prefers the declarative form as original. 

Avoidance of Repetition 

In a great many ways Luke avoids repetition. Often instead of 
repeating the noun a pronoun is used: 

Luke 4, 41 e^pxovTo daifiovLa . . . oi}K 

eta aiira XaXeti'. 
Luke s, 18 Trapa\e\viiivos ... 19 airdv 

24 irapa\e\vfikv(fi, 
Luke s, 33 ol p.aSitTat '1o>6lvvov . . nal 

ol Tuv ^apuraiuv, oi 5k aot* 

8 Tco 6.vdpi 

Mark I, 34 daifiSvia t^iPoKtv Kal ovk 

f)^iiv \aXelv TO. daindvia. 
Mark 2, 3-10 irapaKvTiKos (-Ak, -$), five 

Mark 2, i8b ol pLaBriral 'Iwin/vov xal 01 

liaSriTal rS>v ^apiaalav . . . ol ii aoi 

Mark 2, 22 6 olj/os . d olvos. 
Mark 3, I auBpuiros . . . 3 T(5 i.vBpi>ir(f 

. . . $ tQ d.v9p(j3Tr(^. 
Mark 5y 3S ^'ro tou apxLtrvvayojyov . . . 

36 Tw apxiowaywyt^ . .38 cts rdt^ 

oIkop tou ipxi^wayuyov. 
Mark 5, 39 to iraiSuiv ... 40 tov irai- 

8I0V . . . TO Taidiov ... 41 TOV iratSiov. 
Mark S, 41 to Kopaawv . . . 42 rd ko- 

Mark 6, 41 tovs irevTe apTOvs Kal Tobs 

dvo IxOijas . . . Toiis apTovs . . . Kal tovs 

Svo lx9va% . . 43 tuv ixOiuv ... 44 

Toijs apTovs. 
Mark 8, 27 oi naBrjTal airov . tovs 

ltaS7iT&.s airov. 
Matt. S, 25 [Q] T^ hvTiSUu . . . liiiirore at 

irapaSc^ 6 AirtStKos. 
Maik 10, 13 irpoat^epo)' . . . rots irpoff- 


Mark 10, 46 tu^Xos ■ . . 49 rdv TvifKbv 
... 51 A 5e TvijyKbs. 

Luke does not, however, in avoiding the repetition of nouns, fall 
into the equally awkward superabundance of pronouns. On the 
contrary, he not infrequently improves on his sources by leaving 

Luke s, 37 4 olcos . . . airbs. 
Luke 6, 6 &v6ponros . 

... 10 aiirt^. 
Luke 8, 49 Trapa tov 6.pxt^vvay6iyov . . . 

SO auT^J . . 51 eU Tipi olKlav. 

Luke 8, SI rr\s TaiSds . . 52 " she "■ 

(in verb) . . S4 airrjs. 
Luke 9, S4 i) irats ■ ■ ■ S5 " she " (in 

Luke 9, 16 Totts irkme &pTovs Kal rois 

dvo IxBvas . aiiToOs. 

Luke 9, 18 oi fia/dijTai . . , 

Luke 12, s8 TOV avTidUov 
KaTaabpri <re. 



Luke 18, 




Luke 18, 


TV^\ds ■ 


aiT6v . 

41 6 Si 


out superfluous pronouns (e. g. avrSs), as, for instance, in Mark 
1, 40; 5, 12-14, 18-19; 8, 29; 10, 17; 12, 8, 37; Matt. 4, s (= Luke 

4, 9)- 

In the following passages from Mark, Luke avoids repetition by 
omission or other changes. The words which have no equivalent 
in Luke are in brackets: 

Mark 2, 9 i^ape [koI Spoi/ riy KpifiPariv aov] ... 11 tyapf, ipov t6v KpififiarSv aov. 
Mark 2, 15 jroXXoi rcXSvat xal d/iaprwXoi mmavkKavro rif 'IijiroB ... 16 [ISot^ns tri 

ijaSuv iifrA, tuv t(Ko>i>S>v xal djuaprwXuK] . . . Sri lurh twv rtKuvCiv Kal aiiaproiKSiv 

taOla Kal irlvu. 
Mark 2, 18 [})<rav ol liodriTal 'loi&vvov Kal ol ^apuraloi vri(rTebovTes\ . . . Xkyoiurw 

air^ SiaH ol jua^qrai 'Iwi,i>vov Kal ol IfioBtiral] T&v ^apuralav piiffreiovaiv; 
Mark 2, 19, see above p. 81. 
Mark 3, 7 [jroXi irSijSos] ... 8 irX^ffos TroXi. 

Mark 3, 14 xal hrolriacp Si)ifKa . . . t6 [xal iTroltiaev Tois Si>5eKa]. 
Mark 3, 33-3S, see above p. 81. 
Mark 4, J ri irtrpuSa [(lirou oiiK ftxfv yiiv iroWfiv] . . . [Sii. t6 /«i iX'^" /Siflos y^s\ 

... 6 iii. ri liii ix^'^" i>liav. 
Mark S> 2 inHivrriirtv airif [be tuv itviiiuUi>v\ ivOpiawos ...36! rliv KaToUcriaw dxfv b> 

TOL^ /iVTifioxn. . . . [$ kv rois fivijuatriv Kal kv rots ipeatv ^p Kph^uv], 
Mark 5, 3 [oidi ikiaei oiKen oiSels hSivaro airdv Sijirai] 4 Sii, rd airdv n-oXXdns riSait 

Kal aXixreaiv SedkadaL, Kal die<rTiitFdai im' abrov rds &\Offeis Kal rds 7r45as trvvrerpuftdaif 

[Kal oiSels l<rxvtv airdv Saniirai]. 
Mark 5, 9 tI Svopti, <roi; . . . \eyiiiv [ivo/ii, juot]. 
Mark 5, 13 elj Ti^y 86iXa<r<rat> . . . [fe rg 6a\i(rirj)]. 

Mark 6, 35 xal ijiri &pas ttoXX^s yivoiiijnis . . . iKtyov Sri . . . [ijiij &pa iroXXiJ]. 
Mark 6, 41 Kal \affwv rois wivre fiprovs Kal rois iio IxOias 6.vaP\kl/a5 tls riv oipaviv 

c^X^yijo'ci' Kal KarkKXatrev rois &pTovs Kal hSldov rots /lajd^rais Iva TrapaTtduaiv ainots 

[Kal roils iio lx9bas iiikpurai iraaiv\. ... 43 xai tipav xXao'/i&Tui' SiiifKa Koiplvw 

irS.7ipiiiiara, [Kal ixi rdv IxSiuv]. ' 
Mark 9, 38 etSoniv riva iv rQ bvbiiarl aov tKpiXKovra Saiiidvia, [is oiK dxoXou0ei ilfiiv,] 

Kal kKoiXionfv, Sti oiK qfCoXoMei illitv. 
Mark 10, 23 xfis SvitkSXws ol ri. xp^Moro ixovrts fls ritv PairiKtlav rod ffeoC daeXfiaovrai 

24 . . . [ttus ii<rKo\6v iariv th ripi PaaiKelav toD 6mv (laf\9fiv.\ 
Mark 10, 27 [Trapd BtQ] . . . irapi. r4> Becf. 
Mark 10, 29 oiSels iariv is i,<i>fiK€v otxlaf 1j djcX^oAs ij &5eX<^ds fj nTjripa fj irarkpa i) 

rkKva 4 iypois ... 30 iiv ju4 ^^/So iKarovrairXaalova . . . [oUclas Kal &de\<l>ois Kal 

ddeX^ds Kal nrjripas Kal reKva Kal &.ypois nerd. dioyY^uv], 
Mark 11, 28 kv rol^ ^wlf roOra iroias/ ij rls aoi rilv ^valap rairrip iSuKiv [Iva 

ravra irmgs]; ... 29 [icoi ipu tv irol^ k^valf toBto ttoiu]. 
Mark 12, 41 [Karivavn rov ya^o<t)v\aKU>v] ... els rd 7a^o^uXdKioi> ... 43 [ds r& 

Mark 13, 8 iaovrai ffeuritol Kari, rinrovs, [taovrai] \iiiol. 
Mark 14, 43 SxXos Luerd liaxaipav Kal ii\av] ... 48 (is kirl Xijo-ti)!' i^qXBare iterii. 

Haxaip&v Kal {iXoio. 
Mark 15, 33 ?ws Sipas fodrijs. . 34 [Kal Tg b>i.Tv iipq]. 


Sometimes repetition is avoided by the insertion of a synonym for 
the repeated word, as in 

Mark 10, 47 ^pjoro (tpdfciv . . . 48 l/tpofw: Luke 18, 38 ipbiiatv . . . 39 fepof*!-. 
Mark 12, 42 xfipa ttox* ... 4 x4po aSnj ij vTUxi: Luke 21, 2 x^pav va>ixp&y 

• ■ • 4 Xhpa. 4 «T(i)x4 airti. 
Mark 14, 37 KoSeliSorrai . . . Koetbieu: Luke 22, 45 Ktuptwitiimn . . . KoBfbSert. 
Mark 15, 37 fjferj'awo' ... 39 ISiiv i Ktvrvplup ... art oSrws iikirvBHrei>: Luke 23, 46 

i^tuvaxro' ... 47 Wtiv ji i iKarovripxiz; rd ytpi/ui/ov (cf. Matt. 27, 54 ri. ytvSfuva). 
Matt. II, 8 iv tiaXoKoU . . . rd ;joX<w4: Luke 7, 25 i* /joXoitois Jporiois . . . Iv 

i/iari<r/i4> &SA{v [Q]. 

Compare also the changes noted on page 76, note i, and on p. 157. 

Even the article is not repeated by Luke in these parallels (see 
also examples on p. 197) : 

Mark 8, 31 tuv Tpetrfivripiav Kal [tuv] ipxiepiuv Kal [t&v] ypaiiiiaTkuv: Luke 9, 22 (so 

Matt. 16, 21). 
Mark 9, 2 [riv] Uirpov Kal [t6p] 'UmuPov Kal [riv] 'Iwimriv: Luke 9, 28 (cf. Matt. I7j i). 

In Q passages, also, Luke shows himself less repetitious than 
Matthew, e.g. : 

Matt. 7, 16 [Q] iird T&v KapwHv afrrHv briyviurcaBe airois . . . [20 lipaye i.v6 Tav 

KapirSiv ain-Giv hriyviiirtaBt atroiis]. 
Matt. 12, 35 [Q] 6 iyaSiK avBpanrm he tov AyaiBou Briaavpov ix^iXKa rd iya9i,, Kal 6 

irovripds [avSponros] eK tov irovijpoO [BjieravpoS] ixPiCKXa Trovripi..'- 
Matt. 6, 22 [Q] ti,v 5 6 6<t>8a'Sn6s aov airXovs, SXov t6 aufta ... 23 kiv di [d 6<))$a\iiM 

ffou] irovrjpos V [o\ov] t6 ff&p-a k. t. X. 
Matt. 6, 32 [Q] iravra yip toDto rd t9in) anfrfrotkriv . . . -xptierf Toirav [iirivTav] 33 

. . . Koi ToOra [jrdyra] TpoarSriveTai i/uv, (See by way of contrast, pp. 115 f.) 
Matt. 23, 37 [Q] iiOi\i]<ra aruruvayaytiv rd rixva aov, iv TpSirov 6pvis [Iir«n;i'd7£i]. 
Matt. 19, 28 [Q] KoB^ataBt . . . tvl [SiiStKa] 8p6vovs Kplvovra rds iiiSeKa ^vXds roB 


That all dififerences of this sort are due to Luke caimot be main- 
tained. Matthew is fond of formulas, and may have been scrupulous 
in rounding out the parallel members of comparisons. But Luke's 
Greek instinct would lead him to avoid distinctly Semitic paral- 
lelisms. Norden {Agnostos Theos, pp. 357 fif.) has recently called 
attention to this feature of Jesus' sajdngs and to the difference in 
form given them by Matthew and Luke. Two extensive examples 
are given below in a form suitable for comparison: 

* Hamack does not include this verse in the Sayings of Jesus, but it plainly belongs 
there; see Luke 6, 45. 



-3 B 5 ? a- 

A na I- b ^ a. 


» . o !" -a p 


£ i 'H s g e -^ 

o o o -Ex 

3- f Jc 

■S <5 

B :a s 3 P r ■t & 





































i ^ -K I I 

-i a => s* ? « 

S 6! <3 

1|i iili I fl 111 I! 




I 'g s" -2' -^ 5 

a. . 



-M s s 

3 S § 

,< ^ -B- 


•o a. 

* C3 3* S 

sIj?^ It . 

g «> „- ^ ^ ^ a «i 





»H tn -a 





o ^ fc« 

g 2" 

.N ^^ 

B" « — » 

-©■ » N 

aw w •« 


^ „ 3 c3 e/» A 

C> «" h" _;;i-( rt -3 "S 

H Ht H ^f^ .3 

p 3 3 J2 S - ^ 



-3 l- 

8 *= 

O h 8 

8 ;< 

"^ 5 Ca "* 

" 3 t a. 

• I ■ 




w o -w 

e-,8 1" i 


.2 ^ N 

-w -w 


" ^ 

° a fc S,.8 - 


4J O 

^ 10 -fvo rC.S -a J 

.T3 W <M M M "^ ,^ S 

> . . . . ti^la 

>■ 4J -M ■*-> -M P 


uj kv hu i>w ^^ Co 


In several cases one of two parallel or antithetical clauses is ab- 
sent from Luke, as is shown by the brackets in the following parallel 
passages in Matthew: 

Matt. S, 43 [Q] [i)ico6<roTe *ri ippift;- iy aHi<ras riv irXrialov ffov Kal iita^iras rdv txfiphv 
<rou.] 44 iyii it X47w iyitv, d707ro« xois ixSpobs iftav k. t. X. Cf. Luke 6, 27. So 
Matt, s, 38 = Luke 6, 29; Matt. 5, 31 = Luke 16, 18. 

Matt. 10, 24 oix Utiv iioBririis imkp rhv iiHurKoKov, [abSi Sov\os inrifi t6v Kbpuw ainoH]. 
25 i-pKeriv T(f lioBriT^ tva yitnyrcu cis 6 jtiitricaXos aiirov, [xal d Sov\os i>s 6 xipios]. Cf. 
Luke 6, 40. 

Matt. 7, 17 [Q] [irav ikvSpov LyaJdiv Kapirois icoXois iroKi, tA Si aairp6v ikvipov Kapiroiis 
irovripois Troiei.] 18 oft ibvarai itvSpov iyaBiv Kapirois Troitipoiis iviy Ktiv, ob&i SivSpov 
aarpiv Kapvois koXovs iveyKetv. Cf. Luke 6, 43, also Matt. 12, 33. 

Matt. 13, 16 [Q] ifuiv Sk lUui&pioi. oi 6<l>8aKpol Sri ^Xiirovaiv [koi to. wto ip£a> iri 
&Koiov<nv]. Cf. Luke 10, 23. 

Matt. 6, 13 [Q] Kal pii flatviyKjis iipas cts Trapaaphv, [iXXd pvaai T)pa% dird roB vovr)- 
pov\. Cf. Luke II, 4. 

Matt. 6, 19 IQ] [/iij SriaavplffTf iftiv Briaavpois ivl -His yijs, iirov ff^s Kal ffpaais iujiavll^ei, 
Kal Stov kXkirrai. Siopiaaovaiv Kal kX^toiktu'-] 20 BTjaavpLierf it bpiv 8i](ravpois iv 
oipavif, Smv oirf <n)s o&re ^pdais iifiavl^a, Kal iirov xXcxrat oft iiopiaaovaw oMt 
itXeiTTOuo-n'. Cf. Luke 12, 33. 

Matt. 7, 13 [Q] [8x1 wXareta i) irftXij Kal fOpbx<'>pos i Has 1} i.Trayov<ra ets ri/v ixii\aay, 
Kai iroXXol tlaiv ol tlaipxipcoi ji' aftr^S'] 14 Srt iTTtyfl i) irftXi; Kal TtSXippb^ 1} iS6s ii 
i,TiyoviTa tls fu^x, Kal SSlyoi tlirlv ol tiplaKovrts aiiHiv. Cf. Luke 13, 24. 

Matt. 10, 37 [Q] b 4>CKS>v ira'Tipa H fiiyripa iwtp tut oftx i<rTiv pov fifios, kgX i <t)i\S>i> vliv 
4 Bvyartpa inrtp tpt obK iariv pov H^uk. Cf. Luke 14, 26, which combines all into 
one clause and uses rixva for the more symmetrical vl6v 4 Bvyaripa Ccf. p. 189). 

The following list of expressions in Mark omitted by Luke be- 
cause they repeat either a word or an idea found in the context has 
been drawn up from Hawkins' lists of " context supplements," and 
synonymous and dupUcate expressions {Horae Synopticae, pp. 
100 f., no ff.). Additional cases will be found in the hsts of double 
expressions of time and of place below, pp. 151 f.* 

Mark I, 12 [«ls ti)p ipnpov] . . . 13 fv xg Ip^yuv 

Mark i, 21 [iiliaaKfv] . . . 22 i^v iiiiaKav 

Mark i, 42 6.ini\8tv i,ir' aftroS 4 Xiirpa [Kal iKoSapUrOri] 

Mark 2,15 iroXXol rtkHvai . . . [Ijtraii y&p iroXXoI] 

Mark 2, 25 [xptlav i^xev xal] iirtli/aaev 

Mark 4, 8 iiliou Kapw6v . . . [Kal i<l>cptv] 

Mark $> ^S '''^'' iaipovil^dptvov . . , [rdv hrxvira t6v Xrytwya] 

Mark 5, 33 [itmffififiaa Kal] rpipovtra 

Mark 5, 39 [Bopvfifiaee Kal] KXalcrc 

' For similar corrections of Mark by Matthew (many of them parallel to the pass- 
ages we have considered) see, beside Hawkins /. c, the list in Allen, Matthew, pp. xxiv f. 


Mark 14, 15 itrrpuithvov [intitov] 

Mark 14, 68 oI!t« otto [oire Maraiiai] 

Mark 15, 21 [trapiyovri.] rtva Zljutoco . . . ipxSiitmv dir" &7poD 

Note also the following (not in Hawkins) : 
Mark 6, n xai 8s S.v rdwrn lii) Si^rfrai iiias liniSi imOaaaiv iiuiv]. 

Three other classes of expressions unnecessary in Mark and 
omitted by Luke may be listed. 

1 . References to the fulfilment of requests when the context alone 
would imply that the request is fulfilled : 

Mark 3, 13 irpoo-xaXcirat ovs ^Se\(v airSs [xoi Air^Xtov irpAi atrdv]. 

Mark 5, 23 TrapaxaXci airdv iroXXi . . . Xva iXfliy ... 24 [xal dirqX0ev fur' airoD]. 

Mark g, 19 tfiipfre airiv wpSs /le. 20 [koJ (jpeyKav abriv irpbs airiv]. 

Mark 10, 13 irpoai4>tpov oirtji iraiSla, tva fi^rai airSiv . . . i6 [xal iyayKaXiiri- 

Itevos airi, KaTevXdyei, riOeis Tos x^'pos lir' o4t4]. 
Mark 10, 49 ^ui/^o-are ivrdv. [xai (fituvovaiv tAv tw^XAv]. 

Mark 11, 6 The messengers ask for the colt from its owners [koI &<j>iJKav airois]. 
Mark 12, 15 ^kperk poi iipii.piov ... 16 [oi ii '^veyKav\. 
Mark 14, 13 uird^ere «£s ripi vb'kiv ... 16 Kal t|SX9oi' . . . [icoi tjKBov tU ripi jriXu'] 

Koi elpov K. T. X. 
Mark 14, 23 roHipiov . . . iSuKev airois [icoi iwiov i^ atrov irivrts]. 
Mark 15, 43 'Iwirii4> . . . irrijaaTO to au/ia toO 'IijcroO ... 44 [6 Si IleiXSTos ... 45 

iSupii<raTo t6 Tcraiia rif 'laaii<tt]. See also Mark 8, 6, Matt. 14, 22 t. = Mark 6, 45 f. 

Some instances of the converse occur, e.g., 
Mark 3, 3 tfyapt cis ri liiaov. Luke 6, 8 iyapt koI arrjOi els rd /livov. 

Kal iLvaaris iari). 

But more often when Luke preserves the redundancy of Mark he slightly alters the 
phraseology. The following cases are instructive : 
Mark 3, S iKTtivov riiv x^'ipa. Kal i^i- Luke 6, 10 iKravov Ti)V Xiiph. aov. 6 di 

Tavev. kiroirjirev, 

Mark 4, 35 SWSBana/ ets rd vkpav 36 koI Luke 8, 22 iikSBb>iia> ds t6 7ripai> t^j 

. . . wapd\aiifii.vov<nv airiv. Xi/tiTjS" Kal ivrix9ii<rav. 

Mark 5, 12 )rapeciiX«rai> airdv Xiyovres- Luke 8, 32 vapailiXarav airiv Iva iiri- 

riiul/ov ... 13 Kai trkrpel/tv airois. rp'eira . . . Kal irtrpef/O' airois. 

Mark 6, 39 irira(a> i.vaK\ivai rivras Luke 9, 14 KaraxKlvart airois ... 15 

... 40 Kal (LVkirttiav. (coJ kirolTiaav oirws Kal KarkK\ivav iirav- 


2. Notices that people came, saw, heard, or took, when such facts 
can be easily assimied from the context without special mention: 

Mark 2, 18 [tpxoi^ai Kal]\iyov<riv Mark 3, 6 [i^e>\B6vres] . . . aviiPoi\iov 'eiroh\aav 
Mark 4, 4 [JiKOev] ri. vtravi. [koX] Kari^aytv Mark 5, 39 [eio-eXeic] Xiya Matt. 13, 32 
[Q] [i\eeii>] ri. Trertivi. rod obpavov [Kal] KaracrKrivoiv Mark 12, 14 Kal [&Jdivra] Xkyoumv 
Mark 12, 42 [iX^oCo-a] ^{a xIlP"- irraxh ifia\fv Mark 14, 12 ttoD SiKas [inMSmts] iroi- 


lihawittv Mark 14, 66 [ipx^rai] i^la tUp -ivaaiaKwv [itat] WoB<ra . . . Uya Mark 5, 22 
[\J&i,v aMA ^£,rT« irpbs robs ^SSa, Mark 9, 20 [IZi,^ aMv] rd ■^evy.a am-ea^apa^i'' 
Mark 10, 14 [ES<by] St 6 iTjffoBs Mark 2, 17 koJ [dKo6<ras] 6 'Ivovs \kyei Mark 5, 27 
[to6,Ta<7a tA Trepi TOO 'I^ffoO] Mark 6, 16 [to6<70s] «i 6 "HpciS^s SX^Y^;- Mark 11, 18 
Kal liiKovcav] ol dpx«P«s Kai ol ypan^^arels [/coJ] I^tow' Mark 14, " ["i Si hioiaavre,] 
ixi-prfo-v Mark 12, 3 koX [Xa/SAi-rw] airi^ Uiipav Mark 12, 8 icoi [XafibvTa] iwiKravav 
abrhv Mark 14, 23 xai [Xo;9cl»'] 5roi-i}ptoy Mark i, 7 06" '^M^ '"""^s [Kblxii] XBirai tAi- 
l/iii-TO Matt. 4, 9 Mi- [Treffd..-] 7rpo«w«(ri)s [Q] Mark 1$, 43 [roX/i^cros] ... triiaaTO 
t6 awiia Mark 15, 46 Kal [dTopio-os aivS6va] . . . b>il\ri<Tiv airi rg aivSovi 

The converse occurs principally in two passages, Mark 10, 17 ff. and 12, i ft., with 
their parallels. Here, the following phrases wanting in Mark are found in Luke (and 
in several cases in Matthew also) : 

Luke 18, 22 iKoiaas Luke 18, 23 dKoiaas raDro (cf. Matt. 19, 22 iucoOaas) Luke 
18, 24 iStii- 54 airSv Luke 18, 26 oJ &Koi<ravT(s (cf. Matt. 19, 25 inoiaavTis Si) Luke 
20, 14 ISSvTes airbv (cf. Matt. 21, 38 iSbvTis riv vlbv) Luke 20, 16 iKoiaavrts (cf. 
Matt. 21, 4S ixoiffavTes) Luke 20, 17 i/iPXhl/as airoti. 

Compare also the following examples: 

Luke s, 12 ISiiv Si t6v 'liiaovv, not in Mark i, 40; Luke 6, 4 ^a^iv nal, not in Mark 
2, 26; Luke 8, 24 wpoaiXeSvres, not in Mark 4, 38 but in Matt. 8, 25; Luke 18, 15 'Mr- 
res, not in Mark 10, 13. 

In two passages from Q, however, the phrase ipxerai. (-6/iecos) 7rp6j ii€ (in Luke but 
not in Matthew) is not without force. 

Luke 6, 47 ttSs 6 [ipxifttvos irpbs fie Kal] iKoifuii' piov tG>v >Jinn»v Kal voiSsv airovs — Matt. 
7, 24. Luke 14, 26 et Tts [ipxerai irpds /it Kal] ob fuael rdv irarkpa abrov k. t. X. — 
Matt. 10, 37. 

3. Unnecessary explanatory purpose clauses: 

Mark S, J2 iri/itpov ■/ ds rois xo'powSi i''" *'' ainois eitri'SBuiio' — cf. Luke 8, 32. 

Mark 11, 28 ris aot. rijv i^ovalav rabrriv iSaKev, \tva xaBro iroigs] — Luke 20, 2. 

Mark 12, 15 <j)ipeTe juoi Sriy&piov, [tra tSw] — Luke 20, 24. 

Mark 14, 12 irou 9eX«s ftireXflAcres iToiiii.<rwiiev, [Iva ifiayiis to jriffxa] — Luke 22, 9. 

(But cf. Luke 22, 8 iroptvdivTes iTOiit/urare iJ/iiK ri riuTxa iva <l)&,ywiiev.) 

Mark 14, 48 (is eirl Xj;aTiJi' i^iiKdaTe lierd. fnaxaipSiv Kal JfcXtoy [ffuXXajSeic lie] — Luke 

22, S2 

Mark is, 32 KOTOjSdTO) vvv 6nr6 toO trraupoS, [tva ISwfiev Kal iriareiiruiiev] — Luke 23, 


Changes Perhaps Attributable to Religious Motives 

A number of changes, chiefly omissions, are made by Luke in pas- 
sages derived from Mark, which are usually explained as due to 
Luke's reverence for the person of Jesus. In many of the subjoined 
examples as well as elsewhere Matthew shows the same tendency 
(see Allen, Matthew, pp. xxxi ff.). 


Hiiinan emotions and expressions of feeling on Christ's part are 
omitted by Luke, even when they are love and pity. 

Thus Luke omits 
Mark i, 41 inrXayxvureds (v. I. bpyurdtls) 
Mark l, 43 iyxiSpijurjo-d/jevos 

Mark 3, S ner' Apy^s trvvKvwouiuvos M xfi irwpdio-a 7-fls KopSias airSiv 
Mark 6, 34 lo-irXoTxxfffflij 4ir' airofe 
Mark 8, 32 koI irapprialq, riv X670V 4X(lXct 
Mark 8, 33 eircTi/xjjo-e t4> Uirpif k. t. X. 
Mark 9, 36 Kal kvayKaXuxi/ievos aiirb 
Mark 10, 14 ISiiv Si . . . riyavoKTiicrfv 
Mark 10, 16 Kal ivayKoKurSintvos ofrri 
Mark 10, 21 kiiff\t\fias o4t$ riyAwricrtv airdv 
Mark 11, 11 ireptPXepanevos irama 

Mark 14, 33 ijp^aTO iKdanfietaSai Kal iSTHioviiv (cf. [Luke] 22, 44) 
Mark 14, 35 Ixitttw kirl tt)% 7^s (Luke 22, 41 8(U to. ySvara). 

Luke's omission of the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11, 12-14, 20-25) ™ay be due 
to the same motive. 

Violent acts of Jesus whether actual, as at the cleansing of the 
temple, or threatened, as when he is said to have threatened to 
destroy the temple (Mark 14, 58) are omitted by Luke. 

Luke 19, 4S omits Mark ii, isb, i6 Kal tos rpawil^as twv koWvPuttuv Kai rds KaOi- 
Spas T&v iruXobvTOJV tAs Trcpttrrepas KaTkirTp€i//€P Kal oitK ^^uv Iva Tts bi&kyK-^ ffKevos 5ta rod 
Upov, retaining only fjp^aTO iKP&Wav Tois TrtoXoBiTos. Even ecjSdXXw itself is omitted 
by Luke in the following passages: Mark i, 43 i^kPaXev airdv 44 Kal \iyei Mark 5, 
40 aitrds Sk ec/3aXwy irkfTas 

Possibly in the Gospel, as in Acts, he wished to present Christian- 
ity as in no way hostile to Judaism, but even as faithful to its re- 
quirements. Note the addition Luke 23, 56 Kal rd fikv aa^^aTov 
rjavxaaav /card Trjv IvToKrjv.^ 

Luke frequently makes less peremptory and abrupt the com- 
mands and requests found in his sources by avoiding such words as 
6-7ra7e, heme, "ihe, and by the subtle use of vocatives. These changes 
quite accord with motives of style, lending grace and smoothness 
to the dialogue (cf. p. 147); but they also affect the impression 
we get of the speakers, both Jesus himself and those who address 
him. Perhaps something of the same sort is seen in the 
following changes in the words of Jesus: 

1 Cf. Luke 2, 21-24, and see Wemle, Synoptische Prage, p. 105. 


Mark ii, 3 elirort Luke 19, 31 o(h-<as ipttrt 

Mark 14, 14 ctirore Luke 22, 11 ipeirt 

Mark 14, 36 irapivfyxt {v. I.) rd ror^piov Luke 22, 43 el ^ofcXei vaptvirYKai, (v. I.) 

TOVTO. TOVTO t6 Troriipuiv 

Mark 12, 15 H nt Tetpi^ere Luke 20, 24 omits. 

Mark 13, 9 ffXkrfre Si ipeU iavnis. Luke 2 T, 12 omits. 

Luke omits not only the symptoms of self-destruction in maniacs 
(see above, p. 48) but also Jesus' apparent teaching of self-mutila- 
tion to avoid offence, Mark 9, 43-48 = Matt. 18, 8-9. Even allu- 
sions to Jesus' use of physical contact in working cures are omitted 
by Luke: Mark i, 31 fiyapev Kparriaas Trjs xe'P<^s Mark 5, 23 
eKe<i}i> eiTidfis TOLS x«tpas Mark 9, 27 Kparriaas Trjs x«v6s- So 
Luke 18, 15-17 does not say that Jesus actually put his hands 
upon the children (cf. Mark 10, 16; Matt. 19, 15). It may be for 
the same reason that Luke so often leaves out what Mark relates 
about the crowd's hindering or discommoding Jesus and about vio- 
lent or impertinent conduct of individuals to Jesus or in his presence. 

In his account of the woman with the issue of blood, Luke, 
following Mark, mentions the crowd that pressed about Jesus, for 
therein lies an essential feature of the story (Luke 8, 42, 45; cf. 
Mark 5, 24, 31; note however Luke's omission of ip t^ ox^v in 
Mark 5, 27, 30). But elsewhere his references to crowds are rarer 
than in Mark, and imply less inconvenience to Jesus. In Luke 5, 
1-3 the situation is about the same as in Mark 4, i. In 12, i Luke 
describes a crowd of myriads who trod one upon another, but else- 
where confines himself simply to such mild expressions as 8xXos 
TToXuj, oxXoi iroXXol. 

In Mark on the other hand we find a number of expressions indi- 
cating the armoying presence of crowds (cf . p. 138) : 

Mark i, 33 xai Ijv iXij ij irSXis imavvfiyittvri irpis riiv Sbpav 

Mark x, 45 &(rT6 juijicirt airiv Sivaadai tls 7r6Xti< <t>avtpiis el<Tf\$eiv 

Mark 2, ^ Kal avviixOr)aav iroXXoi, &aTt /iii)K4rt xupiiv iiriSi t4 irpis rifv Bipav 

Mark 3, 9 xal elirev toU naBtiTOis airov Iva TrXoi&pioy wpoaKaprtpy aiirQ Si& t6i> fix^i*) 

tva fiii 6\iPuinv airdv 
Mark 3, 20 xal awipxerai itHKai BxXos SxiTf nil iivaaOat. ofrrois liriSk tprov <t>ayttv 
Mark 6, 31b fjcrav yip o2 tpxilfvoi Kal oi ivirfovres ttoXXoI, Kal oiSi tjiaytZv tixalpovv 
Mark 10, i xal avviropfiovTai ir&Xti' Sx^oi irpAs airdv. 

Accordingly Jesus enjoins silence; see Mark i, 34; i, 44; 3, 12; 
S) 43; 8, 30; 9, 9; 9, 30 (Luke has parallels to four out of seven of 
these passages). 


Mark uses strong words for the pursuit of Jesus, which Luke 
softens or'omits: 

Mark r, 36 KareSlu^ Luke 4, 42 irtt^nvi' 

Mark i, 45 Kal Ijpxovto wp6s airdv trkv- Luke s, IS avv^pxovTO ixKoi iroXXoJ 

Mark 2, 13 koI was 4 Sx^s <ipxe™ x/>ds Luke s, 27 omits 


Mark 3, lo hnvlimiv ainif Luke 6, 19 k^iirovv 

Mark 4, i gxXos irXetoros Luke 8, 4 SxXou jroXXoO 

Mark S, 6 Airi iiaxp6ea> Upa/iai Luke 8, 28 omits 

Marks, 21 <™«^xftj 8xXos jroXfe Luke 8, 40 AireSif oro o6t4i' i 8xXos 

Mark 6, 33 Trefg iird TairSv tuv irAX«>)i> Luke 9, 11 ifKoKoiBiiaav 

<rwi^paiu>i> licet Koi TpoQXAiK aftrofe. 

Mark 9, is irSs b SxXos . . . irpoarpk- Luke 9, 37 avviivniaei' oiT<g 8xXos toXOs 

XoxTtj ^<nr&{'ovTo airrSv 

Mark 9, 25 hrurinTpix^ oxXos Luke 9, 42 omits. 

Mark 10, 17 tcpoaSpait&v Luke 18, 18 omits 

Mark 10, so ia>a-infiiiaas ^XfltK Luke 19, 40 iyylaavTm airov 

Mark 15, 36 Spani>v Cf. Luke 23, 36 wpcurepxbiia'oi, 

The explanation suggested may seem fanciful, but the omission of 
rpexw and its compounds in six of these passages is certainly strik- 
ing. Violent or impatient or disrespectful conduct either to Jesus 
or in his presence is elsewhere avoided by Luke. All the following 
details found in Mark are omitted or altered in Luke. 

In Mark i, 26 the imclean spirit when summoned to come out 
tore the patient with spasms and cried with a loud voice; in Luke 4, 
35 it cast him in the midst without injuring him. In Mark 5, 7 a 
possessed man adjures Jesus by God;^ in Luke 8, 28 he merely begs 
him. In Mark 9, 26 the unclean spirit when summoned to come 
out " cried out and tore the patient so much that he became like a 
corpse and many said that he was dead; " Luke omits this. In 
Mark i, 45 the cured leper frankly disobeys the command of Jesus 
to tell no man; in Luke 5, 15 Jesus' growing fame is not attributed 
to such direct disobedience. Cf. Mark 7, 36. Possibly a parallel 
case is foimd at Mark 16, 7, 8 in which the angel ordered the women 
to teU the disciples and Peter, but they instead of doing so " said 
nothing to anyone "; while in Luke (24, 9) the women reported the 
matter " to the eleven and to all the rest." 

^ Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 2d edit., p. 119, suggests the same reason for the 
change of Mark s, 7: " It is only in this one of the three narratives that the unclean 
spirit dares to adjure Jesus (ipxifw)." 


In Mark lo, 22 the young man went away arvyvaaas (" looking 
gloomy ") at the reply of Jesus. Another young man flees from Jesus 
in the garden in such haste that his cloak was left behind (Mark 14, 
51 f.). Similarly Bartimaeus leaves his cloak in his haste to respond 
to Jesus' call (Mark 10, 50). Luke omits these features as well as 
the flight of the disciples from the garden and of the women from 
the tomb {e<t)vyov Mark 14, 50; 16, 8). In all the gospels the violent 
act of cutting off an ear of the high priest's servant is mentioned. 
In Luke alone its violence is counteracted by the immediate cure 
by Jesus (22, 51b). 

If Luke objected to having Jesus touch people, he would object 
as much to having people touch him. Not only does he limit the 
insistence of crowds, but in Luke 8, 44 the patient touches only the 
border of his garment (so in Matt. 9, 20, but in Mark 5,27 the gar- 
ment). Luke 22, 47 does not say, as does Mark (14, 45), that Judas 
actually kissed Jesus. In speaking of the plan to arrest Jesus, 
Luke 22, 2 omits Kpareu (Mark 14, i, cf. Mark 14, 44), and when 
he describes the actual event he again avoids the word (Luke 22, 
48; cf. Mark 14, 46 ol 5e eirepaXav rds x^'^P"'^ avr^ /cat iKpaTTjaav 
avTov). Even the trial and crucifixion scenes are softened by Luke. 
He omits not only the whole incident of the mockery (Mark 15, 
16-20), but a number of details: the spitting on Jesus (Mark 14, 
65, cf. Luke 22, 63-65), the beating with rods by the vwrjpeTai 
(ibid.), the binding of Jesus (Mark 15, i drjaavres), and the scourg- 
ing with the flagellum (15, 15). In Mark and Matthew the high 
priest tears his clothes in horror at the blasphemy of Jesus, the 
passers by revile him on the cross wagging their heads, and 
both the thieves crucified with him reproach him. Luke avoids 
all this, except that of the two thieves one is penitent and the 
other is not. In Luke also Jesus' own persistent silence is not so 

Similar shielding of his hero is perhaps shown by Luke in his omis- 
sion of the account of John the Baptist's death, Mark 6, 21-29 (al- 
though it is implied in Luke 9, 7, 9, 19); and, some would add, in 
the omission from Acts of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. In 
view of the mortes persecutorum in Acts i, 18, 19; 12, 23, it cannot 
be said that Luke avoids violent death scenes for artistic reasons, or 
out of sensitiveness. 


The conduct of Jesus' disciples and friends towards him in Mark 
can easily be improved on, and Luke improves it. In Luke his kindred 
do not come out to seize him, nor are they said to think him mad 
(Mark 3, 21) ; they merely wish to see him (Luke 8, 20, cf. Mark 3, 
32). Peter does not take Jesus and begin to rebuke him (Mark 8, 
32); he does not flatly contradict Jesus when he predicts Peter's 
denial (Mark 14, 31) ; nor does he curse and swear when accused of 
knowing Jesus (Mark 14, 71). The disciples in Luke do not ask 
Jesus a question so complaining as 011 ju^ei croi on airoXkvfieBa; 
(Mark 4, 38), so superior as iSXeVeis top 6x\op avvBU^ovTa at 
Kal \eyeis t'ls fwv ^xparo; (Mark 5, 31), so ironical as awiKObvTtt 
ayopaaosfiev drivapicov StaKoaluv aprovs Kal SaxTUfiev avrols 4>ayeiv; 
(Mark 6, 37). They say more respectfully eTriffrdra, imffTara, 
a-KoKKviieBa (Luke 8, 24); iTruTTaTa, ol oxKoi. avvixovaiv ae Kal 
&-irodyi.Pov<nv (Luke 8, 45) ; and ovk elalv rjfiXv wXeiov r; aproi. wevre 
Kal ix6v€s 8vo, el /iijrt iropevdevres rjiJieis ayopaffUfiev . . . ^pufxara 
(Luke 9, 13). They do not refuse to answer when he asks them 
what they are quarreling about ^ (Mark 9, 34; in Luke 9, 47 
Jesus simply knows the reasoning of their hearts without asking 
it, a fact which Liike 6, 8 again adds to Mark 3, 2). They do 
not show by their surprise so little credence in Jesus' saying about 
riches as to cause him to repeat it (Mark 10, 23b, 24b; note the 
omission of Mark 10, 24a, 26a, in Luke 18, 24-26). Finally, they 
do not all forsake him and flee (Mark 14, 50; accordingly Luke 
omits also Mark 14, 27, 31b), but rather remain to watch the cruci- 
fixion and to hear the first news of the resurrection (Luke 23, 49; 
24, 9, 10). 

Many of these omissions could be explained quite as easily as 
made in the interest of the disciples themselves, for example, the 
rebuke by Peter and the desertion in the garden, as well as the 
incident of the sons of Zebedee (Mark 10, 35-40). This motive is 
seen clearly in Matthew's treatment of Mark (Allen, Matthew, 
pp. xxxiii f.), and in a few further cases Luke avoids emphasizing the 
ignorance of the disciples or want of faith in them. Instead of ri 
deiXol iare ovtcos; ovtu ex^re wiffTiv; (Mark 4, 40), Jesus asks them 
TTov fi iriaTis vixuiv; (Luke 8, 25), and he does not dwell on their inabil- 

' Again in 6, 9 Luke omits the silence of Jesus' hearers at his question (see Mark 3, 
4), but not in the seeming parallel in Luke 14, 3. Cf. p. 99. 


ity to cure the epileptic boy (Mark g, 28), nor declare it to be due to 
lack of faith (Matt. 17, 20). Their ignorance is not chided as in 
Mark 4, 13, but Luke explains that the facts were hidden from them 
(by God), (Mark 9, 32, Luke 9, 45; cf. Luke 18, 34; 24, 16). Even 
their awe and wonder is omitted (Mark 10, 24, 26, 32). Whatever 
reason we may assign for Luke's omission of the long passage, 
Mark 6, 45-8, 26, we cannot help noticing how many of the prefer- 
ences we have just been discussing might have been at least con- 
tributory motives. The section is greatly at variance with Luke's 
tastes, which is only another way of sa3dng that it is very typical 
of Mark. 

Observe emotions and expressions of feeling, Mark 7, 34 hrTift^i' 8, 2 <rwKayxi'l- 
fonai 8, 12 ivatrrfviias 6, 45 iiviyKanv. Personal contact, 6, 56; 7, 32, 33; 8, 
22, 23, 25. The crowd, 6, 53 vepiSpaftor; 7, 17, 33 iir6 rod Sx>>ov, and often. Jesils' 
inability to have his will, 6, 48; 7, 24. Disobedience to Jesus' command, 7, 36. Jesus' 
desire for concealment, 6, 48; 7, 24, 36; 8, 26. Ignorance of disciples, 6, 52; 7, 17; 
8,17,21. Hardened heart, 6, 52; 8, 17 (cf. Mark 3, 5, omitted in Luke 6, 10). Fright 
of disciples, 6, 49, so, 52. Forgetfulness of disciples, 8, 14, 18. Want of food, 8, i, 14. 

Phrases or Mask Misunderstood or Transferred 
BY Luke > 

It is not without interest to collect those passages in which it is 
possible that Luke misunderstood Mark, or from intention or care- 
lessness has altered details in Mark or transferred them to another 
passage. It is not likely that all of the following cases are due to 
misreading or misunderstanding on the part of Luke; other causes 
may be suggested, such as deUberate change, possible corruption or 
obscurity in the text of Mark used by Luke, or at least dependence 
on a form of Mark different from that found in our best manuscripts, 
though sometimes still represented in inferior manuscripts of Mark. 
But it is altogether likely that in usmg a source so extensively an 
author should sometimes not follow his source exactly even when it 
was read with diligence. The very uncertainty of most of the fol- 
lowing shows how Httle these mistakes or negligences in Luke may 
amount to. 

In Mark 2, 15, icoi ylverai KaToxtiaBai oiTiv b> rg oUliy abrov, the airrov could apply 
either to Jesus (cf. aiT6v) or to Levi. Matthew understands it of Jesus, and if Mark 
so meant it, Luke misunderstands him, for he writes (s, 29) Kal i7rolii<Ta> doxhv iieyiXiiv 

' See Scholten, Das Paulinische Evangelium, pp. 26 f., 41 f., 143 ff. 


Atuels o*T(g b> Tg obclf. a«ToO. There is much to be said however, in favor of Luke's inter- 
pretation of Mark. Following Matthew's interpretation of Mark 2, 15, some (e.g. 
Pfleiderer) understand Jesus to mean in verse 17, oix ^Xfoi/ KaUcrai Sucaiovs AXX4 
iliapT<j)\oh, that he calls (i.e., invites to his feasts) not just men but sinners. Luke 
takes (toXferm in a different sense, for he writes (s, 32) oiiK IX^XuSa xaUirai iixalovs 
iXXo attapTuXois eU /ieThioiav. But Luke may be right, and As turivoiav be "a true 
gloss" (Swete). 

In Mark i, 38, Jesus, having gone out from Capernaum, says to those who overtake 
him that he must preach in other cities, adding, els toBto yip i^r^eov. If HrjXeov re- 
fers to his recent departure from Capernaum, Luke does not so understand it, but of 
Jesus' mission in general, for he writes (4, 43), Sn M tovto iirOTTiiXijc.i 

In Mark 6, 15, Herod is told by some that Jesus is a prophet like one of the prophets; 
Luke (9, 8) understands this to mean that one of the ancient prophets is risen, an idea 
parallel to the other suggestions, that he is John the Baptist risen from the dead, or 
that Elias has appeared. 

It is possible that Luke has made the same change in 9, 19, for there he suggests 
again, Sti. Trpo^riis ns rav ipxatav iviffTT) (cf. Mark 8, 28, in tU tuv irpo^nrriav). 
Matthew also apparently understands this phrase of Mark to apply to dead prophets, 
and here this may even be the view of Mark. But that Mark did not feel that a new 
prophet was impossible, that the line was finally extinct, is clear from Mark 6, 15 just 

One or two cases can be explained as based on an ill-attested or 
lost reading of Mark. 

Thus, in 9, 7, Luke says, XkryeoBai iiri rivav, as if he read (with BD 2 min a b ff 'X 
tKeyov for tKeyen in Mark 6, 14 koI iJKomcv . . . 'HpiiSTis . . . Kal iXeya/, and were 
avoiding the indefinite " they " in characteristic fashion.^ 

In Luke 19, 35, 4irc/S£/8o<rov t6v 'Ir]iTovi> might have been suggested by a reading 
like that of K in Mark 11, 7, iKiSurav (transitive) for iKiBurtv, but this explanation is 
not necessary. 

In Luke 21, 13, intv tU napripiov might be due to understanding as reflexive the 
unpointed owtok in Mark 13, 9, «is iiaprbpiov airois (as it is usually written). 

In Luke 8, 13, irpis Kaipdv vurrtbovaiv could have arisen from misreading irplmKaipol 
citriK, Mark 4, 17. 

Similarly, in Luke 7, 19 [Q] Scholten (p. 41) suggests that the mention of two disciples 
sent by John to Jesus is due to a misreading of i<io f or 5td in [the source of ] Matt. 1 1 , 2, 
viiul/as Jid TUV fiaSijT&v airrov. So J. H. Moulton, Grammar, II, 29. 

In the following cases, Luke seems to have transferred a phrase 
in such a manner as to alter the meaning. In some cases, though 
certainly not in the last one, this may be accidental. 

In Mark 14, 43, Jesus' captors are spoken of as a multitude " from {vapi.) the high 
priests and scribes and elders." In Luke 22, 52, they are spoken of as being " high 
priests and generals of the temple and elders." 

> For a different explanation of these two changes see below, pp. 117!. 
' See p. 165. 


Mark 14, 71 ofc oMo t6v Stvepuirov tovtov Luke 22, 60 avepomt, oiiK olSa S \kyets 

In Mark 14, S4 and Luke 22, 56, irpAs ri 0ffls is used of Peter, but in Mark the heat 
of the fire, in Luke the light of the fire, seems to be meant by the context. 

In Luke 9, 10 Bethsaida is made the scene of the feeding of the five thousand. Luke 
no doubt gets this from Mark 6, 45; but according to the latter passage Bethsaida is 
clearly located on the opposite side of the sea. Cf. also Mark 8, 22. 
Mark 10, 13, 14 oJ Si naBriTai •orMiiwv Luke 18, 15, 16 'Mvra Si ol naSiiTal 

. . . iSiiv hi i 'Itjo-oPs. eireH/Jioiv . . . 6 Si '^(rovs. 

Mark 6, 16 Si> iyii>&iriK€<t>a.\ura'Io>&vvrii', Luke 9, 9 'loiavviiv iydi &weKe4>i.\i<Ta, Hs 

oCtos ■nykpdri. Sk taTii) oItos; 

Marks, 30 tis (interrog. ) juou rji/'aro tui' Luke 8, 46 ^(^ari Moi "S (indef.). 

In Mark 4, 9 cares and wealth and other desires, daTropa)6iJ.tvoi., choke the word. 
In Luke 8, 14 the construction is so changed that those who are choked by cares and 
wealth and the pleasures of life become the subject of the sentence, yet in agreement 
with the subject an unintelligible participle, iroptvbutvoL, remains. 
Mark 3, 16 fif. Simon, Luke 6, 14 Simon, 

James, Andrew, t6v iSeStftdv airov, 

John, rdv &Se\<tiiv toC 'IaKii/3oii, James, 

Andrew. John. 

(Matt. 10, 2 adds A &Se\<t>os airov to both Andrew and John.) 
Mark 14, 71 Peter began dcaSeMaTifeu' Luke 22, 59 aWos Tts (not Peter) Siur- 

Kal bp.vhva.1. xvpl^iTO. 

Mark 16, 7 Tell his disciples and Peter Luke 24, 6 Remember how he said to 

that he goes into Galilee. you while still in Galilee. 

While the influence of Mark on Luke, outside of the parallel pas- 
sages, is slight and cannot be estimated as a whole, a few instances 
may be mentioned here in which an unusual expression in Luke 
may have been suggested by reminiscence of its occurrence in a 
neighboring context in Mark. This explanation has a higher degree 
of plausibility in proportion to the infrequency of the word or phrase 
and to the proximity of the passage in Mark.^ 

Luke 9, 7 5nj7r6p«. Herod's perplexity about Jesus (nowhere else in Luke); cf. 
■fiirSpa of Herod's perplexity about John, Mark 6, 20 (XBL; nowhere else in Mark), a 
passage that immediately follows the one Luke is using, but which Luke omits, having 
already summarized it in Luke 3, 19, 20. 

Luke 9, 18 irpoatvxbufvov KaT& lidvas. This thought is not in the parallel (Mark 8, 
27); but in Mark 6, 45 f. (cf. Matt. 14, 22 f.), which immediately follows the last pas- 
sage used by Luke (Mark 6, 44 = Luke 9, 17; Luke omits Mark 6, 45-8, 26), Mark 
tells us that Jesus dismissed both his disciples and the multitude, and went ds rd 8pos 
(Matt, adds kot' ISlai') irpoadiaaSai.. 

' See Additional Note at the end of this chapter. 


Luke i8, 39 oi irpoayovra. The verb does not occur in the parallel, Mark lo, 48, 
and is found nowhere eUe in Luke nor (except transitively) in Acts; but ol irpo&yovTa 
occurs in Mark 11, 9 (= Matt. 21, 9), the section of Mark immediately following that 
which Luke is using in 18, 39. 

Luke 22, 54 (TuXXajSij-Tcs is not used in the parallel, Mark 14, 53,' but just before, in 
Mark 14, 48 (= Matt. 26, 55) stand the words, 6k iri Xjjitt^j' k^iiXSan tiera. naxaipSiv 
Kal iCXuv avKKaPetv jue. In Luke's parallel to this verse (Luke 22, 52) the last two 
words are omitted, nor does the verb occur in this sense elsewhere in the Gospels except 
John 18, 12 — again of the arrest of Jesus (cf. Acts i, 16, 'lobSa Tovycvofihov dSr)yov 
Tois auXXojSoufft rdv '1ri<rovv, and elsewhere in Acts). 

Luke 23, 5 ivoffiUi. Tov XoAk — the charge made against Jesus; cf. Mark 15, 11,<rtiaav tov oxKov (the leaders of the Jews stir up the mob at the trial of Jesus), in 
the very next section of Mark. 'Avao-eioj occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. 

A transfer by Luke not from an adjacent but from a similar 
passage in Mark may be illustrated by the following : 

In Mark 3, 4 the question of Jesus whether it is lawful to do good on the sabbath 
is met by silence, oi hi itniiirwv. Luke in his parallel (6, 9) omits these words; but 
in a similar incident after a similar question he writes (14, 3) oi Sk ■^trbxairav. 

Under the heading " Words Differently Applied," Hawkins 
{Horae Synopticae, pp. 53-61), collects for all the synoptists cases 
in which " the same or closely similar words are used with different 
appHcations or in different connexions, where the passages contain- 
ing them are evidently parallel." These phenomena seem to him to 
point to the influences of oral transmission. " Copying from docu- 
ments does not seem to account for them; but it is not at all difficult 
to see how they might have arisen in the course of oral transmission. 
Particular words might Hnger in the memory, while their position in 
a sentence was forgotten; and in some cases they might become 
confused with words of similar sound." 

To the present writer this explanation does not seem more 
adequate than the view that the changes were made in written 
transmission. Errors in copying frequently exhibit apparently 
auditory or vocal traits, while the exact position of words in a sen- 
tence is quite as easily forgotten when the sentence is read and 
copied from memory as when it is simply remembered orally.^ 

In either case some of Hawkins' examples illustrate the subject 
here discussed and may be added to those already collected. 

' It is possible that auXXa/Soi-Tts was originally in Mark 14, Si'> for Matt. 26, 57 
has KpwrijaavTts, corresponding to Luke 22, 54. 
^ See Additional Note 2, p. 105. 


1. Variations in the reports of sayings of Jesus: 

Matt. 10, 27 [Q] a \iya !>iiXv ii> rg aKOTlf., Luke 1 2, 3 «<ro ty rfl oKorlq. ttvaTe, h rfl 
etrare tv Ti) <l>aTl- Kal S As t6 ots ixoif ttxarl AKovaBiitrerai, koI i irpdi rd oh 

en, Ktipiiare M tD>v Suh&tuv. tXaMtrare, . . . KnpvxPflcerai M T&y 

Matt. S, AS [QI &r"i yiirnaee viol k.t.\ Luke 6, 35 xal ttrrai i nurBis il'Sii' jroXti, 

46 Wko iu<r96p ?x««; Kal lataBe viol k.t.X.' 

Matt. 10, 25 [Q] A/okctAc ti? niiBiiT% Iva Luke 6, 40 KaTiipTuriiivoi Si vis tarai in 

ytvriTai (is 6 SiS&trKa\m atrrod. 6 SiiiuTKa'Sos airod. 

Matt. II, 27 [Q] om tAk waripa tk Luke 10, 22 obSels yivitaxa . . . tIs 

(indef.) iiriyivixTxa. (interrog.) lariv i vrariip. 

2. Attribution of the same words to different speakers: 

In Mark 6, 16; Matt. 14, 2 Herod himself says that John was risen from the dead; 
in Luke 9, 7 others have said so. Cf . Mark 6, 14 and above p. 97. 

In Matt. 18, 21 [Q] Peter asks how often he shall forgive, and whether until seven 
times (fcos *7rTAit»); in Luke 17, 4 Jesus tells the disciples to forgive seven times 
(ferrAKtj) . 

In Matt. 7, 14 [Q] the mention of 6\lym ol forms part of a warning given by Jesus; 
in Luke 13, 23 it forms part of a question put to him. 

3. Use of the same, or very similar, words as part of a speech and 
as part of the evangelist's narrative: 

In Luke 4, 43 Jesus says, tiayytXliraadal lu itt riiv PaaCKtlav tov Btov; in Matt. 4, 
23 he is spoken of Ki\piiraav rd eiayyi\u>v rijs Pa(n\tlas. 

In Luke 8, 46, Jesus says, iyi> yi,p ir/vuv ibvapnv iJeXijXtffuiai' ix' tpoi; in Mark s, 
30, the evangelist says of him, hriyvoit ti> iavT^ t^c tf airoO ibvaixiv iJeXfloOo-oi'.' 

4. Variations in the rest of the synoptic narratives: 

Matt. 3, S [Q] iitiroptiieTo irpis abrbv Luke 3, 5 Kal ^'hStv As it&aiui ripi rtpl- 

, . . w&aa ij irtplxupos tow 'lopSdrav. x'-'pov toO 'lopS&vov. 

Mark 3, 8 ijcoiovres Saa woi^ ijKBav irp6s Luke 6, 17 {Xdop ijcovirai otroD Kal 

abrhv. laJBrivai x.r.X. 

Mark i, 23 koI Avixpaiev ... 26 tj>wvii<Tav Luke 4, 33 Kal iviKpaitv <t>o>vi /iry&Xg, 

^uKg tieyi.\ri i&!\Oai 4J airod. [Luke mentions no cry after the command 

Mark i, 45 6 St i^eXdciiv jjpjoro . . , Luke s, iS Siiipxtro Si MaXXoc i \6yos 

Siaitniiill^eiv tSv 'Kbyov. wtpl airov. 

There must have been similarity in sound between flpfaro and -iipxero. 

' In the adjacent verse may perhaps be found the explanation of ytfriirSt (Matt) = 
ia^e<r0e (Luke), for there we have iaeaOt (Matt. S, 48) = ylveaOt (Luke 6, 36). See 
below, p. 179. 

* One striking variation of this kind between Matthew and Mark seems to have 
escaped the notice of Hawkins: 
Mark 14, 2^ Kal \afiiip woriipun' eix<*- Matt. 26, 27 Kal \aPi)v woriiptov Kal 

pi(rTi\aas iSaiKtv abrois, Kal iirtof i£ tbxapiariivas tSuKtP abroXs Xiytov 

abrov ir&vTts. vUrt 4{ abroO ir&VTts, 


Mark 5, 31 fil^kma rdv 6x><ov avvSKlfiovri. Luke 8, 45 ol {SxXot avvkxmalv at xal 4iro- 
« e\t0ov(nv 

This, however, is only a diflferent anangement of parts of words. 

Hawkins adds among others these cases : 

Mark 6, 33 = Luke 9, 12, where the <Sti introducing the mention of the desert place 
is in Mark recitative, in Luke causal; iratplvaTo oiSiv, used in Mark 14, 61; Matt. 
27, 12; Luke 23, 9 of the silences before the High Priest, Pilate, and Herod respec- 
tively (this first aorist middle being used besides in the New Testament only in Luke 3, 
16; John s, 17, 19; Acts 3, 12, instead of the far more common passive forms ia-wpift;, 
etc.); Mark 3, 30 Sri tkeyov, compared with Luke 11, 18, 8ri Xtyere (cf. p. 125). 

Note also the following: 

Matt 4, 8 [Q] Satan shows him -irturas rds Luke 4, 5 f . Satan shows him w6uras rds 

0aai\elas rou xdatiov xai rijv 56ia,v aiir&p, 0avi,\flas Tijs oheovubnis . . . and says 

and says raOrd aoL Trhma Sixru, kiv aol dixroj Hlv i^pvalav Tainqy avaaav Kal 

K.T.X. Tijv Sd^av airSip {sic), . • . iiv k.t.X. 

Matt. S> '^ [Q1 Mox^pwl iare orav bvfi- Luke 6, 22 lioK&piol iart Sraf . . . 6vei- 

Slaaxra' iitSs Kal Sub^oxru' Kai etiruffu' dlaoiaiv Kal kxPilXwaiv rd 6vo^la iiiiiv 

rSv rovTipdv koB' iiuiv ipeuSSfifvoi.. (!)s wovripiv, 

tlra is used by both Mark and Luke in explaining the parable of the sower, but 
in neither gospel elsewhere except at Mark 8, 25- But in this parable it is very dif- 
ferently applied. In Luke 8, 12 it is said of the seed sown by the wayside, clra (Mark 
ebSiis) ipxtrai 6 SiifidXos xal atpa riv \6rrov. In Mark 4, 17 it is said of the seed sown 
on the rock, eXra (Luke icoj) •ycvoiiiiirii dXt^c(ds i) duayiiod Sii, rdv XAtok eiBis <rKat'Sa\L~ 

KaBus eliTfi' is used by both Mark and Luke of the disciples who went to get the 
colt for the triumphal entry, but is applied by Mark 11, 6 to their reply to those who- 
objected to their taking the colt, by Luke 19, 32 to their finding the colt. 

Mark 14, 42 ISoi 6 vapaSidois iJie ^yy ucai. Luke 22, 47 ISoi . . .'loiidas . . .iiyyunv^ 

The following parallels, if the reading and punctuation given 
below is correct, contain other cases of words that Luke has trans- 
ferred from one word or clause to another : 

Mark 3, 26 Kal el 6 o-oToi'as ivfernj 40' iainiv, k/ieplffSTi (v.l.). 

Matt. 12, 26 Kal d 6 (raravai jhv aaravav hcPi-Wa, i(t>' iourdi' ineplaBr)- ttcSs k.t.X. 

Luke II, 18 A ii Kal 6 aaravSx i<t>' iavrdv SttiifpUrOi], wws k.t.X. [Q] 

Mark 12, 21 f. koJ 6 rplros Ciaabrmi- koX ol hrri.. 

Luke 20, 31 KtiX 6 Tplros i\ape/ airilv iiaain-us Si Kal ol Jirrd. 

In this connection may be added a few cases where Luke's omis- 
sion of details given in Mark makes the situation obscure or abrupt. 

In Mark i, 29 f. four disciples are mentioned in connection with Jesus' visit to the 
house where Simon's wife's mother was sick, " and straightway they tell him of her." 


In Luke 4, 38 Simon alone is mentioned, and yet the plural is retained, "and they asked 
him of her." ' 

In Mark 2, i it is said that Jesus was in a house. In Luke 3, 17 this is omitted, and 
has to be inferred from the sequel (vs. 18 tla-tveyKeXv, vs. 19 Suiio). 

In Mark 2, 18 Jesus is asked, apparently by the publicans and sinners, why the 
disciples of the Pharisees fast; in Luke s, 33 the same question is asked by the Phari- 
sees themselves but without changing tCov 'tapuraluv to the first person. (So Scholten, 
p. 144:) 2 

In Mark 6, 14 and Luke 9, 7 it is implied that John the Baptist is dead, though 
neither Gospel has thus far mentioned his death. Mark at once explains the reference 
by narrating (6, 17-29) the circumstances of John's death (note yip, vs. 17) but Luke 
nowhere directly relates it. 

Mark 14, 44 is omitted by Luke 22, 47. Wernle says (.op. cil. p. 33) : Dass der Kuss 
das Zeichen fur die Hascher sein sollte, hat Lc ausgelassen, nicht gerade zur Aufklarung 
der Leser. 

The trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin occurs in Mark before the denial of Peter. 
Luke reverses this order, but fails to make plain that the chief actor has changed, 
using in 22, 63 ff. the simple airSv of Jesus although the last antecedent is Peter. Cf. 
Mark 14, 65. 

In Mark 15, 46 is added the note that Joseph rolled a stone to the door of the tomb, 
so that in 16, 4 we understand what stone is meant when we read that the women found 
the stone rolled away. In Luke the stone is first mentioned on the resurrection day, 
24, 2, e^'pov Si riv \iBov &.TOKeKv\u7fikvov 6.Trd rod p.vrj^lov. Cf. John 20, 1. 

The omission of Mark 15, 16-20, describing the maltreatment of Jesus by the 
soldiers (Matt. 27, 27, the soldiers of the governor), leaves unfulfilled the prediction 
in Luke 18, 32 ff. which is derived from Mark 10, 34. Note especially in Luke 18, 32 f. 
iliVTvaOiiafTai and ixaaTiyiiaavTts and the fulfilment of the prophecy in (iipaytk'Kixrat, 
htTTvov (Mark 15, 15, ig, but not in Luke). Further, the omission of aTpariSiTai. 
(Mark 15, 16) gives a vague or mistaken idea of the subject of the verbs that follow 
in Luke 23, e.g., vs. 26, dT'^yayop, vs. 33, karaiiptiiaav, vs. 34, Siaiitpi^Siuvoi ifiaXov, until 
in vs. 36 the uTpariSiTai are brought in as though they had been mentioned before. 

In Luke 23, 18 the demand that Barabbas be released is given as in Mark is, 11, 
but by omitting Mark 15, 6-10, Luke has left it unexplained why such a demand was 
likely to be made (the custom of releasing a prisoner) and what it has to do with Jesus 
(Pilate's suggestion that Jesus be given the annual pardon).' 

In Luke 20, 40 we are told that the scribes no longer {oiiKkn, so Mark 12, 34) dared 
ask him any question; but Luke has omitted Mark 12, 28-31, where a question of one 
of the scribes is given. The oiKkn has therefore no real meaning in Luke. 

Similarly in the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin Mark tells of the testimony of 
witnesses against Jesus, and that after Jesus confessed that he was the Christ the high 

' Of course the mention in Luke even of Simon is rather abrupt since Luke has 
omitted the calling of Simon, and the other three disciples in Mark i, 16-20, or at 
least has not yet narrated his- version of it (Luke 5, i-ii). Compare the premature 
mention of Capernaum (Luke 4, 23). 

^ So from Mark 12, 35 ttcos \ir/ovaiv ol ypafiiiarcU Luke 20, 41 retains the verb in 
the third person, although the omission of the subject, and Luke's own context imply 
that the question was addressed to the scribes themselves. 

" In this passage of Luke as well as at 24, 2 D corrects the awkward omission, and 
here is supported by N W among others and by several versions: 23, [17] 6.v6.yKiiv Si 
tlxtv &T6\{ieiv aArois (card kopriiv Iko, 


priest cried, tI irt xpdav txontp Mapripcov; (Mark 14, 63). Lulce 22, 71 keeps this re- 
mark, but the in has no longer any force, inasmuch as Luke has omitted everything 
about the witnesses. 

In Luke 23, 35 the probable reading is iieiivKriipi^ov Si xai ol &pxovt€s, and the 
Kal is no doubt the Kai of Mark 15, 31, meaning " also," for Mark has just mentioned 
other mockers, " the passers by." As Luke has omitted these mockers, the "also" 
is with him meaningless.^ 

In Luke 22, 2 we read, Kai it^jjTow oi ipxieptts xal ol ypaiinaT(Ls rd irffls\u<rtv 
avrdv fe^o/SoOcro yd.p riv \a6v. The last clause is peculiar to Luke, but is quite natural 
and in accord with Mark's picture of the conditions of Jesus' life (Mark 11, 32; 14, 2), 
and characteristic of Luke (see Luke 7, 29; 18, 43; 19, 47 f.; 20, 26; Acts 4, 21; 5, 13, 
26). The difficulty is in the use of y6.p. Either koI as at 20, 19 or " but " would seem 
more appropriate. Tip would explain either why they were unable to carry out their 
plan (as at 19, 48) or why they planned a special method of arrest as in Acts S, 26. 
Now, while neither of these is found in Luke in the context, features in Mark which 
he omits contain both. For Mark says plainly that they planned to make the arrest 
ec 66X<j) (Mark 14, i; S6\<fi, Matt. 26, 4), and that they were loath to do it at a feast 
for fear of an uprising of the people (vs. 2, SXe7oy yi.p (Matt. St) liii iv rg ioprg, p^iroTc 
iarai, 86pv0os tov XaoB. It is this omitted context of Mark which I believe explains 
the elliptical yap in Luke. This is the interpretation of Tatian, who combines Matt., 
Mark, and Luke in the following instructive manner: "And they took counsel con- 
cerning Jesus that they might take him by subtility, and kill him. But they said, not 
during the feast, lest peradventure a tumult arise among the people; for they feared 
the people." {Diatcssaron, 44, 4, 5, Hill's translation.) 

A number of other instances of this sort have been collected by 
Badham, S. Mark' s' Indebtedness to S. Matthew, pp. xv-xxviii, who 
uses them in telhng fashion to show that Luke was familiar with 
nearly every important passage in our canonical Mark which he does 
not use. An argument of the same kind may be made from evi- 
dences in Matthew that he knew the parts of Mark which he omits 
(e.g., the parable of the seed growing in secret, see Oxford Studies 
in the Synoptic Problem, p. 432, n. 3). 

Note i (p. 98) 

The process of transferring phrases is still more amply exemplified 
in Matthew's use of his sources. To it are due many of the doublets 
in Matthew; for doublets arise from using the same source twice, 
as well as from using two different sources. Especially the very 
numerous short expressions found repeatedly in Matthew are to be 
so explained (Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 137), and in transferring 
and repeating Mark's summaries, Matthew shows great freedom. 

1 Probably some would prefer to include these three cases in the list given above of 
words differently applied by Luke. It is possible to assign some meaning to oiKiri, 
in, and Kal in these passages of Luke, though not the meaning they bear in Mark. 



Parallel in 



I, 39 preaching in synagogues 

of Galilee 


6, 6 wfpi^tv 


1, 28 fl^XfeK 4 ixoii 

I, 34 Tois KaKus ixofras 


3, 7a many followed him 

12, IS 

3, 7b, 8 list of places 

Thus Mark i, 22 is transferred to Matt. 7, 28, 29. Matt. 4, 23-25 
is made up of many passages in Mark, to nearly all of which Mat- 
thew has a doublet in its proper place as is shown below: 

Elsewhere in 
9. 35 
4, 23a 
4, 24a 
4, 24b 
4, 2sa 
4, 2sb 

The miracle recorded in Matt. 9, 27-31 has many distinct bor- 
rowings from Mark; especially noteworthy are the rare verbs 
eju/Spi/tcto/xat and dia^rjui^u found in Mark's account of the leper, 
Mark i, 43, 45, but not in Matthew's parallel to it. More nearly 
parallel are the charge here to the blind men, juT/Seis yivuffKeru, and 
that to Jairus and his wife, jujjSeis yvol tovto, Mark 5, 43, since in 
Matthew the story of Jairus' daughter immediately precedes (Matt. 
9, 18-26). Matthew has wedged in this miracle of healing the blind 
men just before the last verse of the raising of Jairus' daughter in 
Mark, so that the charge to secrecy now has a new appUcation. 
The other details are hke Mark's accoimt of Bartimaeus, and still 
more like Matthew's parallel to it (Matt. 20, 29-34). See the 
following table : 

Recurs in Matthew 
9, 9 vapiyuv ixtWtv 
20, 30 Sim TV^XoI 
20, 30 txpa^av \irj/ovTfs 

Matthew 9, 27-31 
27 irap&yovTi kKtiBtv 
27 &ix> Tv<t>Kol 
2 7 Kpti^avTa KoJ \iyovTes 

28 i\i7iaov iiiiSs, itUs [v.l, 

v\i\ ^avfiS 

28 l\66vTi cis Ti)v olxlav 

28 irumitTt (c.T.X. 

29 fj\f/aTO T&v difiBaXfuiy 

29 KOTCi riiv ■kIutlv k.t.\. 

30 iii>ttfxOl<rav oi 600aX/io( 

30 ivf&piiiifiii 

30 6pS.Tt 

31 laiSkls yivuirKiTii} 

31 l{eX06i<r« dif tt>iiiu<rav 

31 ii> SXji if y^ iKtlvji 

20, 30 iXfiproi' iliiS,!, vli 
[v.l. vUs] AavcU 

20, 34 ii\f/aTO T&v biiiiirav 

cf. 20, 33 tya iMoiywtrai o2 
i00aX/«>i iiitSiv 

9, 26 AiSKiiVTip>yiivh«lvtp> 

Occurs in Mark 
= 2, 14 TrapLytav 
= 10, 46 TU^Xis 
= 10, 47 flpJovTO Kpi^tiv Kal 

= 10, 47 vli AavtlS Iriaov 

cf. 2, is; 7, 24 

cf. 9, 23, 24 r$ ruTTfiovTi 

. . . VUTTfiu 

10, 52 4 irUrTis <rov k.t.X. 
10, 51 Xva dvoiSX^co 

I, 43 iiiPpiiniffiittvos 

1, 44 Spa uriSo'l injiip K.r.X, 

S> 43 MiS'is yvoi tovto 

i| 45 UcX9(!>y jjp^aro . . . 


Note 2 (p. 99) 

Sanday (Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 5) cites with 
approval the judgment of Hawkins that these phenomena are to be 
attributed to " oral transmission," but by his definition that term 
seems to mean pretty nearly the method of employing written 
sources we have outlined above. On p. 18 f., after describing the 
methods of a modern copyist, he contrasts those of an ancient writer 
like one of the EvangeUsts : " He would not have his copy before 
him, but would consult it from time to time. He would not follow 
it clause by clause and phrase by phrase, but would probably read 
through a whole paragraph at once, and trust to his memory to con- 
vey the substance of it safely from the one book to the other. We 
see here where the opening for looseness of reproduction comes in. 
There is a substantial interval between reading and writing. During 
that interval the copy is not before the eye, and in the meantime the 
brain is actively, though unconsciously, at work. Hence all those 
slight rearrangements and substitutions which are a marked feature 
in our texts as we have them. Hence, in a word, all those phenomena 
which simulate oral transmission. There is a real interval during 
which the paragraph of text is carried in the mindj though not a long 
one. The question may be not one of hours or days but only of 
minutes . . . 

" The phenomena of variation [as between Mark and the succeed- 
ing Gospels] in the texts that have come down to us do not require 
for their explanation any prolonged extension of time or diffused 
drculation in space; they might be described in homely phrase as 
just so many ' slips between the cup and the lip.'" 

Opening and Close of Sections. Sumiiakies 

In the introductions to new sections Luke shows the greatest in- 
dependence. Where events are closely coimected by their iimer re- 
lation, as in the progress of events from the Lord's Supper to the 
Resurrection, Luke follows Mark's introductions more exactly; but 
during the Galilean ministry, when more or less detached scenes are 
presented, Lxike takes the liberty of rewriting the introductions in 
his own way. Specific indications of time and place are frequently 
replaced by more general references, and details are added to supply 


the invisible mental environment of the scene rather than its graphic 
physical scenery. 

A favorite form of preface is the use of Kal iyivero, iyivero Se. 
(For lists, see a concordance; for classification according to gram- 
matical construction, see Plummer, Luke, p. 45). 

In the following list the majority of instances are peculiar to Luke, 
but the cases that have parallels show that the method throughout 
is the same. 

6, 6 kykvGTO dk kv krkpc^ cra/S/SdrC}) eltjt\de'iv air&v eis Trjv avvayoyy^v Kal StSaiTKeiv (cf. 

Mark 3, i Kal el<7ij\6iv traXiv eis avvayorfiiv). 

7, II Kai eykvero kv Tjj k^rjs hropebdTj k.t.X. 

9) 37 iyivtTO Si rfl i^rjs rjfiipg. (cf. Mark g, g, 14). 

8, I Kat eyifiTO kv tQ Kade^TJs Kal avTos dttjjSevev. 

g, 28 kykvsTO Se p-era roiis "Xoyovs toOtovs ajtrci ijiikpai Sktu (cf. Mark 9, 2 Kai /xerd 
illiipas i^). 

8, 40 kykvero be kv tQ i)TroaTpk(ptiv tov 'Irjffovv (cf. Mark 5, 21, gen. abs.). 

9, 51 kykvero 5k kv rw cvfiTrXTjpovfxdaL ras Tifikpas. 

10, 38 kykvero dk kv t^ iropeveadai abroi^t. 

11, I Kal kykvero kv tQ elvai aiiTov kv tottc^ tivI Trpoa-evx^/J^evov. 
14, I Kal kykvero kv t$ k\6elv ahrov €ts oXk6v tlvos. 

17, II Kat kykvero kv rQ iropeheffBai eh 'lepovaaXiin. 

18) 35 kykvero Se kv rQ kyyi^eiv avrdv els *lepeix<^ (cf. Mark 10, 46 Kat epxovrai els 

Particularly common are a variety of expressions with iyivero 
iv iliq.. 

5, 12 Kai kykvero kv ra eXvai airov kv iiiq, rwv TrSXeuv (cf. Mark I, 40). 

5, 17 Koi kykvero kv luq. rdv rinepav Kal abros w Si.Si.<TKiov (cf. Mark 2, i). 

8, 22 kykvero de kv rSiv iip.epav Kal aiiTos evk^Ti (cf. Mark 4, 35). 
20, I Kal kryevero kv p.i.q. ruv ^iiep&v SiS&aKovros airov rov Xaoi' (cf. Mark 11, 27). 

Cf. Luke 13, 10 (peculiar to Luke). In each of these cases except the last the ex- 
pression supplants a more definite one, or else creates for Luke a new setting when the 
preceding sections in Luke and Mark are different. 

Characteristic of Luke is the introduction of a parable by 'iXeyev 
or elirev irapa^oXrjv. The other gospels do not use this expression 
either in the parallels to Luke's examples or elsewhere. 

5, 36 'i\eyev Si Kal TrapafioMp/ wpos airois (cf. Mark 2, 21). 

6, 39 elirev Si Kal Tapa/SoXiiv airoTs (cf. Matt. 15, 14). 

12, 16 elirev Si irapa^oXiiv 7rp6s abroiis \eycov. 

13, 6 i\eyev Si rabrriv Ti)v irapafioXiiv. 

14, 7 i\eyev Si irpds robs KeKXrjfxkvovs irapa^oXifv . . . \eywv, 

15, 3 elirev Si irpbs abrobs rijv Tvapa^oXijV rabrriv Xkyuv (cf. Matt. 18, 12). 

18, I ?\e7e>' Si vapafioXfiv airoZs . . . Xkyuv. 

18, 9 elirev Si Kal irpds rtvas . . . riiv ^apajSoX^v Tabrijv, 


19, II irpoaBels elTrei/ vapafioXiiv (cf. Matt. 2$, 14). 

20, 9 ^pJoTO . . . \i^eiv riiv vapaPo\iiv Talrrjv (cf. Mark 12, l). 

21, 29 Kai elir€v TrapafioXiiv airots (cf. Mark 13, 28). 

To a less extent Luke changes the conclusions of sections, the 
principal changes from Mark being the addition, or intensification, 
of descriptions of the effect of Jesus' words or deeds. Two favorite 
expressions are illustrated by the following lists : 

4, IS Sofafi/icKos inrd iravTuv added to Mark i, 15. 

5, 25 Sojafojy t6v Btov added to Mark 2, 12. 
18, 43 So^afoiv rbv 8i6v added to Mark 10, 52. 
23, 47 Sojafuj/ Tov Oeov added to Mark 15, 39. 

Jofafu Toy etov occurs also at Luke 2, 20; 7, l6; 13,13; 17,15; Acts 4, 21; 
II, 18; 21, 20. In Luke 5, 26 it comes from Mark 2, 12 = Matt. 9, 8. 

4, 28 Kal evX^aSriaav wavres Bviiov (cf. Mark 6, 2, 3). 

5, 26 Kal eiMiaOiiaav 4>6ffov added to Mark 2, 12. 

6, II aiiTol Bi kir\i]a6Ti<Tav avolas added to Mark 3, 6. 

Cf. Acts 3, 10 kirKifaBriaav dd/i/Sovs Kal iKaraaews; Sj I? and 13, 45 iifKiiadiiirav 

A variety of other descriptions added to Mark are as follows: 

8, 37 oTi <j>6Pif tiiya\<f avvtlxovTo added to Mark 5, 17. 

9, 34 k^o^TiQrjirav dk ev t<3 eltTeXdetv ai/rois eis rijv V€4teki]V (cf. Mark 9, 7). 

9, 43a k^€Tr\7j(r(roi'TO 5e irdvTcs «rt rp fieya'KetdTTjTi. rov 6eod added to Mark g, 27. 
9, 43b iravTcov 5e 6avfiai^6vTCiip kwl Trairiv oTs kiroUi. (cf. Mark 9, 30, 31). 

18, 43 Kal IT as 6 Xaos tSuy cScoKfv aXvov tQ 6eQ added to Mark 10, 52. 

19, 37 rip^avTO airav to TrKTJdos tuv fiodijTUV x°-^POVT& aiveiv tov 6edy irepl iratrwv 5iv ^ov 

Svvdftaiv (v.l.) added to Mark 11, 9. 
Note also Luke's additions to Mark in Luke 20, 16, 26; 23, 27, 48. 

Luke elaborates on failure to understand: 

9, 45 oi 5e fiyvoovv to pTJp,a tovto, Kal rjv irapaKeKoKvfifjLeyov d-ir^ aiiTcaVj tya nil aXtrdcovTai 
airo, for Mark 9, 32 oi Sk riyvoovv to (njiia. 
18, 34 Kal aiiTol oidiv Toirwv awrJKav, Kal rjv rd lifiiia tovto KeKpvniikvov 4ir' airrHv, Kal 
ovK iyivaiTKov to, }^ey6iitva added to Mark 10, 34. 
In the sequel Luke (24, 8) adds Kal kiivii<r8riaav Tua> injnaTav airrov. Cf . 2, 50 aiiTei 
ov <rvvrJKav to prjfia. 

In a few cases Luke omits a statement of the effect of Jesus' words : 

8, 39 omits Kal irdvTfs kSaifia^ov from Mark 5, 20. 

9, 37 omits ISbvTts aiiTov k^eSa/ifirjSTiaav from Mark 9, 15. 

18, 24 omits WaiiPovniTo kwl toU Xoyois aiiTov from Mark 10, 24. 

18, 25 omits ol Sk vepiaaSis ki,eirMiaaovTo from Mark 10, 26. 

18, 31 omits Wa/jfiovi/To, 01 Sk &k6\ov6ovvt(s ^o/SoScto from Mark 10, 32. 

Mark is little, if at all, stronger than Luke in Mark 11, 18 = Luke 19, 48; Mark 12, 
37 = Luke 20, 45. Except Mark 10, 26 all the phrases in Mark above referred to are 
omitted by Matthew also. On the omission of (^k) So/i/Sfo/ioi see p. 172. 



As in the prefaces and conclusions of the several sections, so in 
the brief summaries of Jesus' work and influence we should espect 
that Luke would show great freedom with the wording of Mark, if 
not with the actual content of his summaries. With what we know 
of Luke's tendency to generalization it might be expected, also, that 
some purely local description or single examples in Mark would be- 
come more general in Luke. Yet this is rarely, if ever, the case. 
With extraordinary fidelity Luke avoids amplifying or exaggerating 
his source in these summaries of Jesus' work or fame. The follow- 
ing table will show that a large part of the substance of the summa- 
ries comes from Mark, but that it is rather loosely borrowed with 
some re-wording, and that phrases from different parts of Mark are 
joined together. Passages in Mark which are not parallel to the 
passage in Luke which appears to use them are enclosed in square 


4, 14 Kal inriarppl'tv 6 'Itjirovs in tj 
Svv&iui ToD irvtiiiaTOS els ri/v raXiXa{a;>. 
Kal ij"lliri iirj\0tv koB' SKrp x^s irtpixiifiov 
Trepl ahrov. 15 Kal aiyrds kSidaaKev hf ToXt 
trvvaytaryaiz oMt&p, So^a^dfievos iird TriivTOiV, 
4, 31 Kal KaTijhStv tU T^ii4>apvaobii, 
Tt6\iv r^s raXtXa{a;,Kai ^v Si5iurKa>i> airoia 
b> Tois aifi^aaiv. 32 Kai i^tirK^aaoVTO iwl 
rg SiSaxv airov, iri tv k^omlf, fpi 6 X670S 

4, 37 Kal i^eiroptiiTO ^xos ""'pi airov 
els ir&vra t6tov t§s vepix^pov- 

4, 40 SOmvTOs Si Tov ^Xfou ir&VTf! Sam 
flxov iaOevovvTas vSaois voiKCXais ijyayov 
airois irp6s airiv. & di ivl ixiarif aiiTap 
Tds Xf'Pis innBels t0epiirtv[iT]fi' airois. 
41 i^pxovTo Si Kal Saiii6via diri voWuip, 
Kpavyi^ovra Kal \iyovTa 6n ai el 6 vlis 
TOV deou Kal kTriTifMV 

oiK ela airA. XaXcTi> in xtSturav riv 
Xpurrdv airiv thai. 

4, 44 Kai fjv KTipivirav eU rds avvayurtb,s 
rr)s TaKiKalas, 

I, 14 ^Xdec 6 '\Tjaovs cl: rijv ToKiKalav 
[l, 28 Kal iifjXStv 4 ^o4 airov els 6\riv ' 
ri/v irtplxi^pov rijs FoXiXoias.] 
[i, 21 idlSatTKev els ri/v avvayajyqv. 
39 Kal 4X0s> KTipiaaav els ris (rwoyaryds.] 
I, 21 Kal elarFopeiovraL As Ko^apfaou/i, 
Kal eiSvs rots aififiaui iSlSa<TKei> els riiv 
vvpayuylii'. 32 Kal i(eir\ii(rtrovTO irl rg 
SiSaxv airov, f/v yap SiS&itkuv airois els 
i^ovirlap ixWj Kal oix «I)s oJ ypaft/iarels. 

I, 28 Kal iiiiXSev ij iKoi/ airov dOis 
vavraxov els SKtjv rijv ireplxoipov ttjs 

I, 32 oij/las Si yevoiiivris, Sre Uv 6 
^Xios, [see i, 34 below] t^epov wpds airiv 
rois KaKws ixovras [6, 5 kiriiBels rds x^'pas 
kSep&TeviTev] Koi rois daipovij^ofievovs . . . 
34 Kai Wepiwevirev TroXXois KaKus ixovras 
rotxtXats viaots Kal Saiiiivia woWi, t^ifidXev 
Kal [3, II Kal TO irveiiiaTa ri. iuciSapra . . . 
tKpal^ov \tyovres 6ri ai et i vlis rov deov. 
1 2 Kal TToXXd kirerttia airois tva nif airiv 
(pavepiv iroimriv.] 

oiK i^(j>iev \a\eTv rd Sai/tivia, Sri iSeiaav 

1, 39 Kal ^\6ev Ki]pia<ruv els rds ffwo- 
7(07ds airCiv els 8X17^ ti}» Td\i\alav koI rd 
Saiftivia tKfiiWuv. 



S, IS SiiipxfTo Sk juaXXov 6 Xfryoj vepl 
airod, leoi cvviipxovTo 8x^o' roXKol iucoieiv 
Kai BepaireixaOai ird rS>v iurOevauv air&v. 
16 airds Si ijv inroxup&v iv tois ipiniois xal 
rpoKrtvxifttyo! . 

6, 17 Kal TrX^flos iroXi tov XooO djrd 
xoo-^s rijs 'lovSalas Kai 'lepova-aKijii Kal 
T^s rapaXlov Tipou icoi Zijuras, ot ifXeov 
dKoSirai afrroC xai laS^vai dird tCi' v6<rui< 
afiruy, 18 Kal ol ivoxXoi/ttvoi ivd ■Kvtvp.i.- 
Tuv &KaB6.pTUv WtparebovTo- 19 Kal iras 
6 8xXos if^Tow im-taBai. ainov, (m Sivaiiis 
vap' aiiTov ii:^pxtTO >■ Kal laro TrdjTOs. 

7,17 Kai i^\6fi> 6 X4701 oSros iv SKji tj 
'lovSalq, V€pl airov Kal vlurn rj vepixi>PV. 

7, 21 Iv IkcIv]; rg Sp? Idcpdircvao' ttoX- 
Xois i-rd vbauv koX inaaTlyuv xai wvevftiruv 
rovrip&v Kal rv^XoTs xoXXois ixaplaaro 

8, I Kal airds SiiiStvtv Kard. irdXiP Kai 
xdiftriv Kijpbavaii' Kal efiaTV<X(f 6/iavs r^y Pa- 
aiKiiav Tclv Beov, Kal ol StiideKa aiv a^rw, 
2 Kal ywaXKis riva ... 3 atrivcs SaiK6- 
vovy airrois be tuv inrapxivraiv ainaXi. 4 
avvtivrm Si SxXov iroXXoC Kal tuv xard 
■kSKiv iirliropfvoiiit'up irp6s ainbv . . . 

I, 45 6 St ^cXdciiy ijpiaTO KtipUrveai 
roXXd xai Siattn]pl!^(a> tSv tdiyov, Siarf 
ItqKtri airbv SbvaaBai tU TriXu' ^avepus 
tUriKBiiv AXX' !{w ix' ipiniois rAirots ^v KoJ 
TJpxoiTO irpdj ainSv iri.VTcBa>. 
[i, 3S Koi dir^Xflej' Ai ipripov tSttov xdxci 

3, 7 Kal ro\i irX^flos djrd t^s roXtXoios 
Kal i.ir6 Trjs 'lovSalas iiKovKoWriaav, 8 Kal 
ivS 'lepoaoXCptoy Kal i.ir6 r^s 'ISovnalas Kal 
vipav TOV 'lopfidfov Kal irepl Tijpov Kai 
^iSSiva irKifios iroX6, bxoiiovrti Sffa ^oict, 
{Xfiov irpis airrbv. . . . [see_ II below]. 
10 iroXXoAs 74p Wipi.vtvaa>, &im feri- 
irlirrav aftrcj), ti'a ahrov S-yptavrai^ Saoi elxoi' 
tJiiumy as. 11 xai rd TTfciijuara rd dxd- 
Bapra k.t.X. 

[1,28 KoX i^ySen 4 dKo4 a^oC etMs iraina- 
XoB els JXijv Hiv irfplxijupov tJs FaXtXttlos.] 
This occurs in a passage from Q (Luke 7, 
19, 22, 23 = Matt. II, 2-6). Either the 
summary stood in Q and was omitted 
by Matthew in accordance with his 
habit of abbreviation (cf. Luke 7, 20 
and Matthew's treatment of Mark), or 
it was composed by Luke to suit the re- 
port of 7, 22 which Matthew has pre- 
pared for by his grouping of material 
(Matt. 8-10): leper 8, 1-4; two par- 
alytics 8, S-13; 9, 1-8; two demoniacs 
8, 28-34; 9, 32-34; two blind 9, 27-31; 
dead raised 9, 18-26; the gospel 
preached 9, 35 — 10, 16. For the word- 
ing compare Mark 3, 10 roXXois 7dp We- 
pirevaev . . , Siroi fix"" /iiumyas. 
Luke elsewhere avoids this use of iiixrrii. 
[6, 6 Kai irtptijya' rds xiifias xOxXef 

[i, 14 Kripivaoiv rb fiayy i\u>v tov 6s>v 
... 15 ijyy uity ii fiairiXtla tov Bfov.] 
[is, 40 yvyaZKfs . . . ol Sts fjy iy t^ FaXi- 
Xal? iiKoXoWovy airif Kal SiijKbyovy airQ.] 

4, I irw&ytTai jrpis airrbv BxXoj 

[6, 33 jrefn ^"'^ tratray rSiy irSXaiy m/yi- 
Spaitov iKtX.] 

I For the thought, see Mark $, 30 Siiya/uy fJeXSoDo-ac. 




13, 22 Kal SteiropeOero Kara 7r6Xc(S Kal 
xiinas diSixTKWv xal iroptlav Totoitio'os eis 

14, 25 avveropeiovTO Sk abrif <ixXoi. 
17, II lioX kykviTO kv tQ iropeiietrdcu els 

*lepov<ra\iifjL Kal airds BiijpxeTO dta fikcrov 
Xa/iapLas Kai FaXiXaZas. 

19, 28 Kai eiTr<Ji3V ravra eiropeijeTO ip,irpo- 
adtv, hvapalvwv tls "IcpoeriXu/ua. 

10, I Kal iKeWev /ivaarki ipxtTai els ri. 
ipia T^s 'louSaias Kai irkpav toO 'lopSAcoti, 
Kal avviropevovraL ttoKlv 5xXot irpds aijTov^ 
Kal (is tliiSa woXlv kdlSaaKev aiiTois. 

10, 32 ^troi' Si if rg 6dQ i.vaPalvovTa 
ets 'lepoiroKviJia, Kal rjii irpob/yiisv airois 6 

Bartlet, in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 346, also 
believes that these last four references are inserted by Luke, " only 
following a hint of his source." But he takes that source to be not 
Mark, but Luke's " Special Source," used in Luke g, 51, 57; 10, 38. 
His hnguistic arguments are the occurrence of ■n-opevonai, " a favor- 
ite word of Luke's S," in Luke 9, 51 ff., 57; 10, 38; 17, 11, and of 
'lepoaoXvfia in 13, 22 ; 19, 28, " the more Greek form found in Luke's 
Gospel only here and in 2, 22; 23, 7 (a parenthetic note by Luke 
writing as Greek to Greeks)." But Tropevofiai is found all through 
Luke's gospel, and is in some cases clearly due to him rather than 
his source (see p. 177), while the form 'lepoaoXvixa occurs (and with 
ava^aivw) in Mark 10, 32. The expression avvrropevovr ai. (avveTro- 
pevovTo) oxXoi in Mark 10, i; Luke 14, 25, is specially noteworthy, 
as the verb occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only twice 
(Luke 7, 11; 24, 15). Dependence on Mark seems, therefore, en- 
tirely probable. 

Even Luke's summary of Jesus' days in Jerusalem is largely de- 
pendent on Mark. 

19, 47 Kal ijv SiSi/TKiav to Kad' ijiikpav 
kv T^J iepi? . 

48 6 Xods yip &iras k^tKpinero airov 

[11, II Kai el<rfj\8fv fls 'Icpocr6Xi;/ia els tA 
Upiv. ... 27 Kai ipxovTai TriXir els 
'l€po<r6Xu;za. Kai ky tQ lep^ TrepiwaTovvTOS 
airov kt\. (= Luke 20, i). 12, 35 ?Xe- 
yiv SiddaKuv kv tQ Upif. 14, 49 koB' 
finkpav fiiiiiv Trpis inas kv T(f Up^ SiSiuTKwv 
(= Luke 22, S3).] 

II, 18 ttSs yi.p 6 8xXoj i^v\i(r<T0VT0 
kirl T§ StSax^ airov. 

[12, 37 Kai 6 jroXis 5xXos iJKOvep airov 


Luke Mark 

2i> 37 ^K S* TOs ij/itpos tv T^ Upw SiSi.- II, II i\l/i ^St] olitnis r^s &pas eirjXOev 

(TKOiv, tAs Si viiKTas ^lepxA/JWos ijiXIfero els ds BriBavlav. 

ri 8pos tA Ka\oiii(vov iXauiiv. 38 xai ttSs ii, ig Koi Sravbij/i iyhtro, i^eiropeieTo 

6 Xaos Sip9pi^a> irp6s airdv iv t$ Upif iKoi- i^oi t^s ir6\eas. 

etv avTov. [l^, 3 Kai KadTjfikvov aitrov eis t6 Spos rSiv 

II, 20 Kai Tapairopevofievoi irptal . . 
27 Kai ipxovrat iriiKiv cts 'lepotrAXu/xa. 

KoX kv T^ UpQ K.T.X. 

For the equivalence of Bethany to the mount of Olives see further 
Mark ii, i = Luke 19, 29 eis Brjdaviav irpos to opos to KoiXohntvov 
eKaicov, and cf. Luke 24, 50 with Acts i, 12. For the equivalence of 
Trpwt and opdpos see Mark 16, 2 and Luke 24, i. Even rjuXtfero, 
though not in oxir Mark, is presumably due to Luke's source, for it 
occurs in the parallel in Matt. 21, 17, e^fj^dev 'i^u ttjs woXecos eis 
Bridaviav Kai rjvKiaOr] e/cet. 

Perhaps the chief Uberty that Luke takes with Mark's summaries 
is the Hberty of repeating them, so as to apply them to two or three 
successive stages in his own narrative. Thus, as has already been 
shown (pp. 108 f.), the substance of Mark i, 28 is found three 
times in the early chapters of Luke, viz., Luke 4, 14, 37; 7, 17. So 
the reference to the disciples' ignorance from Mark 9, 32 is used 
both in Luke 9, 45 and in 18, 34 (p. 107). In some cases, especially 
in the sayings of Jesus, Luke's doublets are no doubt due to his use 
of two sources. But that an editor is likely to use twice a statement 
foimd but once and in one source is well proved in the case of Tatian 
(A. A. Hobson, The Diatessaron of Tatian and the Synoptic Problem, 
chap, vii) and seems extremely likely for Matthew; see especially 
the hst in Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 137. For Luke, Hawkins 
suggests further (p. 136), Luke 5, 20, 21 = Mark 2, 5, 7; cf. Luke 7, 
48, 49; Luke 8, 48 = Mark 5, 34 = Matt. 9, 22; Luke 18, 42 = 
Mark 10, 52; also Luke 7, 50 and 17, 19 and some others. 

One is tempted to refer to the same cause certain other repetitions 
in Luke where not even one source is known to us, such as the re- 
peated statements of the growth of John and of Jesus in Luke i, 80; 
2, 40, 52 (perhaps from i Sam. 2, 26), the repeated statements of the 
growth of the Christian church in Acts, and especially the repetition 
about the scattering of the church in Acts 8, i ; n, 19. 


Besides the miracle of the healing of the ear of the high priest's 
servant (Luke 22, 51), Luke, in passages dependent on Mark, adds 
a few summary references to cures. Before the healing of the para- 
lytic we read (Luke 5, 17) koI Sdvanis Kvplov ^v els t6 iaardai, ahrbv 
(not in Mark 2, i). In Mark 3, 7-12 we read (vs. 10) iroWoiis 
iBep&irevcrev, but in the parallel passage, Luke 6, 17-19, though it 
is shorter, three references to his healing are found: the multitude 
came, 17 aKovaai avrdv Kal iadfjvai, inrb tuv vdauv airuv, 18 Koi oi 
ivox^ovfievoi awd irvevn&TUV diKaBkpTWv Wepairevovro ... 19 Siva/us 
Trap' airov i^ripxero Kal ioLTo vhvTas. According to Mark 6, 7 the 
twelve are given authority over unclean spirits; Luke 9, i adds the 
authority vbaovs depa-ireiieiv, and describes their commission as 
KTipixraeiv rrju PaffiKeiav rov deov Kal ISiadai. Mark's accoimt of 
their work (6, 13) Kal Saifibvia iroXXa e^i^aWov Kal fi\ei<l)ov eXaic^ 
■iro\'\o{)s appdiffTovs Kal iBepkirevov, becomes in Luke 9, 6, OepatrevovTes 
iravraxov. In a similar way the charge of Matt. 10, 8 (presumably 
from Q), aadevovvrat depairevere, veKpovs iyeipere, \eirpovs KoBa- 
ptfere, daipAvia e/c/SdXXere, becomes in Luke 10, 9, in the charge to 
the seventy, Oepairevere tovs ev avrfj aaOeveis. Before the feeding 
of the s,ooo we read only of teaching in Mark 6, 34, only of healing 
in Matthew 14, 14 {Kal idepdireva-ev tovs &pp&<ttovs airuv), in 
Luke 9, II of both — eXdXei avrols irepl ttjs /SacriXeias rod deov koi 
TOVS xP^i-o-v ^x<"'^as QepaTTiias Ifiro. The coincidence of Matthew 
and Luke in this passage may of course be ascribed to a phrase in 
the primitive form of Mark not preserved in our present text (note 
also the word appuaros in Matt. 14, 14, elsewhere in New Testa- 
ment only in Mark 6, 5, 13; [16, 18]; i Cor. 11, 30), but it seems to 
me more probable that Matthew has here as elsewhere turned teach- 
ing into healing (cf. Matt. 19, 2 = Mark 10, i; Matt. 21, 14, cf. 
Mark 11, 17, 18; 12, 35, 38), and that Luke quite independently has 
added one of his characteristic notes of healing. 

In the above cases of addition Idojuat is generally used. An addi- 
tion with depairevu is found in Luke 5, 15, Kal avvqpxovTo 8xXoi 
TToXXoi &Kovei,v Kal dipairihtcOaL airb tuv inadivtiuv ainav. Cf. Luke 
6, 17. As has been already observed, lAojuai is a common word in 
Luke (only once in Mark; four times in Matt.; cf. lAaeis, Luke 
13, 32). So is bvvatus in the sense of healing power. It is found in 
this sense once in Mark (5, 30 = Luke 8, 46), but is added by Luke 


in Marcan contexts at Luke 4, 36 and 9, i (contrast Mark i, 27 and 
6, 7); it occurs in summaries at Luke 5, 17; 6, 19, and frequently 
elsewhere in Luke and Acts; aadiveia occurs in Luke S, 15; 8, 2; 
13, II, 12; Acts 28, 9, but not in Matt, or Mark except in the quo- 
tation from the LXX in Matt. 8, 17. 

The prefaces and summaries may serve to illustrate certain other 
characteristics of Luke's account of the Ufe of Jesus. Luke's interest 
in the prayer-life of Jesus has often been noticed/ and this is a fea- 
ture which he several times introduces into his setting for a scene. 
Before the baptism (3, 21), before the choice of the twelve (6, 12; 
note the full description . . . Trpoffev^affdai., Kal w dcawKrepevbOP iv 
rg irpocevxv rod deov), and before the transfiguration (9, 28 f), 
Luke is the only one of the Gospels to mention that Jesus prayed." 
In three other pericopes, Luke mentions that Jesus was praying, 
while the parallels say nothing of it: Luke 5, 16 airds dk ^v iiroxcapuv 
ip rats iprifMis Kal irpoaevxoiievos (cf. Mark i, 45); Luke 9, 18 /cat 
eyivero iv tu elvai avrdv irpoaevxonivop Kara pavas (cf. Mark 8, 
27); Luke II, I fryiveTO ev tw elvai avrbv iv T6ir<fi rivi irpoaeuxb- 
pevov (cf. Matt. 6, 9). 

The Kal irpoaeuxbiuvos in Luke 5, 16, though not in Mark i, 45, is very likely from 
Mark i, 35 (KixeC irpovriixfTo), which Luke 4, 42 omits, and irpoirevxil'tvov Kari. 
iMvas in Luke 9, 18 may come from Mark 6, 46 as explained above, p. 98. That Luke 
looked upon prayer as habitual with Jesus may be inferred from his use of the analytical 
verb form in this and several other of the cases above mentioned, and by the addition, 
KarA. t6 Wos, in Luke 22, 39. In the same passage Luke evidently identifies Gethsemane 
of Mark 14, 32 with the Mount of Olives, and he makes Jesus pass the last nights of 
his life there regularly in the open (Luke 21, 37; Mark 11, 11 and Matt. 21, 17 say 
Bethany). Was this due to Luke's conception of Jesus as praying on mountains 
(Luke 6, 12; 9, 28) ? Is it not further possible that the word Tpoaevxii has something 
of the local sense of " place of prayer " which it has in Acts 16, 13, 16, both in this pas- 
sage (Luke 22, 4S; with iyoo-rds diri t^s xpowuxfls in this sense compare Luke 4, 38, 
AvaiTTis iird t^s avfayiayiis. Notice also in 22, 40, yevb/itvos kirl rod tAttou) and at 
6, 12 (notice the article). 

For the substance of Jesus' teaching Luke does not use the noun 
ebayyih.iov (four times in Matt., seven times in Mark, twice in Acts; 
not in Luke or John), and twice when it is found in his source 

> See for example Plummer, p. xlv f . 

' The book of Acts makes it clear that Luke looked upon prayer as a regular occasion 
for a voice or vision from heaven (Acts 9, 11; 10, 9 £E., 30; 11, 5; 16, 25; 22, 17; so 
Luke I, 10) and as the proper accompaniment of a Christian appointment (Acts r, 
24 ff.; 6, S U 13. 3; 14, 23). 


(Mark 8, 35 ; 10, 29) he appears to omit it.* The verb evayyeXi^ofiai. 
is, however, frequent in both Luke and Acts (10 and 15 times re- 
spectively; in the other Gospels only once. Matt. 11, 5 = Luke 7, 
22), and in Luke 4, 43; 9, 6, is directly substituted for the Krjpvffaa 
of Mark i, 38; 6, 12 ; cf. also Luke 3, 18 with Mark i, 7 ; Luke 20, i 
with Mark 11, 27. ri /Sao-iXeta rod deov is a favorite expression in 
Luke for the substance of Christian teaching and frequently occurs 
where it is not foimd in the parallels. To a less extent the same is 
true of 6 X670J tov deov, a phrase which in this sense is peculiar to 
Luke (Luke 5, i; 8, 11; 8, 21; 11, 28; Acts 4, 31; 6, 2, 7; 8, 14; 
II, i; 13, 5, 7, 46; 17, 13; 18, II, and, with 6 X670S rod Kvpiov as a 
variant reading, Acts 12, 24; 13, 44, 48; 16, 32). In Mark 7, 13 it 
is used of the Old Testament legislation. A Hst of parallel passages 
for these expressions is subjoined. 

Luke Parallels 

4, 43 eiayyeXlaaaSai riiv PaaCKilav tov 

6tov Mark i, 38 Kijpi^' 

5, I iKobem rbv XAtov toO 8(ov Cf. Mark 4, i 
8, I KTiiibaaav xal iiayyf\il^6nevos riiv 

PaaCKtlav roG B(ov Cf. Mark 6, 6. 

8,11 & (rvSpos iarlv i X670S toO Beav Mark 4, 14 d CTrflpwv t6v }J>yov aircipei 

8, 21 t6p \6yov rod Beov Mark 3, 35 t6 efkijiia tov deov 

9, 2 KTipiirativ Tiiv PaaCKelav toO fleoC Cf. Mark 6, 7 and Q (Matt. 10, 7 = 

Luke 10, 9) 
9, 6 tiayytKi^hntvoi Mark 6, 12 Imjpulay 

9, II 'iKHKa Tttpl T^s fiairCKelai tov 6tov Mark 6, 34 ^pJoTo SiBaaKav xoXXd 
9, 60 bia.yyeK\e ttiv pcuriKeiav tov 6eov Cf. Matt. 8, 22 
16,16 ij ffairiSela TOV Seov eiayytMl^fTai Matt. 11, 12 4 |8o<riX«(o rac oiipavHv 

18, 29 etveKcy t^s fiaaikdas tov 6eov Mark 10, 29 &eiccv 4juoO Kai Ivacev toS 


20, I SiddtTKovTos aiTov .... Kai e6a77e- 

Xifo/i&ou Cf. Mark 11, 27; 12, 35 

21, 29 iyyis taTiv ij PaaCKtla toC Beov Mark 13, 29 tyyij fortv 

But the words hhdffKu, didaxv, are less frequent in Luke than in 
Mark. Sometimes the fact that Jesus (or the disciples) taught is 

1 The omission by Matthew also makes it, however, at least possible that in these 
passages of Mark the word is secondary. For Jmotk i/iov icoi [IvcKey] tov eiayyeXlov, 
Matthew has simply iveKev i/iov (10, 18; 16, 25) or ivoiev tov ipov Mjuaros (19, 29), 
but Matthew elsewhere supports Mark's use of the word: Matt. 24, 14 = Mark 13, 10; 
Matt. 26, 13 = Mark 14, 9; Matt. 4, 23 and 9, 35 = Mark 1, 14 (adding tovto or t^s 
fiaviKelai or both). Luke has no parallel to these other passages in Mark. 



omitted; elsewhere a simple " said " is used for " taught," " began 
to teach," " taught and said," " said in his teaching." See Mark 2, 
13; 4,1,2; 6,30,34; 8,31; 9,31; 11,17; 12,35,38; 14,49. "It 
is remarkable that the word [SiSaxi?] is used most often by Mark, 
who records so httle of what was taught. The verb SiSaaKu occurs 
in Matt. 14 times, in Mark 17 times, in Luke 17 times " (Hawkins, 
Eorae Synopticae, p. 10, n.). 

Changes Atteibutable to Literary Predilections 


The prevailing faithfulness of Luke's reproduction of his source 
is the more impressive when we observe that in details he inchnes 
to generalization; airas, ttSs, e/cao-ros are favorite words of his, and 
are sometimes added to his sources as the following cases show: * 

Mk. i, 34 Wip6,ttaiatv woKKois 
Mk. 3, 5 Kai irepiffXef'iliei'OS airois 
Mk. 3, 7 itXtjBos iird rfjs 'lovSalas 

Mt. S, 42 T$ aWovvTi 

Mt. 12, 33 riSb'Spov 

Mt. II, 19 ipyoiv (v.l. TiKvav) 

Mk. 6, 7 rSiv irvev/iiTitiv r&v 6xaSi.pTuiv 

Mk. 6, 14 fiKovaep 

Mt. 6, 1 2 Tols £0ciX^Ta(s 

Mk. to, 21 6aa ?x<'s ir&Xiiaov 

Mt. 7, 23 dl ipya^bii&oi. 

Lk. 4, 40 ircivrcs . . . bil inluTTif 

Lk. 6, 10 adds iri^vTas 

Lk. 6, 17 adds Tthati^ 

Lk. 6, 30 adds voi/tI [Q] 

Lk. 6, 44 ^KatTTov SkvSpov [Q] 

^^- 7, 35 TiKvuv irhiTuai {v.l.) [Q] 

Lk. 9, I TtliVTa T&, SaipAvia 

Lk. 9, 7 adds rd yivbuaia ir&vTa 

Lk. II, 4 iroKTi 6^eiXovri [Q] 

Lk. 18, 22 adds T&vra 

Lk. 13, 27 irAcT€5 ipy&Tai [Q] 

Further, Luke adds a general term to those already specific: 

Mk. 6, 18 ?Xe7«» 7dp i 'IcoAyi^j T^i 
j'at/ca ToO 6J5e\4>ov (rov. 

Mt. 23, 23 AiroSeKaTOVTi rd ijSioaiwv Kal 

t6 av7j6ov Kal t6 Kbtuvov 
Mt. 23, 3S TOJ' a!;ua BUaiov . . dird 

ToO a!l;uaros "kpeK toO Stfcalou ecos toO 

atiiaros Zaxnp'ov k.t.X. 
Mt. 8, II 'Afipa&n Kal 'leraijc Kol 

Mk. II, 18 tJKOvaav ol ipxieptCs Kal ol 

ypaiiiiams Kal ij^^rovv tt&s airdv iiro- 

Mk. 13, 28 &t6 Tijs avKijs nbBert 

Lk. 3, 19 'Hp<!i5,;i . . . SXeyxiM^'os *"■' 
ahrov \sc. *iwiivvav\ irepi 'Hpcodtd^os TTji 

yvvaiKos Tov hbeK^v ai}Tov Kal irepl ir&v- 

TOiv UP kTroirjffev irovrjpuv b ^'S.p635i)s. 
Lk. II, 42 ATTodcKaroDre rd ^bboapjiv Kal 

rd trriyavop xal irav }id.xavov [Q] 
Lk. II, 5of t6 aT/ia ir&PTwv t(j)p Trpo(lnjTtav 

. . . i,nti aliiaros 'AjSeX ilus at/taros 

ZttXaplov K.T.X. [Q] 
Lk. 13, 28 'A/Spad/t Kal 'IiradK Kai 'lax&fi 

Kal irivras rois irpo^ras [Q] 
Lk. 19, 47 ol dk dpxiepeis Kal ol ypan/ia- 

reis k^^Tovp airrdp AiroXiaai Kal ol vpuroi 

Lk. 21, 29 Merc riiv avKiiv Kal irinna rd 


1 See also below, p. 195. 



Mk. 15, 39 The centurion exclaims at Lk. 23, 48 adds, " and all the multi- 
Jesus' death tudes that came together to behold 

this sight, when they beheld the 
things that were done, returned 
smiting their breasts." 

Mk. 15, 40 Tuk'oiMs Lk. 23, 49 T&PTfs ol yvluffTol alnif . . . 

Kal yvvaZKts 

Mk. 16, I names three women Lk. 24, lo adds icaJ oi \miral iriv airais 

Notice also that Lukfe alone in the resurrection narratives joins others to the eleven. 
24, 9 Tots IfSfxa Kal iraaiv toIs Xohtois; 24, 33 rois tvdtKa Kal robs <riv airois. Com- 
pare Mark 16, 7 tois naBriTaU ofrroB Kal tQ TUrptf, Matt. 28, 16 ol ivSaca hoBjitoI; John 
20, 19 oi /laBriTal (apparently ten, Thomas being absent, of. vs. 24), [Mark] 16, 14 tois 
ivSeKtt. But it is quite probable that his source confined its reference to the eleven 
(cf. Acts I, 2, 13). 

Without noting here all instances of the use of xfij in Luke but 
not in the parallels we may add the following striking series of gen- 
eralizations where the word is not used in parallels. Compare 
especially Luke 3, 19; 9, 7 (p. 115) and Matt. 6, 32, 33 (p. 85). 

Lk. 3, 16 irpoaSoKSivTos 8J toB XooB Kal SiaXoyi^oiiivoiv t&vtwv k.t.X. — Matt. 3, 11; Mark, 

I, 7 [Q]. 
Lk. 7, 18 Kol irfiyyeOiav 'laii-wa ol /lodqrat oiroO inpl irivrav Toirrav. — Matt. II, 


Lk. 8, 40 fiaav yip iravres TrpoaSoKuivns abrbv. — Mark 5, 21. 

Lk. 9, 43 ilieir\<jaaovTO H jrdn-cs iirl tJ neyaKaiTtiTi rod 6eov, ■ko.vtwv Si Baoiiaj^bvTav 

iirl iratnv oh iwoUi, n. t. X. — Mark 9, 27, 30. 
Lk. 13, 17 KaroaxbvovTO vkvra o£ 6.vTmtln€i>oi abrQ, Kal irSs 6 i-x^jii ixatpev iirl rSuriv 

TOis hdb^ms tois yivoiitvoa vr' airov. 
Lk. 18, 43 Kal Tas 6 Xods lSi)v iSuKe' alpov tQ 6eQ. — Mark 10, 52. 
Lk. 19, 37 ^pfocTo dTToi' t4 xXSffos T&v iiaBjiTwv x<'-^PO'nK alvelv tAk 0(6v <Ixov§ iieyiXg 

wepl iraawv &v elSov Sw&iituiv {v.l.). — Mark 11, 9. 
Lk. 24, 9 iir^yaXav xAi/to toBto tois li/Se/co Kal irairiv tois Xomtois. — Mark 16, 8. 

A number of other instances of generalization may be found by a 
comparison of Luke and Matthew. The more picturesque and realis- 
tic terms in the first Gospel have in the third more general and vague 
equivalents, and no doubt the change is often due to Luke: 

S, 4S Tiv ij\iop ivariWa . . . Kal Pptx^i. 
S> 39 'i'^" Seiiiv aiaybva 
S, 46f TeXciJ>>at . . . WviKol 
S, 46 Tlva nurObv IxiTe 

S, IS = Mark 4, 231 iMuk 

^3) 25 irapo^tios, i.Kpa<rlaf 

* See Hamack, Sayings of Jesus, p. loi 

6, 3S XPi/cTiSs fffTii' [Q] 
6, 29 T^iv aiaybva [Q] 
6, 32! i.napTU>kol . . . d/iapTuXo£ [Q] 
6, 32 vola bpXv x&P's ioTlc [Q] 
8, 16 o-KcOos (but Luke 11, 33 v.l. pi- 
Stos) [Ql 

II, 39 TrlvoKos, rovijplas [Q] 1 


Matthew Luke 

23, 26 Td IxTds airov [toO ironjp/ou] 11,41 Trivra KoSapi. [Q] 


10, 29 06 irfntrai ivl ri/v 7?k fii^euroO 12, 6 oiu Jo-tik fertXeXijo-juJi'oi' fotiirioi' 

ffOTpds A/»S»' ToD StoB [Q] 


Matt. 6, 26 t4 Treravi, toO obpavou Luke 12, 24 rofts xdpaxas 

The distributive use of Kara c. occ. is a grammatical peculiarity 
of Luke in temporal phrases; Kad' rmipav occurs in Matt. 26, 55 = 
Mark 14, 49 = Luke 22, 53, but elsewhere only in Luke 9, 23; 11, 
3; 16, 19; 19, 47; Acts 2, 46, 47; 3, 2; 16, s; 17, 11; 19, 9; cf. 
Kara Taaav rmipav Acts 17, 17; Kara irav <r&PPaTOP Acts 13, 27; 15, 
21; 18, 4; Kar' eras Luke 2, 41. But in its local use in summaries 
Kara may indicate Luke's sense of regular geographical progress or 

Luke 8, I SiuSevev Kara iroXiv Kai KUfiriv. 

Luke 9, 6 h-qpxovTO Kara tAj KUfias. 

Luke 13, 22 SieiropevtTO Kara ir&Xeis Kai Kcb/ias. See also Luke 8, 
4; Acts 14, 23; IS, 21, 36; 20, 23; 22, 19. 

Narratives which in Mark refer to a single event become more 
general in Luke. Thus in Mark 1,21 Kai eWvs toXs aa^^aaiv eSi- 
8a<TK€v els ttjv avvayci}yrii>, the reference may be to a single sabbath; 
but in Luke 4, 31, Kai ^v didaaKuv avrovs ev toTj (rd/S/Saffi, it is prob- 
ably to several; for Luke usually if not always uses the singular 
aafi^arov for a single sabbath.' Similarly the question in Mark 11, 
28 iv irola i^ovaiq ravra xoiets; has reference chiefly to the cleans- 
ing of the temple. In Luke 20, i, 2 the context has been so changed 
that in the same question ravra must be understood to apply to 
Jesus' teaching in general. In Mark 2, 18 we read that the disciples 
of John and the Pharisees were observing a fast (9i<rav . . . v7i<tt€v- 
ovres); in Luke 5, 33 they (the Pharisees and scribes) said to 
him, " The disciples of John fast often {viqaTtvovffiv irvKva) and 
make prayers." 

It is possible that two cases above referred to (pp. 96 f.) as misun- 
derstanding of Mark by Luke are intentional generalizations. Thus, 
when Jesus withdraws from Capernaum and is overtaken in a desert 
place he tells those who have followed him that he must preach in 

' See p. 190. 


other cities as well, and adds in Mark i, 38, els tovto yap i^r}\dov, 
" for to this end came I forth " (from Capernaum ?). Luke refers 
this clause, however, to the whole career of Jesus, his coming forth 
from God, iirl tovto aireffTiXriv (Luke 4, 43). Similarly, perhaps, in 
Mark 2, 17, oiik ^XOoj' KoKeaai Suaiovs, the verb should be under- 
stood merely of inviting to meals; but in Luke 5, 32 the addition 
of ets neravoiav gives it a wider meaning. 

Twice Luke adds a generalizing summary to specific instances; 
neither, however, refers to Jesus. To the teaching of John on the 
Christ (Luke 3, 16-17, from Mark and Q) he adds (3, 18) iroWa nkv 
olv KoX erepa irapaKoK&v evriyyeXi^ero tov \abv. To the taunts 
and mockings of Luke 22, 63, 64 (= Mark 14, 65), Luke adds /cat 
h-epa. TToXXot p\aa<j>ripovvTes eXe'yoj' eis avTov. Cf. Acts 2, 40 eripois re 
X6701S TiKeioaiv diefiapTvpaTO, /cat iraptKoXei avTovs. 

Freedom from Exaggeration 

Instead of making the language of his source stronger, Luke 
sometimes omits or tones down emphatic words, such as neyas : 

Mk. 4, 37 XaiXav!' niiyiXri Lk. 8, 23 XatXa^ 

Mk. 4, 39 YaX^vi; neyaXri Lk. 8, 24 yaSrivri 

Mk. 4, 41 i4>oPii6riaav <i>SPov iikyav Lk. 8, 25 0oj87j9c»'t« Wabnaxrtw 

Mk. s, II iy'tKri xolpoiv iieyaKri Lk. 8, 32 irytKi] xol-pa" hiavSiv 

Mk. S, 42 el^ffTjjo-ay iKartiaa iiey6,\xi Lk. 8, 56 H^iarriaav 

Mt. 4, 8 els 6pm v^Tikiv Xiav ' Lk. 4, 5 omits [Q] 

Mk. 9, 2 tU Spos i\lniy>v Lk. 9, 28 fts ri) 6pos 

Mk. 9, 3 Xevxd Xlnc, ola yva<l>eis iiri t^s Lk. 9, 2g \evK6s 
7^s oi> dOuaraL ovtws \evKavai ^ 

iroXvs is omitted by Luke: 

Mk. I, 34 Wcp&Tevnv iroXXois Lk. 4, 40 Wep6.irev<r(v airois 

Mk. 3, 10 TToXXoiJs WfpaTevaa/ Cf. Lk. 6, 18 o£ bioy^obiio'oi WipairaiovTO 

Mk. 5, 21 SxXos ToKbi Lk. 8, 40 i 8x^os 

Mk. 5, 24 8xXos JToXis Lk. 8, 42 ol SxXoi 

Mk. s, a'6 iroXXSi' {arpiSj' Lk. 8, 43 larpots 

' Hamack supposes that here and elsewhere the word Spos in Matthew comes from 
Q and is purposely omitted by Luke (cf. Matt, s, i = Luke 6, 17, 20; Matt. 17, 20 = 
Luke 17, 6; Matt. i8, 12 = Luke 15, 4). Compare in the last passage Luke's Ik rg 
IpW, also Mark 5, 5 iv tok Spcaiv with Luke 8, 29 di rds ipniwvs (cf. John 6, 2 ri 
ipm with Mark 6, 31 etc. Spij/ios riiros), and note Luke's omission of e£s tA 3pos tov 
'f\auiv in Mark 13, 3. 

' Observe further Luke's correction of irpwt invxa Uav, Mark i, 33; Xiiu- icput, 
Mark 16, 2 (cf. p. 201). 


Mk. 6, 33 jroXXo£ Lk. 9, 11 o£ 8xXot 

Mk. 6, 34 TToXiK SxXoK Lk. 9, II omits 

Mt. 8, II TToXXol . . . ^Jou'fftv Lk. 13, 29 ^OVITtV [Q] 

Mk. 10, 31 iroXXoi Jffoi'Tat TrpwTot StrxoTot Lk. 13, 30 tlcrJi' So-xotoi ot Jffoi'Tat Trpcorot 

Mk. 10, 48 kirerliuav aira TroXXot Lk. 1 8, 39 o2 irpoiyovra iriTlMW abrif 

Mk. II, 8 »-oXXo2 tA l/xoLTta ia-rpcoaav Lk. 19, 36 iTrcffTpwvpvov tA i/xdria 

Mk. 12, s Kal iroXXois oXXous kt\. Lk. 20, 12 omits 

Mk. 14, 24 fKxvvvbiitvov inrip iroXXui' Lk. 2 2, 20 ivip ipiSiv iKXvwbutvov 

The superlative becomes the positive: 

Mk. 4, I avvdyerai. oxKm irX«<rTos Lk. 8, 4 avviivm oxXou ttoXXoO 

So TToXXd (adverbial or cognate accusative) is omitted by Luke 
(see pp. 199 f.). 

The adverbs for " very " are found in the synoptic writers as 
indicated below: 

Matt. Mark Luke Acts 

ff<j)68pa 7 I I I 

\iav 4 4 I o 

irepiaaSis i 2 o i 

iroXXa, adv.i [i] 10 o [i] 

Mark has also once each iKirepiaaw, VTrepTrepKraus, p,a.Wov ire- 
piffffoTepov and (in some mss. at 6, 51) \iav e/c wepiaffov. 
Contrast Matthew's method in these cases: 

Mk. 13, 19 eXi^is Mt. 24, 21 eXi^tj neyahri 

Mk. 13, 22 ffrifitia Kal ripara Mt. 24, 24 <ri;/xc(a /ueydXa Ka2 repara 

Lk. 9,34 i4>oPifiriirav Mt. 17, 6 i<t>oPjidi}irav att>6Spa 

Mk. 14, 19 fip^avTO "KinreLtrOcu. Kal \iyeiv Mt. 26, 22 )wjrovfjtevoi trfl>6Spa T^p^avro 


Mk. 15, 5 0avna!^ti.v Tov IIctXaTOi' Mt. 27, 14 Baviia^av riy ^tpiva Mav 

Mk. 10, I SxXot Mt. 19, 2 SxXoi iroXXo£ 

Mk. 10, 46 8xXou iKavov Mt. 20, 29 Sx^os iroXis 

Mk. 14, 43 oxXos Mt. 26, 47 3xXos jroXis 

Mk. 15, 40 yvvaiKfs Mt. 27, 55 ywaiKes iroXXai 

Mk. II, 8 TToXXoi Mt. 21, 8 6 irXeloros SxXos 

Indication of Setting 

If we may judge from his treatment of the matter taken from Q, 
Luke is inclined to elaborate a situation and to create an audience 

1 The instances of TroXXi, adv. are those sp marked in Moulton and Geden. The 
total instances of this neuter plural form, including all doubtful cases, are. Matt. 4, 
Mark 15, Luke 4, Acts 2. 


suitable for the various sayings of Jesus which he records. He has a 
sense of the fitness of words for particular kinds and conditions of 
men. His gospel and Acts both illustrate this feeling, but in oppo- 
site ways. For in Acts it is the situation that is already suppUed to 
the artist, and the speech which must be made to fit. In the gospel 
the words of Jesus had been preserved by tradition, the evangeUst 
selects the appropriate frame for them. 

Luke takes an especial interest in the nature of the audience to 
whom words of Jesus are addressed. He interrupts the continuous 
discourse on watching in 12, 39, 40, 42-46 (= Matt. 24, 43-51) 
by Peter's question, " Lord, sayest thou this parable to us or to 
all ? " 1 

In characteristic fashion also Luke specifies the different classes 
of people who came to John the Baptist and received appropriate 
answers, Luke 3, 10-14, oi 8xXoi . . . reXuvai . . . arpaTevbuevoi. 
So the woes, which in Matt. 23 are all pronounced against scribes 
and Pharisees collectively, have been divided by Luke (11, 39-52) 
into two groups. The first group is against Pharisees and is ad- 
dressed to a Pharisee, 11, 39-44. Then a lawyer interrupts, and 
to him Jesus addresses the remaining words as woes against lawyers, 
II, 46-52. The author looks upon lawyers as formuig a class dis- 
tinct from the Pharisees, with besetting sins of their own.^ 

Observe also Luke's definition of the audience in the followiug 
instances, sometimes interrupting a continuous address. Li several 
cases Luke lays the scene at a Pharisee's dinner table: 

Luke 7, 36 iipirra ik tis airiv t&v ^apuraluv tva ^iTj) fier' aitroS- Kai tUre\Bi>r els rdv 

oXkov roS iapmalov KaTOiKlBr). 
Luke II, 37 tv Si t4) XoX?<roi tparf. atrriv iapuraios 8ir«s ipuniiaii nap' air^- €iae\8i>i> 

Luke 14, I tp T$ kXBeiv airiv cts otK^y rivos tuv ipxAvToav t&v iapuralup <rafiPaT<f 
tpayetv &pTOv. 

1 I am inclined to think that something similar was in Luke's source (Q ?). For 
Mark 13, 37 has the saying, " But what I say unto you I say unto all, watch," in a 
context similar to Luke's and paralleled by Q (Mark 13, 33-36 = Matt. 25, 14, 15 b; 
24.42; 25, 13 = Luke 19, 12-13; 12,40; 12,38). In Luke 9, 23 the transition IXe7«i' 
Si TpAs ttAktos plainly follows the change of audience indicated in Mark 8, 34. 

' Nicolardot, op. cit. p. 157: "Le r€dacteur semble consid6rer les scribes comme 
fonnant une cat£gorie distincte des adeptes du pharisaisme, tandis qu'ils £taient, pour 
la plupart, pharisiens eux-mfimes." Note also Luke's change of Tpaju/iaTcts rav *opt- 
iraUav (Mark 2, i6) to o2 iapuraim xal ol Tpo/i/ioxeis airav (Luke 5, 30). 


In other cases Luke makes Jesus the companion of pubhcans and 
sinners, which gives occasion of complaint to the Pharisees (Levi, 
S, 29 £f.; Zacchaeus, 19, i ff.; and in Luke 15, i, 2). 

Of these six episodes only two have any parallel in Matt, or Mark. 
But in Matt, and Mark the incident of Liike 5, 29 is placed in Jesus' 
own house (?),i and the anointing of Jesus in the house of Simon the 
leper. And some of the teaching which has in those gospels a dif- 
ferent setting is introduced by Luke quite appropriately in these 
scenes. The question on fasting which in Mark 2, 18 ff. and Matt. 
9, 14 ff. follows the feast with pubhcans and sinners, but as a sepa- 
rate incident, is in Luke 5, 33 fif., made apparently part of the same 
incident. The woes to the Pharisees which in Matt. 23, iff. are 
spoken to the multitudes and the disciples, Luke places at a Phari- 
see's luncheon, Luke 11, 37 ff. The parable of the lost sheep, which 
in Matt. 18, 12-14 is in a series of disconnected teachings of Jesus, 
is joined in Luke 15 with the two companion parables of the lost 
coin and the lost son and prefaced by the description of an appro- 
priate audience. The parable of the marriage feast, which in Matt. 
22, i-io is appended to the parable of the wicked husbandmen 
simply as another parable, is in Luke (14, 15 ff.) told at the dinner 
table and in answer to the remark of a fellow guest about eating 
bread in the kingdom of God. 

Frequently in Luke the sajdng of Jesus is called forth by the 
special situation described, or is in answer to a remark or question 
of another. Thus, in 3, 15 the wondering of the expectant people 
whether John the Baptist is the Christ ehcits his testimony to 
Jesus (so in John i, 20, but not in Mark i, 7, 8 or Matt. 3, 11, 12). 
At 19, II, because they are near Jerusalem and thought the kingdom 
of God would at once appear, Jesus tells the parable of the pounds. 
The joy of the seventy on their return becomes the occasion for 
various warnings and thanksgivings of Jesus (Luke 10, 17-24; con- 
trast Matt. II, 25-27; 13, 16-17). A report of Pilate's cruelty be- 
comes the text for a sermon of warning, 13, 1-9. The warning of 
Herod's purpose to kill him leads to Jesus' prophecy of his own 
death and the lament over the dooni of Jerusalem, 13, 31-35. 

Requests from the disciples to be taught a prayer (11, i) and for 
increase of faith (17,5) receive appropriate rephes (compare Matt. 

1 See above, pp. 96 i. 


6, 9-13; and Mark 11, 22, 23 = Matt. 17, 20; 21, 21). As the 
great apocalyptic section in all three gospels is in response to ques- 
tions about signs and times (Mark 13, 4 = Matt. 24, 3 = Luke 21, 
7), so in Luke 17, 20 another apocal3T)tic section is introduced by 
a similar question as to when the kingdom of God is to come; and 
again, at 13, 23, the question, " Are there few that be saved ? " 
leads to a discourse (the substance of which is derived from Q) of 
prophetic warning. 

The insertion of a question to introduce the teaching of Jesus as an answer to the 
question is well illustrated by Matt. 18, i, the passage on greatness in the kingdom of 
heaven. In Mark 9, 33 ff. = Luke 9, 46 ff., Jesus' teaching on this subject is given of 
his own accord, because of a controversy among the disciples; in Matt, the disciples 
come to Jesus, saying, " Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven ? " The answer 
in Matt. 18, 2 fi., though in general it is modelled on two passages in Mark (9, 37; 10, 
15) and one in Q (Matt. 23, 12; Luke 14, n; 18, 14), is worded so as to fit exactly the 
form of question, "... he is greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (i8, 4b). Another 
example is Matt. 19, 27. In Mark and Luke Jesus' announcement of rewards to the 
disciples simply follows Peter's remark, " Lo, we have left aU and followed thee; " but 
Matthew adds to Peter's words the definite question, t£ apa iarcu iiiitv; Note also the 
question in Matt. 18, 21, but not in Luke 17, 4; in Matt. 19, 20, but not in Mark 10, 

The parable of the good Samaritan is given in reply to the lawyer's 
question (Luke 10, 29), " Who is my neighbor ? " That of the rich 
fool, with its warning against covetousness, is drawn out by a man's 
request that Jesus should help him get his share of his inheritance 
(Luke 12, 13 ff.). Twice (11, 27; 14, 15) a chance beatitude of one 
near Jesus is corrected, and so becomes the occasion for teaching. 

By giving to Christ's teachings a more definite setting Luke does 
not intend to limit their scope and application. The audience is 
neither historically reproduced nor artistically delimited, but rather 
taken as typical and suggestive. Luke has really in mind the Chris- 
tian church of his own time. Thus, expressions in Mark and Mat- 
thew that seem to make Jesus' teaching esoteric are in Luke omitted 
or modified, as for example the discourse of Mark 13 (Luke 21, 
S ff.), which the first two gospels limit to a private audience of 
disciples. Compare also Mark 4, 10, 34; 9, 28; 9, 30 ff. (especially 
the yb.p in vs. 31); and Matt. 20, 17. The same motive is assigned 
by Hamack (Sayings, p. 83), following Wellhausen, to explain the 
difference between Luke 12, 3 and Matt. 10, 27. " Probably he 
[Luke] wished that our Lord should not appear a mystagogue." 


Nicolardot, ProcedSs de Redaction, p. 157, says: II arrive que les paroles 
pr^tees au Christ par Luc ou par sa source d6bordent I'entourage actuel de 
Jesus. C'est mettre alors du mouvement dans le discours que de marquer le 
retour de la lefon au cercle reel du Maitre qu'elle avait d6pass6. Ainsi est sug- 
g6r6e la diversite des perspectives, et la diff6rence des auditoires, le fictif, le 
prophgtique, celui que I'figlise prSte au Christ et le v6ritable, I'historique, celui 
du Nazareen. Sans doute, Luc n'entend pas cette distinction de fafon aussi 
abrupte. II sent, du moins, et ne laisse pas de faire sentir que I'horizon de 
Jesus, k en juger par les discours qui lui sont attribu6s, 6tait tant6t celui-la 
meme, ou il se mouvait actuellement, tantot le plus vaste horizon des commu- 
nautfis futures.' 

It will be observed that most of the preceding illustrations are in 
contexts the source of which is Q, so that we cannot assert posi- 
tively that the introductions to these sections were added by Luke. 
They may have been omitted by Matthew. On this point, as ia 
many others respecting Q, scholars differ. Contrast for example 
the views of Hawkins and Streeter in the Oxford Studies on the 
Synoptic Problem, pp. 124 and 207, respectively. In favor of the 
view here taken note the suggestion of Streeter: " Particularly 
significant is the fact that [Luke] imports rore eXeyev avroXs, 
Luke 21, 10, cf. KOI elwev [7rapa/3oXi7»' avrols] 21, 29, into the middle 
of the apocalyptic discourse derived from Mark [13], showing that 
he likes to divide long pieces of discourse as it were into paragraphs 
by a word or two of narrative." Similarly Luke 5, 36, inserts ekeyev 

1 Wemle, op. cil. p. 82, connects with Luke's introduction of prefaces various other 
changes that tend " die Reden in Erzahlung umzusetzen durch lebhaftere Form, 
Zwischenreden, Einleitungen. Als Mittel fiir lebhaftere, fiir die Erzahlung passende 
Gestaltung braucht Lc: 

wXiiv. Mt schreibt es einmal mit Lc zusammen (11, 22), zweimal fiir sich allein, 
Lc 7mal allein in den Redestiicken. 

iroSeiiu intv 6, 47; 12, 5. 

\ky<a i/iiv in verschiedenen Variationen. Lc schreibt es mit Mt zusammen aus 
der Quelle lomal, fur sich allein in Stiicken der Quelle noch iimal (6, 27; 11, 9; 12, 

4, S, 8, si; 14, 24; IS, 7, 10; 17, 34; 19, 26). 

Unterbrechung der Reden Jesu oder der Reden im Gleichnis durch Zwischenreden 

II, 4s; 12, 41 f-; 17, 37; 19, 24 i" 

Even where Luke introduces sayings of Jesus by the expression, " He said to the 
disciples," as at 6, 20; 9, 43; 10, 23; 12, i, 22; 16, i; 17, i, 22; 20, 45 he is not (ex- 
cept at 10, 23) indicating that the teaching is secret; he is remindmg the readers of 
the special group in the audience for which the words were intended. Others are 
present and Ustening, e. g. 6, 19; 9, 43; 12, i; 16, 14; 20, 45. Note also withm the 
sayings themselves Luke's addition to the phrase Xeyu i/ilc of the words rots irafau- 
aiv (6, 27, contrast Matt. 5, 44) or rots 0iXois imv (12, 4, contrast Matt. 10, 28). 


Sk Kal TrapaPdKfiv irp6s avrovs '6ti in the middle of the continuous 
discourse of Mark 2, 19-22.1 

But the words of Jesus themselves, the verba ipsissima, whether 
reported by Mark or found in the source designated as Q, have 
rarely been retouched by the author of the third Gospel to give 
them a wider scope or application. An exception is perhaps foimd 
in Luke 8, 21. The true brethren of Christ according to Mark 3, 
34 were shown by Jesus' glance to be those seated about him (Matt. 
12, 49 is still more distinct: eKreivas t7]v x^'^P^ ^ttI toiis fiadtiras); 
in Luke they are defined as those in general who hear and do God's 
word. But the solitariness of this instance only makes the general 
faithfulness of Luke the more impressive. 

In a number of passages, especially from Q, Luke's form is in the 
second person, as addressed directly to Jesus' hearers, while in the 
parallels the third person is used, as in general or indirect teachings 
or in the description of persons in a parable. 

The most familiar example is in the Beatitudes, which have in 
Matthew (all but the last) the form : 

IMKipioi ol TTTUxoi Tif irviiifiaTL, 8ti ainCiv iariv ^ PairiKda rHv obpavuv (5, 3), but in 

Luke juoKipiot ol TTTUXol, Sn ineripa iorrlv 1} jSanXela toC Beov (Luke 6, 20). So 

Matt. 5, 5, 6 = Luke 6, 21." 
Matt. 7, 21 o4 TTOS 6 Xiyuv juoi xipit xipu, elatXeiaerai tls Tijv fiaaiXtlav rSiv oipaviiv, 

&W* 6 iroLtap rd 6k\7]fia rod irarpds ftov tov b> rots oipavois. Luke 6, 46 ri Si fie 

KoXeiTf Kipie xipte, Kal ob iroitirt S. Xkr/u; 
Matt. II, 18 ifKBtv yip 'Icodvvi;: /"Jre iaBUav li^Tt whuv, Kai X^Youfftv daiftSpLov Ix", 

19 ?X9e» i uUs TOV i.v8pinrov iaO'uav Kal irlvuv Kal "Kkyovaiv k.t.X. Luke 7, 33, 34 reads 

in each case X 4 7 ere for 'Kkymaai.' 

' Note the frequent eljrec Si in Luke, e.g. 4, 24; 15, 11. Li Mark 4 the similar 
phrases in verses 9, 13, 21, 24, 26, 30 may indicate, what we otherwise suspect, that 
scattered sayings here are collected into a discourse. Compare " Jesus saith " in the 
Oxyrhynchus Logia. 

» Hamack, Sayings, p. 49, n. i, regards Matthew's form as original, against Well- 
hausen and others. 

^ Here and sometimes elsewhere the change from third to second person serves the 
additional purpose, which seems to be a feature of Luke's method (see p. 150) , of remov- 
ing the indefiniteness of the subject. So the questions asked in complaint against 
Jesus or his disciples are directly addressed to them in Luke, while Matthew adopts 
the other mode of correction by inserting the subject. Thus, 
Mark 2, 16 iaeUi Kal viva Luke S, 30 iaBUn Kal vlvtre 

(Matt. 9, II adds 6 SiSi.<rKa\os ifiuv) 
Mark 2, 24 Toumrtv Luke 6, 2 iroitin 

(Matt. 12, 2 adds oi Ma0iiTaI (Tov) 


Mark 12, 38, and from him Luke 20, 46 as well as Matt. 23, 6, warns against the 
scribes as tuv 9(KI>vtii>v {^iKobvrav Lukfe, ifiCSmaiji Matt.) . . . ktnea<iiu>is h tow 
iyopaXs 39 koJ vpuyroKoSfSplat iv rati aMvayuyaK k.t.X. Luke 11, 43 addresses the 
Pharisees, oial i/iiv rdCs ^apuratois, Sri iyavare tiJ» TpairoKaSeSplav iv rots avv- 
a-yoyyats KaX robs iunraafiois kv rats d.yopaii. 

Matt. 23, 4 says similarly of the scribes and Pharisees, itaptbovaiv Si <t>opTla 0apia 
KoJ iiriTiSiaaiv IttI rois S>po\is t&v &v8pinroiv, airoi Si tQ SaKTi\<f ainav 06 6&iOvtnv 
Ktvrj<rai afirA. Luke II, 46 xal ip,lv rots foiuKois oial, Sri ^oprC^'cre roiii ivSpiiTovs 
tpoprla SvtT^iurTaKTa, xal abrol ivi tSjv dajcriiXotv bfi&v oh irpoail/ahere roTs tpopTtots. 

With Matt. 25, 1-13, the parable of the ten virgins, compare Luke 12, 35, ttrroxray 
iliiiv al ba<i>i(i irtpif^aaiiivai Kal o2 Xbxvoi Kaidptvoi 36 Kal (/nets S/wioi divBpinrms 
TrpoaSexonivois riv xipiov iavT&v, irirc dfaXicr;) be tSk yiiuav. 

Matt. 25, II tartpov Si ipxoVTOi. Kal al Xoiirai irap0ei>O( Xkyovaai- xiipit Kbpie, &votiav 
iiptv. 12 6 6i i,iroKpi9(ls iXirev ipitv 'Kiyu ip^ip, obx olSa ifias. Luke 13, 25 ip^TiaBe 
l£<i) iarhvai Kal Kpobtiv ri/v Biipav \kyovTa- Ktpie, ivoi^v '^ptv, Kal iiroKpiBtls ipd 
i/iTv oi/K oXSa itfjLos irddev hark. 

Matt. 7, 22 iroXXoi ipovalv not, iv tKilvj) rg iiitipq.- Kiipie Kipie K.r.X. ... 23 Kal rdre 
ilu>\oyiiao> aiiroXs Sti oiSkiroTe S7i'<oi' v/iSs, Ajrox"P"T6 dir' ipov ol ipya^oiuvoi tV 
i.vonlav. Luke 13, 26 rbrt S.p^fa9e \iyav ... 27 Kal ipei Xeyw iiilv obK oXSa 
trWfV iari k.t.X. 

Matt. 8, 12 ol Si viol rrp PairiKtlas i^tXeicrovTai, els tA ffnAros t6 iiwrepov txet ?<rTOi 6 
/cXavdpds Kal 6 ppvy/ids tuv oSovtuv. Luke 13, 28 IkcI iarai i kXavSfiis Kal 6 0pvyii6s 
TUV bSovTuv, oTav o^f/eaBe 'Affpaiit . . . iv Ty jSofftXeff toD Ba>v, i/uos Si iKfiaX- 
'Koftivovs i^u. 

Matt. 18, 12 lay yivTiToi toii ivSpiiirif iKaTov 7rp6/3oTa k.t.X. Luke 15, 4 tU &vBpuiros 
i^ ifiuv ^ ix<^^ biaThv irpb^aTa k.tX. 

Mark 13, 12 koI irapaJSiurti. iStKijitK iScX^Ai' els BavaTOV Kal iraTiip TeKKOK, Kal irravaarii- 
aovTUL TfKva iirl yoveis Kal BavaTiiaaoai, ainois ... 13b 6 Si inropelvas els tIXos 
oSros 0-w9ji<reTot (sO Matt. lO, 21; 24,13). Luke 21,16 irapaSoBiia^iaBe Si Kal drd 
yovkup Kal &Se\<l>S>v Kal avyytvuv Kal ^iXuv *oi BavaTixrovaiv t^ iifiuv . . . ig iv Ty 
inrofiov^ ipuv KTiiaaaBe Tas ^x^l ipuv.' 

Somewhat different is the contrast between Mark's (3, 30) as- 
signing a statement of Jesus to the cause on 'eKeyov- irvevfia aKadaprov 
exet, and the assignment by Jesus himself of a different statement in 
a passage of Luke, connected with the same passage in Mark but 
also dependent on Q (Luke 11, 18 compare Matt. 12, 26), on Xiyere 
ip BeeK^e^ovX eK^oKKeiv fie to. datfMVia. But it is not impossible 
that the two causal clauses have some literary connection, and that 

1 Ferris (4|) ipHv i&vBpuiros) see Matt. 7, 9 = Luke ii, ii; Matt. 6, 27 = Luke 
12, 25; Matt. 12, II = Luke 14, S; Luke 14, 28. 

2 In Matt. 23, 34-36 = Luke 11, 49-51 the converse phenomenon (Matt. irpAs O/xSs 

AwoKTeveire . . . Suifere . . . i4>ovebaaTt, Luke els oirois . . . i-iroKTivomiv 
mi&ipvaiv . . . iwoUitivov) is perhaps due to the fact that what in Luke is the quo- 
tation from "the Wisdom of God" is found in Matthew as the actual words of Jesus 
to the scribes and Pharisees. 


the parallels should be included in the list above as well as in that 
on page loi. 

In the following cases the second person plural is used by Luke 
parallel to other persons than the third : 

Mark 9, 40 Ss yip o6k tariv koB' iituiv, Luke 9, 50 6s yip oiK iartv koS' iii&v, 

i-irip iiiiSiv iariv (v. I, i/tSiv bis) inrip ipSiv ianv 

Matt. 6, 21 &irov yip kcrnv i BtiaavpSs aov, Luke 12, 34 &rou yip brnv 6- Briaavpis 

iK€! tarai. Kal ij Kapdia aov ipS>v, ixti Kal 5 xapdla b/uav iarai [Q] 

Application of Parables 

The allegorizing of Christ's figures and parables is another method 
of adapting his teaching to the later generation. There can be no 
doubt that this process was active before Luke took in hand to 
write his gospel, just as it has been continuing ever since. A para- 
ble, if originally intended to point but one lesson, can easily be re- 
interpreted and restated so as to teach several lessons. It is evident 
from the parables peculiar to Luke that he was aware of their gen- 
eral moral. This is shown by the special setting which he gives 
them (e.g., 19, 11; 18, 9; 18, i; 15, i, etc., see above, pp. 120 f.) and 
by the way he draws the moral at the end. The parable of the two 
debtors (7, 41, 42) is directly applied to the case of Simon the 
Pharisee. To the lawyer who elicited the parable of the Gk)od Sa- 
maritan Jesus adds, " Go thou and do likewise." To the story of 
the rich fool is added the sentence, " So is he who lays up treasure 
for himself and is not rich toward God." To the parables on count- 
ing the cost is added the conclusion, " So therefore every one of you 
who forsaketh not all his possessions cannot be my disciple." The 
parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin each conclude with the 
joy over one repentant sinner. The parable of the unjust steward 
is followed by the advice it suggests, 16^ 9 ff. To the parable of the 
faithful servant Luke adds as usual an application, " So also ye, 
when ye," etc. The parable of the unjust judge proves the faith- 
fuhiess of the avenging God. The parable of the Pharisee and the 
publican, and the figure of the choice of seats at a feast, lead to the 
same lesson of himiility (Luke 14, 11 = Luke 18, 14). 

In these cases it is impossible to determine how far Luke has 
altered the contents of the parable; but where he is parallel with 
Mark and Matthew we are better able to judge. The chief illus- 


strations have been collected and carefully explained by Nicolardot, 
op. cit., pp. 158-162. Some of them may be briefly summarized as 

In Mark 2, 19 the question is asked, " Can the children of the bridechamber fast 
as long as the bridegroom is with them ? " but in Luke s, 34, it runs, " Can you make 
the children of the bridechamber fast?" — thus more clearly identifying "the chil- 
dren of the bridechamber" with the disciples of Jesus, whose neglect of fasts was 
complained of. 

In Luke s, 36 (= Mark 2, 21) the comparison is between old and new coats, rather 
than between an old coat and a patch of new stuff. The meaning is that John represents 
a fuU and complete system of his own, which would be spoiled if one feature of it (e.g., 
fasting), were removed, just as Christ's system would be spoiled if one feature were 
added to it. One who is brought up in John's school is naturally content with it (see 
Luke s, 39). 

The allegorizing of the parable of the sower is carried a step further in Luke by his 
addition (Luke 8, 15) of kv xapSlf xaXg xaL iyaSg as an interpretation of kv rg icaXg 78 
(cf. 8, 12 iiri T^s KapSlas). Note further the addition tva liii ■n-iareiaavres <roiOw<nv (8, 
12), the substitution of irpds Kaipov Triarebovaiv for irpbaKaipoi Aaiv (Mark 4, 17), and 
the omission of airapdiifvoi, cTrapkvra (Mark 4, 16, 20). 

In the parable of the lamp, Luke twice says the light is for those who enter in (8, 16; 
II, 33), while Matt. $, 15 says it shines for all those in the house. Hamack, Sayings, 
pp. SS f- writes: " St. Luke evidently intends to improve the sense of the passage; 
he perhaps also thinks of the missionary aspect of the gospel (though this is doubtful)." 

A reference to the CJentile mission may perhaps be found also in Luke's version of 
the parable of the wedding feast, 14, 16-24. When the original guests refuse, the 
servants are sent out even- to the <j>payiioi to get men to partake of the feast. Luke adds 
that the original guests are definitely excluded (14, 24). 

In the parable of the pounds (Luke 19, 11-27), by a variety of touches, the identifi- 
cation of the master with Jesus is made more clear than in the corresponding parable 
of the talents (Matt. 25, 14-30). See Luke 19, 12, 14, 27; Nicolardot, pp. 160 f. 

There can be no doubt that in the parable of the husbandmen the culprits are meant 
to be the Jewish rulers. So, at least, the hearers understood it according to aU synop- 
tists Mark 12, 12 = Matt. 21, 45 = Luke 20, 19. But in Matt, and in Luke it is made 
doubly clear; in Matt, by Jesus' dhrect application (21, 43), in Luke by the self-defend- 
ing remark of the bystanders, nv ykvoiTo (20, 16). 

Omission of Details 

Like Luke's tendency to generahzation, so his tendency to omit 
numerals and proper names leads to loss of definite color and reaUsm. 
In some cases (see p. 156) the proper names may be omitted because 
of their barbarous sound, in accord with strictly literary rules;- but 
in others no such reason for the omission exists, and the effect is 
only to lessen the local Palestinian coloring of the narrative. 

Perea (irkpiw toO lopSlivov, Mark 3, 8; 10, i) is not mentioned by Luke by name, not 
even in his reputed "Perean section," neither is Idumea (Mark 3, 8). Probably they. 


and sometimes even Gaiaee, are included in his Judea (see Luke 6, 17, and cf. Luke i, 5. 
7,17; 23, s; Acts 2, 9; 10,37; 11,1,29; 26,20). Decapolis, though found at Matt. 
4, 2s; Mark 5, 20; 7, 31, is not in Luke, who in 8, 39 substitutes /tofl' SXriv rlp' tt^Xw; 
cf. 8, 27. Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8, 27) is not mentioned in Luke 9, 18. Galilee (Mark 
9, 30) is omitted in Luke 9, 43- Samaria, on the other hand, though not mentioned in 
Matt, or Mark, occurs in Luke 17, 11; and frequently in Acts in connection with the 
spread of Christianity in Palestine. Samaritans are mentioned in Matt, once (their 
cities to be avoided, 10, s), never in Mark, but in Luke 9, 52; 10, 33; 17, 16; Acts 8, 
25. Bethany is not mentioned by Luke as being Jesus' lodging place during his last 
week (cf. Mark 11, 11, 12; 14, 3). Twice when Mark places a scene in Capernaum (2, 
i; 9, 33) Luke omite any reference to place (s, 17; 9, 46)- Even references to Jesus' 
being by the sea are omitted (cf. Mark 2, 13; 3, 7; 4, i; S> 21). 

In the following quotations the names of persons found in Mark 
but omitted by Luke are enclosed in brackets: 

Mark i, 29 ^\eov els Ti)v oUlav Si/twKos [kbI 'AvSpiov iieri 'Iiuciiffov Kal 'la&mov] — 

Luke 4, 38. 
Mark 2, 14 eUtv Xaidv [t6v toB 'AX^aJow] KoSiitievov «rJ t4 rtf^viov — Luke $, 27. 
Mark 2, 26 tlariKeai els t6v oXkov toO 9eoB [irl 'AfiiiSap Apx'^P^s] — Luke 6, 4. 
Mark 3, 17 'I6.Ku0ot> [tAv toO ZeiSeSalov] Kal 'Ja&mrp' [riv &Se\<t>6v rod 'leueiiPov] — 

Luke 6, 14. 
Mark S, 37 'luivritv [tAv dSeX^ii' 'IoK<i/Sou] — Luke 8, 51. 
Mark 6, 17 'UpwSi&Sa rijv yvvaiKa [f>iX£iriroi;] toO ASeX^oS airov — Luke 3, 19. 
Matt. 23, 35 Zoxoplou [uloO Bapaxlov] — Luke 11, 31 [Ql- 
Mark 10, 46 [A ulAs Ti/iaiov Baprl/iaios] rin^XAs . . . — Luke 18, 35. 
Mark 13, i fjnjpira airrdv ... [A Uirpos Kal 'I&fu/3os icai 'IojAcj^s Kal 'AvSpkas] — 

Luke 21, 7 iiri]pi>Ti]<rav. 
Mark 14, 33 [IlkTpov Kal 'HkuPov Kal 'lai.vvrii>] — Luke 22, 39 oi iiaSiyral. 
Mark 14, 37 \iyei tQ Uirpif — Luke 22, 46 elTrei' oirois. 
Mark is, 21 Si/jMva Kvprjvatov . . . [tAk waripa 'A^e^ivSpov Kal "Po6^u] — Luke 

23, 26. 

For examples of the converse see Mark 5, 31 ol liaOrjTal — Luke 8, 45 4 ntrpos 
Kal ol aiv air^. Mark 14, 13 Sio tSiv iia8riTS>v airrou — Luke 22, 8 Jlkrpov Kal 'laavviiv 

Luke, like Matthew (see Allen, Matthew, p. xxxvi), leaves out 
details of number. 

Mark alone mentions (2, 3) that the paraljftic was carried by four men. Luke does 
not tell (8, 33), as does Mark (5, 13) that the swine drowned were ws SurxOum. Luke 
9, 13 speaks of the needed supplies as ffpiiiiara els Triwra tAv XoAv tovtov rather than as 
Srivapluv SioKoaUuv iprom (Mark 6, 37). The companies in Luke 9, 14 are fifty each, 
not fifty and a hundred (Mark 6, 40). In the parable of the sower and in its interpre- 
tation in Mark 4, 8, 20 the good seed brings forth thirty, sixty, and a hundred-fold. 
In Luke 8, 8, 15 it yields a hundred-fold, or simply " with patience." The recompense 
of the faithful is changed from {KaToyTajrXofflopa, Mark 10, 30, to iroXXairXarlora, Luke 
18, 30 (ABAoi.; so also in Matt. 19, 29 BL). Note also the iPdoiaiKoinijat iirri. in 
Matt. 18, 22, but not in the parallel, Luke 17,4 [Q]. 


Again, Mark (14, i, cf. Matt. 26, 2) says that the passover was to occur iktA. Sto 
ilntptts; Luke merely says it was near (22, i fiyyi^tv). Luke 22, 34, 61 and Matt. 26, 
34) 75 both omit the double cock-crowing of Mark 14, 30, 72. (So even in Mark NC*W 
omit SU. Note further omissions of N al in Mark 14, 68, 72.) 

The addition of Sio in Luke 9, 30 xal ISoi ivSpts Sbo . . . oXnvis ijaav Madtrijs xal 
'HXcIas (cf . Mark 9, 4 'HXcIas <riv MuCmi) is perhaps due to a kind of formula of Luke 
for apparitions. See Luke 24, 4 icoi ISoA irSpes Sio iTrfern/iroj' airais; Acts i, 10 Kal 
Kal ISoi dvSpes Sio irapiiTTiiKfurav airots. See also p. 178 n. 

Characteristic of Luke is his qualification of numbers by cixrei, e.g. 

Mk. 6, 40 Kord irtpriiKovTa Lk. 9, 14 iiad iv& vtvriiKOVTa. (v.l.) 

Mk. 6, 44 irti-TOKia-xtXtoi ivSpes Lk. 9, 14 £><rd &i>Spa TrwroKio-xiXtoi 

Mk. 9, 2 tieri. i/fiipas ef Lk. 9, 28 ixrel i/itipai. SKri) 

Mk. 15, 33 upas ?KTijs Lk. 23, 44 (iffti &pa Iktij 

This use of &(rei is found elsewhere in the New Testament only 
in Luke's writings (Luke 3, 23; 22, 41, 59; Acts i, 15; 2, 41; 10, 3; 
iQj 7) 34)j with the soUtary exception of Matt. 14, 21, avdpe% &<rel 
irei'Ta/cto-xiXioi, which is thus under suspicion of having been assimi- 
lated to Luke 9, 14.1 In two cases Luke uses it with a more definite 
phrase substituted for Mark's lUKpbv, /xerd niKpbv, viz. Luke 22, 41 
ixTti \idov fio\r]v, 22, 59 haffraaTjs Ciael upas piSj (cf. 22, 58 utrd, 

Other details of many kinds are omitted by Luke. Beside the 
examples discussed elsewhere (pp. 151 f.) of indications of time an 
place which Luke omits, a few others may here be given: 

Mark 2, i iv olxif ' — Luke s, 17. 

Mark 4, 38 iv rg irpiiw^ eirl t6 itpo<rKf<t>6,\aiov — Luke 8, 23. 

Mark Si 21 iv rcf irkoUf — Luke 8, 40. 

Mark 6, 8 ets t^k fii^v — Luke 9, 3. 

Mark 6, 32 t$ irXoicji — Luke 9, 10. 

Mark 6, 39 kirl t0 xKwpt^ xiprif — Luke 9, 14. 

Mark 8, 27 iv rg 43$ — Luke 9, 18. 

Mark 9, 8 ifAxtea — Luke 9, 36. 

' Elsewhere numbers are thus qualified by ws, as by Mark at the feeding of the four 
thousand (8, 9 = Matt. 15, 38 v.l.) and by John at the feeding of the five thousand (6, 
10; cf. Mark 6, 44 = Luke 9, 14 above) and elsewhere (e.g. John 19, 14 = Luke 23, 
44 above, and Mark s, 13; Johni, 40; 4,6; 6,19; 11,18; 19,39; 21,8). Luke uses 
it twice in the gospel (i, 36, and 8, 42 where it is added to Mark s, 42 irS>v SiiSexo.) and 
frequently in Acts: i, is v.l.; 4, 4 v.l.; 5, 7 (<is iipav rpi&v SiicTriim, cf. Luke 22, S9 
above), s, 36; 13, 18, 20; 19, 34 v.l., 27, 37. 

' According to Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 11, 28, oUla and oIkos without men- 
tion of the owner occur seven times in Mark, four times in Matthew, but nowhere else 
in the New Testament. 


Mark 9, 33 ki> rg oUlif ' — Luke 9, 46. 

Mark 9, 33 iv rg iSQ — Luke 9, 47. 

Mark 10, 32 iv rg i5<f — Cf. Luke 19, 28. 

Mark 10, 52 iv rg iSif — Luke 18, 43. 

Mark 12, 35 iv tQ UpQ — Luke 20, 41. 

Mark 12, 41 KwrivavTi rov yaio4>\)h.aKlov — Luke 21, i. 

Mark 13, i in toO Upov — Luke 21, j. 

Mark 13, 3 €£i rb 6pos tS>v i\aiS>v Karivavri toD lepoS — Luke 21, 7. 

Mark 14, 16 tls rfjc jriXic — Luke 22, 13. 

Mark 14, 68 ifju els rd vpoaVKtov — Luke 22, 58. 

Mark 15, 25 ^c ii Sipa rpirv, cf. iS; 34 — Luke 23, 33f. 

Mark 15, 42 koJ ijSri i»l'las jfrnnhris — Luke 23, 50; but cf. vs. 54. 

Mark 16, 5 iy toIs de^iots — Luke 24, 4. 

Other detaUs of all sorts omitted by Luke may be illustrated by 

the following:^ 

Mark i, 6 Dress and food of John the Baptist — Luke 3, 1-6. 

Mark i, 13 ^v pLtra tuv Btiplwv — Luke 4, r, 2. 

Mark 4, 36 xal &\\a irXoIo ijirav iier' airov — Luke 8, 22. 

Mark 10, 50 iiro/SoXtic ri lp6.Tu>v airov (cf. Mark 14, 51, S^) — Luke 18, 40; cf. 

22, 53- 
Mark 11,8 ftXXoi Si (mfi&Sas Kinl^aprts ix tUv i/ypSiv — Luke i<), 36 
Mark 11, 15 ris rpoirifas twv koXXdjSkttSi' koJ rds xaBiSpas tSiv iruiKoivTttiv tos Trtpi- 

ffT«pdj KaTiaTpeptv — Luke 19, 45. 
Mark 12, i mptiBiiKtv <f>payii6v xal &pvifv iiroX^vtov Kai i^KoSS/iriafv iripyov — Luke 

20, 9. 
Mark 14, i iv d6\if — Luke 22, 2. 

Loss of Palestinian color has been found by some in various other 
passages, where it is supposed that Luke adapted his sources for 
readers to whom Palestinian life was unknown. Thus according to 
Scholten (op. cit. p. 22; but see below, p. 197) Luke (8, 16) failed 
to recognize the force of the articles in Mark 4, 21, where the regular 
pieces of furniture in a Jewish house are mentioned as the lamp, the 
lampstand, the bed (cf. also Mark 7, 30, and Luke 11, 7: "my 
children are with me in the bed," els rijv koIttiv.) The use of mud 
and thatch in the walls and roof of houses is obscured by Luke's 
omission of i^opv^avres in Mark 2, 4 (cf. Luke 5, 19, 5id twv 
Kepiiiuav) and of hopvaaovai in Matt. 6, 19, 20; cf. Luke 12, 33. 
(In Luke 12, 39 = Matt. 24, 43 hwpvxOrivai is retained by Luke). 
According to Lagrange, Revue BiUique (1896), p. 31, quoted by 

1 See note 2 on preceding page. 

^ Though only omissions are mentioned here, it must not be overlooked that Luke 
often adds a short phrasq for the sake of fubess and clearness. See Hawkins, Horae 
Synopticae, 2nd edit,, pp. 194 £E. 


Batiffol, Credibility of the Gospel, p. 138, the expression in the 
parable, Matt. 7, 25, 27 ^Xdav ol irorajuot, while appropriate enough 
for Palestine with its sudden freshets and its unsubstantial houses, 
was changed by Luke (6, 48, 49) as not suitable to conditions else- 

Structxire of Sentences and Use of Conjunctions 

We come now to consider those changes made by Luke, in passages 
derived from Mark, which affect neither the order of the paragraphs 
nor the treatment of the paragraph as a whole, but rather the struc- 
ture of the sentence, the order of words, and matters of grammar 
and vocabulary, all of which constitute the minor elements of style. 
The details here are numerous, and do not always afford a basis for 
natural classification, so that a complete list of all changes would 
give no very definite results. Instead, we shall hst and group those 
changes which seem to show the editorial habits of the author, with- 
out demanding or expecting that his changes should uniformly be in 
one direction. For example, if from the expression ravra iravra in 
Mark 13, 4 and 13, 30, Luke omits first one word and then the other, 
the two instances alone furnish us but little information about his 

To the investigation of Luke's use of Mark would follow as a 
natural sequel an investigation of his use of Q. The subject no 
doubt admits of separate treatment, and much of the material is 
already collected in Hamack's Sayings of Jesus. But as the original 
wording of Q is not certainly discovered by mere comparison with 
Matthew, and as the changes attributable to Luke are usually to be 
recognized by his literary habits elsewhere, it seems most instruc- 
tive, instead of reserving this part of out study for a separate chap- 
ter, to add under each class of changes made by Luke in passages 
derived from Mark similar differences between Luke and Matthew 
in sections that have no parallels in Mark. This will at the same 
time strengthen the evidence given by comparison with the sections 
from Mark alone and confirm by that evidence the suspicion of 
corresponding changes where Q was the source. As before, these 
parallels will be distinguished by the sign [Q]. 

Harnack does not appear to havp used for the basis of his recon- 
struction of Q a full study of the editorial methods of the two sub- 


sequent writers in their use of Mark. In a few cases I believe this 
analogy would have led him to reverse his decision, or at least to 
speak with less confidence. A few examples will be found in the 
course of this discussion. 

Luke's changes in the text of Mark often find their readiest ex- 
planation in his desire for improvement in the structure of sentences. 
It is true that Luke never equals in his later sections the balanced 
periodical sentence with which his work begins, yet his sense for the 
balance of composite sentences is not lost, and in many other ways 
his constructions approximate more nearly to classical models than 
do those of his sources. Norden observes this fact and quotes a 
few cases. He says (Antike Kunstprosa, pp. 490 f.) : " Einige Perio- 
den bildet Lukas besser als die beiden anderen (ohne dass er durch- 
weg gut periodisierte), doch habe ich mir aus vielem nur weniges 
notiert," and adds as an example: 

Mark I, 10 f. koI eiiSis ivafialvav iK toS vdaros tlSev iTXi^oiuvovs Tois oipavovs Kal rd 
■mnSiia in irepurrepav KaTofiatvov els abrbv. xal ijxjuvri iyivero ix tuv oipavSiv, <rii tl 6 
vl6s pov 6 iyain]T6s, b> aol eiS6ia]ira. 

Luke 3, 21 f. iy^eTo Si iv tQ PawTi(r6ijvai iiravTa tov \aAv koL 'IijiroD PaimirBirTOs Kal 
TrpwTevxosicpov ivecfix^V^oi t&v obpavov Kal Kara^vai rd wpevfia t6 &yiov awftaTLKQ 
cMet ws TepLffTepdiv kir* avrbvj xai ^viiv ^ obpavov y&ktrdai k.t.X. 

The most frequent improvement is the substitution of some form 
of complex sentence for successive co-ordinate verbs, thus reducing 
the extent of parataxis. This is done in many ways. Norden's ex- 
ample suggests two of these, the construction with iv tQ with the 
infinitive and the use of the genitive absolute. 

The construction iyivero iv rc^ with the infinitive occurs fre- 
quently in Luke in various forms (see Plummer, St. Luke, p. 45). It 
appears in a few cases to be substituted for a different expression 
in Mark: 

Mk. I, 10 (quoted above) Lk. 3, 21 (quoted above) 

Mk. S, 21 diairtp&iravTos tov 'IijaoO Lk. 8, 40 byivero iv tQ \nro<rTpk<t>av rdv 

Mk. 10, 46 ico2 ipxovrai. A% 'Iepax<i Lk. 18, 35 iytnero iv rif iyyl^av ainhv els 


We may also add one case of the infinitive with h> without pre- 
ceding kyivtro, a construction which also is a favorite with Luke: 

Mk. S, 24 KoX fiKoXobOa oirc? 8x>«>s ToXfe Lk. 8, 42 iv Si rif iirkytiv abrSv ol ixKoi 
Kal tFwWhi^ov airrSv avvk-KViyov abrbv 


In one of the preceding cases (Mark 5, 21 = Luke 8, 40) Luke is 
supplanting a genitive absolute. More often Luke introduces the 
genitive absolute in place of a finite verb: 

Mk. I, 9 Koi ifiairrlxrer, Lk. 3, 21 'Iriaov fiairTiaBivTos 

Mk. 4, I trw&yfTai . . . gxXos Lk. 8, 4 owiSvtos «xXou iroXXoO 

Mk. 10, so 6Si . . . ^Xfci. Lk. 18, 40 iyylaavTos airov 

Mk. II, 4 \iouaiv airSv Lk. 19, 33 Xudvrav ainav t6v irffiXoK 

Mk. 12, 37 iroXis i-xKm '/ixovtv Lk. 20, 45 ixobovrm wavrds tov XooO 

Mk. 13, I \iyei. eU Lk. 21, 5 rti'ui' Xeyii^wx 

Mk. 14, 13 {nr&yere Lk. 22, 10 fl<re\e6vTWV J/jffly 

Mk. 14, 49 ^laiv . . . SiSiuTKwv Lk. 22, 53 6vtos iiov 

When, as occasionally happens, Luke omits a genitive absolute 
iu his source it is sometimes because the subject is already present 
in the sentence so that a genitive absolute is strictly ungrammatical,* 

Mk. s, 2 ^eX0ii>Tos airov . . . inr^v- Lk. 8, 27 i^e\e6vTi ain-Q . . . b-iriiVTiiaa> 

Mk. s, 18 iiJ^alvovTOS ai)Tov . . . ainbv Lk. 8, 37, 38 airAs i^/3ds . . . eiiiTo 

it afrrov 
Mk. 10, 17 (KTopeuoiiivov airov . . . airov Lk. 18, 18 omits 
Cf. Mk. 10, 46 kKiropevofjth'ov airov Lk. 18, 35 omits 

Mk. 13, I txiropevonevov airov . . . airif Lk. 21, 5 omits 

In other cases Luke inserts a different genitive absolute of his own 
in the sentence: 

Mk. ±,32 Inf/las Si yfvopivTjs Lk. 4, 40 SivovTos toO ii\lov 

Mk. 15, 33 Kai ytvoiikvrts Sipas Iktijs irmS- Lk. 23, 44, 45 nai ?» fiSii iiad &pa «ktij xai 
Tos kryivero okStos tykvero . . . rod ^Xfou ixKeiTorTOS 

The only other genitive absolute omitted by Luke is: 

Mk. 6, 35 &pas woWijs yivopivjis Lk. 9, 12 ii Si ■fiiikpa fjp^aro xXlveiv 

Luke sometimes uses the genitive absolute for some other expres- 
sion in Mark's narrative, and frequently adds it, thereby making 
the situation more definite: 

Mk. I, 3S irpal iwvxa X£oy Lk. 4, 42 yevoniyrjs Si fipipas 

Mk. 4, 36 Lk. 8, 23 wKedvToiv Si aiirwv 

Mk. 5, 31 Lk. 8, 45 ipvovnivwv Si Ttburwi 

Mk. 9, 7 Lk. 9, 34 toSto Si oinov \inovTO% '' 

' Luke does not however completely avoid this ungrammatical genitive absolute. 
See Luke 12, 36; 15, 20; 17, 12; 18, 40; 22, 10, 53; Acts 4, i; 21, 17. 
* Cf. Matt. 17, 5 ^i airov XoXoCctos 



Mk. 9, 20 

Mk. 9, 30 

Mk. II, 8 

Mk. II, 9 

Mk. 14, 54 

Mk. 14, 72 

Mk. 16, S iifBa/ipriBtitrai' 

Lk. 9, 42 irt a TTpotrepxoiiti'ov airrov 
Lk. 9, 43 v&vToiv Si 9aviuii6vTu>v 
Lk. 19, 36 iropevoiitvov Si abrov 
Lk. 19, 37 iyyij^ovTos Si ainov (c.r.X. 
Lk. 22, SS V(piatl/i.irruv Si vvp k.t.\. 
Lk. 22, 60 in XoXoCyros abrov 
Lk. 24, S iiut>bPuv Si ytvoiiinw k.t,\. 

Similar use of the genitive absolute is made by Luke in passages derived from Q 
or in introducing such passages. (Cf. Hamack, Sayings, pp. 39, 113). 
Mt. 3, II Lk. 3, 15 TrpoaSoK&vTm Si rod XooD Koi 

Sia'Korfi^oiib'ua' iroiTWi' ktX. [Q] 
Mt. 7, 25 Karifft] 1) fipoxll Lk. 6, 48 tt^tiI'mI'PV' Si yaioitivrii [Q] 

Mt. 8, ig Lk. 9, 57 Koi wopevoiiiviav abrav iv rg 

iSv IQ] 

Mt. 12, 22 Wepamvatv abrbv Lk. 11, 14 toD SaiiMvlm i^\B6vTos [Q] 

Mt. 12, 38 Lk. II, 29 Tuiv Si oxXaiv hraBpoit^oitivav 


The other uses of the participle in Luke are both more numerous 
and more idiomatic than in Mark. The simplest illustrations of his 
correction of Mark by participles are found in those pairs of verbs 
coimected in Mark by Kai, for one of which Luke substitutes a par- 
ticiple.' In most cases it is the former of the two verbs that is 
changed by Luke to the participle, and the temporal sequence is 
shown by the tense (aorist) of the participle. But in some other 
cases, notably with verbs of saying where the time of the two verbs 
is really s3aichronous the second is changed to the participle. 

List of both kinds of changes follow. 

Participle for the former of two co-ordinate verbs. 

Mk. I, 35 iifjXBev Kal 
Mk. 2, II apov . . . Kal 
Mk. 2, 12 iiytpBri Kal 

Mk. 4, 5 iiaviTa\a> . . . Kai 
Mk. 4, 7 iveffrjaav Kal 
Mk. 4, 20 &Koiovinv . . . Kal 
Mk. 5, 22 f. irliTTa . . . Kal 
^^- 5> 33 Trpoakmaai . . . Kal 
Mk. 6, 7 TTpofTKaXetTat . . . Koi 
Mk. 6, 30 trvvdyovrai . . . Kal 
Mk. 6, 33 iwiyvutrav . . . Kal 
Mk. 9, 2 irapdKanPi.vtt . . . Kal 
Mt. 8, 21 iLve>Suv Kal 
Mt. 5, 15 Kalovai . . . Kal 

Lk. 4, 42 i^^XBaiv 

Lk. 5, 24 fipas 

Lk. 5, 25 

Lk. 8, 6 tl>viv 

Lk. 8, 7 (Tvv<t>vti<rai 

Lk. 8, 15 iucobaavres 

Lk. 8, 41 ireaiiv 

Lk. 8, 47 Trpoatntrovaa 

Lk. 9, I awKaKtiii.nivo% 

Lk. 9, 10 biroffrpi4'avT& 

Lk. 9, II yvbvTK 

Lk. 9, 28 irapoKaPiiv 

Lk. 9, 59 i.Tt\B6vTi. (.V.I. -dvra) [Q] 

Lk. II, 33 a^os [Q] 

' For an opposite case see Mark 9, 7 iyivtro co^iXi) imaKi&^ovaa abrois (Luke 9, 
34 (CO J tretrKla^fv abrois). 




lo, 28 &<l>riKaiiep . . . xai 



, 28 



10, 34 liaa-Tiyiiaovaiv . . . 

. Kal 






II, 2 Xbaare . . . xai 






II, 4 iirflXSoy Kot 






II, 7 eiri/3AXXou<rt . . .ko£ 






12, 3 iSeipav Kai 






12, 18 ipxovrai ... Kai 






12, 20 i\a0iv . . . xal 






14, 16 iifi\8ov ... /cat 






14) 3 S i'lrivrev 4iri t^s yijs 1 





Oeis rd. ydvara ^ 


I4> 37 ipx^rai. Kal 






14, 6 s iip^avTo . . . TrcptKoKiiTTCiv 





. Kal 


IS. 43 tl<rr)\e€V . . . Kal 




vpo(T£\ei>v (So IJ. 

Participle for the latter of two co-ordinate verbs: 

Mk. 1, 41 Kal Xi7« Lk. 5, 12 \iywv 

Mk. 4, 38 Kal '\iyov(TL Lk. 8, 24 Xkyovres 

Mk. 4, 41 Kal iXtyov Lk. 8, 25 \kyovTes 

Mk. 5, 20 icai ^pjaro K^piatrav Lk. 8, 39 Kiipiaatiiv 

Mk. 5, 37 L oiiK i,<l>fJKev . . . Kal ipxovrai Lk. 8, 51 i\Bi>v . . 

Mk. 8, 3 1 Kai fip^aro SiSaaKtiv 

Mk. 10, 14 Kai elirev 

Mk. 10, 47 Kai \iyuv 

Mk. II, 2 Kai \iya 

Mk. II, 17 Kal fkeYo 

Mk. 12, 4 Kai rjTlftaaav 

Mk. 12, 8 Kai k^ePaXov 

Mk. 14, 22 Kal clirec 

Mk. 14, 24 Kai elwev 

Mk. 14, 36 Kal i\eytv 

oOk iujiTjKev 

Lk. 9, 2 2 flwiiv 

Lk. 18, 16 \kyav 

Lk. 18, 38 X47aiv 

Lk. 19, 30 \iywv 

Lk. 19, 46 Xeywc 

Lk. 20, II aTiiiaffavTes 

Lk. 20, 15 £K|8aX6j'T£s 

Lk. 22, 19 XeT-wv 

Lk. 22, 20 X^ojv 

Lk. 22, 42 Xiyciiv 

It will be observed that this change is chiefly with verbs of saying. In the few- 
other cases where Luke substitutes a participle for the second of two co-ordinate verbs 
the change reverses also the order in time of the acts mentioned. 

The participle, usually with the article, is substituted by Luke for 
a relative clause: 

Mt. S, 39 oiTTLS ae pairlfa 
Mt. 7, 24 Sans iKoiei 
Mt. 7, 24 ocrns ifKoSofajarev 
Mt. 7, 26 Strns ifKoSo^r/aev 
Mk. 4, 9 OS ix^i Sira 
Mk. 3, 35 &s av TvouhaTi 
Mt. 23, 3S Si* itpoveiaare 

Lk. 6, 29 T$ tvittovtI a( [Q] 
Lk. 6, 47 6 . . . ixoboiv [Q] 

Lk. 6, 48 OlKoSo/ioOKTl [Q] 

Lk. 6, 49 olKoSopiiaavrL [Q\^ 

Lk. 8, 8 6 ixoiv urra (cf. Matt. 13, 9) 

Lk. 8, 21 ol . . , voiovvTts 

Lk. II, 51 Tov i.ToKop.kvoa [Q] 

' In this instance, however, the preceding clause shows the converse difiference, for 
Mark has irpoehSHiv /uKpov, Luke AircairaaBri dx' airuv iiatl 'KlSov fioXf/v Kal. 

' Perhaps Luke 7, 32 = Matt. 11, 16 f. should be added, see full text and variants. 



Mt. 10, 33 iffTts 8' Ak ipv^aryral /i« 
Mt. 12, 32 Ss S' S.V eliru \ 

Mk. 3, 29 8$ S' &v P\a<T^iiiiaji j 

Mt. 23, 12 Sans Si inl^iiati, iavrdv 
Mt. 23, 12 JffTis Ta5r«4i'd><7'€i Jouric 
^t. 5, 32 (Ss M;< ixoXcXv/iit^f yaiiiiaji 
Mk. 12, 18 otru'es Xiyouffi 
Mk. IS> 41 ol . . . fiKoXoWovp 

Compare also 
Mk. g, 35 tt Tts 8t\a irpfiros flvai, larai 

iri-vrav fo'x<"'<'s to^ irai^iav SiA-kovos 
Mk. 10, 43 Ss &v 0i\ii liiyas yeviaOai iv iiiiv 
Mk. 10, 43 Si&Kovos 

Mk. 10, 44 & S.V 8i\ii in&v yeviaScu irpSnos 
Mt. 6, 12 Tots A^ttXirois 

The only case of the reverse is 
Mk. 12, 40 ol KaTtaOlovTts 

Lk. 12, 9 6 Si ipvti<raiuv6s Hf [Q] 

Lk. 12, 10 T§ . . . PkiuT<ln)niiaavTi. [Q?] 

Lk. 14, 11; 18, 14 iros i ii^Sv iavrdv [Q] 
Lk. 14, 1 1 ; 18, 14 A 54 TaireivSiv iavrbv [Q] 
Lk. 16, 18 b &Tro\t\vnii>7iv . . . ya/uip [Q] 
Lk. 20, 27 ol &trri,\iyovTes 
Lk. 23, 49 al truvaiaiXoVSovaai 

Lk. 9, 48 d yi.p nuepSrtpos iv ircunv ifiip 

inripxini', oBtAi tanv /tiyas 
Lk. 22, 26 A lull'oiy bi biitv 
Lk. 22, 26 b SiaKovliv 
Lk. 22, 26 A ih'06/to'os 
Lk. II, 4 irocrJ A^eiXoxri [Q] 

Lk. 20, 47 ot KaTtaBtovaiv 

In this case Mark's participle is not grammatical (see p. 148). 
The participle with the article is twice used for the verb, thus: 

Mk. 5, 30 tU imv ^aro Lk. 8, 45 tLs A hpiiterbs iiov 

Mk. II, 28 t(s aoi riiv i^ovalav rainiv Lk. 20, ^ rit hrriv b Sobs coi riji/ ^valav 

iSwKiV Tabriiv 

The question ris iariv A valaas at (Luke 22, 64) has the same form, and is perhaps an 
addition by Luke to Mark 14, 65 irpiw^TcuaoK, later by assimilation added to Matt. 
26, 68, where it is much less suitable, since Matthew has no reference to Jesus' being 
blindfolded. This agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark is, however, very 
puzzling. Si m ilar, and characteristic of Luke, is the form of Luke 22, 23, rb tIs etij 
4f abrwv A toOto p,iWav irpkaaeiv, for Mark's simple and direct iiifTi. irtii (14, 19). 

In the following cases a variety of constructions of Mark, includ- 
ing clauses with dXXd, 7dp, iva, and cases of complementary infini- 
tive, apposition, and asyndeton, are replaced by a participle in 

Mk. I, 44 (mayi atavrbv Se7|oK 

Mk. 5, 19 dXXd \iya ainQ 

Mk. 8, 36 (b^eXei &v8pairov KtpSijirai, 

Mk. 9, 6 06 yip ySa 

Mk. 10, 17 tL TTotijffw Xva . . . K\ripovo- 

Mk. 14, 10 'lobSas . . . b els rHv SiibtKa 

Lk. S, 14 iiriSBCiv Stt^v navrbv 

Lk. 8, 38 \irtuiv 

Lk. 9, 25 i>4>iKtiTai &v6pornros KtpS^tras 

Lk. 9, 33 nil eWiis 

Lk. 18, 18 t/ iroiii<ras . . . iCKiipovo- 


Lk. 22, 3 'lobSav . . . 6vTa be toO ipiBitoib 

T&v Si)SeKa 

But Mark 5, 25-27, had too many participles even for Luke, and 
by omitting some and by using a relative clause he avoids the fault 
of his source (Luke 8, 43, 44) : 



S, 25 t»i Tw^ o5<ro if {ibaa 
Si 26 Koi iroXXcl iradoDaa . . 

Kal SairaviiaaiTa . . . 

Kal infiiv uxIxXriBaira 

&XXd . . . kSdovffa 
5, 27 ixoiaaaa . . . 

i\6ovaa . . . 

iftpCLTO K.T.X. 



8, 43 Kal yvvii olaa iv Itbati . . . 

iJTis . . . TpoffovaX^offa . . 
o6k laxvcfv . . . 6epairev8iiyai 

8, 44 irpoacKBoSva , 

{jlpaTO K.T.X. 

In dealing with clauses already dependent or semi-dependent in 
Mark, Luke shows a tendency to tighten the relation of the clause 
to the main sentence. Here he is also resisting the loose structure 
of post-classical Greek. The free use of iva clauses is a feature of 
Hellenistic Greek, but they are distinctly looser than the infinitive 
with which Luke frequently displaced them. The wo-re construction 
is notoriously loose, and this too Luke seems partially to avoid. In- 
direct questions are frequently modified so that their relation as 
substantive clauses may be made more clear. A noun, an infinitive, 
a relative clause, may make a good substitute; but more often Luke 
converts the question into a substantive by prefixing the neuter 
article. This of course applies also to direct questions which he 
wishes to incorporate in the main sentence. 

iva is replaced by an infinitive thus: 

Mk. 3, 10 hriiriTTav tva ainov a\pwvTai. 
Mk. S, 12 -irkiiipov . , . Xva elaiXSwuo' 
Mk. 5, 18 irapaeaXa . . . Iva . . . v 
Mk. 5, 43 SiarreCXaTO . . . tva iiriSels yvot 
Mk. 6, 41 aiSou . • . Iva vapaTiBSiaiv 
Mk. 8, 30 iTrerliiJiira' tva "Khr/oaaiv 
Mk. 14, 38 tva nil eUri\9r)Tf 
Mk. IS, 21 tva apji 

Compare also: 
Mk. I, 44 ipa etirjjs 

tva disappears in other ways: 

Mt. 7, 1 tva iiii KpiBiJTe 

Mk. 4, 22 iav liii tva 4>avepuS^ 

Mk. 4, 22 dXX' tva tSB'o «Es ipavepSv 

Lk. 6, 19 t^TiTovv avnadai airov 

Lk. 8, 32 iTiTphpTH . . . euTe\6eiv 

Lk. 8, 38 iSeiTO . . . elvai 

Lk. 8, s6 vapiiyytOiev . . . niiSail eliretv 

Lk. 9, 16 iSlSov . , . trapoiBiivai 

Lk. 9,21 iireniii]iras wapftyytiKtv "Kir^av 

Lk. 22, 40 nil ei<re\Seiv, but cf. VS. 46 

Lk. 23, 26 <l>kpav 

Lk. St 14 irapiiyyeiXev 


Lk. 6, 37 Kal ob II'') KpiO^re [Q] 

Lk. 8,17 8 oA <t>avepdv yev^aerai 

Lk. 8,17 S oi nil . . . tls <t>avep&v SX9;) ^ 

' This construction may, however, be due to Luke's conflation of Mark with Q 
(Matt. 10, 26 = Luke 12, 2); note yvaaBv. 


Mk. 10, 17 tI TToiiiaa tva KKripovofiiiau Lk. 18, 18 t£ ■iroi.'ti<ras . . . K\ripovofiiiato 

Mk. 14, 10 Iva vapadoi Lk. 22, 4 to irSs . . . vapaiif (but cf. 

Mk. 14, 11) 
Mk. IS, IS vap^uKtv . . . Iva aravpuB^, Lk. 23, 25 wapeSuKcv rlf BtKhnaTi abrHv 

For the complete omission of clauses with tva, see page 90. 

In modern Greek the infinitive has succumbed entirely to iva 
{va). Luke's resistance to the growing use of iva is shown in Acts, 
where it is comparatively infrequent, and even in its proper use less 
frequent than ottws. See J. Viteau, Etvde sur le grec du Nouveau 
Testament, Paris, 1893, pp. 74, 176; Blass, Grammar o/N. T. Greek, 
§ 69, 2 sub fin. 

chare is removed in Luke's editing thus: 

Mk. I, 27 flo-Tf avvfriTfli> Lk. 4, 36 Kai avvfK6.\ovv 

Mk. 2, 12 &<TTC Jo?df ew Lk. S, 26 Kal e56^a(ov 

Mk. 2, 28 fitrre Lk. 6, s omits iitrre 

Mk. 3, 10 floT6 iTiirlTTeiv . . . tva d^uvrai Lk. 6, 19 k^riTOVv Sxreffflot 

Mk. 4, 37 &(rTe yeiilitaBai, Lk. 8, 23 Kal avven\ripovvro 

Mt. 12, 22 dffTe tAk Koxjiiy XoXcii' Lk. II, 14 ^XdXTjffei' 6 Kdxjibt [Q] 

Mt. 23, 31 oiffTC Lk. II, 48 apa [Q] 

Mk. 4, 32 oiffxe (so Matt. 13, 32) Lk. 13, 19 Kai [perhaps from Q] 

At Mark I, 4s; 2,2; 3,10; 3,20; 4,1; 9, 26, the whole clause containing So-tc has 
no parallel in Luke. It is interesting that in all these passages except the last the sub- 
ject is the same, — the uncomfortable results of Jesus' popularity. Luke's omission of 
these clauses is due probably to other reasons than those of language. The only two 
cases in Luke's gospel of wart expressing result have a similar connection — the em- 
barrassing effects of Jesus' miracles (Luke s, 7 uart fivBl^&T0at. aina [t4 xXoia]) or popu- 
larity (Luke 12, I wart KarairaTtiv dXX^Xous). See also p. 92. 

Siart is comparatively rare in Luke and Acts, and either conveys 
the idea of purpose or indicates a very close connection of result. 
The use of Siare to begin a new sentence (in the sense of quare, itaque; 
see Winer-Moulton, p. 377) is not found in Luke or Acts. See Har- 
nack. Sayings, p. 102 ; " St. Luke also avoids SKxre in the sense of 


Indirect questions in Mark often receive in Luke a definite sub- 
stantive construction. They are made articular thus: 

Mk. 9, 34 tJs /ueffojj' Lk. 9, 46 tA tIs flv etri /uetfuv aiirSiv. Cf. 

Lk. 22, 24 tA t£s aiiT&v SoKei elrat nelfav 
Mk. II, 18 irffls airdv i,Tro\i(r<i>(nv Cf. Lk. ig, 48 t6 tL iroviiiruaLv 

Mk. 14, I TTWS i.iroKTflvaai Lk. 2 2, 2 tA tw &vk\oi<nv 

Mk. 14, II JTMS irapaSol Lk. 2 2, 4 tA ttus irapaSif (cf. also VS. 6) 

Mk. 14, 19 liiiTi ir/i) Lk. 22, 23 tA t£s apa etij k.t.X. 


Questions are altered in other ways: » 

Mk. 2, 2S Ti ijToliiafv AavM Lk. 6, 3 3 iTolriatv AavttS 

Mk. 5, 14 t£ ia-Tiv tA -yeyoKis Lk. 8, 35 rd yeyovin 

Mk. 6, 36 tI 4,i.yo,m Lk. 9, 12 kirun.n<rii6y 

Mk. 9, 6 t£ dTTOKprfg Lk. 9, 33 S X^ti 

Mk. II, 18 -irSi! ai)T6v &iro'\t<Tu<riv Lk. 19, 47 aiiriv iir6)ii(rai. 

Mk. 13,11 T£XaX«<r,,Te Lk. 21, 14 dTroXorijeWt * 

Mk. 14, II ttSj otrAK eiiKalpus irapaSoC Lk. 22, 6 ttiKaiplav (so Matt. 26, 16) tov 

vapttSovvai aiirbv 
Mk. 14, 36 ob tI hfii ei\a dXXd H ab Lk. 22, 42 nii t6 ekKriiid pov dXXd rd abv 

Mk. 14, 68 t£ X47«s Cf. Lk. 22, 60 a Xi^as 

For the complete omission of questions, see pp. 81, 82. 


oTi is used by Luke several times in place of yap or where in 
Mark there is asyndeton to secure closer relation between two 

Mk. I, 22 ^v yap SiSiuTKUv abrois (is if- Lk. 4, 32 ori iv i^ovalq. ^v 6 \6yos abrou 

ovalav ixo>v 
Mk. 1,27 t£ tvTiv TovTo; SiSaxh "o"^ "ot' Lk. 4, 36 tU h X670S oStos &ti iv iioua-l^ 

Mk. I, 38 els TOVTO yap If^XdoK Lk. 4, 43 Stl iirl tovto iinaTaXriv 

Mk. 6, 35 f. iprjiiSi inTiv 6 tAttos . . . Lk. 9, 12 &TrSXv(rov riv 6x\iov . . . 3ti 

a/troMHTov abrovs x.r.X. Sjde kv kpijpx^ rbircfi ktr^ikv 

According to Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, the use of '6ti recitantis 
is characteristic of Mark. The more certain cases (p. 28, following 
Bruder) niunber in Matt, eight, in Mark twenty-four, in Luke 
thirteen; but if some less certain cases are included, the figures 
become for Matt, fourteen, Mark thirty-four, Luke twenty-eight 
(p. 41). 

' In view of this practice of Luke, it may be doubtful whether the difference between 
Luke 10, 22, tIs hrTiv d uMs . . . xal tIs iaTivd iro7-^p, and Matt, ii, 27, rdy vtdv . . . 
t6v iraTipa, is due to Luke's literary method. Hamack, Sayings, p. 20, compares Luke's 
use of the direct question, tIs ivnv oCtos and a relative clause, in Luke 5, 21; 7, 49; 
8, 25; 9, 9, but in at least two of these cases the question can be attributed directly to 
the source, Mark 2, 7; 4, 41. Better illustrations would be Luke 13, 25, 27 oix oKa 
bijias vi6&> itrrk; 20, 7 juij eldivai ir6Ba> (cf. Matt. 25, 12; 7, 23; Mark 11, 33), and 
especially Luke 8, 9 hinipirroiv. . . . rfc oBn; Aq ii jropa/SoX^ for Mark 4, 10 ^piirov 
. . . tAs Trapo/JoXds. Compare Luke 19, 3 ij^fira iifiv rbv 'htaovy rls i<rnv. 

* But cf. Luke 12, 11 ttms ij tI iiroXoyria-riarBe fj tI tXirr/Te. = Matt. 10, 19 jrws ij t£ 


In the following cases Sti recitative of Mark is omitted by Luke: 

Mk. I, 40 'Ktyoiv airif 6ti lit) eiXjis Lk. 5, 12 \iyuv, icOptt, ii.v 8i\iis 

Mk. 6, 3S JNeYov iri i/niiiM iariv Lk. 9, 12 tltrov oircp- iLw6\vaov 

Mk. 8, 28 elfl-oi' in 'la&viniv Lk. 9, 19 (Ittoi'- 'Iaiyi>tiv 

Mk. 9, 31 4X67«i' otrois *n 6 vl6s Lk. 9, 43, 44 tlxtc ... A uWs 
Mk. 10, 32, 33 tipiaro aliroU Xiyav . . . Lk. 18, 31 tlirev . . . ISoi iivaPalvonev 

irri IJo6 ivaffalvoitti' 

Mk. 12,6 \iyav Sti ivTpawiiirovTtu Lk. 20, 13 elTrcv . . . tvTpairliirovTai 

Mk. 12, 7 elrav Srt oWs {ffTiK Lk. 20, 14 \tr/ovTis- oSt6s tariv 

Mk. 12, 19 typa<l/e>> ijitiv Sn tif nvos Lk. 20, 28 typaff'ty ijixiv iiv tivos 

Mk. 13; 6 X^oKTes Jrt tyii) tl/u Lk. 21, 8 Xiyovres tyi) tlfu 
Mk. 14, 14 flwart . . . &ri i SiSi,<rKa\os Lk. 22, 11 ipcCre . . . \iyti troii SiSi,- 

Xiya (TKaXos 

Mk. 14, 69 \iyeiv , . . Jin oEros Lk. 22, 59 \iyav . . . oSros 

Mk. 14, 71 dfivivaL 8rt oAk oUa Lk. 22, 60 tlirev , . . ivBpuitt, otiK olSa 

Similarly, Matt. 8, 2 omits 6ti, of Mark i, 40, and so in all the 
other cases in Mark here cited (except Mark 14, 71, 72, where 
Matt. 26, 74, 75 retains the Sri), as well as in Mark i, 15; 5, 28; 
6, 18; 8, 4; 14, 27. As Matthew's aversion to 6ti in this use is as 
strong as Luke's, if not stronger, the cases of 6ti found in either 
gospel in passages based on Q are most likely preserved from that 
source though changed by the other evangelist. Here the balance 
is, as we should expect, about even. 

Matt. 4, 4 yiypatrraf oiK iir' &pT<f Lk. 4, 4 yir/paitTiu 8ti o4* iv' tprif [Q] 

Matt. 4, 6 yhypaiTTai, yip trn Lk. 4, 10 ykypairTai yip ftri [Q] 

Matt. 6, 29 \iya ii iiilv »ti o6Si S. Lk. 12, 27 Xkyia Si biiiv obSk 2. [Q] 

Matt. 23, 39 'htyw yip ifuvobtjfiiieUtiTe Lk. 13, 35 >.tyo> ipXi/ Sri (om. ttBDal.) 

of/ nil UiiTk lie [Q] 

Yet Hamack {Sayings, p. 140) rejects 8ti in Luke 4, 4 as " Lukan " 
(p. 4s), and in reconstructing the text of Q brackets the 6ti of Matt. 
6, 29. He ignores the 6ti which some codd. and edd. read in Luke 
13, 35 (Tisch., but not Westcott and Hort, v. Soden). 

But the 6ti recitative of Mark 2, 12; 3, 11; 5, 35; 14, 72 is re- 
taiaed in Luke 5, 26; 4, 41; 8, 49; and 22, 61. Li Luke 8, 42 the 
recitative Srt of Mark 5, 23 becomes causal (as also perhaps in 
Mark 6, 35 = Luke 9, i?), while in Luke 9, 22 elird,}^ 6ti. takes the 
place of fip^aro BMaKeiv airovs 6ti (Mark 8, 31). 

In one or two cases Luke adds the recitative to Mark. 

Mk. 2, 27 Kali\eyei>aiTols . . . 28 fitrre Lk. 6, s Kal iXeytv abroXs »ti KbpiM tariv 

Kbpidi tariv 
Mk. 11,3 tlvaTc 6 Kbptos Lk. 19, 31 tpeire iri 6 Kbpios 


(Contrast the reverse in the similar passage Mark 14, 14 = Luke 22, 11; here, how- 
ever, 6ti may be causal, answering Siarl; so also 19, 34.) 
Mk. 11,31 X^TOKT-es ti.v fX-Koinfv Lk. 20, 5 Xir/ovra »ti ii.v eliraiiei/ 

(Here in both gospels direct quotation follows elircDMB-.) 

iav and Kadcos 

From the changes made by Luke in the other particles which in- 
troduce subordinate clauses few if any definite conclusions can be 

Thus Harnack's repeated statement that " St. Luke, as is often 
the case, has written ei for eav," can hardly be sustained on the 
basis of two passages derived from Q. 

Matt. 17, 20 tav ixnre vltrTW iis k6kkov Lk. 17, 6 tl ixerf iriami' iis k6kkov aivi.- 

o-wixKos, ipiiTi xews, tKiyfri &v [Q] 

Matt. 5, 46 iiv yap iyairliariTe Lk. 6, 32 Kal el iyairare [Q] 

For Luke nowhere appears to change the eav of Mark to ei, so that 
in the above passages the alternative is quite as probable that Mat- 
thew has changed the el to eav. In Matt. 21, 21, which like Matt. 
17, 20 has ^dj' exrire w'kttiv foUowed-by a future indicative, the edv 
is from Matthew, not from his source (Mark 11, 22 f.). Cf. eav in 
Matt. 6, 14, 15; 16, 26 with Mark 11, 25, [26]; 8, 36.^ See Harnack, 
Sayings, p. 91; cf. p. 62: " The ei here [Luke 6, 32] and in the fol- 
lowing verse [Luke 6, 2i3> ^] is certainly secondary. . . . Also in 
other passages St. Luke has changed ekv into el," and p. 28, " eav 
is very frequent in Q, and St. Luke has very often changed it." 
So Nicolardot, Les procedes de redaction, p. 149, following Harnack. 
Is iav to be preferred to ei because, as Harnack says (p. 159), 
" i6,v is twice as frequent as ei " in Q ? The same ratio holds in 
Mark, and no doubt in many other books. The occurrence of these 
words is often due to subject matter, quite apart from personal pref- 
erence. The whole thought of the condition is affected by the dif- 
ference, as in the parallels Matt. 17, 20 = Luke 17, 6. The only 
other case in point is 

Matt. 10, 13 ii.i> Se fiil i dfia [^ o'ucla], 4 Lk. lO, 6 e£ Si lii/yf, [)) tlpiivri iiUiv] bp' 
elpriiiri iftSiv wpds i/ias hrurTpcufniTa ifias iu'aK6,ii\l/a 

' In the only other parallel with Mark that comes into consideration here Matt. 
s8, 8, 9, (= 5, 29, 30) may have substituted A for i&v (Mk. 9, 43-47). 


But this instance is made less significant because of the idiomatic 
ei Sk firiye (" otherwise "), and the wide variation in wording. Both 
Luke and Matthew retain Hlv in the preceding antithetical member. 
Possibly a certain preference for (catos may be seen in the follow- 
ing list, though the cases again are mainly from Q, except two from 
Mark which cancel each other: 

Mk. I, 2 KoBiis Lk. 3, 4 is 

Mk. I, 44 o Lk. s, 14 KoBiis 

Mt. 7, 12 irAvTO iaa Lk. 6, 31 KaB<i>s [Q] 

Mt. 5, 48 dis Lk. 6, 36 KoSiK [Q] 

Mt. 12, 40 oiiTirep Lk. II, 30 KoSiis [Q] 

Mt. 24, 37 £i(nrep Lk. 17, 26 Koffiis [Q] 

Hamack {Sayings, pp. 23, 107) also thinks that uanrep in the last 
two instances has been changed by Luke because " he is not fond of 
cio-Trep — on the other hand, he uses /cotos 16 + 12 times, while in St. 
Matthew it occurs only three times." By similar reasoning as good 
a case could be made out for the belief that KaOus was in the original 
Q and was changed by Matthew to ucrirep ; for &ffwep is a characteris- 
tic word of M3,tthew (Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 7), and is 
actually substituted for /cat yap (Mark 10, 45) in Matt. 20, 28, 
while Luke uses it only three times in Acts, in the Gospel once, in 
a passage where it comes from Q (17, 24 = Matt. 24, 27), and 
possibly in one other passage (18, 11 v.l.). 

Kal, 5i, piev 

The most obvious fact about Luke's use of co-ordinate conjunc- 
tions discovered by comparison with Mark is his preference for Se 
overxat. Aebelongsto the periodic form of writing; /cat is character- 
istic of the Xe^is dpop.ivr). It is colloquial, but in Mark may be 
due sometimes to Semitic idiom, though it is also frequent in Hellen- 
istic and Modern Greek (see J. H. Moulton, Grammar of New 
Testament Greek, I, 12; Thumb, Hellenismus, 129; Robertson, 
Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 94.) The comparative fre- 
quency of /cat and 5e in Mark and Luke has been stated in various 
ways, as by Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 120 f. 

But the most concrete proof of Luke's preference is shown in paral- 
lel passages where Luke has substituted 6e for /cat in Mark without 
much other change of context: 



Mk. I, 9 KOI iyivtTO 
Mk. r, 38 KOI \iya 
Mk. 2,8 Kal iiriyvois 
Mk. 2, 18 Kot \iyoviTiv 
Mk. 2, 19 KoJ flTev 
Mk. -^j 23 Koi iytvtTO 
Mk. 2, 24 Koi ?X€7oi' 
Mk. 3, 2 Kot naperripovii 
Mk. 3, 3 Koi Xc-yei 
Mk. 3, 4 KoJ \iya 
Mk. 4, II Koi^XeYO' 
Mk. 4, 39 Koi SieyepBels 
Mk. 4, 40 Kot clirei' 

Mk. S, 2 KOI i^lXdivTOS O&TOU 

Mk. 5, 6 Koi lSi)V TOP 'Iijo'oOj' 

Mk. 5, 9 Koi irripoiTa abrhv 

Mk. S, 13 Koi llcXeii-Ta 

Mk. S, 14 KOt ^XSoK 

Mk. 5, 41 KOt Kpariiirat 

Mk. 6, 12 Koi i^ehSbvTts 

Mk. 6, 14 Koc tiKovafv 

Mk. 6, 44 Koi fiaav 

Mk. 6, 41 Koi \afiiiv 

Mk. 8, 28 KOI oXXot 

Mk. 8, 36 KOI j^JiitunS^vai Tijv tpuxfiv 

Mk. 10, 13 KOt Trpoaiijiepov 

Mk. 10, 32 Koi TrapoXafiiiv 

Mk. II, 4 KOt OTT^Xfov 

Mk. II, 31 Koi SitKoylioVTO 

Mk. 12, I Kal fip^aro 

Mk. 14, 54 Kai i XLkrpos 

Mk. 15, 2 Koi iirripi>T7iaB> ... 6 IleiXaros 

Mk. 15, 24 KOI Sianepl^ovTOA. 

Mk. 15, 26 Ko2 ijv 

Mk. 15, 38 KoJ rb Karairirairna kaxUrOri 

Mk. 16, 5 Koi tiire\6ovaai 

Similarly in Q passages we find di in Luke for koi in Matthew, although Matthew 
also often changes Mark's xat to Si. 




iyivtTo Si 




6 Si etirtv 




imyvois Si 




ol Si elirav 




6 Si elTrev 




)ryiiicTO Si 




TLvis Si eLTTOV 




TrapcTTipovvTO Si 




elircy Si 




tlTTO' Si 




6 Si tlvei 




& Si Sieyepffils 




tliTfv Si 




ii(\e6vTi Si o«r<? 




ISdjy Si T&v ^Iija-ovy 




iTtipiiTTiatv Si abrbv 




iZi\BbvTa Si 




i^rtKBov Si 




aiirbs Si Kparrjaas 




ii{pxbiJi.tvoi, Si 




JKOvaev Si 




^aav Si 




\a^v Si 




aXXoi Si 




iavriv Si . . . f))/«to9eJs 



!. 15 

vpoai^tpov Si 




irapaXaPiiv Si 




AwtXdbvra Si 



>, 5 

oi Si (nivtXoyuravTO 



>, 9 

i^p^aro Si 




A Si TJirpos 



, 3 

i Si naXoTOS iipiiTTjafv 




Siaiupiibp.evoi Si 




TJv Si Kal 




iaxl^Bv Si to KaraTiToana 



, 3 

elaeKOovtrai. Si 

Mt. 7, 26 Koi TTOs & S.Koiav 

Mt. 12, 26 Kal ei b aaravSs (Cf. Mk.3, 26) 

Mt. 12, 27 KoJ ti iyi> 

Lk. 6, 49 6 Si &Koi<ras [Q] 

Lk. II, 18 el Si Kal b aaravas [Q] 

Lk. II, 19 dSi iyii [Q] 

The proportion between /cat and 5^ is not however the same in all 
parts of Luke's writing, just as it varies in Mark and in the parts 
of the LXX as shown by Hawkins; in particular 5e is much more 
frequent in Acts than in the Gospel. Harnack explains this differ- 


ence as due to difference of sources, or rather on the assumption that 
the frequent Kal in Luke is due to the use of Mark, whereas in Acts 
the author is writing more freely (perhaps without any written 
sources). But our list shows that Luke considerably reduces the 
instances of Kai in Mark when using it as a source; and we may 
further discover that in other parts of Luke, including some which 
Harnack considers to have been freely composed by Luke himself 
(Luke I, 5-2, 52), the Kai is relatively as frequent, or more frequent, 
than in parts based on Mark. 

Harnack (Luke the Physician, p. 90, n. i) says; " Vogel (" Charak- 
teristik des Lukas," 2 Aufl., 1899, p. 32) has discussed St. Luke's 
various methods of beginning a sentence, but he has not drawn the 
final conclusion. If, with him, we compare 100 beginnings of sen- 
tences in the gospel with a similar number in the second part of Acts 
we arrive at the following result: 




















Accordingly Kal preponderates in the gospel by three times. If, 
however, one subtracts all the cases in which the Kal is derived from 
St. Mark, then the relation of Kal to Se is much the same in both 

The following table, illustrating the relative frequency of Kal and 
de as particles introducing a sentence, is based on passages taken at 
random from the parts of Luke derived from Mark and those of other 
origin. Of course the figures are subject to some shght change by 
difference of opinion about division of sentences and about readings. 

Passages the source of which is Mark 

Luke 5, 17-39 

6, 1-19 

8, 40-56 

9. i-So 


Kal 1$ 





Si 6 





Passages of other origin 

Luke 2, 1-52 

14, I-3S 

IS, 1-32 

16, 1-31 

Kal 28 





Si 7 





Apparently the ratio of Kal to 3^ is twice as great in the first class 
of passages as ito the second; so that the greater frequency of Kai in 


the gospel as a whole than in Acts can hardly be due to Mark, as 
Hamack supposed. But as Wernle (p. 21) observes regarding 
Luke's substitution of 6^ for fcai in Mark, "von einer strengen Kegel 
lasst sich nicht reden." 

In regard to Kai y&p Hamack makes a similar statement {Luke the 
Physician, p. 95): " Kal y&p occurs only once in the Acts (19, 40); 
in the Gospel it is more frequent, because derived from the sources." 
Here again his suggestion is not sustained by the facts, for only twice 
is Kal y&p taken by Luke from his source, viz. Luke 7, 8 (= Matt. 8, 
9); Luke 22, 59 (= Mark 14, 70 = Matt. 26, 72). It occurs twice 
in passages peculiar to Lvke (i, 66; 22, 37), the former of which 
Hamack believes to have been written by Luke without Greek 
sources, and besides these only in passages parallel to Matthew, 
where it is more likely that Luke has introduced it into his sources 
than taken it over from them. In fact, this is the view that Hamack 
himself elsewhere takes of these occurrences (Sayings, pp. 62, 65). 
He says: " Kal yap is Lukan (vide the fifth petition of the Lord's 
Prayer in St. Luke, where St. Matthew has ws koi; in St. Matthew 
Kol yap occurs twice, in St. Luke's gospel nine times." 

The nine instances are as follows: 

Lk. i, 66 Kai yip x<'p Kuplou ^v iter' abrov 
Mt. S, 46 abxl KoX ol TtK&rai Lk. 6, 32 koI yip ol i,iiapTwhol [Q] 

Mt. s, 47 Kal i&v Lk. 6, 33a Kai y&p [SB; om. yip rell.] 

iiv [Q] 
Mt. S, 47 obxl Kal ol Wvucol Lk. 6, 33b Kai yip [NBA syr. sin. om.] 

Lk. 6, 34 Kai yip [NBLH om.] 
Mt. 8, 9 Kal yip iyi> avSpuro! Lk. 7, 8 Kal yip iyi) ivSpuiros [Q] 

Mt. 6, 12 <is Kal iliJieU iifi/iKaitai Lk. 11, 4 Kai yip abrol itjjloiiei/ [Q] 

Lk. 22, 37 Kal yip rb irepl i/iov riXos ?x« 
Mk. 14, 70 Kal yip Ta\t\aim ft (cf. Lk. 22, S9 "al yip ToXiXotAs brnv 
Matt. 26, 73 Kalyip'i\a\ii<rovS^6» 

ffC TOt«) 

fUv in contrasts with 5^ may be considered a test of style, since 
it is a specifically Greek idiom. See Norden, Antike Kunsiprosa, 
p. 25, n. 3. Luke however shows little superiority in the use of this 
word. It occurs in Mark five times, in Matthew twenty, in Luke 
ten times. Of these ten instances none is a correction of Mart or 
Q (except in the pronominal use of 6v iikv . . . dv Si in Luke 23, 
33, cf. Mark 15, 27 ej/a . . . Kai &a), but, as far as those sources 


indicate Luke's usage, he simply keeps liiv when they supply it. 

Luke 3, 16 iyd iikv . . . fiawH^a . . . , ipxertu Si k.t.X. Cf. Matt. 3, 11 [QJ; con- 
trast Mk. r, 8. 
Luke 10, 2 6 iikv Otpuriids To\is, ol di tpyirai 6\lyoi Cf. Matt. 9, 37 [Ql 
Luke 22, 22 6 vl6s iiiv roO i,v8pi>irov . . . iropiierat, ttXi))' oiai Cf. Mark 14, 21 
f where however Luke has exchanged Mark's Sk for the less regular irMiv). 

In Acts nip occurs more frequently (nearly fifty times), but in 
more than three-fifths of the occurrences it is the fiiv, niv oBc soli- 
tariutn, of doubtful hterary excellence. 

bh Kai is a favorite combination in Luke. In the following cases 
it occurs in Luke but not in the parallels: ^ 

Mt. 3, 10 ffi'n &i ii i^tmi Lk. 3, 9 IjSi) Si Kal 1} iilvr, [Q] 

Mt. 8, 21 irepos Si . . . elirai Lk. 9, 61 flwtv Si Kal trepos [Q] 

Mt. 12, 26 Kai cl A aaravas (cf. Mk. Lk. 11, 18 elSi xali caravas [Q] 

3, 26) 
Mt. 5, 13 kiv Si t6 &\as itapcwSy (cf. Lk. 14, 34 iiv Si Kal t6 a\as nupayB^ [Q] 

Mk. 9, so) 
Mk. 10, 13 Kai Trpo<ri<t)epov ainif raiSla Lk. 18, 15 irpoiri^pov Si airQ Kal rd 

Mk. 12,4 KiKtlvov Lk. 20, II olSiKiK€tmv 

Mk. 12, s KiKetvov Lk. 20, 12 ol Si Kal TovTov 

Mk. 12, 21 iMrabroK' 22 KaloliiTTi, Lk. 20, 31 ii<ra(iTUs Si Kal ol ixTa. 

Mk. 13, 12 Kai rapttSiitra Lk. 21, 16 vapaidSriafaet Si Kal 

Mk. 15, 27 Koi <rii> aiiT^ aravpovtrip Sim Cf. Lk. 23, 32 fiyovro Si Kal trepoi Sim 

Xjlffris KOKodpyoi abv ainif ivaxp^vat 

ILk. 23, 3S ^t/ivKTiipi^ov Si Kal (K al. am.) 
oi 4pxo,-«i (cf. p. 103) 
Lk. 23, 36 ^^at^av Si airiff Kal ol arpa- 
Mk. 15, 26 Kai ijv 4 lirtypa^ Lk. 23, 38 ^i- Si Kal inypa<Ml 

Kal is used by Luke in the apodosis of relative or conditional 
clauses: " 

Mk. i!, 21 d Si /«), aipei . . . ri Kaiviy Lk. 5, 36 d Si iiint, Kal t6 kox^v k.t.X. 


Mt. 12, 40 SiaTTtp yap t/v 'lon-as ... Lk. 11 30, xaBiis y&p ^imo 'luvas . . . 
oirus ifTToi i vlds toB ivSpinfov oSrcos tarat Kal 6 viAs roS ivOpimov [Q] 

' The textus receptus carries further this process in Luke. See for example 6, 6; 18, 
i; 22, 68; cf. 21, 2 and Matt. 25, 22; 26, 35. 

2 In Matt. 6, 21 = Luke 12, 34 the uss. of both Gospels read Kai in the apodosis ex- 
cept B in Matthew. 



Mt. 6, 22 ti.v i d d^aXjuJs <rov drXovs, 

S\ov TO vSiia 
Mt. 6, 23 iiv Si i 6<j>ea\it6s aov vovTjpds 

t}y i\ov T& aufia 
Mt, 24, 28 Sirou tip ij rd VTUiia, ixfi 

<rvyax9il<rovTai. oi Aerol 

Lk. II, 34 irav i ixtSaSfUis aou dvXaus f, 

Kal 6\ov tA aufia [Q] 
Lk. II, 34 iirdv Si wotnjpis f, Kal ri c&ita 


Lk. 17, 37 (Sirov T& <ru/ia, facet xal oi 
dcTOi {irt(ri;vaxd4<'<»'''<ii [Q] 

In three cases Luke seems to introduce irXiiv (cf. p. 123, note): 

Mt. 6, 33 fiJTClTcii Lk. 12, 31 5rXl})» f JJT€l« [Q] 

Mk. 14, 21 oial Si T$ &v9pc!nr(|) Lk. 22, 22 ttXiJi' o4aJ rig ivOpi»r<f [Q] 

Mk. 14, 36 AXX' 06 r£ eyi flaw AXXd ri <r6 Lk. 22, 42 irX))y /i^i tA ei'Kiini. iiov dXXd tA 

0-di/ yivitrOta 

(In the last case Matt. 26, 39 also has -rMiv, perhaps an independent correction 
made on account of the following dXXd.) 

xXiJc is a favorite conjunction of Luke's Gospel, occurring fifteen times in all. It is 
not found in Mark, but was probably in Q. See Matt. 11, 22 = Luke 10, 14; Matt. 
18, 7 = Luke 17, 1 NBDL. 

Bartlet in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 332, speaking of Matt. 26, 64, 
says: " irX^i- \ky<a iiiiv is a Q phrase, found also in Matt. 11, 22, 24 (where Luke 10, 
II, 14 also has icKiiv, a particle found only in Sayings in Luke's Gospel, while in Acts 
and Mark it occurs only as a preposition, save as tcMiv &ri in Acts 20, 23), 18, 7 f = Luke 
17, i) and 26,39 (— Luke 22, 42)." But the influence of Q which Bartlet tries to find in 
Matt. 26, 39 and 26, 64 is not certain, and in the former case not vXi)^ \iy<i> vitiv but 
only irX^i' is found. 


As3aideton is perhaps even more carefully avoided by Luke than 
parataxis.^ The most common method of correcting Mark is by 
means of Kai, yap, Si, and ow. 

Mk. I, 44 57ro7e,* aeavrdv Sei^ov 

Mk. 2, II irfapt, apov 

Mk. 4, 24 ffKirere ri imiert 

Mk. 5, 39 tA raiSbov oiiK iiriSavev 

Mk. 8, 29 iiroKpuSeis i Hirpos 

Mk. 9, 38 hfiri aiT$ o 'Iwivvi/s 

Mk. 9, 50 KoXiv rd oXas 

Mk. 10, 14 o^ere . . . /iij KoXiere 

Mk. 10, 25 ebKOirorrepdv effriv 

Mk. 10, 28 fjp^aTO Xiryeiv 6 Hirpos 

Mk. 10, 29 l<^ 6 'Ijj<roOs 

Mk. II, 2 fipiiffere . . . Xiffare 

Lk. 5, 14 d7rcX0iS>K SeCiov atavriv 

Lk. 5, 24 Kal apas 

Lk. 8, 18 j8X4ir«Tc ovv irojs i,KoieTe 

Lk. 8, 52 06 yap inreBavev (v. I. cf. Matt. 

9, 24) 
Lk. 9, 20 nirpos Si iiroKptSels 
Lk. 9, 49 hiroKpiBtU Si b 'lai.vv7is tXirev 
Lk. 14, 34 KoKiv olv t6 SXos [Q?] 
Lk. 18, 16 o^ere . . . Kal nil KiMitrt 
Lk. 18, 25 tiKOTurepov y&p iariv 
Lk. 18, 28 elxti' Si niTpos 
Lk. 18, 29 6 Si tlirev 
Lk. 19, 30 tipriaere . . . Kal 'Kixravres 

> For cases of asyndeton in Luke, see 7, 42, 43, 44; 14,27; 17,32, 33! 19,22; 21,13. 
2 Also elsewhere the omission of inra7e by Luke removes asyndeton; see p. 173. 



Mk. 12, 9 tI TToiliira 

Mk. 12, 17 rd Kalirapos AiridoTf 

Mk. 12, 20 irri iSefupol firai' 

Mk. 12, 23 ricoj airdv lorat 710^ 

Mk. 12, 24 !0>; 

Mk. 12, 27 oiic foTtv 4 fleij 

Mk. 12, 36 oirds AowcW elirec 

Mk. 12, 37 oiris AaueM 

Mk. 13, 4 irArt toOto ttrrai 

Mk. 13, 6 TToXXoi t\di<ro»Tai 

Mk. 13, 7 8ei vejiJaeoi 

Mk. 16, 6 ijyipSri, oix ttrriv SiSt 

Lk. 20, IS tI oiv voiiiaa 

Lk. 20, 25 Tolwv iirSSore ri KaUrapos 

Lk. 20, 29 {ittA otv iSe\(l>ol ^aav 

Lk. 20, a ij 7u»^ oS;' . . . tIvos "/Iverax; 

Lk. 20, 34 Koi elTTtc 

Lk. 20, 38 S«As Si oiic tartv 

Lk. 20, 42 afrrd; yip AaueU X^a 

Lk. 20, 44 AavelS oh> 

Lk. 21, 7 vbrf ola> ravra itrrtu 

Lk. 21, 8 iroXXoi -ydp fXrfcroiTiu 

Lk. 21,9 Set Tdp roOro yeyiaffai 

Lk. 24, 6 obx iiTTiv Si5e &XXd if/tpOi) 


Hawkins has collected in the second edition of his Horae Synop- 
ticae (pp. 135 fE.), "instances of anacoluthon, or broken or incom- 
plete construction, in Mark, which are altered or avoided in Mat- 
thew or Luke or both." 

The cases where Luke has most plainly improved the structure 
of Mark are: 

Mark 3, 16 f. broliiatv roAs HiStKa, Kal iiri$riKa> oro/ia r$ Xliiuvi JUrpov Kal 'loKu/Sof 


Luke 6, 13 f. Kal bc^ei&fievos iir' aiirwv Si)SeKa . . . 'Slpwva, 6v Kal iiv6ita<ra> Utrpov, 

Kal 'AvSptav k.t.X. 

But even Luke's form does not make a complete sentence. 
Mark S, 23 iropoieoXei airdv woWi \iyt>iv Sri . . . ia-xi-ras ixei, Iva &i6uv hrtS^ tAi 

Xtipas o6tS, Iva aw6^ xal tii<rji. 
Luke 8, 41 f. 7ra/>eKiiX6( airdv dtreSBftv . . . Sti ftryinjp povoyaiiis . . . &irWin]<rKev, 
Mark 11, 32 dXXA ciiro/Mi' . . . i<t>opovPTO riv 6x^ov. 
Luke 20, 6 iav Si tlimnev . . . 6 XoAs iiros KardKtBiura imas. 

Mark 12, 38-40 . . . ™i' BiK&vTuai in UToKats irepnraTeiv Kal iunraapoiK K.r.X., o! (tore- 

aSlovres tAs olxlas. 

Luke 20, 46 f . inserts <t>i)u>bvTii>v before iinraapois, and changes the anacoluthic 
nominative participle to ot KaTtaBlomiv (cf. p. 136 above). 

Mark 3, 8, the repetition of itKfftm ■roKb after iroKi tX^os in vs. 7 is avoided in Luke 

But in two of the cases Luke has not improved Mark: 

Mark 6, 8 f. Iva nzfiiv atpmriv . . . dXXd inroS^eptvovs . . ., Kal pi) tvSlxraireai (,vJ. 

-cniirSe) . 
Luke 9, 3 ptiSiv atpfTt . . . piin dvd dim x'tuvu ^x^"", though somewhat different 

from Mark is equally "abrupt in his mixture of constructions." Cf. Hummer, 

ad he. 

Mark 12, 19 Muiio-^s iypa^ai i)piv Jrt iia> rivm 
Luke 20, 28 agrees, except that Sri is omitted. 

Iva XdjSi). 


Luke occasionally secures a better, as well as a simpler, sentence 
by combining two from Mark: 

Mk. 10, 27 irapd, i.v8pi>irois iSbvarov, dXX' Lk. 18, 27 ri. iSbvaTa irapa &v9piiirois 
06 irapi. Oe^' irivra y&p Jward irapi t$ SwarA. wapi. T<f d&f iffTw 

See also Mk. 3, 34b, 35 = Lk. 8, 21b quoted on p. 81 and Mt. 10, 24 f. = Lk. 6, 40 [Q]- 

Sentences made complete 

The auxiliary verb may be omitted even in classical Greek, but 
in Greek dependent on Semitic thought or writing it is particularly 
easy to omit it, e.g., iyu 6 Beds 'A/SpadM k.t.X., Mark 12, 26 and 
Acts 7, 32 from the Old Testament. For a fuU discussion of this 
omission, see Blass, Grammar 0/ New Testament Greek, § 30, 3. 

In the following cases Luke has apparently corrected his sources 
in this particular: 

Mk. 1, II xal ^vii ix tS>v obpav&v Lk. 3, 22 Kal ^Mniiiv 4{ obpavov ye/ia6ai 

Mt. II, 8 \Soi ol with participle Lk. 7, 25 adds daiv [Q] 

Mk. 5, 9 r( ivoiii. <roi Lk. 8, 30 adds i/mv 

Mk. 6, 15 i\eYov 8n irpajn/Tris Lk. 9, 8 adds iviari] 

Mk. 8, 28 [KiyovTts] Sn elj tSu> irptxtivTuv Lk. 9, 19 adds ivferrij 

Mt. 24, 41 Sio iMfimaai Lk. 17, 35 adds iaovrai. [Q] 

Mk. 10, 27 Swari vapi rif 9c$ Lk. 18, 27 adds kariv 

Mk. 12, 16 rlvoi ij tUdiv oStii xai ^ hn- Lk. 20, 24 rtras lExa clx^va Kai im-ypa^^i' 

Mk. 14,36 ob tI iyii BeKta k.tJk. Lk. 22, 42 /lii rd 6i\ijiii. liov . . . yari(T0a 

The omission of the copula by Luke in 22, 20 is therefore difficult 
to understand, as all the parallels contain it; — 

Luke 22, 20 TOVTO t6 Ttyriipiov 4 Koivil SiaS^icri kr tQ aZ/iarl pov 

I Cor. II, 25 TOVTO t6 woriipMV i Kcuvi) StaBiiKJi brTlv if rif tpQ alpari 

Mark 14, 24 tovt6 ioTiv rd alpi. pou Tjjs SiaBiiKrp 

Matt. 26, 28 TOVTO y&p aTTO) t6 aXpi, lum t^i iiaSiiKip 

Note the addition of the participles in the following cases: 

Mk. 2, 25 i^ilvaaev abris Kal ol tier' ainov Lk. 6, 3 adds ivres 

Mt. 8, 9 ivepuirds tlpi bird iiovalav Lk. 7, 8 adds raa-irdpaios [Q] 

Mt. II, 21 iv aiuaof Kal avoiif peraib- Lk. 10, 13 adds Kod^/icrot [Q] 


Mk. 14, 10 'loMos 'laKapiM, i tU tSiv Lk. 22, 3 'lobSiw . . . ivra U tov &pi- 

S&Sexa Spav tQv SdoSaea 

Mk. IS, 43 'luaii4> . . . ffovXevriis Lk. 23, 50 adds biripxav 

Luke fills out the other parts of sentences where obscurity is 
caused by omissions. Not only are definite subjects supplied, but 



where the subject is already fairly obvious its identification is made 
certain by a pronoun, a participle, or even an article. The use of 
airds di and Kal airdi is especially frequent in Luke. The avoid- 
ance of the indefinite " they " is also secured by the addition of the 
subject. (Cf. p. 165). 

Subject of verb added by Luke : ' 

Mk. X, 32 fbjxpov 

Mk. I, 44 Kal \iya 

Mk. 2, 3 tpxovTai <t)ipovTes 

Mk. 2, 25 \iyu 

Mk. 3, z Kal Traperiipow 

Mk. 3, 4 "Sir/a 

Mt. S, II orav ivaSlauatv k.t.X. 

Mt. II, 18, 19 "Kkymai . . . \iyov(n 

Mk. s, 9 irnipina 

Mk. 5)17 i^p^aiiTo irapaKaXeii' 

Mk. s, 3S ipxovrat 

Mk. s, 41 Kal Kpariivat 

Mk. S, 42 iii(rTr](rav 

Mk. 9, 19 6 Si aroKpiBeh \iya 

Mt. 12, 25 tldCis Si 

Mt. St IS 0*8* Kalovai 

Mk. 10, 48 A ii . . . iKpafa> 

Mk. II, 4 dn-^Xdov xal tipov 

Mk. 12, 3 Sfictpai' Kal 6.-KiffT&Xap 

Mk. 12, 12 4f^rouc 

Mk. 12, 23 Tiros afrrflK hrrai yvvii 

Mk. 13, 29 iyyin iariv 

Mk. 14, 19 flpfoKTo Xu7reiff9ot 

Mk. 14, 3S Kal 

Mk. 15, 47 Wdopouv iroG riffarac 

Subject of infinitive supplied: 

Mk. 4, 4 Ic T$ airelpap 

Mk. 12, 14 IJottu' . . . Sovpai fj 06 

Mk. 13, 7 a« Ycz'ia'dat 

Lk. 4, 40 irivTes iaoi. elxov . . . ijyayov 

Lk. S, 14 KaJ afrrds wapiiyyuXa/ 

Lk. 5, 18 HvSpes <t>ipovT£s 

Lk. 6, 3 6 'IjjffoBs . . . fhrev 

Lk. 6, 7 7rapcTi7povi<ro Si o! ypaiitiarets 

Lk. 6, 9 elTTO' d 'Iijo-oDs 

Lk. 6,22 Srav fiLtr^ffUfftv (ifias ol oyBpuiroL 

. . . Kal bvaSlatiMnv [Q] 
Lk. 7, 33, 34 X47«T« . . . X^-yere ' [Q] 
Lk, 8, 30 iin]pi>Tiiaei> 6 'IijiroCs 
Lk. 8, 37 adds an'av rh irKijOos tt}s Trept- 

xiipov Tuni TepyariivSiv 
Lk. 8, 49 tpxeral Tis 
Lk. 8, 54 a^6s Si Kparfiaas 
Lk. 8, $6 k^iffTijtrav ol 70^615 
Lk. 9, 41 i-TTOKpiBels St 6 'iTjffovs etiro> 
Lk. II, 17 airrds Si dSiis [Q] 
Lk. 8, 16; II, 33 obSels afas [Q] 
Lk. 18, 39 ofrrds Si . . . iKpaiiV 
Lk. 19, 32 &irtK96vTt$ ol iirBTTaKiiii'oi 

Lk. 20, 10 adds yeiapyol (so Matt. 21, 

Lk. 20, 19 ifiinjaav ol ypaiipiaTiis k.t.X. 
Lk. 20, $3 1} yvvii . . . rbios abriov ylve- 

rai ywi) 
Lk. 21, 31 
Lk. 22, 23 
Lk. 22, 41 
Lk. 23, ss 

adds 4 /SairiXcfa roO 9a>9 
Koi airrol ijp^avro k.t.X. 
Kal airSs 
kBcturairro . . . <Ss It49>j tA 

rujua afrroD 

Lk. 8, 5 fe» T$ (Tittlpav aiirbv 

Lk. 20, 22 !f«(rru> 4/xas . . . fioDcac 4 oi^ 

Lk. 21, 9 5et . . . toBto Yev^dac 

' Cf . Wemle, Die synoptische Frage, pp. 19 f . 

» Hamack, Sayings, p. 19: " XtycTe in St. Luke is a natural correction for the in- 
definite \iyovtriv in St. Matthew." See above p. 124. 

Noun supplied for adjective: 

Mt. II, 8 b> juaXaxoi: iiit4>uffntvov 


Lk. 7, 25 in ixaKamXs i/iarlois iiti/utiriit- 
vov [Q] 

Lk. 7, 9 iiKoiaas &i raSra [Q] 
Lk. 7, g Waiiiaafv airbv [Q] 
Lk. 7, 33 io'dfu)' apTov [Q] 
■'^'^- 7i 33 rlvwv olvov [Q] 
Lk.-8, 5 (^TfcTpaL t6v avbpov aiirod 
Lk. 9, 7 fJKOvirev . . . to, yaibiioia, wivra 
Lk. 9, 16 «fiX47ij(re(> abrois 
Lk. 23, 49 bpdaat ravra, ct. verse 48 
Beap'haavTis rd Yc;'i/i«>a 

In other cases Scholten suggests that Luke misunderstood or deliberately corrected 
the absolute use of transitive verbs: 

Object of verb supplied: 

Mt. 8, 10 iiKobaas Si 
Mt. 8, 10 kSaiiiaerev 
Mt. II, 18 iaBtwy 
Mt. II, 18 irlvw 
Mk. 4, 3 trwelpai 
Mk. 6, 14 fJKOixrev 
Mk. 6, 41 c6X67t;o'c;> 
Mk. 15, 40 Bfwpovaai 

Mk. 3, 4 i^ux^" aStaai ij i.iroKT(ivai, 
Mk. 6, 39 irira^ev airdis iixueKivat (v. I. 
-K\t6ijvai,) irAjTos 
Mt. II, 2 wifvfias Sii tS>v itaSiiToiv 

Lk. 6, 9 \l'vxliv aSxrai fj i.iro\iirai 

Lk. 9, 14 elirep . . . KarakXlvaTe aiiToOi 

Lk. 7, 19 irpoaKaSeai/ievos Sio rwds tSk 
HaBrfrar . . . iireit\l/tv [Q] 

The complementary infinitive is added: 

Mt. 24, 48 -xpovl^a pov 6 KOpios Lk. 12, 45 xpovl^a i KbpiM itov ipxarSai, 

More compact sentences 

Luke secures a better and more compact sentence in 21, 4 by 
avoiding the loose apposition of Mark 12, 44, where the appositives 
are even separated by the verb : 

Mk. 12, 44 iriaiTa iaa iXxai ifiaKfV, SXov Lk. 21, 4 iiravra Tdv ffiov if ilxt" iPa\a> 

t6v filov airr^s 
Mk. 4,11 iKflmit Si Tois i^oi 
Mt. 25, 29 Tov Si p,il ixovTos, Kal S Ijc" 

iffiiiafTai da-" airov (cf. Mt. 13, 12; 

Mk. 4, 25 = Lk. 7, 18). 
Cf . also Mark 14, 10 ( = Luke 22, 3), Mark 15, 43 ( = Luke 23, 50), quoted above, p. 149. 

Similarly, where a verb has two adverbial modifiers of place, Luke 
omits one, or otherwise avoids the double adverbial expression: 

Mk. I, 28 Travraxov tU SKij" f^" replxi^pov Lk. 4, 37 ds ir&VTa t6tov t^s irtpix^pov 
Mk. I, 38 dXXoxoO (Is ras ixoiiinas Kta/io- Lk. 4, 43 xal raU iripais vtiKtaiv 

Mk. 1,39 <« rds <Tway<jrfi,s airrav As Lk. 4, 44 tis rds ffui'OTuTds rfls TaXiXoios 

SKiiP Hiv TaKiKalav 

Lk. 8, 10 Tois Si Xotiroti 
Lk. 19, 26 d«-d Si TOV nil txovTOS Kol i txn 
ipB^aerai [Q] 



Mk. 4, S trl t4 verpwSes Svov oiK elxe" Lk. 8, 6 hrl t^c irerpap 

yilv iroXKIiv 

Mk. 4, IS rapi. rilv iS6v Ih-ou airtlpfTat 6 Lk. 8, I2 irapi. t^k Hiv 

Mk. s, I «Js ri ripav ... els ri/v xi>P<i^ Lk. 8, 26 «ls Tiix xtipa" . • • ^'s *<'Tii' 


Mk. S, 19 els riv oIkSv am rpds nils aois Lk. 8, 39 els Tie oUSv aov 

Mk. II, 4 irp4s T^i' fltpoK «£u krl row Lk. 19, 32 has simply KoBin elr&- 

ilujiSSav airroTs 

Mk. 13, 29 iyybs iartv iurl Bipais Lk. 21, 31 in/yis '(fTiv 
Mk. 14, 54 l«s iao) els ti)i' oiXiJc 1 
Mk. 14, 66 xdru &• T^ aiXg j 

Lk. 22, Si 'a' liitrtf T^s oiX^s 

For the alteration of double adverbial expressions of time see the 

Mk. 1, 32 i^los di ytvoiiiinjs, Sre &v i Lk. 4, 40 ibvovros tow ijKUm 


Mk. I, 35 

Mk. 4, 35 

Mk. 10, 30 
Mk. 12, 23 

Mk. 14, 30 
Mk. 14, 43 
Mk. 16, 2 
ToO iiKUni 

vpuit hiwxa Xlai* 

in iKtlvjj rg il/ikpf i^Ias yevo- 

pSv bi r$ Kaipif robrif 

iv T% ivaaTiira Srav ivoffrffl- 

aiiiicpov Tabrjj T% vvktI 
fidis iri. airoS XaXoOi^os 
Xtav irpiat . . . ivaTtCXavros 

Lk. 4, 42 ytmiiiinis Si i/nipas 
Lk. 8, 22 tv iu% Tuv iiiupav 

Lk. 18, 30 b> riff KaipQ Tobrtf 
Lk. 20, 33 ev Tj dyoo-riffei 

Lk. 22, 34 aiinepov 

Lk. 22, 47 ?Tt oiroO XaXoiWos 

Lk. 24, I BpSpou ffoBicK 

Changes in the Order of Words 

Luke comparatively seldom varies the order of words that he found 
in his sources, and the motives for such changes as he makes are 
not always apparent to us and were perhaps not alwajrs clearly de- 
fined in his own mind. He allows himself considerable freedom, and 
pays little regard to regularity. But, if we may judge from certain 
kinds of cases, the changes seem to be usually in the direction of a 
more normal order. 

Such are changes in the relative position of subject, verb, and 
object, e.g.: 

Mk. 12, I iinrtKuva tpBpunros ^ireutrev Lk. 20, 9 ivOpuros i<t>(rremey &/ureXui>a 

The exceptions are frequently for emphasis, e. g. : 
Mk. 8, 35 traurxvp6^atTai airSv Lk. 9, 26 roDroy '■ , . , iraurxtn^o'eTat 

' TovTov, resuming a relative is usually put first in the clause. See vs. 24 and the 
speeches in Acts. Cf. p. 194. 


Mk. 6, 11 kKTiva^are rdy xoSv Lk. 9, s koJ rd» Kowoprdi/ . 

Mk. 9, 7 &Ko6eT€ airov Lk. 9, 35 oiroO 4/co(.e« 

The order verb — subject is perhaps Semitic.' 


. iiroTiviuriiiTe 

A list of instances follows: 

t, 10 Kbpiov . . . TpouKuviiaas 

1, 41 abrov ' ^^ro 

I, 42 dir^Xdcv ij "Kkirpa 

1, 44 (7caur6i' bti^v 
■J., 10 ^lovalav Ixei b ul6s 

2, 19 Kai ctirci' 6 'Ii;(roCs 
9, 7 frivCTO ^uvi} 


9, 18 &a airrb ix^liKmnv 
6,32 olitv b irarrip 
6, 21 iarai 1} xapSla 
S, 25 /mjirori at irapaS^ 
23> 39 /•« Mirre 

9, 42 mpUtirai itiiXos bvuibs 
24, 28 awaxOiiaovTai oi ifrol 

10, 48 hreriiuiiv ainif itoWol 

11, 8 Ta ItiitTLa iffTptatrav 
12,12 Hiv Ttapa^oKiiv iiitai 

12, 13 Tva ahrbv Arfpehutatiiv X6y<{} 
12, 16 TO. Ka/crapos &^6£ot6 

12, 27 oAk itXTiv b 6ebs v&cpwv 

13, 8 ^oi^at ffeuj-fwl K.T.\. 

14, 72 Tp£s ;« iirapv^vD 

14, 63 t£ ?Tt xptlav ixoitev 

15, 2 ixQpciiTiia's' d IleiXaTo: 


The possessive normally follows; 

Mk. 2, 5, 9 d^/evral <rou at d/iaprlat Lk. 

4, 8 irp(W(cw^<ras nbpiiov [Q] 
5) 13 ^'paro airm 

5, 13 4 \iirpa i,ir^\9a' 
S, 14 4ct|ov ireavTJv 

5, 24 4 vibs . . . iiovirlav Sx« 

S, 34 A 54 'IijcroOs tlireK 

9> 3S <^>^ iykvero 

9, 40 tva ^/8dX<tf(ru< aird 

12, 30 i irar^p oIJa' [Q] 

12,34 ij KopSla iarai [Q] 

12, 58 iiJiTOTf KaraaipTi ere [Q] 

13,3s tSvTklu[Q\ 

17,2 Xldos /ivXtxis TCpiKCtTlU 

17, 37 O' 4«Tol hriawaxBiiaovTai [Q] 

18, 39 01 irpoA'yoi'Tes iirerlitay airif 

19, 36 inreffTpiivwov rb. iixkria 

20, 19 tlireii Tijv irapa^oKiiv 

20, 20 Zko iiriX&jSui'Tat airoD X670U ' 
20, 25 dTrMorc rd Kaicrapos 

20, 38 de6s oiiK iaTiv v&cpuv 

21, II aaiTnol , . . i<rovTai 

22, 61 itrapvijirg /it rpls 

22, 71 rt &( ixonev , . . xP^'o*' 

23, 3 b Si IlaX&ros ^ptiiTijirei' 

5, 20, 23 d^lcoi'raf trot al bfiaprlat 

Mt. 8, 8 iiov hrb riiv ariyriv Lk. 7, 6 Jird t^v <rT47))i' /jou [Q] 

Mt. 24, 48 xpovlttt t">v b Kbpios Lk. 12, 45 b KbpiM lum xpovtfei [Q] 

Observe, however, in Ltike 7, 44-50 not only iufituvTcu o4t?s ( am) al itiaprlai 
but also tlarjMbv aov els r^v olxlav and /lov (hrl) rois irdSas. 

Similarly in the position of the numeral adjective Luke's changes 
tend toward the normal order: 

Mk. 6, 38 Sio lx9ias 

Mk. 6, 44 TfVTaKiaxl^ioi S,vSpes 

Lk. 9, 13 lx8ia Sio 

Lk. 9, 14 ivSpa ircxraKiirxiXtoc 

' Wellhausen, Eitdeitung, ist ed., p. 19: "Diese Wortstellung, von der sich bei 
Markus nur wenige Ausnahmen finden, ist semitisch, nicht griechisch." 

* This word may be taken in Mark as possessive genitive depending on preceding 
word, x»pa; but cf. Mark 3, 10 = Luke 6, 19. 

' Similarly Mark 14, 1, 10, 11 = Luke 22, 2, 6. 


Mk. 6, 43 Si^fKa Ko^lvav Lk. 9, 17 k6(I>ivoi SiiSaca 

Mk. 9, S Tpas <rKr)vi.s Lk. 9, 33 aKii)vi.s rpiit 

Mt. 12, 4S iirri irtpa TTveOiiaTa Lk. II, 26 Irepa Trwi/joro . . . ixri [Q] 

Dislike of Barbarous Wokds and Names 

Many passages derived from Mark show Luke's repugnance 
to foreign words, a feeling that accords with the best standards of 
Hellenistic writing. It was because of Luke's omission of &(ravv& 
in 19, 38 that Jerome calls him inter omnes evangelistas Graeci ser- 
monis ervditissimus (Ep. 20, 4, to Pope Damasus). Latin words as 
well as Semitic words were considered barbarous by the cultivated 
Grecian, though under the Empire they were coming into general 

In some cases Luke takes the foreign word from Mark or Q: 

Mk. 5, 9 Xeyiic Lk. 8, 30 Xeyii;' 

Mk. 4, 21 inri t6v fidSiov Lk. II, 33 {nr6 riv iiiSMV (om. syr. sitt. 

Mt. S, IS inri rdv liSSiav LS 1-118-131-209 69 a/.) [Q?] 

Mt. 10, 28 yikyvv Lk. 12, S yifwav [Q] 

Mt. 10, 29 iiraaplov Lk. 12, 6 ia-trapltop Sio [Q] 

Mk. 12, 14-17 Kaitrap Lk. 20, 22-25 Kotcrap 

Sometimes, while retaining the foreign word, he apologizes for it 
by the use of a participle meaning " named " or " called," or by 
opdfiaTi, or some similar expression. 

Thus the participle is inserted in passages taken from Mark: 

Mk. 6, 45; 8, 22 ^ifiaaiShv Lk. 9, 10 vb\ai KaXou/i^i> 'RifiaaiSi. 

Mk. 14, 1 rb jrdffxa "oi Ti £fv/ia Lk. 22, i i) ioprii twv i.ibiUM> 4 'Keroiiinr) 

Mk. n, 10 'loHai 'IcKapiiid Lk. 22, 3 'IoiSea> riv KoKobuevov 'laieooi- 


So also in passages not from Mark, the participle and other forms 
of the verb are used with foreign names, and particularly with 
foreign surnames: 

Luke 2, 4 irb\a> AaveU j^is xaXcTrai 'Brfi'KAit 
Luke 7, 1 1 riXiv icaXov^ivT;!' Natv 
Luke 8, 3 Mapla 4 KaXou/xii>i) MaYJaXijK^ ^ 
Luke 10, 39 ASeX^i) KaXov/iixi; Mapc&M 
Luke 19, 2 iviip bvbitan xaXoijucvos Zaxxatos 

* In Matthew, Mark, and John she is regularly called Mapla (-6.n) 4 KayioKrivii; 
cf. also Luke 24, 10 4 Ma75aXi7i/4 Mapta. 


Acts I, 23 'laaii^) rdv KoXoiiuvov BopffajS/Soi/, 8s iirocXi^ft) 'Mittos 

Acts 4, 36 'luiTij^, 6 iTn.K\jfitls Bopci^os 

Acts 12, 12 'luAvov ToO ixt/caXou/ifcow Mdpicoi; 

Acts 1 2, 25 'ludiTji' tAv 47rwXi)9£j/Ta Mapmv 

Acts 13, I 2u;j«bi' 6 KoKob/ttvos Nlyep 

Acts IS, 22 'loiScai Tdv Ka\oiiJia>ov Bapaa^fiav 

Acts IS, 37 'ii^i-vTiv Tdv KoKoifitvoi/ MApuoy 

Acts 27, 14 avciuos TV<t><aviKds 6 KaXoijuci'os ebpaidiKiav 

Even if the foreign word is omitted or translated by Luke the 
apologetic participle is still retained: 

Mk. 3, 18 Zi/jaiJ-a Tbv Kavavaiov Lk. 6, is t6v HiijMva rbv koKoOiuvov 

Mk. II, I rd Spos tS)v tXaiih' Lk. 19, 29 ri 6pos ri KoXobyxvov i\<u6»> 1 

Mk. 14, 43 'loMos 6 'I(7i£opt£!)Ti7s Lk. 22, 47 6 Xeyijieras 'loiSos 

Mk. IS, 22 Tiv ToKyodav r/nrov 6 kariv Lk. 23, 33 riv rlnrov rhv KoKobiuvov 
luSi\piaive\>6iJtevov Kpavlov Tiiros Kpavlov 

In the following cases, also, the writer is probably introducing a foreign name or 
a Greek equivalent for one: 

Acts 3, 2 Hiv Bvpav Tov Upov Tijv \eyonkviii' 'Qpalav 
Acts 6, 9 Trjs o-u»OTCi)75s rijs Xeyo/iiyTjs AifiepTlva«> 
Acts 8, 10 1} Sivafus tov Seod ^ KoKoviiivJi Mey&Xi; 
Acts 9, II t4» ^i/ii;v Ti)p KoKoviikmiv Ebdeiav 
Acts 10, I (7xc£pi;s t5s (CoXouynejTjs 'IraXucfls 

The use of ovbuart. or (J (g) Sw/io makes the introduction of names 
less abrupt: 

Mk. 2, 14 Xeudv Lk. s, 27 TtK&viiv M/ian Acvcti' 

Mk. IS, 43 'lt>)(rli<t> Lk. 23, 50 Aviip bvbiiwn. '\<a<i1i4> 

Except Matt. 27, 32 and Mark s, 22 the use of 6x6^10x1 is peculiar to Luke among the 
Evangelists, occurring nearly thirty times, and in the majority of cases with the indefi- 
nite ris, either in the order Uptbs ns Avi/ion Zaxaplat (Luke i, s; cf. Luke 10, 38; 16, 20; 
Acts 8, 9; 10, i; 16, i), or in the order di^p tk 'Avavlas ivbuari (Acts S, i; cf Acts 9, 
33; 18, 24), or as Tts naBfiriii . . . bvbfiaTt 'Avavlai (Acts 9, lo; cf. Acts 9, 36; 16,. 
14; 18, 2; 20, 9; 21, 10). Other examples of dviiiaTi. are found in Luke 24, 18; Acts 
5,34; 9,11,12; 11,28; 12,13; 17,34; 18,7; 19,24; 21,10; 27,1; 28,7. A few 
Greek names are included in this list as Aivkas, Acts 9, 33; Tt/uiflMs, Acts 16, i; 
Aij/j^rpios, Acts 19, 24; EUruxos, Acts 20, 9, but most of them are Latin or Semitic. 

Possibly the ns itself has a certain apologetic force, corresponding to the Latin 
quidam, just as 4 KaXoir/icvos, etc. correspond to the Latin apologetic qui dicitur. t« 
is used alone with foreign names in Luke 23, 26 (= Mark is, 21); Acts 9, 43; 10, 6 
(xapA Tin 'Sliuavi Pvpatl); Acts 19, 14 (Sceva); 21, 16 (Mnason); 22, 12 (Ananias); 
24, I (Tertullus). 

* So Luke 21, 37; Acts i, 12. From Luke 22, 39 = Mark 14, 32 it seems likely 
that Luke understood this to be the translation of Gethsemane. 


In this connection should be compared the verbless clause tf (g) 
6vofia used by Luke with foreign names in a similar way: 

Luke I, 26 iriXiK ... 5 ivoita Nofoptr 

Luke I, 27 ivSpl $ 6vona 'Ia<rii<t> 

Luke 2, 25 livBpuTos . . . v 6vona Svpte&v 

Luke 8, 41 iviip i 6voiia 'Ii«pos (cf. Mark S> 22 M/iart 'lieipos) 

Luke 24, 13 Kiiiniv ... 2 Sra/ia 'E/i/tao6s 

Acts 13, 6 <l/tvSoTpo<t>i]rriv 'lovdaiov $ 8i<a/ia BopiijffoSs 

In addition to the apologetic expressions mentioned many of the 
examples already cited still further soften the use of foreign words 
by adding the common or class noun, like city, feast, man, woman. 

Note also the explanatory phrase added in the following cases: 

Mk. 1, 21 Ka<t>apvaoi/ii (first occurrence Lk. 4, 31 Kait>apvaoiii jriXtv rfit ToXi- 

in Mark) \alas 

Mk. IS, 43 'ApiiioSalas Lk. 23, 51 'ApiiiaBalas jriXtus tuv 'Iou- 

Mk. 9, 4 'HKtlas aiiv 'M.uvatt Lk. 9, 30 ficSpes ibo . . . olrives ?<ro» 

Muua^s Kal 'HXctas 
Lk. 9, SO ol iiaBrjTal 'UlkuPos Kal 'Iwii/i^s 

In the following cases Luke omits the barbarous words: 

Mk. 3, 17 Boav7]pyis Lk. 6, 14 omits 

Mk. 10, 46 i vlis Tinalov BapHnaun Lk. 18, 3s omits 

Mk. II, 10 ixravvi. Lk. 19, 38 omits 

Mk. 12, 42 6 brriv KoSp&vTrii Lk. 21, 2 omits 

Mk. 14, 32 T^aiinartL Lk. 22, 39 r6 Spos tuv iXeuuK 

Mk. 14, 36 ifiPa 6 irat'lip Lk. 22, 42 virep 

Mk. 14, 43 'loiSas i 'I<TKapii)Tiis Lk. 22, 47 6 Xeyi/io'os 'loiSa: 

Mk. IS, 22 ToKyoSav Lk. 23, 33 omits 

Mk. IS, 34 iXul, IXuf, Xa;ud aa^axBavel Lk. 23, 45 omits 
See also p. 128. 

In other instances a foreign word is translated: 

Mk. 2, 45. Kpd/3/3aT0i> (cf . p. 46) Lk. s, i8ff. k\ivI£iov, Kkbnj 

Mk. 3, 18 rAy Kavavaiov Lk, 6, 15 rdv KatMi/uvov ZiiXuHiv 

Mk. 4, IS d aaravas Lk. 8, 12 d itd/SoXos > 

Mk. 4, 21 tAv ii6Su>v Lk. 8, 16 o-icciei ' 

Mk. s, 41 raXeidd, K06/1 Lk. 8, S4 4 irats, hftlpov 

Mk. 6, 8 xoXKif ' Lk. 9, 3 dpyipiov 

Mk. 12, 41 x<>^k6k' Lk. 21, I rd jflpa 

^ So in Mark 1, 13 we read Teipa^6ittvos inrd rod aarava, in Luke 4, 2 T6(pa{'d;i€i>ot 
ivi ToD 8ta;8dXou. But perhaps in this case Luke is following Q rather than correcting 
Mark, for the section evidently was in Q also, and at Matt. 4, i we read irapa(r0^i'ai 
inri toB iia/96Xot>. ' See also Luke 11, 33 above, p. 1S4. 

' x<>Xk6s for "money" is a "vulgar" (Pollux 9, 92) if not a foreign (Latin aes) idiom. 



Mt. Si 26 KoSpdi'Tiji' ^ 

Mk. 9, S (io/S/Set 

Mk. 10, SI fiaPPomel (»J. nipie pa0Pel) 

Mk. 12, 14 Krjvaov 

Mk. IS, IS </>po7eXXci(ros 

Mk. IS) 39 * KevTvpUcv 

Lk. 12, S9 Xeirric [Q] 

Lk. 9, 33 ^itio-tAto 

Lk. 18, 41 ii(pie 

Lk. 20, 22 <l>6pov 

Cf. Lk. 23, 16, 22 vaiStlxras 

Lk. 23, 47 6 iKaTovrdpxTIt 

In the following cases Luke avoids repeating a foreign word by 
a circumlocution when it is referred to for the second time : 

Luke 8, 3S riv ivSpuneov tuj) oS tA iaifiivia il^XSov (cf. Mark 5, 15 riv dtuiionj^Sitevov 
. . . rhv itrxt"^!^ '■iy XeytfflKO.) 

Luke 23, 3S riv dii, arlunv icol 0Aroi' ^fffKimknov tU ^vKoKiiv, tv irovvTo (cf. Mark 15, 
IS t6i> Bapa/3/3Si'). 

Luke 24, 28 Hiv K&iapi oS impebovTO (i. e. "Eititaobs verse 13.). 

So Luke Si 25 &pas i4> ^ Kor^aro (cf. Mark 2, 12 &pat riv Kpiffffarov and especially 
Mark 2, 4 rdv Kpififiarov Sttov 6 wapaKvnicis KarixaTO for which Luke writes ($, 19) 
airrit' <rAv r^) xXiviSlif. See above, p. is6). 

With regard to &nriv Luke's practice varies, but he seems often 
to change or omit it. 

He changes it: 
Mk. 9, I i/iilv \irfu iiitv 
Mt. 23, 36 A/iilv Xfeyo) ifuv 
Mt. 24, 47 Am^" Xfya i/uv 
Mk. 12, 43 &p.ilv Xi-yo) i^i'' 

It is omitted in: 
Mt. 8, 10 iiiiiv \irfo> iixiv 
Mt. II, II i.p,iiv XiTO) biiiv 
Mt. 10, IS A/iiy X^TU iiiiv 
Mt. 13, 17 A/i^" [tAp] Xfeyw fi^iK 
Mt. s, 26 A/j^ Xtyo) o-ot 
Mt. 2S, 12 A/t'ii' X47U ijBti' 
Mt. 18, 13 Ap^K Xiyw iiitv 
Mk. 14, 25 Ap^i* ')>iyo> ifiiv 
Mk. 14, 18 Ap^y X4yw ipli' 
Mk. 14, 30 Ap^K Xiyoi <roi 

But retained in: 
Mk. 10, IS Ap^i- X4t« ipic 
Mk. 10, 29 Ap^i* X47W ipw 
Mk. 13, 30 ApV X^TCtf ipiK 

'Afiiiv occurs also in Luke 4, 24; 12, 

Lk. 9, 27 X^u ii ipZi' AXi)9cos 
Lk. II, 51 val \iya iiilv [Q] 
Lk. 12, 44 AXi;9a)s X^tu i/iiv [Q] 
Lk. 21, 3 i,\iiOSi5 X^u ipii* 

Lk. 7, 9 \iya ip.1v [Q] 
Lk. 7, 28 X^Tw ipiK [Q] 
Lk. 10, 12 \kya Si ipto [Q] 
Lk. 10, 24 X4tw yi.p ipuv [Q] 
Lk. 12, S9 X47£i) ffot [Q] 
Lk. 13, 2S omits [Q] 
Lk. IS, 7 X47U fip'*" [Q] 
Lk. 22, 18 X^u 7Ap 6piv 
Lk. 22, 21 omits 
Lk. 22, 34 X^To) (Toi 

Lk. 18, 17 ApiJ;' \tya dp,iv 
Lk. 18, 29 ApiiK X47C1) AptK 
Lk. 2ij 32 Ap^v X47U ipZi* 
37; 23, 43, but not in Acts. 

The use of difiijv in the Synoptic Gospels is shown by the following 
table (excluding doubtful readings): 

1 KoSpAiTijs Mark 12, 42 is omitted by Luke 21, 2 as noted above. 


Matt. Mark Luke 

In matter derived from Mark: 







In matter derived from Q 


In peculiar matter 



Total occurrences 







Luke's treatment of verbs, compared with that of Mark, shows 
several distinct tendencies both in points of idiom and grammar and 
in vocabulary. 

He avoids the historical present, so frequent in Mark, replacing it 
by an aorist of the same or similar verb. 

He frequently replaces the imperfect by the aorist. 

He changes Mark's periphrastic constructions with apxonai into 
simple verbs. 

He frequently introduces periphrastic constructions with frfh/eTo, 
especially in the introductions to pericopes, where his recasting of 
Mark is most free. 

Historical present 

It is unnecessary here to repeat the careful table of 151 historic 
presents in Mark given by Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 114 
ff., with their parallels in Matthew and Luke. 

In 31 cases 'Kiyei or }ieyov(Ti of Mark becomes in Luke elirev, 
elirov (-av), and in a few others the participle or another verb of 
saying is used.* 

In 4 cases 'ipx^r ai, ipxovrai become ?i\9€v, ^\Bav; twice the par- 
ticiple is used; and once Luke has himself an historical present (8, 
49 = Mark 5, 35). 

For an historical present, Luke substitutes an imperfect: 

Mk. 5, 23 irapoKaXti (v.l. wapaci.\a) Lk. 8, 41 iraptK&Xa 

* In view of these instances of diuV added by Matthew to Mark (Matt. 19, 23; 24, 
2) the alternative should be left open in some of the nine Q passages above that Mat- 
thew has added Am^k to the source. So Hamack, Sayings, pp. 26, 57, etc. 

' Xi7« Luke 20, 42 for dinv Mark 12, 36 is an apparent reversal of Luke's custom. 
Here, however, the verb is used to introduce a scripture quotation. Matt. 22, 43 also 
has the present UaXti . . . 'Kiyav). Cf. p. 168. 


an aorist: 

Mk. II, I 477ifou<rt Lk. 19, 29 tjyyurev 

Mk. II, I iiroareXXet Lk. 19, 27 irhTTuXtv 

Mk. 12, 13 ArtrnTiWovinv Lk. 20, 20 AirbTTa\av 

Mk. 14, 13 diro<rT4XX«i Lk. 22, 8 i.TriaTeiXfV 

Mk. 14, 37 tiplirKa Lk. 22, 45 cvpev 

Mk. IS, 24 aTavpoviTiv Lk. 23, 33 tarabpuaav 

a participle : 

Mk. s, 22 «-JirT« Lk. 8, 41 vfaiiv 

Mk. 9, 2 ira/>aXaM3d;'6i Lk. 9, 28 tcapoKafiiiv 

Mk. II, 4 XioiOTi Lk. 19, 33 Xu6i'T«i' 

Mk. IS, 24 dtafifpll^ovTcu Lk. 23, 34 Siaiupif6iifvoi 

In the lemaimng cases either Luke has no parallel at all, or the verb as well as the 
form is changed. 

In Q, in which there was comparatively little narrative, the his- 
torical present was consequently infrequent; but the following 
parallels are quite in accord with Luke's treatment of Mark: 

Mt. 4, 8 TrapaXa/iiSdva Lk. 4, s ivayayiiv [Q] 

Mt. 4, 8 deUymtv Lk. 4, 5 Uaiev [Q] 

Mt. 4, 10 Xiya Lk. 4, 8 ttTtv [Q] 

Mt. 4, S iropoXa/ijSowt Lk. 4, 9 iivaTeK [Q] 

Mt. 4, 6 Xc7« Lk. 4, 9 elirei' [Q] 

Mt. 8, 20 Xh-a Lk. 9, 58 elTrec [Q] 

Mt. 8, 22 X«7« Lk. 9, S9j 60 clirev [Q] 

It can hardly be doubted that in these cases a present tense stood in the original 
source which has been retained by Matthew but avoided by Luke. 

The individual and stylistic character of the historical present is 
shown by the statistics for epxerai, 'ipxovrai in the Greek Bible 
collected by Hawkins, Eorae SynopHcae, p. 28. These historical 
presents occur in Matt. 3 times, Mark, 24 times, Luke, once, not 
at all in Acts, in John 16 times. In LXX they occur only 27 
times of which 26 are in the four books of Kings. Of the historical 
present in general Hawkins says (p. 114): " It appears from the 
LXX that the historic present was by no means common in Hel- 
lenistic Greek. . . . The only books besides Mark in which this 
usage is common are Job in the Old Testament and John in the New 
Testament. But it occurs frequently in Josephus." 

See further J. H. Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek, I, 
p. 121, and the second edition of Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 
213 f. 


Imperfect and aorist 
The imperfects t\eyev {-ov), i-n-qpiiTa {-oiv) are frequently cor- 
rected by Luke to the aorist; 

Mk. 2, 24 fkeyov Lk. 6, 2 flvov 

Mk. 4, 2 i\eytv Lk. 8, 4 tlira> 

Mk. s, 30 SXeYeK Lk. 8, 45 «Iiro' 

Mk. 6, 16 aeva* Lk. 9, 9 fl'ra> 

Mk. 6, 3S tKe^ov Lk. 9, 12 elTroi' 

Mk. 9, 31 tKiytv Lk. 9, 43 tlvtv 

Mk. II, 5 ?Xe7oi' Lk. 19, 33 elxox 

Mk. II, 28 i\fyov Lk. 20, ^ tXieav 

Mk. 12, 35 iXeyo' Lk. 20, 41 tlirei' 

Mk. IS, 14 i'Kfja' Lk. 23, 22 tlirs' 

Mk. S, 9 iinj/iKiro Lk. 8, 30 brnpimiafv 

Mk. 8, 27 *»-i;p(i>TO Lk. 9, 18 'anipixrriaai 

Mk. 8, 29 iwTipiyra Lk. 9, 20 tlTO" 

Mk. 10, 17 hrtipiiTa Lk. 18, 18 ixiipimiaai 

Mk. 12, 18 irnipdiTuv Lk. 20, 27 hrtipin-riaav 

Mk. 13, 3 imjpiiTa Lk. 21, 7 hnipirriiiTav 

But aside from these instances, where the imperfect was used by 
Mark to introduce a single and definite saying, Luke's avoidance of 
the imperfect is not noteworthy. Hamack (Sayings of Jesus, pp. 44 f, 
107) has spoken of the imperfect as especially characteristic of Luke, 
but this also is poorly supported by a comparison with Mark. The 
clear cases of intentional change of tense in either direction are few. 
In most cases the verb as well as the tense are changed. Li many 
cases the manuscript readings are divided, and in several the agree- 
ment of Matthew with Luke makes it uncertain what form Mark 
had when used by those evangelists. 

The aorist takes the place of the imperfect in the following cases: 

Mk. 4, 8 iSlSov Kaptrbv Lk. 8, 8 kiroliiira> xapirdv 

Mk. S, 13 iirvlyovTo Lk. 8, 33 kveirvlyri 

Mk. 6, 7 aUou Lk. 9, 1 UwKtv 

Mk. 12, 12 iiiiTomi Lk.20, 19 t^iiniaav (t). /. if^ow) 

Mk. 12, 41 Wf&pa Lk. 21, I tXStv 

Mk. 14, 72 iKKaitv Lk. 22, 62 iKKamtv (= Matt. 26, 75) 

Mk. IS, 47 iStitpow Lk. 23, s$ WtkaavTo 

At Mark 9, 38 the (conative) imperfect boMmnai is read by NBDL et al., and also in 
Luke 9, 49 by NBL el al. A number of mss. read the aorist in both places; so AC and 
most minuscules. Westcott and Hort give the imperfect in both places. Tischendorf 
(8th ed., like D) reads the imperfect in Mark and the aorist in Luke, but says in refer- 
ence to Luke " vix certo definiri potest utrum ipse scripserit." 


Of the converse procedure the evidence is more scanty and un- 
satisfactory. There are two possible exceptions to the general 
avoidance of ^eytv by Luke, viz., 

Mt. 3, 7 (lirtu Lk. 3, 7 SXey*.' [Q?] 

Mk. 8, 34 thev Lk. g, 23 fKeyo' jrpis wimat 

In the following cases the uncertainty speaks for itself: 

Mt. 4, X iviixBti Lk. 4, i ijyero [Q] 

Mk. 1, 28 iiijMer Lk. 4, 37 iiiTToptitTo 

Mk. I, 34 WepiiraxTO' Lk. 4, 40 IflepiireueK (BDWo/.: -6i«r«i< a/.) 

Mk. 2, 14 iiKoXoWriatv Lk. s, 28 i}ko\oW« (= Matt, g, g, KD) 

Mk. 3, 6 crviiPobXiov inrolitaav Lk. 6, 11 iicXdXow 

Mk. 3, 10 WtpAiremei/ Lk. 6, 18 WepairtiovTO 

Mk. II, 8 ferrpajiTai' Lk. ig, 36 inrtaTp&vmov (ct. Matt. 21, 

8b icTTpiivvvov BC e/ a2.) 

Mk. 14, 54 iitmhsidriafv Lk. 22, 54 ijKoKobea. (= Matt. 26, 58) 

The agieement of Matthew and Luke against Mark in three of these cases makes it 
probable that Mark itself had the imperfect there, and some mss. of Mark still preserve 

Thus in Mark 2, 14 (and Matt, g, g) riKoXoiSjia-a' is read in nearly all mss., while in 
Luke s, 28 riKoKot^a apparently takes its place. Yet it is probable that either we 
should read iixoKobBiiaev in the latter passage with NAC and nearly all the other mss. 
and versions, or else in Mark iimKoWa should be restored on the authority of ^xoXoMci 
in ND r 21 2og in Matt. 9, 9; of C i 258 in Mark 2, 14; and of BDLH 69 in Luke 5, 28. 

Similarly, the aorist iarpaaav in Mark 11, 8 falls under suspicion because of the 
irea-Tp&vpvov of Luke 19, 36. But in Mark 11, 8 the imperfect is still found in D 
syr. sin. al, and was apparently read by Matt, who fiist (21, 8a) changes it to iaTpaxrav 
and then repeats in the form tarpiniwov (21, 8b, where only KD read iaTpuxrav). 

In Matthew the imperfect is infrequent (Hawkins, Horae Synop- 
ticae, 2d edit., p. 51). Probably is has been omitted by Matthew 
from Q (as often from Mark) rather than added to Q by Luke. But 
it is at least as frequent in Mark as in the parts of Luke derived 
from Mark. As we have seen, it rarely displaces an aorist. Luke 
in his revision of Mark introduces it mainly in two cases: 

1. In resolution of result clauses. See Luke 4, 36; 5, 26; 6, 19; 
8, 23.' 

2. In place of the analytical imperfect, 

Mk. g, 4 ^aav mn/XaXouvTa Lk. g, 30 avve\&\ovv 

Mk. 10, 32 ijv vpoiyuv abrobs Cf. Lk. ig, 28 inropebero tiiirpoaOai 

Mk. 14, S4 fjv avvKnSiiiuvm Lk. 22, 55 bei^TO 

Mk. IS, 43 ^f 5rpo<r4«x4M«'os Lk. 23, 51 Tpo<rtSixfTO 

> Quoted above, p. 138. 


These cases of the removal of the analytic imperfect (and there 
are others less distinct) are especially noteworthy, as the analytic 
imperfect is undoubtedly a favorite of Luke, and yet I can j5nd no 
good cases to quote where a simple verb in Mark is analyzed by 
Luke into its periphrastic form; nor can I find in the Q passages 
any support for the statement of Harnack in regard to them (Say- 
ings, p. 39), that Luke " multiplies the instances where fjv is used in 
construction with the participle." 

According to Allen (St. Matthew, pp. xxi f., xxxvii), the construc- 
tion of fip^aro, fjp^avTo with the infinitive occurs in Matthew 12 
times, in Mark 26, in Luke 27. But only two of the instances in 
Luke are taken over from Mark, viz. 

Mk. II, 15 jjplaro ixfiiXKetv Lk. 19, 45 {jp^aro ixPiXKeiv 

Mk. 1 2, I tjp^aTO . . . XaXeif Lk. 20, 9 Ijp^aTO Xiyeiv 

One case is parallel to Matt., 

Mt. II, 7 ^p^aro . . . \ty(ip Lk. 7, 24 ^p^aro Mytiv [Q] 


Mt. 24, 49 Kal ipitiTai Hrrrav Lk. 1 2, 45 xal tp^ai Tinrrav [Q] 

In the other 24 cases in Mark (see list in Allen, l.c.) Luke either 
has no parallel or substitutes a simple verb, e.g. 

Mk. Si 17 fipiavTo rapaKoKtiv Lk. 8, 37 iipin-Tiiraji 

Mk. S, 20 ^piaro Kiipicrativ (cf. 1, 45) Lk. 8, 39 icripiaaav 

Mk. 6, 7 (jpiaro iiroiTTiWav Lk. 9, 2 &iri(rTa\ev 

Mk. 6, 34 tip^aro SiS&iTKav Lk. 9, II k\&\ei 

Mk. 8, 31 ijpiaTO SiSicrxeiv Lk. 9, 22 diri)v 

Mk. 10, 28 iJpfoTo Xiyfiv Lk. 18, 28 ehev 

Mk. 10, 32 ijp^aTO \iy(iv Lk. 18, 31 (lirev 

Mk. 10, 47 ijp^aTO Kp&^av xai X47«u' Lk. 18, 38 tfi&qircv Xiyuv 

Mk. 13, S ijpiaTO \iyav Lk. 21, 8 tlirtv 

In these cases he has added the construction to Mark : 
Mk. 2, 6 ijaay St . . . SiaXoyiiStuvoi Lk. 5, 21 ko! i^p^tu^o Sia\oyl(er0iu 

Mk. IS, 3 icai KaTriy6povy airov Lk. 23, 2 4ip|aiT0 Si KonrYoptiy oiroO 

The use of apxofxai. with infinitive in reference to future time is 
found outside of Luke only at Matt. 24, 49, but in Luke it is some- 
what common (3, 8; 13, 25, 26; 14, 9; 23, 30). the first case is in 
a Q passage, thus, 

Matt. 3, 9 liii S6i7,T( Uyeiv Lk. 3, 8 /xi) «pf7,<re« Uytiv [Q] 


and it is doubtful whether the ni) Apj^qaOe is original (so Dalman, 
Wemle, J..H. Moulton) or substituted by Luke. See Hamack, 
Sayings, p. 2 and footnote. Peculiarly Lukan is the phrase apxaixai 
iird found besides in [John] 8, 9; Matt. 20, 8. 

Other changes of tense 

Luke makes a number of other changes in tense that do not really 
change the time of the action. In some cases his reasons can be 

More exact statement of future time: 
Mk. 9, 31 TapaSlSoToi Lk. 9, 44 MiXX« jropa8Mo<r9ot (= Matt. 

17, 22) 
Substitution of aorist for perfect (if we assume with most editors that the per- 
fects are original with Mark in spite of limited attestation in MSS.): 
Mk. 10, 28 riKoXovSiiKaiiev BCDW Lk. i8, 28 ijiuiXoveiiaaiuv 

Mk. II, 2 KfK&diKev ADX Lk. 19, 30 bciSmv 

Mk. II, 17 TTfxmijKOTf BLD Orig. Lk. 19, 46 irafli<rare 

Mk. 12, 43 fik0\-nKev EFX Lk. 21, 3 «/SoW 

Mk. IS, 47 TWaTM (v.l.) Lk. 23, SS trWr, 

Substitution of pluperfect for aorist: 
Mk. 9, 9 a tUov Lk. 9, 36 wv UipaKav 

Mk. 14, 16 KoBiK flirfv Lk. 22, 13 nofltis tlpfixa 

The perfect of ipxo/iai is used by Luke instead of the aorist.' 
Mk. 2, 17 i\dov Lk. s, 32 a^XuSo 

Mt. II, 7, 8, 9 il^XSore Lk. 7, 24, 25, 26 {|eXj;XMaT6 (butc^^X- 

San is read in KA (except vs. 26) 

BDW) [Q] 
Mt. II, 18, 19 v>^a> Lk. 7, 33, 34 iX^XvdevlQ] 

Mk. 5, 30 iit\0ovirav Cf. Lk. 8, 46 ifeXijXueuIov 

Mk. 14, 48 *{4X9o« Lk. 22, s 2 4ftXijAWo« (but NBDL al. 

read ii^Xdarc) 

The following changes of tense in other moods than the indicative 
aflect not the time but the form of activity implied in the verb: 

Mk. s, 36 irlcmvc (cf. Mk. 1, 15) Lk. 8, 50 irUmvaov (cf. Acts 16, 31) 

Mt. 10, 28 /*)) <t>oPet(ref Lk. 12, 4 fiii <tx)Pifii}Tt^ [Q] 

Mk. 10, 13 Iva i^Tai Lk. 18, 15 tva iTTTijxoi 

Mk. 12, 34 hrepuTvirai Lk. 20, 40 hrfparSv 

' With some writers, for example, the author of the Revelation {pace the refine- 
ments of grammarians) the use of the perfects of certain verbs seems to be mainly a 
matter of personal taste. 

• "mi) <t>oPifiriTf is more elegant than pi} ^c^citr^e." — Hamack, Sayings, p. 83, but 
see J. H. Moulton, Grammar, I, 122 ff. 


Mk. IS, 13) 14 arabprnrov . . . araipaaov Lk. 23, 2i araipov, vraipou 

Mt. S, 12 xalpere Lk. 6, 23 x^pijre [Q] 

Mt. s, 42 SSs Lk. 6, 30 dlSov [Q] 

Mt. 6, II S6s Lk. II, 3 SISov [Q] 

Mt. 24, 4S iowai Lk. 1 2, 42 diSSyai [Q] 

In the following cases there is simply a choice of forms: 
Mt. 7, 7 f. iroiYtio-eroi (6m) Lk. 11, 9 f. 6.i'oix6'fl<'ercu (bis) 

Mk. 2, 4 irpotrtvhfKat • Lk. S, 18 elo-eveyKelx * 

Mt. 18, 1$ d/jopT^ffB (istAoristi8"late." Lk. 17, 3 i/iAprD [QI 

See Veitch.) 
Mt. 23,37 ferKrucoYOYetcCct.J.H.MouI- Lk. 13, 34 knawiiai (not classical, See 

ton, Grammar, II, 10) Rutherford, Pkrynichus, 252) [Q] 

Mt. II, 21 *7iw)iT0 Lk. 10, 13 iyevifitiaav tiBX)LS 13 3369 

(Hellenistic, see Blass, New Testament 
Grammar, § 20) [Q] 

Changes in Voice and Number * 

Luke shows considerable freedom in the use of the passive. 
Especially frequent is the future passive, which apparently gave the 
author no offence because of its length, indeed in iLvrifierpriBriaeTai, 
(6, 38) and iinavvaxOriffovTai (17, 37) he seems to have still further 
lengthened by prefixes the future passives of his source (cf. nerprj- 
dTifferai Mark 4, 24, Matt. 7, i ; awaxOwovrai,, Matt. 24, 28) ; and 
in passages peculiar to Luke we have such long forms as iiravaira- 
ijfferai (10, 6); &<l>aipedri(TeT ai (10, 42); 6.vTairododri(TeTai (14, 14); 
avvffKaaBiiaovTai. (20, 18); alxMttXwr«r5»j(ro>'Tai (21, 24). 

But in his parallels to Matt, and Mark, Luke's preference for the 
future passive is especially striking. 

Mk. 2, 22 bcxiiTM NACL (= Mt. 9, 17) Lk. s, 37 4KXi*'5«rai 

Mt. 23, 36 ij^ti tirl Lk. II, 51 biiTirrfiiiirfTai [Q] 

Mt. 10, 27 elTTore . . . xripi^are Lk. 12, 3 ixmoBiiaeTaL . . . KtjpvxHvfriu 


Mt. 10, 33 iipviiaoiuu Lk. 12, 9 iTapinfiiiirerai [Q] 

Mt. 10, 3S ijXSov Sixturai Lk. 12, 53 SiaiupurOiiaovTai [Q] 

Mk. 9, so ipriaere Lk. 14, 34 iprveiiafTai 

'■ Blass, Grammar, § 21. i, seems to overlook this form, supported by NBL al., when 
he says of infinitives of <i>ipu, that only i Pet. 2, s has (ivfvkyKai.. 

^ In spite of this form and tlaivky Koxnv in the next verse, and €la(vtrfK-o% in 11, 4 
(= Matt. 6, 13) and irpwrkveyKf in s, 14 (= Mark i, 44) and probably (so WH) 
vapiveyKf in 22, 42 (= Mark 14, 36), Hamack {Sayings, p. 69) remarks, " It is, more- 
over, noteworthy that neither peyKov nor any of its derivatives is found in St. Luke's 
gospel." First aorist forms of ^pw are found at Luke is, 22; 23, 14. 

' For changes in person see pp. 124 fif. 


Mt. 24, 40, 41 Apteral (his), n-apaXoM- Lk- 17, 34, 3S> [36] 4*«fti«Toi {bis), 

/SAvcToi (bis) 7rapoX))<^ii«roi (6m) [Q] 

^l'' l°i 33j 34 iropa«<!)<rowo' Lk. 18, 32 irapaSodiifftTai 

invaL^omiv iitiraix(lil<reTai 

ilivHmoviiai iffpur&iitriTai, 


Mk. 13, 2 oi m4 4*^8 Lk. 21, 6 obK A0«eii«Tot 

ofi m4 KOToXueg o4 icaraXv04(rcTai 

Mk. 13, 12 TapaSima Lk. 21, 16 TrapaSMiafaSf 

In some cases Luke's passive avoids an indefinite or ambiguous 
" they " in Mark.' 

Mk. 3, 32 \iymKnv Lk. 8, 20 i.-infyy&^-i\ aiirif 

Mk. 6, 14 «X«7o»' (vj. -&) Lk. 9, 7 XiyarBai 6ir6 rivuv (cf. p. 97) 

Mk. 6, 43 j£oJ ^pav Lk. 9, 17 Kal jjpftj 

Mk. 9, 8 elSov Lk. 9, 36 eipjftj 

Mk. 14, 12 rd 7rA<rxa Iffuov Lk. 22, 7 Ua eiitaBai ri r6urxa 

In others the passive avoids a change of subject in Mark, e.g. 

Mk. 4, 18 ovTol tUriv o2 . . . Axoio-ovrct Lk. 8, 14 ovrol fUriii ol {umtmaiTes, Kol inri 
19 KcU ai pipipvai . . . mnnmlyaimi lupinvuv . . . avmrvlyovrat 

rdy X6t'oi' 

Other changes of voice: 

Mk. 3, 2 vaperiipovi) (AC*DA al. -cvmo) Lk. 6, 7 TrapertipovvTo 

"The middle is more frequent" (Swete on Mark 3, 2). Luke uses it again at 14, i 

but at 20, 20 uses the active. 

Mt. 24, 38 yapi^ovres Lk. 17, 27 kyapliovTo[Q\ 

Mk. 10, 20 i<t>v\c^i.priv (AD al. -$a) Lk. 18, 21 ^vXa^a (so Matt. 19, 20) 

The active is classical, see Gould, ad he. The middle in this sense is foreign to Greek 

writers but common in LXX. 

Mk. 10, 49 aria Lk. 18, 40 OToSfls 

The form o-rodeCs is a favorite with Luke. 

Instead of Mark's plural for Jesus and his companions, Luke uses 
the singular, which at once focuses attention on the chief actor 
(Jesus) and avoids the indefinite "they" (cf. p. 150). 

Mk. i, 21 fiawopeiovTai. Lk. 4, 31 KOT^Xeev 

Mk. I, 29 i^eSBSvres ^\6ov (vJ. see be- Lk. 4, 38 AvaaTis . . . ila^\6a/ 


Mk. s, 38 ipxovrax «£$ rbv oXkov Lk. 8, 51 d^iai As ripi oUlav (cf. Mk. s, 

39, 40). 

Mk. 6, 32 iirrpiBoj' Lk. 9, 10 inrex<i>PW^ 

1 Cf. the addition of the subject for similar reasons in cases mentioned on p. 150, 
and the substitution of the passive for the indefinite pronoun. 
Mk. 13, S ^XixCTe pil T« ipas irX<w4<rn Lk. 21, 8 P\iirere pi) rXavrfiirre 



Mk. 10, 46 ipxoPTOt els 1tpaxi> 
Mk. II, I kyyl^omi 
Mk. 14, 26 ^^Xdov eU t6 Spos 
Mk. 14, 32 ipxocToi «£s x<«>p'o»' 

Lk. 18, 3S ^ T^ irYifeu' airrdv ds 'I. 

Lk. 19, 29 ^Ywo' 

Lk. 22, 39 i^eK8i>v hroptWri 

Lk. 22, 40 yaiSiiam kwl rod T&irov 

The Mss. of Mark show a similar variation between the singular and plural in certain 
passages. Perhaps the scribes of Mark felt the same need of correcting to the singular 
that Luke did. Note the following: 

Mark i, 29 IfeXeiirts flXSoy, KAC<rf. min. vers. 

iie\ei)v ^XflcK, BDWSo/. f g* arm. aeth. 
Mark 9, 14 B^bvra elSov KBLWA k arm. 

IXdciiv eUs' ACD ol. min. latt. syr. me. go. 
Mark 9, 33 ^Xflov NBDWo/. pesh. vuJg. 

ipiBev ACLal. min. 
Mark 11, 19 iieropeiovTo ABWA al. c d syr. pesh. arm. 

i^twopfteTo KCD al. min. latt. syr. sin. me. go. 

Compound Verbs 

Luke's changes in Mark indicate the same preference for com- 
povind verbs that is revealed both by a comparison of the passages 
derived from Q and by the general ratio of simple to compound 

Mk. I, 29 fj\eov 

Mk. I, 37 f)7ToO<ro' 

Mt. 7, I = Mk. 4, 24 iierpifiiiaeTai 

Mt. 15, 14 vtaoui/rai 

Mk. 4, S imaev 

Mk. s, 7 KpAfos 

Mk. s, 13 iirHyovTo 

Mk. 5, 14 iiXSov 

Mk. S, 27 ^XSoDiro 

Mk. 6, 20 ijvSpa (v.l.) 

Mk. 9, 36 Xa/Siliv 

Mt. II, 25 litpui^os 

Mt. 22, 35 vap&l^av 

Mt. 12, 25 pepurBelaa 

Mt. 12, 26 iptpMi] 

Mt. 23, 34 ju!)|cTC 

Mt. 10, 26 KocaXvfi/iixoy 

Mt. 10, 33 i.pvii<ropai 

Mt. 24, 28 avvax^irovTai 

Mk. 10, 21 {is 

Lk. 4, 38 ela-^Xdo' 

Lk. 4, 4-2 iirtl^iiTOw 

Lk. 6, 38 ivnitfrpTfiiiaerai (jX) [Q] 

Lk. 6, 39 ipLireaovvTai [Q] 

Lk. 8, 6 Karl^eae;' 

Lk. 8, 28 ivoKp&^as 

Lk. 8, 33 direTrvJTT; 

Lk. 8, 35 lf§Xeoy 

Lk. 8, 44 TrpixrcXdoSo'a (= Matt. 9, 20) 

Cf. Lk. 9, 7 Saivbpa (cf. p. 98). 

Lk. 9, 47 47(Xaj86/iei«s 

Lk. 10, 21 iirkKpv^as [Q] 

Lk. 10, 25 iKwapiiaiv [Q] 

Lk. II, 17 Siapepur8ti<ra [Q] 

Lk. II, 18 BitpfplaSri [Q] 

Lk. II, 49 iKSi&ipuaiv [Q] 

Lk. 12, 2 0-U7KEKaXv/(/lC»»' [Q] 

Lk. 12, 9 iicapvTfiiitrtTai. [Q] 
Lk. 17, 37 kirifrvvaxBiiaovTtu, [Q] 
Lk. 18, 22 jtdtSos 

' Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, p. 38; p. 150: " St. Luke has about 66 per cent more 
compounds than St. Matthew, in which Gospel the ratio is almost exactly the same as 
that in St. Mark." Cf. J. H. Moulton, Grammar, II, 11. 


Mk. 10, 30 X4/Jn Lk. l8, 30 iiroXifiv 

Mk. II, 8 iiTTfiutrav Lk. 19, 36 irmarpiivvmv 

Mk. 12, 3 hviartCKav Lk. 20, 10 ifoxiffraXav 

Mk. 12, 18 ipxovTiu. Lk. 20, 27 irpmeKedvTfs 

Mk. 12, 18 X47ouirt Lk. 20, 27 dwiXiYoires 

The contrary is less frequent, and is commonly intended to avoid 
unusual compounds and meanings: 

Mk. 5, 36 vapamiiras (see Swete, ad Lk. 8, S" iKo6<ros 


Mk. 8, 34 6,vapvii<r&<r8a Lk. 9, 23 ipinitriaBu 

Mk. 9, 18 KOTttXA^B (see p. 60, n. 73) Lk. 9, 39 Xo/i/Sdra 

Mt. 12, 39 ferifjjTei Lk. II, 29 fiiTci [Q] 

Mk. 12, 17 ^eSaiMaj'oi' Lk. 20, 26 0au/i&(ra><rcs 

Mk. 10, 42 KaraKi;p(«iou<ru> Lk. 22, 25 Kvpie6ov<nv 

Mk. 10, 42 Karcfoun&^oiKriv Lk. 22, 25 4&)uo-»4fo>'T« 

In Matt. 12, 39 = Luke ii, 29, Hamack assumes that the ^mfjjTci 
of Matt, is original and has been changed by Luke to the simple verb. 
He says (Sayings, p. 23), " In St. Luke the correcting hand of the 
styUst is here clearly traced . . . /xotxaXis is elsewhere avoided by St. 
Luke as a vulgar word. Here also, contrary to his usual practice, he 
replaces the compound verb by the simple ^•nrel, because he appre- 
ciates the special meaning of the compound." But the opposite is 
ahnost certainly true; for the sa3dng again occurs in Matt. 16, 4, a 
doublet evidently dependent on Mark 8, 12, and there again Mat- 
thew has iuoixaXis and CTrtf T/Tet, while Mark has neither the adjective 
nor the prefixed €xt. It is therefore quite as likely that at 12, 39 
Matthew has changed fijret to eirL^rjrei (which he certainly did at 
16, 4) as that Luke has reversed his usual practice (cf. Luke 4, 42 
above, p. 166). 

Between eirepwrdw and the simple verb we may judge that Luke 
prefers the simple verb, from these cases: 

Mk. 4, 10 iipwTow (-uv) Lk. 8, 9 kinipiiTuiv 

Mk. 9, 32 forepojTVffot Lk. 9, 45 ipuiTrjaai 

Mk. II, 29 hrepariiau Lk. 20, 3 ipurfi<ro> (= Mt. 21, 24) 

Mk. IS, 2 'anipiiTTiiiei' Lk. 23, 3 iipimtae/ 

This is confirmed by comparing his use of the two verbs with occurrences in the 
other evangelists: 

Matt. Mark Luke Acts John 

ipurlua 4 3 IS 7 27 

hrepuTio) 8 25 17 2 2 (?) 







24 (27) 

21 (24) 









If Matthew felt any objection to the use of a compound verb with 
the same preposition repeated in its modifying phrase, as Allen 
(St. Matthew, p. xxv f.) suggests, this objection was apparently not 
shared by Luke, who increases such combinations, except i^ipxonai. 
iK, which occurs nowhere in Luke's gospel though frequent in Mark. 
For its correction to i^ipxotiai iurb see the examples on p. 202. 

The occurrence of these combinations in the case of compounds 
of ipxonai may be hsted in the S5Tioptic Gospels thus: 

iiripxaiiai iir6 
eUripxonai tls 
^tpxonai iK 
Sikpxoiiai Sii 
i:iripxoitM lirl 

Notice also the following: 

Mk. 6, II inTivi^aTt rhv xoDv rbv tnro- Lk. 9, 5 rbv Kovioprhv hirb rHv ico&Ssi) bpuv 

xdrb) ruv To&av b.Tr<yra>bxiaer(^ 

Mk. 8, 31 dir(ijoia/ia<r0$i'at imb, k.t.X. Lk. 9, 22 6.voSoiaiuuT0fjpiu iiri, k.t.\. cf. 

17, 25 

Mk. 15, 3 Kaniybpom' airov Lk. 23, 15 KarqyopfiTt kot' (y.l.) abrov 

Mk. 16, 3 iiroaJKlati, hi t^i Wpos toS Lk. 24, 2 i.TOK(Ku\urtiivov i.rb toG iivti- 

liVflliflov liclov 

Verbs of Speaking 

In introducing sentences of dialogue Luke shows his predilections 
by the changes which he makes in the diction of Mark. 

Thus X^7«, which occurs over seventy times (counting Xeyovcri) 
in Mark, is usually omitted or changed by Luke (see tables in Haw- 
kins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 114 ff.). It is not used of Jesus (the 
exception found in mostMSS. at 24, 36 is probably an interpolation 
from John 20, 19, for it is not found in the "Western" text of 
Luke), but four times of speakers in parables (13, 8; 16, 7 and 29; 
19, 22), besides only at 11, 45; Acts 12, 8; 21, 37. 

But in quoting scripture, Luke uses X^yei rather than ditevJ 

Mk. 12, 26 wS„^l^epairrlfbe^,\ky^v Lk. 20, 37 d,s X4t,« Kbpiov rbp Bebv 

*7<i> b fleis ' kt\. 'Afipain kt\. 

Mk. 12, 36 aMs AavtiS €l-,r(y iy Tif TTVeO- Lk. 20, 42 aOrii y&p AavdS \^a b> 

' Luke may be using Q here. See Mt. 10, 14 which has rdx Kovioprby with Luke 
and bcnvi^aTt with Mark, followed however by U ray voSay. 
» Cf. Acts 2, 25, 34; 7, 48; 8, 34. 


Xtyoiwt occurs in Luke 17, 37 (though Hawkins, pp. 22, 119, fails to list it). 
ttxiatv occurs in Luke 7, 40 and nine times in Acts. 

iKeytv (a«7o..) occurs quite frequently in Luke, though for it also he sometimes 
makes a substitution (see above, p. 160). For Luke's t\eyev Sk see Hawkins, p. 15. 

eiireK is by far the commonest word for introducing sayings or 
speeches in dialogue and the combination elirev Si is specifically 
Lucan. According to Hawkins, Eorae Synopiicae, p. 15, it occurs 
59 times in Luke and 15 times in Acts. The following is a list of 
occurrences in passages parallel to Mark or Matt. : 

Mt. 4, 3 KoJ . . . elirev Lk. 4, 3 elTrep Si [Q] 

Mk. 3, 3 Kal Xey« Lk. 6, 8 tha> Si 

Mk. 3, 4 Kal \iya Lk. 6, 9 eljrw Si 

Mk. 4, 40 Kal elirev Lk. 8, 2$ elwev Si 

Mk. 6, 6 iucoicras Si . . . ikeyev Lk. 9, 9 elirev Si 

Mk. 6, 37 6 Si airoKpiBeU elirev Lk. 9, 13 elwev Si 

Mk. 6, 39 Kal inrkraiev Lk. 9, 14 eljrci' Si 

Mk. 8, 29 Kal imipiiTa Lk. 9, 20 elwev Si 

Mk. 9, 39 6 Si elirev Lk. 9, 50 elirev Si 

Mt. 8, 22 6 Si \iyei Lk. 9, 60 elirev Si [Q] 

Mk. 10, 18 6 Si elirev Lk. 18, 19 elirev Si 

Mk. 10, 28 fipiaro X47«» Lk. 18, 28 elrev Si 

Mk. 12, 35 Kal 6,iroKpt6ds i\eytv Lk. 20, 41 elirev Si 

Mk. 14, 48 Kal i.iroKpiSelt . . . elirev Lk. 22, 52 elirev Si 

Mk. 14, 71 & Si fjp^aTO ivoBeitarlfeiv Lk. 22, 60 elwev Si 

" Another test-phrase is elrev Si, frequent in Genesis and the early part of Exodus, 
but rare or non-existent in later books. It does not occur in Mark or Matt. In John it 
occurs only (o) in the interpolated passage 8, 11; (6) in 12, 6 [where D transposes Si 
and syr. sin. omits elirev Si . . ], (c) in 21, 23 oix elirev Si, where Si is supported by 
NBC and is perhaps genuine, meaning ' however.' 

" In Lk. (as also in Acts) it is frequent, mostly in his Single Tradition, but sometimes 
in the Double or Triple when he introduces words or arrangements of his own. In view 
of these facts. Matt. 12, 47, bracketed by Tischendorf and placed by WH in marg. 
should be rejected as an interpolation." [Mt. 12, 47 is omitted by XBLr 3 min. syr. 
sin. cur. kS^.] Schmiedel, Encyclopaedia Biblica, col. 1791, note. 

t<f>r] is not frequent in any of the New Testament books (Matt. 
13 (15) times, Mark 3, Luke 3, John 2 (3), Acts 14). Luke at times 
changes it to elirev, e.g., Mark 9, 38 = Luke 9, 49; Mark 10, 20 = 
Luke 18, 21; Mark 10, 29 = Luke 18, 29; Mark 12, 24 = Luke 20, 
34. On the other hand, in Luke 23, 3 and Matt. 27, ,ii we read e^ii 
for the \iyei of Mark 15, 2. In the following parallels ^>ii) occurs in 
Matt, but not in Luke; Matt. 4, 7 = Luke 4, 12; Matt. 8, 8 = 
Lxike 7, 6; Matt. 25, 21, 23 = Luke 19, 17, 19. But which reading 
(if either) was in the common source is not easily determined, for 



Matthew appears to add ?<^?; to Mark about as often as Ltike omits 
it, e.g., Matt. 21, 27; 22,37; 26,34; 27,11; 27,23. 

Luke frequently adds the participle Xiyuv to various expressions 
of saying. Thus in parallels to Mark we find these cases: 

Lk. 4, 35 kirerliiiiaa> \iyuii> 

Lk. 5, 21 SiaSoylfeaBai \kyovTes 

Lk. 5, 30 kybyyviov \tyovTfs 

Lk. 8, 30 hnipijiTtiaev Xiyuv (om.HB al.) 

Lk. 8, S4 4^i^ir«i' Xiyuf 

Lk. 9, 3S ^"4 ... X^Yoiwo 

Lk. 9, 38 ifi6ri(rev \iyav 

Lk. 18, 18 irnipirrriiTev \kywv 

Lk. 20, 2 thtav Xiryovra 

Lk. 20, 14 iiiSaryliovTO 'Siyovres 

Lk. 20, 21 kmjpijTijcrav 'Kkyovres 

Lk. 21, 7 iTTTipin-ritrav \tyotTts 

Lk. 22, 59 SiuTxvpltero Xeywy 

Lk. 23, 3 iipiiTriirei> \kya>p 

Lk. 23, 21 ^6^iwn> X^o;^«s 

Lk. 23, 47 ^{a{'CK t4«' Ssii' Xiyoyres 

Mk. I, 25 kverltitiatv 
Mk. 2, 6 JtaXo7iJ'A/icvoi 
Mk. 2, 16 iXeyov 
Mk. 5, 9 tnipiyra 
Mk. 5, 41 X^a 
Mk. 9, 7 ^>^ 
Mk. 9, 17 ireKplBri 
Mk. 10, 17 iHipoira 
Mk. II, 28 IXeyo»' 
Mk. 12, 7 elTrav 
Mk. 12, 14 \iyov<Tiv 
Mk. 13, 3 brjipirra 
Mk. 14, 70 JXeroK 
Mk. 15, 2 In/ptln'i/o'ci' 
Mk. 15, 13 ixpaiav 
Mk. IS, 39 fhe> 

Luke uses iiroKpiOels with a verb of saying quite as often as do 
the other Evangelists, more than 30 times in its proper sense of 
answering questions or requests. He retains it where it is so used in 
his sources, and introduces it in some other passages where it was 
not in them. 

ivmpiBtls retained: 

Mt. 4, 4 iTOKpiBtls 

Mt. II, 4 iTOKpiSeh 
Mk. 3, 33 iLvoKptBdi 
Mk. 8, 29 6.iroKpi$els 
Mk. 9, 19 iroKpietls 
Mt. 25, 12 ivoKpiBeLs 
Mk. II, 33 iTOKpiSiirrfs 
Mk. 15, 2 i.TOKpiS(ls 

ixoKpiBtls introduced: 
Mt. 4, 10 rSrt \iya 
Mt. 4, 7 l,t»l 
Mk. 2, 8 X47a 
Mk. 2, 17 imitra! X*y« 
Mk. 2, 2S Xi7€t 
Mk. 8, 28 eliroi' X^ovres 
Mk. 9, 38 ;k^ 
Mk. 11, 29 elxoi 

Lk. 4, 4 taacpWri [Q] 
Lk. 7, 22 iTTO/cptdels [Q] 
Lk. 8, 21 ivoKpiSils 
Lk. 9, 20 &7rOKp(9cls 
Lk. 9, 41 iirOKpiBfl! 
Lk. 13, 25 iiroKpteeU [Q] 
Lk. 20, 7 direKpIft/aav 

Lk. 23, 3 iTTOKpiStls 

Lk. 4, 8 AiroKpifleis . . . cits' [Q] 
Lk. 4, 12 iroKpiSeU . . . tlirei' [Q] 
Lk. 5, 22 inoKpiBels cZirev 
Lk. S, 31 iiroKptSels . . . ttven 
Lk. 6, 3 iiroKpidelt . . . etircv 
Lk. 9, 19 iiroKpiJSivTis ttirav 
Lk. 9, 49 iTOKpidds . . . clirw 
Lk. 20, 3 &TroKpi$ds St ttrfv (= Matt. 
21, 24) 



The use of AiroKpiOels, not in answer to a real question or request, 
but for the beginning of a new speech with little or no reference to 
the situation (perhaps a Semitic idiom, see Dalman, Words of 
Jesus, p. 24), is less common in Luke, and is habitually omitted by 
him when found in his sources. See Mark 6, 37; 9, 5; lo, 51; 12, 
3S; 14, 48; Matt. 11, 25; 22, i. 

Besides these more conventionalized and regular formulae, Luke 
shows a great variety in his choice of verbs to describe utterances of 
different kinds, frequently substituting for the common words of 
saying like Xe7w and elirov verbs of more distinctive significance.* 
A careful study of the context of the following parallels will show 
how appropriately the substitutions have been made. 

Mk. I, 30 Xfeyoiwu' 
Mk. 10, 51 eIiro» 
Mk. II, 3 etiTD 
Mk. 12, 14 \infovaiv 

Lk. 4, 38 ilpilTTIITaV 

Lk. 18, 40 eFqpimiae' 

Lk. 19, 31 kpuTf, 

Lk. 20, 21 imipiantaav \^ovTts 

Mk. 4, 9 tKeyei 
Mk. S, 41 X47€t 
Mk. IS, 12 Revs' 

Lk. 8, 8 i<l)iiva 

Lk. 8, 54 iifiiivTi(ia> Xiyav 

Lk. 23, 20 rpoiTeit>iii>iia€i> 

Mk. I, 44 \^a 
Mk. s, 8 t\eya> 

Mk. S. 43 «I'ro' 

Mk. 2, 16 IXeyoc 
Mk. 12, 7 flroD 
Mk. 12, 18 \irYOwrc 
Mk. 12, 37 \iyei 
Mk. 14, 70 fKeyov 
Mk. IS, 39 elrer 

For the converse see 

Mk. 6, 8 irapih'yeXo' C. tva 

Mk. 6, 39 feriroje' c. inf. 

Mk. 8, 29 fon7piS>TO 

Mk. 14, 71 IjpfaToiraBeitaTl^avKalhiivi- 

Lk. s, 14 ffop^h'ToXo' 
Lk. 8, 29 rapiiyydXev 

Lk. 8, SS StiTo^ff 

Lk. s, 30 ^iyyvfov Myovres 
Lk. 20, 14 Su\oyl(oi>TO XiyoiTts 
Lk. 20, 27 diTtXiyoi'KS 
Lk. 20, 44 KoXei (= Matt. 22, 4s) 
Lk. 22, S9 Suirxttpll^ero Xkyoiv 
Lk. 23, 47 iSiJofo' rAy BAr "Kiyiiai 

Lk. 9, 3 Airei. c. orat. dir. [Q?] 
Lk. 9, 14 fliro' c. orat. dir. 
Lk. 9, 20 eljrev (cf. Xf7€i Mt. 16, is) 
Lk. 22, 60 eJjTO'' 

1 Compare Scholten, pp. 91. n- 6, 93. n. 3. 98: "f>ir das bestandig wiederkehrende, 
eintSnige, allgemeine X47««' von Lc zur Abwechselung gebraucht werden 5ropo7T4XX«i', 
bfiaeai., tparSi', vpoaitiavav, SialMylitirBai,." 

» For the probable motive of this change, see p. 95. 


Luke's Preferences in Verbs 

In regard to some other verbs Luke's preferences can be illustrated 
by several examples for each. In the following pages illustrations 
are collected to show: 

1. His avoidance of Oanfiiofiai (and UOan^ionaC), dXifiw, KaOevSu, 
Kpariu, inrdyii} (especially the form Uraye, " go thy way "), and 
(pipw (in the sense of ayu) ; 

2. His liking for deofiai, eyyl^w, iirCKan^&vonai, \nroaTpi4>(>>, and 

3. His treatment of jSX^ttw, tpxonon., ^uviu and their compounds. 

Oan^ionai occurs in Mark i, 27; 10, 24; 10, 32 and iKdafi^hfiat 
in Mark 9, 15; 14,33; 16, 5, 6, but nowhere else in the New Testa- 

Except the following cases, Matthew and Luke both omit the whole verse in which 
Mark uses the word: 

Mk. I, 27 Kai Waixfiifiqaav Lk. 4, 36 xaltya'tro 6&itff<K Mt. omits this incident 

fiiron-ts fori vhirm 

Mk. 14, 33 {p^aro ix0a;i- Mt. 26, 37 ^pfaroXinrcio^at Lk. omits this point 

peiaBai Kal 6&r)novtiv Kai iSiniovetv 

Mk. 16, s i^fBaiifiifiiiaca) ISk.. 2^, $ iiujihPwv yaioiik/av Mt. omits this verse 

eXtjSw and its compounds, as well as the noun 9\v4/t.s (see p. i86), 
are avoided by Luke except in the solitary instance in the New 
Testament of airodXi^u, viz. 

Mk. s, 31 avveXlffovTa Lk. 8, 45 awixoim Kal 6.in0\lfim(n. 

Mk. 3, 9 ffKWoaiv Lk. 6, 18 om., cf. foruceiffffoi, Lk. 5, i 

Mk. 5, 24 mviBXifiov Lk. 8, 42 avvkmiiyov 

Kadevdu is twice retained by Luke (in words of Jesus) : 

Mark s, 39 oiis i-iriSavai dXXd xadciSn = Luke 8, 52 

Mark 14, 37 Sf/itoi/, KoBtbSas; Luke 22, 46 ri KojSeOSere; 

It is not found elsewhere in Luke or in Acts, but is changed thus: 

Mk. 4, 38 KoSMav Lk. 8, 23 lupiwvoxTtv 

Mk. 14, 37 KoffeOiovras Lk. 22, 45 Koinanimvs 

Kpariu occurs in Matt. 12 times, in Mark 15 times, in Luke 
2 (Acts 4) times. To Mark 3, 21; 6, 17; 7, 3, 4, 8; 9, 10; 14, 44, 
46, 51, Luke has no parallels; Kpariiaas in Luke 8, 54 is from Mark 


In the remaining cases in Mark, Luke changes it or omits this 

Mk. 1, 31 Kpai^ffas T«s x«P& Lk. 4, 39 omits 

Mk. 9, 27 Kparfiaas riji x«p(5s Lk. 9, 42 omits 

Mk. 12, 12 aMv KparijaaL Lk. 20, 19 fer.;8aXeIi/ iTr'aMv tAs X"pas 

Mk. 14, 1 KparfiaaiTa Lk. 22, 2 omits 

Mk. 14, 49 oiK iKpariiaaTi ^ Lk. 22, 53 ote ^erilvan tAs X"pos iir' 

The verb uTrd^co occurs never in Acts, only 5 times in Luke, 
though it is frequent in the other three gospels. Its intransitive use 
is not classical, but in Hellenistic times was common, as it is in 
modem Greek (Kennedy, Sources, p. 1 56) . Luke frequently changes 
it, e.g.: 

Mk. 14, 13 ivayere els Tiii> vSKw Lk. 22, 10 Aat>S6vTWv iitSiv tUritv tSXiv 

Mk. 14, 21 vldi Tov i.vBpi)Trov inriyei Lk. 22, 22 vHs toB huBpinrov wopeierai 

The form viraye is especially common in Matthew and Mark, but 
occurs nowhere in Luke. Very likely it seemed to him vulgar. In 
the following cases he has probably changed or omitted it: 

Mt. 4, 10 Siro-ye, trarava (cf. Mk. 8, 33) Lk. 4, 8 omits [Q) 

Mk. I, 44 S7ro7« . . . Sftioi> Lk. S, 14 &-we\$i>v Sei^v 

Mk. 2, II i57ra7e'- Lk. 5, 24 iropeiou 

Mt. 8, 13 !hraye Lk. 7, 10 entirely different [Q] ^ 

Mk. s, 19 iwaye ds rdv oXk6v <tov Lk. 8, 39 inr6<rTpe<l)e els riv olmv aov 

Mk. 5, 34 iraye ds dpiiniv Lk. 8, 48 iroptbov ds dpijvriv 

Mk. 6, 38 inrhyeri, Mere' Lk. 9, 13 om. (see also p. 80) 

Mt. 18, IS ivayt, fSty^p ain-hv Lk. 17, 3 iiriTlpiriaov airSv [Q] 

Mk. 10, 21 iiraye, Ixra 2xci: iriXijffoc Lk. 18, 22 Trdiro iaa ?X"S »r<i)Xi;<ro» 

Mk. 10, 52 tvaye, ii irlaTis aov aiauKBi a€ Lk. 18, 42 ixo/SXe^oc- ii Trlaris k.t.\. 

Hamack {Sayings, p. 109) says; " The viraye in all three cases of 
its occurrence (4, 10; 8, 13; 18, 15) is probably inserted by St. 
Matthew." But in passages from Mark, Matthew nowhere inserts 
it and Luke always omits it. Would they deal differently with Q ? 

With regard to another saying of Q, Hamack makes an equally 
unjustified statement. Matt. 10, 16 reads iSoii eyi) aTroariKKu v/xas 
COS irpoPara ev fiiffcfi XiKwv. Luke 10, 3 reads: uTrAyere, iSov Airo- 

' In Mark 2, 9 Svaye is read by KD 33 (apparently assimilated from 2, f i), but most 
other Mss. of Mark and the parallels in Matt. 9, s and Luke 5, 23 read irepiir&Ta. 
' Perhaps this verse is not from Q at all; see Hamack, Sayings, pp. 77, 210 f. 
' Mark 8, 33 Siroye irUra /lov, a-aTova; Luke omits the whole verse. 


o-tAXw ifias c!)j &pvas iv fUffip \{)kup. Hamack (Sayings, p. 13) 
says: " iir&yeTe is an addition of St. Luke in order to connect verse 3 
with verse 2." But this connection may have been just as much 
needed in Q, if, as Hamack prints it on p. 134, these verses occurred 
in the same order there as in Luke; while Matt, could have easily 
omitted iir&yeTe in his context. 

<f>ipu, which in modem Greek has almost entirely replaced ayu 
Qannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, 996,3), was already in Hellen- 
istic times encroaching upon it, by taking the meaning " lead," 
" bring," of persons and cattle. So Mark uses it, but Luke corrects 
him thus: 

Mk. i, 32 iij)tpov Lk. 4, 40 tiyo^yo" 

Mk. 9, 2 ivcupipei Lk. 9, 28 irapcCKaPCiv iviffii 

Mk. 9, 19 4)tperf Lk. 9, 41 -n-poa-iyayt 

Mk. II, 2 4>kp(Tt Lk. 19, 30 i-yliyeri 

Mk. II, 7 <t>kpov(n Lk. 19, 35 ^ayov (So Matt. 21, 7) 

Mk. IS, I iviiveyxav Lk. 23, i ^ayov 

Mk. IS, 22 ipipovai Cf. Lk. 23, 33 iirflXffoi/ (Matt. 27, 2 

In Mark, if not elsewhere, the scribe of D or its ancestor has shown the same desire 
for improvement as the author of Luke. The readings of that ms. for the above pas- 
sages in Mark are: I, 32 iipipoaav, 9, 2 AvAyci, 9, 19 <t>ip€T€, 11, 2 iyiyert, 11, 7 
fl-ya-yoK, IS, i i.iri)yayov, IS, 22 iyomi. See'We\iha.usen,Einleiiitttgin die drei erstm 
Evangelien,p. 11. 

iyyi^w occurs in Matt. 7 times, Mark 3 times, Luke 18 times, 
Acts 6 times. Throughout the New Testament its use in escha- 
tological associations is common; cf. Rom. 13, 12; Heb. 10, 25; 
Jas. 5, 8; I Pet. 4, 7. So Luke uses it: 

Mk. 13, 6 iyi) cE/u Lk. 21, 8 adds Kal i xaipM fiyyixar 

Mk. 13, 14 ffSk'S.vyiia tpriiiii<Tf<i)s Lk. 21, 20 ^7U(6i' 4 ipfiluaoK 

Lk. 21, 28 iyyl^a i) diroX6rp(i»ri; biiiiv 
So Matthew uses it (?) : 
Mk. 14, 41 i}X0a> 4 Sipa. Mt. 26, 4S tfyyt-nfv 4 &pa. 

With 4 PaaCKda toD Btov {jSiv oiipavuv) it is fotmd in the preaching of the Baptist 
(Matt. 3, 2), in the early preaching of Jesus (Mark i, 15 = Matt. 4, 17), and in the 
programme of the mission (Matt. 10, 7 = Luke 10, 9). Luke, however, repeats it in 
10, II ttX^k tovto ya/ixTKert, tri tiyyMtv 1} PaaiKfla too 6fod. 

In its ordinary uses, Luke's preference for ^^Ifw may be seen in 
the following parallels: 

Mt. 6, 20 itXiTrrat ob Siop(iiT<roviri.v ofifi Lk. 12, 33 xXiirrt^s obx iyyl^a [Q] 
Mk. 10, 46 tpxovrai eti 'I<petx<!> Lk. 18, 35 tyyl^tiv abriv lU 'I. 


Mk. 10, so ^Xflex irpis 'Iijo-oDk Lk. 18, 40 iyyur6a/TOS airrov 

Mk. 14, I fjp Td irSurxa Kol ri. i^vfia iieri. Lk. 22, 1 Ji77tfei' ij ioprii rav iibfuav 4 

Mk. 14, 4S iXdibv eWis irpoveXeiiv Lk. 22, 47 ii77«rei' 

iin\aixpiivonai (found only once each in Matt, and Mark, viz., 
Matt. 14, 31 peculiar to Matt., Mark 8, 23 peculiar to Mark) is used 
by Luke in 9, 47 for XajSwj' Mark 9, 36; in 20, 20 for ayptmacriv 
Mark 12, 13 (see Kennedy, p. 13, Schmid, IV, 267); in 23, 26 for 
d77opeuoiio-ij' Mark 15, 21 (see Kennedy, p. 72). It occurs besides in 
Luke 14, 4; 20, 26; Acts 9, 27; 16, 19; 17, 19; 18, 17; 21, 30, 33; 
23, 19- 

Except in Matt. 9, 38 (= Luke 10, 2 deridrjTe ovv rod Kvpiov tov 
Oepianov), Seofiai is used by Luke only among the evangelists. The 
following instances are in parallels to Mark: 

Mk. I, 40 7rapaKaXui> Lk. 5, 12 iSeqdi; 

Mk. 5, 7 ipntfoj Lk. 8, 28 iioiiai 

Mk. s, 18 7rap«dX«( Lk. 8, 38 aetro 

Mk. 9, 18 clira Lk. 9, 40 iStiieJiv, cf. 9, 38 

iiro<rTpi4>o) occurs 21 times in Luke and 11 (12) times in Acts, but 
not in the other gospels (except Mark 14, 40, where, however, nBDL 
and the older versions read eKBwv). That Luke should use it in re- 
casting his sources is natural. See the following: 

Mk. i, 14 {XdcK Lk. 4, 14 iirtaTpBl'fv 

Mk. 5, 19 vira7e eU riv oIk6v <rov Lk. 8, 39 tm6aTpe<j>e els t6i' oXk6v aov 

Mk. S, 21 SiavepiuravTOs Lk. 8, 40 iTroaTpk(j>av cf. 37 inrkarpttf/tv 

Mk. 6, 30 avviyovTai Lk. 9, 10 mroaTpej/avrts 

Mt. 12, 44 iiricrTpeil/u Lk. II, 24 inroarptil/b) [Q] 

Mk. 16, 8 lleX^oDirai Lk. 24, 9 iiroiTTphpairai 

<j)V(ji} and avv4>vu are used of the growth of plants more properly 
than kva^alvu and i^avariKKw (Kennedy, Sources, p. 73). 

Mk. 4, s iiavkT€i\tv Lk. 8, 6 4>vii> 

Mk. 4, 7 i.vtfiri<ra3> Lk. 8, 7 o-vv^veicrai 

Mk. 4, 8 ivaPalvoVTa Kal aiiavSpievov ' Lk. 8, 8 tpviv 

But 4(c0tB of Mark 13, 28 is replaced by ■KpoptCKuatv Luke 21, 30. 

Luke shares the use of jSXeirco common in the Koin6 as a sub- 
stitute for the verb bpaw, but in a few cases changes its more unusual 

' In the parable of the mustard seed Mark 4, 32 again uses ivafialvu, while Q (Matt. 
13, 32 =Luke 13, 19) apparently used aA^&va. 

' The absence of the verb in Luke 7, 22 & tlStTt Kal iimiaaTt, parallel to Mt. 11, 4 fi 


Mk. 8, IS p\iT(Tti.iri Lk. 12, i vpoaixere (= Matt; 16, 6), 

iavToii tirb (perhaps from Q) 
Mk. 12, 38 pXkirtTi djr4 Lk. 20, 46 icpoaixere 

Mk. 13, 33 p\itrere Cf. Lk. 21, 34 vpovkxere tavrdts 

vpoa-ixfTe iavTois occurs only in Luke and Acts. The remaining instances are 
Luke 17, 3; Acts s, 3S; 20. 28. 

For " be a respecter of persons " Luke also has a more usual form, 
Mk. 12, 14 /SX^TTas «£s irpSa-awov Lk. 20, 21 Xa;uj3&i<E(S irpixroyirov 

Luke usually omits lii^\i\pa$ and Trtpi^\&l/anevos when they occur 
in Mark, viz.: Mark 10, 21, 27 and Mark 3, 34; 5,32; 9,8; 10,23; 
II, II. Each occurs once in Luke: e/i/SX^as, 20, 17 (not in Mark 12, 
10); irepi^\e\l/6.nevos, 6, 10 (retained from Mark 3, 5). ^n^Xel/aaa, 
Mark 14, 67, is replaced by Luke's favorite verb i.Teviaa<ya, Luke 22, 
56, but in a later verse (22, 61) is the form h>i^\&piv. 

Note also Matt. 6, 26 iixP\i^aTe; Luke 12, 24 KaTavoriaare [Q]. 

In the use of other verbs of seeing Luke has some characteristic 

He is fond of evpiaKu in this sense and of deaofiai., but frequently 
changes Oewpios : 

i.Ko\ien Koi p\iirere, mdy be due to the source, or, if not, to a difference of tense, for 
i0\(il/a scarcely occurs in the New Testament. 

' For the omission of ISiiv the participle see pp. 89 f . In another series of cases Luke 
omits the verb of seeing but with far more radical effect on the structure of sentences. 
These are the cases where Luke says directly that something took place while Mark 
only states that something was seen to take place. Perhaps a different reason should 
be assigned to each case: 

Mk. i, 10 eUev axitoiiivms Tois oipavoin Lk. 3, 21 iyivero . . . ivefj^vai tAv oO- 
Kal rd irveviia . . . KaTaffaivov, K.r.X. pavbv, nal Karo/Sqcot rb mitviia, k.t.X. 

(Here Mt. 3, 16 has tXSev Trvevita . . . KaToffaivoy with Mark, but Kal ISoi iive^xPv<rai> 
61 oipaml which is more like Luke). 

Mk. 5, 31 iSXixas rbv ^xXoy avvffSifiovrb. Lk. 8, 45 ol £x^' mvixovi'l''' "f Kal 4t»- 

Mk. S, 38 Oewpei . . . xKalovTas, k.t.X. Lk. 8, 52 {xXatov Si irdxTes, k.t.X. 

Mk. 9, 4 Kai &<l>9ti oixois 'HXttas abv Lk. 9, 30 Kal ISoi tvSpes Bio oxri'eXiXotii' 

Muvtrei, Kai ^vav mivSaXovvres t$ airif, olnvts i<rav M. xai 'H. ol b<t>Oii>Tes 

'hiaoS kv iifn 

Mk. 9, 14 tUov Sx)^" iroXiK Lk. 9, 37 avv1]vniaa> airif Sx^os xoXis 

Mk. 14, 62 Sil/HrSe rbv vlbv rou i-vOpinrov Lk. 22 69 hirb tow vvv Sk tarai b vlbi toO 

k St!iiS>v KoBiiiuvov bvBpitTou Kaei/iitvos kx S^i&v 

For the reverse see Mt. 8, 11 =Lk. 13, 28 and 
Mk. 12, 42 ida x^pa trruxA 8/SoXev Lk. 21, 2 tUtv Sk rwa x4pa>> xevixpiK 



Mk. 2, 14 eBw Lk. s, 27 »64(roTO 

Mk. S, 15 9«>>/>o5irii' Lk. 8, 35 tvpov 

Mk. 9, 8 tBoK Lk. 9, 36 tipfftj 

Mk. 12, 41 Wdjpei Lk. 21, I ivaff\kil>as elStv 

Mk. IS, 40 Beapovcrai Lk. 23, 49 ipHtrai (cf. flKop^ffoiTCs 48) 

Mk. IS, 47 Wi&povr Lk. 23, SS »eii<roi/To 

Mk. 16, 4 i.vaffXbl'aacu. Btupownv Lk. 24, 2 cvpoi> 

irpoff&jiiivriatv in Luke 6, 13 seems to take the place of irpoffKcXeiTai 
(Mark 3, 13), and in Luke 23, 20 of the simple airoKpidels iK^yev 
(Mark 15, 12). irpoa<t)aviu occurs outside of Luke (Luke 13, 12; 
Acts 21, 40; 22, 2) only in Matt. 11, 16 from Q (= Luke 7, 32). 
cTri^wvew is peculiar to Luke (Luke 23, 21; Acts 12, 22; 21,34; 22, 
24). Simple <t>uvio3 is used for X^7w in Luke 8, 8, 54 (= Mark 5, 9, 
41), but is not specially characteristic of Luke. 

Forms of Ipxojuat or its compounds frequently disappear in Luke's 
reproduction of his sources. Not only are iropeuojuai and other 
verbs used in its place, giving greater elegance or definiteness to the 
description, but the (Hebraistic ?) idiom of Luke allows the use of 
i8ov and the nominative in place of any verb at all. Further, the 
verb can often be omitted without great loss from Mark's narrative, 
especially where it is coordinate with another verb, or where several 
forms of the verb are gathered in a single passage. 

Besides the three instances given above (p. 173) for the use of 
wopevonai in place of virayu, iropeboiiai (which is not found in Mark) * 
is used for airipxofiai in the following cases: 

Mk. I, 35 iiriiXdev Lk. 4, 42 'eiroptWii 

Mk. 6, 36 6.ire>S6vTe$ Lk. 9, 12 ■KoptvO'evres 

Mk. 6, 37 dTreXeijTK Lk. 9, 13 iropeuflii'Tcs 

Mk. 14, 12 i.Tn>JS6vTes Cf. Lk. 22, 8 vopeueiiiTes 

In one instance ixiropdoiuu is used for iitpxoitiu: 
Mk. I, 28 i&i\ea> (So Lk. 4, 14; 7, 17; Lk. 4, 37 i^tropttero 
see pp. 108 £.) 

But for the simple ipxoitat, Toptboimi appears not to be substituted. Rather are 
the two verbs contrasted as ' come ' and ' go ' in Matt. 8, 9 = Luke 7, 8. 

1 mpeioiuu is read by Westcott and Hort in Mark 9, 30 following only B*D and 
some testimony from the versions. The three occurrences in pVfark] 16, 9-20 of course 
cannot be considered an exception. The omission of the simple verb ia Mark is the 
more remarkable since the compounds e'ur- iK- and vaparoptionai, are characteristic 
of Mark (Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 12 n.), and are removed by Luke in rewriting 
Marcan passages. See Mark i, 21; 4, 19; 5, 40; 6, iiand their parallels in Luke. 


For ipxonai and its compounds Luke substitutes various other 

Mk. I, 31 npoiTe\Si}i> Lk. 4, 39 hrurrhs 

Mk. I, 38 iigxeoc Lk. 4, 43 iweariXriv (cf. pp. 97, nji-)' 

Mk. 3, 31 {px^rat Lk. 8, 19 irapeyivero 

Mk. s, I ^XSov Lk. 8, 26 KOT^irXeuiroi' 

Mt. 10, 13 i\Bi.Tu Lk. 10, 6 faroi'oa-oiio'tTot [Q] 

Mt. 10, 34 iJXeoi' Lk. 12, 51 irapeyfvinriv [Q] 

Mk. II, 27b tpxovTai. Lk. 20, i tiriarjiaav 

iSoi) without a verb takes the place of ipxofiai,: 

Mk. I, 40 ipxrrtu \eirp6s Lk. 5, 12 UoA &)^p irXiipris \kirpas 

Mk. 2, 3 ipxovrai, <l>ipovTes Lk. 5, 18 [£o{> ivSpes <t>ipovTes 

Mk. IS, 43 S\Bi>v 'IuiTii(t> Lk. 23, 50 Moi iv^p bvbiiaTi. 'Ii>>aii<t> 

Compare also Kal ISoi yvvii (Luke 7, 37) with ^Xeey -yin^ (Mark 14, 3). Note also 
the ISoi of Luke 8, 41 (cf. Mark s, 22), Luke 22, 47 (cf. Mark 14, 43 Trapaylverai). 
Luke introduces ISoO elsewhere in sections taken from Mark, and in matter peculiar 
to his gospel, and in Acts it occurs very frequently. It is used to introduce new char- 
acters in the cases cited above and in Luke 2,25; 9, 38 (cf . Mark 9,17); 10, 25 ; 14, 2 ; 
19, 2; Acts 8, 27; 16, 1.' It is also used to emphasize a large number or amount (Luke 
^3, 7! 13, 16; 15, 29; 19, 8) — a very peculiar and unique usage. 

The following list shows how in other ways forms of epxofiai are 
omitted, or at least reduced in number: 

Mk. I, 29 iieXBdvres ^\0oy Lk. 4, 38 ivaiTTas . . . el<r^}>Bev 

Mk. I, 35 i^>jSev Kal iiriiXBev Lk. 4, 42 i^tKeiiv impfteri 

Mk. 2, 18 ipxovrai xal Xirfovaiv Lk. S, 33 tlirav 

Mk. 3, 6 iit)\S6vTes Lk. 6, 11 omits 

Mk. 4, 4 ^XSev t4 irereicd xal KaTi(t>ayev Us.. 8, S t4 veravii. . . . Karkifiaya/ 

Mk. 5, 38-40 ipxovrai. . . . elae\Bi)v Lk. 8, 51 iXeiiv 

. . . eUrjropeierai 

Mt. 13, 32 lX0elv ra Tfrava rod obpavov Lk. 13, 19 tA irerava tou obpavm xare- 

Kal KaraaKrivotv aniivoiaei) [Q] 

Mk. II, IS Kol tpxoVTOi. . . . Kal Aae- Lk. 19, 45 Kal cto-eXdux 


Mk. 12, 14 Kal k'XBSvres X47ouo-o< Lk. 20, 21 Kal trnipimjaav 'KiyovTfs 

Mk. 12, 42 k\8ovaa xhpo^ i^aKfV Lk. 21, 2 tlbtv x''tP<"' PIMuavaav 

Mk. 14, 16 Kal i^\9ov . . . Kal ^XBov Lk. 22, 13 i,Tf\86vTts 

Mk. 14, 32 tpxoVTOi Lk. 22, 40 yg/bnoKK 

Mk. 14, 4S iXfltic fiiBvs irpmreXdiiv Lk. 22, 47 fiyyurev rif 'Itjo-oO 

Mk. 14, 66 tpxerai , . . KallSovca Lk. 22, s6 UoStra 

See also pp. 89 f . 

' Especially striking is its repeated use with ivi/p, Mpa in Luke s, 12, 18; 8, 49; 
9, 30; 9, 38; 23, 5°; 24, 4 (cf. the parallels to these passages in Mark); and in Luke 
19, 2; Acts 1, 10; 8, 27; 10, 19, 30; II, 11. 


For the simple verbs elui and yivofiai. more definite words are 
substituted by Luke : 

Mk. 1, 4 ^ivfTo 'lu&tvris Lk. 3, 3 iJXecK (possibly from Q) 

Mk. 4, 37 ylverai. Xoi\o\^ Lk. 8, 23 Koxi/Sij XoiXai^ 

Mk. 6, IS iirrlv Lk. 9, 8 l0Ai/ij 

Mk. 6, 15 [iaTiv understood] Lk. 9, 8 iviarri 

Mk. 8, 28 [io-rtv understood] Lk. 9, 19 iviarTi 

Mk. 10, 47 iartv Lk. 18, 37 irapkpxerai 

Mk. 14, I ^x- Lk. 22, I tnyi-itv 

Perhaps yivonai is preferred by Lulce to ei/ii for the same reason, 
viz. that it is less colorless. Thus: 

Mt. 7, 27 riv ii irrfflo-ts abrris fieyiXiii Lk. 6, 49 iyivero rb fiijyiJLa t^s oldas ixet- 

«)S nha [Q] 

Mt. 12, 40 fjv 'luvas b> rg xotXtji toD Lk. II, 30 kyivero 'luyas ToUHiveuelTais 

KtiTovs artiiitov [Q] 

Mt. 25, 21 4iri 6X{7a ?s TriaTis Lk. 19, 17 b> 'iKaxiarit irurris ir/iyov [Q] 

Mk. 12, 7 ijimv i(TT<u 4 xXripovoiila Lk, 20, 14 Iva ijitwv yiiniTai. i) xXiiporo/uia 

Mk. 12, 23 tJcos oirfii' Etrrat 7wmj Lk. 20, 33 tIvos airSiv ylvtrai, yvp^i 

Mk. 10, 43 iiTTcu in&v Siiuiovos Cf. Lk. 22, 26 yirkaOu . . . (!)s d SioMoiav 

In the following passage both verbs occur in each gospel but their position is ex- 
changed. Hamack {Sayings, p. 63), attributes the change to Luke. 
Mt. S) 4S Jtws ybniaBt viol rou irorpAs Lk. 6, 35 xai iatatt uioi in/iUrTov ... 36 

iltiiv ToS tv oipavots ... 48 itieaSe otv ylvtadt oiKrlpiioves [Q] 

Ajuets T^Xetot 

Compare also Luke's use of vwapxoi in place of diii, or where 
words are simply in apposition: 

Mk. 5, 22 «is T&v &pxt<nn'ayiiyav, bvb- Lk. 8, 41 hviip (J ivoiia 'Idetpos, koJ airis 

/ittT-i 'Idtapos fipxw T^j awavcoT^s inrijpxiv [Q] 

Mt. 7, II «t oBv v/(6ts irovripol ovTts Lk. 11, 13 (i oiv ifieis irovijpoi inr&pxovrtt 


Mk. IS, 43 'Ia(rri(l> . . . eiffx4/""' /S""- Lk. 23, 5° ''iaaii4> /SouXcur^s imi.pxav 


The use of yivofiai with the dative of the person in the sense, "it 
happened to him," is not found in the Gospel of Liike, though it oc- 
curs thrice in Mark (and in Acts 7, 40 from LXX; cf. Acts 12, 18): 

Mk. Si 16 ™5 ^ivero tQ Saipovil^oitkvtf Lk. 8, 36 jrSs i<ri>dr] 6 SaiiioviarBeU 

Mk. S, 33 S yiryovev a&rg Cf. Lk. 8, 47 tis loflij wapaxpviia ^ 

Mk. 9 21 toCto yiyoiiev airriff Lk. 9, 42 omits the whole dialogue 

atj)lr]ni. is a verb of so varied meaning that it is frequently am- 
biguous. Whether Luke consciously avoids it for this reason or not, 

1 Cf. Mk. 5, 29 larai 



it will be seen in the following parallels that his substitute is per- 
fectly clear: 

1. To leave heirs at death : 
Mk. 12, 19 iiv . . . fiil 408 riKPOV 
Mk. 12, 20 oiK iutyrjaev awipiia 
Mk. 12, 22 oix d^^xaK airipua 

2. To leave undone, neglect: 
Mt. 23, 23 iufyfiKaTe 

Mt. 23, 23 Attytivtu 

3. To leave alone, depart from: 
Mt. 4, 1 1 6^iriaiv airdv 6 SiifioSm 

Mt. 18, 12 oixl i4rh(ra (p.l. iujuls) 

4. To allow: 

Mk. I, 35 oiK ij<l>t£v (cf. II, 16) 

Mt. 5, 40 £i/>cs 

Mk. S, 19 oiic 6.<t>iJKtv airiv (scU. Ivo /ler' 

airrov i) 
Mt. 23, 13 oiSi . . . i4leTe 

The reverse case: 
Mt. 24, 43 o6k S.V di,aa> 

Lk. 20, 28 iiv . . . oSro; ireKVos fj 

Lk. 20, 29 ireiaiiK 

Lk. 20, 31 o4 KariSiirop rixva 

Lk II, 42 irapipxtaSe [Q] 
Lk. II, 42 rapttvai [Q] 

Lk. 4, 13 h SiitPoKoi iirtcrTTi dir' a&roO 


Lk. IS, 4 06 KaraKflirti [Q] 

Lk. 4, 41 obK tla 

Lk. 6, 29 nil KuiKUrT)i [Q] 

Lk. 8, 38 6.irk\virti' airrbv 

Lk. II, 52 bujiKbaaTf [Q] 
Lk. 12, 39 oilK S.V &<j>^KCV [Q] 

is very hard to explain, especially as it is more likely that kixo is original than that 
Matthew has introduced it. Cf. Hamack, Sayings, p. 33. On Luke's use of xuXieiv 
see Hamack, ibid., p. 100. 

Note also the following parallels: 
Mk. 4, 36 i(l>ivT€s riv ixhov 
Mk. 8, 13 i^cis (Matt. 16, 14 xaraXt- 

ircbi') airraid 
Mk. II, 6 i,<l>TJKav airois 
Mk. 12, 12 i^ivres airrbv (= Matt. 22, 

Mk. IS, 37 iuptls (jMviiv lieylCKiiv 

Lk. 8, 22 omits (so Matt. 8, 23) 
Lk. omits the whole section 

Lk. 19, 34 omits (so Matt. 21, 6) 
Lk. 20, 19 omits 

Lk. 23, 46 ^viiaai (Matt. 
Kpiioi) <Ikov^ iieyiXv 

27, SO 

Even when Luke retains the verb d0i?;/xi, he often changes the 
form. Here the motive is perhaps still more obscure, but in some 
cases may be the varied connotation of the forms. 

Mk. 2, Si 9 iut>l(VTat Lk. $, 20, 23 i.<t>tavTai. (cf. Lk. 7, 47, 48) 

Mk. 2, 7 &<l)ievai Lk. Si 21 i<t>tivat 

Mt. 6, 12 iutr/iKa/itv Lk. 11, 4 i<t>lone' [Q] 

Mt. 24, 40, 41>kTai Lk. 17, 34, 3s, [36] iut^trtrai [Q] 

Mk. 13, 2 ob nil &<^cdS 1 Lk. 21, 6 obx di^^irerai 

In Acts the verb is used only three times. 

> In Matt. 12, 32b, B reads o4 pell A<fr«*fi over against oix (N 06 n^i) AiM^o-ctoi in all 
other Mss. and in the parallel Luke 12, 10. 


Similarly the ambiguous verb alpu is apparently avoided by 

Mk. 2, 3 ttlpbutmv Lk. 5, 18 iirl kX(«ji (Matt. 9, 2 iirl 

Mk. 2, 21 = Matt. 9, 16 alpct Lk. 5, 36 t6 Kcuvdv axlva 

Mt. 24, 39 ijpev ia-oiTas Lk. 17, 27 &ir<i)\ara> airorros [Q] 

Mk. IS, 21 = Matt. 27, 32 in Lk. 23, 26 <t>hav 

Note that Matthew avoids alpu. Besides the passage cited above see: 

Lk. 6, 29 ToO alpovTos Mt. 5, 40 rif ekXovri . . . \aPtiv [Q] 

Lk. 6, 30 rod alpovTOs Mt. S, 42 riv et\ovra . . . Savlaaaeai [Q] 

Mk. 4, IS = Lk. 8, 12 aipa Mt. 13, 19 4pjr4f« 

Mk. 8, 19 flpore Mt. 16, 9 «X4/S«-« 

Mk. 8, 20 fipare Mt. 16, 10 ad/Sert 

Lk. II, S2 Ijpan jiiv icKeiSa Mt. 23, 13 kXcUtc [Q] 

Perhaps a comparison of the use of atpu in Mark and Q can be made from the fol- 
lowing double parallels: 

Mk. 6, 8 dlpwtriv = Lk. 9, 3 atpere Mt. 10, 9 K-rlitrerBe 

Lk. 10, 4 pcuTTiiere 
Mk. 8, 34 = Mt. 16, 24 = Lk. 9, 23 Mt. 10, 38 Xa/i/S&Ka rdv araupbv 
ipiru r6v arauphv Lk. 14, 27 Paari^ti t6v araupbv 

Mk. II, 23 = Mt. 21, 21 ip6rrn Kal Mt. 17, 20 lurhfia ivBev ixti 

(IMfiitTi tU rip/ 8i.\cur<rav Lk. 17, 6 kxpil^iiBriTi xal ^utsWijti in tj 


Of course it is possible that the original verb of Q is not preserved by either Luke or 
Matthew in any of these instances. Except in the first case, Hamack (Sayings, pp. 88, 
14s; cf. p. 134) as usual gives the preference to the form in Matthew. But lur&Pa. 
(Matt. 17, 20) is almost certainly secondary, for Matthew uses it five times to Luke's 
once, and twice (8, 34; is, 29; cf. 12, 9) substitutes it for other verbs in Mark, who 
never uses the word. So apparently Matthew substitutes XanS&vu for alpoi in three 
cases given above, while ffcurT&fa may be original with Q in Luke 14, 27, as well as 
in Luke 10, 4 and Matt. 3, 11, where Hamack retains it. 

Selection of More Literary Synonyms 

More significant are the cases in which Luke substitutes a word of 
his own for a verb occurring only once or twice in his sources. Pref- 
erence for one word for coining, saying, and the like, above a sya- 
onymous term, may merely reflect a writer's habitual mode of ex- 
pression, without impljdng reflection or distinct motive. This is not 
so likely to be the case, however, with less common words, and 
changes in these may with greater probability be attributed to de- 
liberate choice and thus disclose the author's sense of propriety in 


In some cases Luke seems to be influenced mainly by motives of 

Thus, for the unusual impivret, Mark 2, 21 (the lexicons mention only this pas- 
sage)', he substitutes the common lirt/8iXX« (s, 36) as does Matt. 9, 16. 

For (Ticoi'SaXifoi'Tot twice in Luke, eight times in Mark and thirteen times in Mat- 
thew) Luke once substitutes the common di^toroi'Toi (Luke 8, 13 = Mark 4, 17). 

For KoXo^tfetx (Mark 14, 65 = Matt. 26, 27, a late denominative, foimd elsewhere 
only in ecclesiastical writers) Luke 22, 63 uses Sipu, which is at least as old as the 
comedy in the sense ' strike.' 

Similarly iKe<t>aUairav (Mark 12, 4 NBL — SiroJ \ty6iievov in Greek literature) = 
disappears probably into the k\iSo0b\q<rav of Matt. 2r, 35 and the still more classical 
TpaviiaTlaavres (found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Acts 19, 16) and 
btlpavra, of Luke 20, 11, 12. 

For Trpoiupiiivart, Mark 13, 11, " o7ra£ 'Keybyiivov in New Testament and perhaps 
in writers earlier than the close of the canon, Matt. [10, 19] has liepLfivav, Luke [21,14] 
the classical wpoiiiXeTav, ' to prepare a speech.' " (Swete ad loc.) 

Parallel to KaTap.iSeTe (Matt. 6, 28, nowhere else in New Testament and not fre- 
quent in any Greek except possibly Xenophon and Plato) Luke 12, 27 has the more 
common xarapoiitraTt, a favorite word of his, as shown by the parallels: 
Mt. 6, 26 'tp,p,\bj/aTi els Lk. 12, 24 KaravoTitraTe [Q] 

Mk. 12, IS i^<«"' Lk. 20, 23 Karavaiiaas 

The verb ^palvoi in the medical sense (see p. 47) is not used by 

Mk. 3, I t^panfjihi]V x^'po Lk. 6, 6 4 x^'p • • ■ V" £>7P^ 

Mk. S, 29 t^pivOri il irriyii Lk. 8, 44 larri ^ jibais 

Mk. 9, 18 (ripalferai. Lk. 9, 39 omits (cf. p. 60, n. 73) 

But he retains i^pivBii of the withered sprout of grain, Luke 8, 6 = Mark 4, 6. 

The verbs censured by Atticists, ancient and modem, and avoided 

by Luke form an interesting list: 

Mark 15, 21 ir/yapeiu (a Persian loan-word not naturalized until Hellenistic times; 
see Norden, Antike Kunslprosa, p. 489, note i, Zahn, Introduction, I, p. 66, note 11): 
Luke 23, 26 inXaPSfievoi. — Mark 12, 13 iypfiiTu>int> (poetical, Schmid, Atticismus, IV, 
267): Luke 20, 20 briX&fioivTai. — Parallel to ^oTrffei (Matt, s, 39; see Lobeck, Phryn. 
p. 1 75) Luke 6, 29 has tOwtu. — ypriyopiiTf (Mark 14, 38; Lobeck, Phryn., pp. 118 f .) is 
omitted in Luke 22, 46 (unless iLvaarbnTa be a substitute for it). "Lukas hat es zwei- 
mal, aber da wo die ursprungliche Bedeutung durchschimmert," viz. 12, 37, 39 — 
Norden. But the latter case is perhaps an assimilation of some mss. to Matt. 22, 43. 
— For arlhfiovTa (Mark 9, 3. " Dass das Wort der Koivii angehort, zeigt auch Apoll. 
Soph. lex. Hom., p. 145, 23 Bekker." — Schmid, Atticismus IV, p. 229) Luke 9, 29 
has i^aiTTplivTwv. — For io-xiTtos 8x«'' (Mark s, 23 ' to be at the point of death,' a 
phrase condemned by Atticists, Lobeck, Phryn. p. 389) Luke 8, 42 has i.TWv7i<rKfv, 

' I have lately noted the word in Theophrastus, Characters, 16, 6. 
' See Lobeck, Phryn. p. 95; iKe(l>a\ala<rav in the other mss. means ordinarily in 
Greek ' to summarize.' Cf. Scholten, p. 95, n. 5. 


' was dying.' — For 6pK£fa) (Mark $, 7; Lobeck Pkryn, p. 361) Luke 8, 28 has Shiiai. 
On this change, see also above pp. 93, 175. 

Certain uses of SiSwjui equivalent to the Latin do might be sus- 
pected of being Latinisms. Luke avoids two of them: 

Mk. 3, 6 avnPoi\u)v iSlSovv HB al. Lk. 6, 11 awt\i.\ovv 

Mk. 4, 8 iSlSov Kapirbv (= Matt. 13, 8) Lk. 8, 8 kvolriaai Kapirov 

Perhaps another Latinism is to be fotmd in Mark's use of laxioi = valeo. Luke uses 
a good Greek word in its place: 
Mk. 2, 17 ItrxAocres Lk. S. 31 iryialvovra 

Luke avoids giving verbs an unusual, incorrect, vulgar, or un- 
classical meaning. 

For BpoetaBe, ' be frightened ' (Mark 13, 7 = Matt. 24, 6, and in LXX; see Kennedy, 
Sources, p. 126; in classical Greek it meant ' raise an outcry ') Luke 21,9 has ■irTolier]Te, 
(The Western Text of Mark 13, 7 has eopvPfiaSe). — For iarepd, ' be wanting,' Lat. 
deficere, Mark 10, 21 (John 2, 3 ii.l., Dioscorides s, 86), Luke 18, 22 has the regular 
Xtijret. — For rpdiyovrts ' eating' (Matt. 24, 38, cf. Photius p. 231, note, quoted by 
Norden, Andke Kunstprosa, p. 486 f., note 4: Tpiiyav oixl to iaOUiv dirXws, dXXa to 
TpayiitiaTa Kal rpuKri. KoXoiiifva) Luke 17, 27 has ij<r6iov. — For enjSAXXei (Matt. 12, 
35 bis), in its (late) colorless sense involving no notion of violence, Luke 6, 45 bis has 
TrpcKtiipti.. (See also above, p. 91). 

Greater definiteness and freedom from ambiguity is obtained by 
using for yeni^eaOai. (Mark 4, 37, technical term for loading with 
cargo) a-vveir\ripovvTo (Luke 8, 23) when the boat was in danger of 
being filled with waves. For aw^Tireiv (Mark i, 27), Luke 4, 36 has 
avve\6i\ovj> (" more precise." Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 89). 

Improvements of literary tone may be recognized in the following: 

Mk. I, 26 airapa^av Lk. 4, 35 l>l\l/av^ 

Mk. 3, 16 kwfSriKev opopLa Lk. 6, 14 iivdiiaaev 

Mt. S. 39 OTp'eij/ov Lk. 6, 29 iripex' [Q] 

Mk. 4, 16 'Xapfib.vown Lk. 8, 13 SkxovTaL 

Mk. 4, 39 tKbiraafv Lk. 8, 24 'mabtravTO 

Mt. 6, 20 d^awfet Lk. 12, 33 iiai^dpa [Q] 

Mt. 10, 34 PaKtiv dpfiVTjv Lk. 12, 51 SovvoA. elpfimiv [Q] 

Mk. 9, 42 KaX67 t<TTi /ioXXoc Lk. 17, 2 Xu«t«X« (Matt. 18, 6 irvn- 


Mk. 10, 47 Kpiiav Lk. 18, 38 ifi/nitrev 

Mk. 14, 23 \afii»> Lk. 22, 17 5eJAjii«yoj (cf. 8, 13 above) 

Luke does not consistently eschew words which for one reason or 
another he seems to disapprove. Of those enumerated above he 

" E. A. Abbott, Proclamation of the New Kingdom, p. 159, notes that in Dan. 8, 7 
the Septuagint and Theodotion read iairipa^cv and ipiil/ev respectively. 


himself uses (TKavSa\i^(ji), ypifyopiu, bpKi^u (Acts 19, 13), awapkaaw 
(Luke 9, 39, 42 = Mark 9, 26), xpAfw. But this inconsistency does 
not deprive his habitual improvement of the diction in such cases 
of its significance. 

The following additional examples of such improvement may be 

Mt. 23, 31 rStv <t)ovfv<ri.vTui' Lk. ii, 48 iirUTavav [Q] 

Mt. 23, 3S biMvttaaTf Lk. 11, 51 AiroXoMfe'ow [Q] 

Mk. 9, 42 ptp\riTai Lk. 17, 2 ippivTcu. 

Mk. II, 7 imPiXKoxxn Lk. 19, 3s 'eripi4'avTts 

Mk. IS, 22 luStpiirivaAiuvov (a late word) Lk. 23, 23 KoKobfttvov 

In some instances it is not obvious why one synonym is preferred 
to the other: 

Mk. 9, 9 KaTapeuvSvTav Lk. 9, 37 KartKBdiToiv 

Mk. 10, 48 <ru>yiHi<rji Lk. 18, 39 <rt7iJ<rB 

Mk. 14, 47 tiraurei' Lk. 22, $0 hrira^v (Matt. 26, 51 iroTa- 

Mk. IS, 46 ivtihiaty Lk. 23, S3 iferiiKi^v (= Matt. 27, 59) 

Mt. s, 4 Tei>doui>rcs Lk. 6, 21 xXalovres [Q] 

Mt. II, 17 bcdifiaTt Lk. 7, 32 ixKaiaaTe [Q] 

Mk. s, 38 iXaXi^'oi^as xal xXaloi'Tas Lk. 8, S2 &cXcuoi' xal iKorror 

^^- 5) 39 SopvPiiaBf koX xXakre Lk. 8, S2 xXoIerc 

Mk. 6, 17 t&Tiafv Lk. 3, 20 Kar^Xcco-cK 

Mk. 3, 27 i^o-]) (= Matt. 12, 29) Lk. 11, 22 vudiaji (perhaps from Q) 

Mk. s, 3, 4 JQ(r(u, ifSioBai Lk. 8, 29 tJar/uicTo 

Mk. IS, I &ii<ravres (= Matt. 27,'2) Lk. 23, i omits 

Mk. IS, 7 Sdtpinoi Lk. 23, 19 ffkifitU b> rg ^vXaxg 

The last nine cases may well be due to a predilection on Luke's part for KXalu (used 
only twice in Matt.) and an aversion for 6ia (used only twice in Luke's gospel). Ex- 
cept for Sarfubovtri Matt. 23, 4, Sevjucico occurs again only in Acts 22, 4, and KaraKXcfu 
only in Acts 26, 10 (where iv ^vXaxais is used like in <^vX(ucg Luke 3, 20). 

In the following cases the sjTionyms alternate curiously: 

Mk. Si 16 Siriy^aavTo Lk. 8, 36 iTHiyyaTioy 

Mk. s, 19 iri.yyfi)\ov Lk. 8, 39 StiryoS 

Mk. 6, 30 iie^yi/tiKav Lk. 9, 10 St'qyiiacaTO 

Mk. 9, 9 SitiyiiiToiVTiu Cf. Lk. 9, 39 i.iHiyyaKoa' 

Siriyioiiat occurs nowhere else in the gospels; ivayytWu occurred apparently twice 
besides in Liike's known sources; in both cases he retains it. Matt. 11, 4 = Luke 7, 
22; Mark 5, 14 = Luke 8, 34. 

A few additional cases of verbs substituted for words and phrases in Mark, " not 
altogether polished in character," may be found in Zahn, Introduction, III, 136, note 13. 


Hamack sees improvement in the following parallels from Q: 

Luke 10, 6 ij>aK&ii\('a for limrrpa^ru (Matt. 10, 13; 2 aor. pass, with middle 
truTTpiitmfiai used absolutely "probably belonged to the vulgar idiom." — Hamack, 
Sayings, p. 81). 

Luke 12, 27 6<t>alva for mnrwo-o/ (Matt. 6, 28. — ibid., p. 6). 

Luke 7, 28 tariv for ^y^eproi (Matt. 11, 11, " too un-Hellenic." — JWii., p. 16), 

Luke 10, 24 ifitXriaav for hrMisijirav (Matt. 13, 17. — ibid., p. 26). 

Luke 6, 22 iKfi6.\a(riv, 'defame," for elwoMriv iroi- icomipbv (Matt, s, 11. — ibid. 
P- 52). 

Luke 6, 30, 35 dTalrci, dircXtrt^oyrcs (" of themselves show classical feeling." — 
ibid., p. 60 f.) for dTroarpo^gs (Matt. 5, 42, absolute 2 aor. pass., cf. above on hvaxhii^ 

Luke 13, 24 iyuvll;taee (" a classical word." — ibid., p. 67) A(re\Beii> for eUriXBan 
(Matt. 7, 13). 

Luke 6, 40 KaTtipTur/iivos (" a word of somewhat choice character." — ibid., p. 81) 
compared with Matt. 10, 25. 

Luke 12, S kftfioKfiv tls ripi ykenvav for iiroMaai kv yeirvji (Matt. 10, 28, " bad 
Greek." — tfeirf., p. 84). 

Luke 17, 24 \i.ittra, " a better word than ^atverat " (Matt. 24, 27. — ibid., p. 107). 

With our present difficulties in fixing an exact estimate of the 
literary standing of a particular word in New Testament times, it is 
not likely that we shall be able to weigh with accuracy every pair of 
synonyms presented to us by the Synoptic Gospels. Nor will 
opinions expressed on comparative elegance always meet with the 
approval of all readers. Further, it is not likely that a writer, even 
of considerably more literary skill than his sources, will always cor- 
rect their faults or recognize their excellences. Even a good stylist 
is a slave to his own habits of speech and may substitute them for 
something better. In a few cases one may perhaps be inclined to 
suspect that after all the rival word in Matthew or Mark is really 
superior to Luke's, yet I must confess that after examining all the 
parallels I have not foimd a single one in which I should be inclined 
to assert with any confidence that this is the case. Only the follow- 
ing deserve consideration: 

Sbo, bind, is twice recommended by an Atticistic fragment (Reitzenstein, Griechische 
Etymologika, pp. 393, 396) in preference to Staiuba. On Luke's use of these words 
see above, p. 184. 

tKerioy, Matt. 18, 15, is certainly no more classical, though perhaps " more origi- 
nal than the frequent t^iHiaiaov," Luke 17, 3 fHamack, Sayings, pp. 94 f.). 

iineal^ovTis, Mark 15, 31 (used in poetry and late prose) is replaced by iKimKrIipiiov 
(Luke 23, is) not found in profane authors nor again in the New Testament, except 
Luke 16, 23, but frequently in LXX. Here Luke is probably thinking of Ps. 21, 8 
(22, 8 Heb.), vlaiTes . . . iietaiKTipuT&i> lu. la verse 36 Luke uses ivkKaiiav. 


ivfCKrinv, Mark 15, 46 (LXX, Artemidorus, Plutarch, Aristotle, PhUo, Heliodorus, 
Philostratus) is replaced by iverO\i^ (Luke 23, 53; Aristophanes, Athenaeus, John 
20, 7). Observe, however, that Matthew also has iverdSx^ev in his parallel (Matt. 
27, Sp); so that it may be doubted whether this is really a case of independent change 
of Mark by Luke. 

Use of Noxnsrs 

In his choice and use of nouns Luke shows the same general traits 

as in his choice of verbs. Only a few nouns are so consistently 

treated that the author seems to have followed any rale about them. 

Thus, he invariably avoids BiXaaaa when speaking of the inland lake of Galilee. 
His substitutes are: 

X£/iw; 5, 1, 2 (cf. Mark i, 16 lis); 8, 23, 33 (cf. Mark 5, 13 his). 
vSap, 8, 24, 25 (cf. Mark 4, 39, 41). 

Notice the variety of expressions in other places where the word might have been 

Luke 5, 3 dTrd ttjs yrfs kirayayayeiv oKlyov 

Luke 5, 4 i-ir-avi,yayf eis rd fiados 

Luke S» ri KarayayAvres to. TrXota hrl rijv yrjv 

Luke 6, 17 JirJ rd-irou iriStvov (Mark 3, 7 tU Ti)v 86.\a<riTav) 

Luke 8, 22 Iv^T) els ir\olov 

Luke 8, 26 KoJ KarkirXaiaav (Mark 5, i ^ftSov els t4 vtpav rijs SoXdo-oijs). 

Luke 8, 27 iieKeSvn . . . iirl ri/v yrpi 

He omits Mark's references to the sea, to Jesus' going thither, or teaching on or by 
the sea (Mark 2, 13; 3, 7, 9; 4, i; 5, 21; 7, 31). 

An inclination to multiply diminutives is colloquial, and such 
formations are frequently censured by Atticists. Luke's more cul- 
tivated literary taste generally avoids them. 

Mk. 5, 23 0vyi.Tpiov Lk. 8, 42 eiryinjp 

Mk. s, 41 Kop&tnov (Lobeck, Phryn. 73 f.) Lk. 8, 54 ttoIs 

Mk. s, 42 Koplunov Lk. 8, ss no subject 

Mk. 14, 47 T& iiT&piov (Lobeck, Phryn. Lk. 22, 50 tA oBs (Moeris, 288) 

But some mss. of Mark read iirlov as in Matt. 26, 31. Luke also in vs. 51 uses iyrlov. 

In the following instances Luke substitutes more reputable words 
for such as are late, rare, or vulgar: 

Mk. 4, 17 eXii^ews ("colloquial," Kennedy, Lk. 8, 13 itapaatum 

P- 79) 

Mk. 13, 19 e\bl/K Lk. 21, 23 itpkyKri 

Mk. 13, 24 e\bj/iv Lk. 21, 2$ omits 

Mk. 3, 6 avuPodkwv (late) Lk. 6, 11 omits 

Mk. IS, I <rvii0o(,\iov Cf. Lk. 23, i jrXflflos 



Mt. 7, 16 rptPSKoiv (rare) 

Mt. 12, 25 MviiJia-as (" rare in classics." 

Mt. 24, 4S oU«reIos (late) 
Mt. 24, 49 iTwSob\ovs (Moans, 273)' 
Mt. 24, 28 7rru/ia (Lobeck, Phryn., 375; 

Thomas Magister, 765) 
Mk. 10, 25 ^oi/>£s (Lobeck, Phryn., 90) 
Mk. 10, 25 rpu/xaXias (" late and rare." 

Swete ad loc.) 
Mk. 10, 46 irpoaalTTis (Swete ad loc.) 
Mk. 12, 43 iarepiitreus (rare) 
Mk. 13, 14 0S4Xirv/ia (technical Jemsh 

and tare) 

Lk. 6, 44 /34toii (" more choice." Har- 

nack, Sayings, p. 69) [Q] 
Lk. II, 17 Si.avoiiiiaTa{Sdnmd,AUicismus 

ir, 94) [Ql 

Lk. 12, 42 eeparelas (classical) [Q] 
Lk, 12, 45 iraiias Kal iraiSUrKas [Q] 
Lk. 17, 37 ffUMO [Ql 

Lk. 18, 25 Pf\6rri 

Lk. 18, 25 Tp^iiarm KBD (classical; so 

Matt. 19, 24 N*B) 
Lk. 18, 3 s Tis tirtuTuv 
Lk. 21, 4 iiTTepiinaTos (commoner) 
Lk. 21, 20 changed entirely 

orpia is never used by Luke. It occurs as a noun five times each 
in Matthew and Mark. This use is condemned by the Atticists; see 
Thomas Magister 102, 9; R. Reitzenstein, Geschichte der Griechiscken 
Etymologika, p. 393. 

Mk. 1,32 l4lasyivo,ih^,,iTe&vifih^ \ Lk. 4, 40 bbvovro, rov HKlav 

Mt. 8, 16 i^fas ytvoiiivris J 

Mk. 4, 35 i^ias ■ytvoij.tinis Lk. and Mt. have no reference to time 

Mk. 6, 3S &pas iroKK^s yevo/iivris \ . . . » ^ -,, 

,,. ,,, , ( Lk. o, 12 ii ijiikpa f^piaro icMvav 

Mt. 14, IS o^ias yevontinis ) 

Mk. 6, 47 = Mt. 14, 23 6'f'las yevophrqi Lk. omits the incident 

Mk. 14, 17 = Mt. 26, 20 b^plas yevo/tivris Lk. 22, 14 8re irykvero &po 

Mk. IS, 42 = Mt. 27, 57 64/10! Cf. Lk. 23, S4 aaPPwrov 'eiri^maKai 

The following changes may be recorded without more particular 
explanation. Many of them are probably improvements in clear- 
ness, or in elegance or exactness of expression: 

Mk. I, 28 i-Koli, ' report,' 
Mt. 7, 28 \6yovs 
Mt. 8, S-13 iroTi 
Mk. 5, 40 rod iratSlov 
Mk. 6, II xoH", dust 

Mk. 6, 39 <rvnir6<na 
Mk. 9, 3 rd Ifiiina 
Mt. 10, 16 vpSpara 
Mt. 6, 12 6^aXw«TO, sins 
Mk. 10, I iraiSIa 

Lk. 4, 37 ^xos 

Lk. 7, I W/ioTO [Q] 

Lk. 7, 2-10 Sov}iO! (once ttoTs) [Q] 

Lk. 8, 51 TTJs ircuSis 

Lk. 9, 5 Konoprdv (So Matt. 10, 14; from 


Lk. 9, 14 xKurias 
Lk. 9, 29 6 inarurpSs ' 
Lk. 10, 3 apvai [Q] 
Lk. II, 4 dpaprlas [Q] 
Lk. 18, 15 Ppi<l>ri 

1 But see p. 189. 

* Cf. Matt. II, 8 ol ri AtaXaxd tlMpoByres = Luke 7, 25 ol in l/iaTKriUf ivddiif 


Mk. 12, IS inriKpunv'^ Lk. 20, 23 vavovpylap 

Mk. 12, 20 oi(t i^nKfv OTFipua^ Lk. 20, 29 iriBavev iTOCvos 

Mk. 12, 21 M* KaToXiir*!)!' avkpiia Lk. 20, 30 [ijr^avey Stbckoi] 

Mk. 12, 22 oiic d^^Kov (TjripMa Lk. 20, 31 06 kot^Xiitoi' t&xo 

Mk. 13, 7 4ko4s iroXiAWo (c£. I, 28 above) Lk. 21, 9 UarairTaalas 

Mk. 16, S ffroXiJi' Lk. 24, 4 ferfl^t (n.Z. io*^'^"-"') 

The following differences are most likely without stylistic signifi- 
cance. In some cases, as the first two, the change is quite contrary 
to the apparent preferences of Luke: 

Mk. 14, 63 iiapripav » Lk. 22, 71 iiaprvplas 

Mk. 14, 72 tA firjiia Lk. 22, 62 toS XAto" 

Mk. I, 27 diSaxli Lk. 4, 36 6 X470S 

Mk. 3, 3S tA WXwo* Lk. 8, 21 rdy X*yoi' 

Mt. 4, S ™0 KSapav Lk. 4, S t^i aUoviitinis [Q] 

Mk. 4, 8 tA 5r€Tpffi«« Lk. 8, 6 ri/v vtrpav 

Mk. 6, 14 PanXeOs Lk. 9, 7 TtrpaApxip (= Matt. 14, i) 

Mk. 13, 25 iartpts Lk. 21, 25 fiiTTpots 

Mk. IS, 27 Xjirrds Lk. 23, 32, 33 KaKovpym. 

Luke adds Sbya/us to llbvo-ta: 
Mk. I, 27 kot' l£ou(r{ai> Lk. 4, 36 iv ^qvalg. koX Smi&iui 

Mk. 6, 7 aUou afrroTs i^irlav Lk. 9, I Uuxev airrois Sbva/ur Kal i^v- 


Compare Luke 10, 19 'iSiv SiSoiKa iitiv t^v ^pvirlav . . . xai hrl ira<rav riiv Siva/up 
ToO ixOpov; Luke 4, 6 col iitau t^k k^oviriav Taiirr/v iiracav Koi ri/v Sd^av aiirav (Matt. 
4, 8 has T^o SAJac iifnuv and ToOri troi irdiTo S(!xrai); Luke 12, 11 irl t4s avvayoiyis 
Kal Ttks dpxAs "oi Tds 4|ow£os (cf. Maik 13, 9 f . = Matt. 10, 17 f. = Luke 21, 12 
avviSpia . . . cvDayaryis . . . irYtiibvuv . . . fieuriXiuv) ; Luke 20, 20 tJ ApxS "o^ '^ 
l^uolf ToO 4Tciu6>>cs (not in Mark 12, 13). 

He changes " father and (or) mother " to " parents," and perhaps "brother(s) and 
sisterCs) " to " brethren," 

Mk. s, 40 Tie 7rar4pa Kal riiv p.i)Tipa Cf. Lk. 8, 56 ol yovtU 

Mk. 10, 29 iirirkpa 4 irarkpa Lk. 18, 29 yovfis 

iSeK<l>oiK ft iSt>icl>&s iSeK<j>obs 

1 Cf. Matt. 24, SI intoKptTuv = Lk. 12, 46 ivUrTuv, and other passages where 
inroKpirhs appears in Matt, but not in Luke. Here, however, Luke has the verb 
((TTOKptvo/iicovs 20, 20). 

^ See Schmid, Atticismus, II, 207; IH, 220: "ciripua = progenies ist mehr poetisch 
als prosaisch," and Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, p. 488, note 3 : " Es ist doch sehr bezeich- 
nend, dass Lukas das in diesein Sinn hebraisierende Wort <ntkpii.a nur an zwd Stellen 
hat, von denen die eine (20, 28) ein Citat aus der Septuag., die andere (i, 55) eine 
direkte Beziehung auf diese ist." 

' Frequent in Acts; also Luke 24, 48. The change is no doubt connected with 
Luke's omission of witnesses (.cf. pp. 102 f.) and iiaprvpla occurs in Mark 14, sSi S^, S9- 

* Cf. 8t\riiia, of God's will, in Matt. 6, 10; 7, 21, but not in Luke 6, 46; 11, 2. 


Mk. 3, 32 Uekttiol Kai &i«X0a( Lk. 8, 20 iSt\<t>ol 

Mk. 3, 35 iSeMAs koI A«6X<W Lk. 8, 21 iSeMol 

Mt. 10, 37 vldv ^ evyarkpa Lk. 14, 26 rixi/o [Q] 

But the first passage in Luke has also (8, 51) riy traripa xal Hp' larripa and the 
last passage has both this combination and rois dSeX^As ml ris iiifSil>i.s. In two of 
these passages Luke (14, 26; 18, 29) makes the significant addition fl (koI rliy) ywaiKa. 
In Hatt. 24, 49 = Luke 12, 45 it may be Matthew who changes into nis <nivdoO\m)s 
(found also in Matt. 18, 28, 29, 31, 33) the rois iralSas Kal tAs TcuSla-Kas of Luke, which 
looks Semitic enough to be original. 

The synonyms Xa6s and 3xXos occur in the synoptic writers ap- 
proximately as follows: 

Matt. Mark Luke Acts 

Xo6s 14 (4 from LXX) 3 (i from LXX) 37 48 (5 from LXX) 

3xXos 47 27 41 22 

Lvike uses both quite freely, but his preference for Xa6s, shown 
by the frequency of its occurrence in comparison with the other 
synoptists, is confirmed by the changes he makes in the wording of 
his sources as indicated by the following parallels: 

Mk. II, 18 jros d BxXos Lk. 19, 48 6 y^ads iiras 

Mk. II, 32 rdv SxXoK (v. I. Xoov) Cf. Lk. 20, 6 6 Xods fiTrai 

Mk. 12, 12 riv ix^" Lk. 20, 19 Tdi'\a6v 

Mk. 12, 37 6 iroXis 8xXos Cf. Lk. 20, 45 wavrds tov XooB 

Mk. IS, II iiviaeuraj' riv Sx>Mv Cf . Lk. 23, $ ivaaeUt rip Xodi' (cf. p. 


Note the preference of Matthew, and to a less degree of Luke, for the plural 8xXik. 
It occurs only once (10,1) in Mark, in Luke 15 times, in Matt. 30 (32) times, in Acts 
7 times. 

Liike probably has a greater liking for aviip than has Mark, who 
uses it but four times (in three of which it has the more hmited 
sense of "husband," "male"), or than Matthew who uses it eight 
times (four in the special sense), or than John, who uses it eight 
times (six in the special sense). 

Mk. 3, 3 ivepiymt Lk. 6, 8 ivSpl 

Mk. S, 2 ivOpaTos Lk. 8, 27 iviip i-is 

Note also the use of i-viip in the following passages, where it is not found in the 

Luke S, 12. 18; 8, 38; 9, 30, 38; ". 31; 23. Sobia; U, 4 (cf. iSo6,p, p. 178 n.). 
In view of these facts the apparent reversal of habit is noteworthy in the following 

Mt. 7, 24 i'vSpl ^podiuf Lk. 6, 48 i.vBpintit 

Mt. 7, 26 ivSpl IMPV ^^- ^' 49 6.v9pi>irif 


For TTvevtMa or irvevna aK&OapTov of possessing demons Luke in 
his gospel occasionally substitutes another expression: 

Mk. I, 23 iy TVfiiiaTi iKaOipTtf Lk. 4, 33 ixav irvtS/ia Sai/iovtov iKa$i,pTov 

Mk. I, 26 ri TTKcO/ia rd iKiOaprov Lk. 4, 35 tA Saiii6vu>i> 

Mk. 5, 2 tv TrvdiiiaTi ixadiprif Lk. 8, 27 tx")" Saindvia 

Mk. 5, 13 rd imiiiaTa rd iKiSapra Lk, 8, 33 rd Saiiiivia 

Mk. 6, 7 Tuv TTKCvjitdrbii' TUf &KaSi,pTO>v Lk. 9, I rd Sat/iina 

Mk. 9, 20 t6 irceO/ia Lk. 9, 42 rd SainSviov 

But rd wcO/ua is used by Luke in some passages, mostly dependent on known 

Luke 4, 36 (= Mark i, 27); 6, 18 (= Mark 3, 11); 7, 21 (cf. Mark 3, 11); 8, 2; 8, 
29 (= Mark 5, 8); 9, 42 (= Mark 9, 25); 10, 20; 11, 24, 26 (= Matt. 11, 43, 45). 

In Acts daiii6vLov is used of gods (Acts 17, 18), and for evil spirits irvevna ix&Saproy, 
etc. irveO/io itoiniphv is found in Luke 7, 21; 8, 2 and Acts 19, 12-16 (four times), but 
nowhere else in the New Testament. 

While Luke uses both the singular and plural of ohpavbt (heaven) 
and <7(i/3j8aTOj' (Sabbath, week), the plurals are less frequent. 

oipavol occurs only in Luke 10, 20; [11, 2a]; 12, 33; 18, 22; 21, 26 (LXX); Acts 2, 
34; 7, 56, where possibly some plural meaning is intended. Note that at both 12, 33 and 
18, 22 the parallels to Luke's flijo-aupdc kv rots oipavots have the singular: Mark 10, 
21 Briaavpiv iv obpavlf. Matt. 6, 20 6ri<ravpois iv oipavS, so that for this phrase the change 
seems intentional. For the opposite difference see 
Mk. 1, 10 Tois obpavois Lk. 3, 21 t6v obpavbv 

Mk. I, II hi Tuv oipavwv Lk. 3, 22 i| oipavoD 

Mt. S, 12 i» Tois oipavots Lk. 6, 23 tt> t$ oipavif [Q] 

Mt. 7, II iv Toir obpavois Lk. 11, 13 i£ abpavov [Q] 

In the last two cases Matthew has his favorite plurals. 

Except in the phrases ^piipa twv (rafiP&Tuv, Luke 4, 16; Acts 13, 14; 16, 13 (pe- 
culiar to Luke; cf. also iiiiipa toO tf-aiSjSdrov Luke 13, 14, 16; 14, 5, also peculiar) and 
the more common tila tuv (rafipiruv (Luke 24, i; Acts 20, 7; cf. Matt. 28, i; Mark 
16, 2; John 20, I, ig) Luke never uses the plural of aififfarov in a. singular sense.' 
When Mark has such a plural Luke either changes it to the singular, as in 
Mk. 2, 23 Tols o-Aj8|8o<7i Lk. 6, x iv aafifiiiTif [ievrtpovpiiTif] 

Mk. 3, 2 TOIS aifiPaai Lk. 6, 7 b> rif <ra/3/3dT(|> 

Mk. 3, 4 roTs aifi^aai Lk. 6, 9 tQ tro/S/Sdr^) 

or he changes other parts of Mark's sentence so that the plural if retained may be a 
real plural: 
Mk. ±,21 tWii ToTs ahp^aaiv iSlSaaKiv^ Lk. 4, 31 icai fjv SiS/utkuv abrobs iv tois 

Mk. 2, 24 t£ 7roio!)(rii> tois o-d^jSao-tv 8 o£/c Lk. 6, 2 t£ iroteire i obx ^errip tois 
iieimv aipfiain 

' In these phrases quoted above, the singular 4/iipa, /ila, makes the phrase un- 
ambiguous. An exception may be made of Luke 13, 10 iv tois abfi^aau) {v.l. b> <rafipi,T<i), 
but probably the ^v itSdo-Kuv is to be understood as in 4, 31. 

' Whatever reading is adopted, it is evident that only one sabbath is meant. 



Luke seems to make one change of gender contrary to the rules of 
the Atticists. Moeris distinguishes the genders of /SAtoj, " bush," 
thus: 6 fikrot Attikws- i) /SAtos AXtjj-ikwj. Luke not only has the 
feminine at Acts 7, 35, but according to the best mss. of Mark has 
changed the mascuhne of Mark 12, 26 to the feminine Luke 20, 37. 
In LXX the gender is mascuhne (Exod. 3, 2 ff.; Deut. ^^, 16). 

Use of Pronouns 

Nothwithstanding his inclination to fill out incomplete sentences/ 
Luke rarely if ever adds an unemphatic personal pronoun, and those 
Tfliich he finds in his source (possibly due to the prominence of these 
pronouns in Semitic idiom) he omits. The examples in the nomina- 
tive are most numerous in contexts derived from Q. 


Mt. Si 44 ^<<' Si 'Kir/a iiiiv 

Mt. II, 10 iryi) iiroiTTiWoi (LXX, 

Mk. I, 2) 
Mt. 10, 16 ISoi ir/i) itroardiKa 
Mt. 12, 28 h^ UpiWa 
Mt. 23, 34 Hoi) hfii iiroariWa 
Mk. 12, 26 'Kiyav iyi) i BtSt 

Mk. 14, 30 ai> . . . hirapviia-a 
Mk. 14, 68 oirt oMo aire inlaTaiiai aii 
tI X47«is 

Mt. 7, 12 iiiels 
Mt. S, 48 i/jteis 
Mt. 10, 31 iiuis 


Mk. 14, 14 KorAXu/ii Mou 

Mt. 13, 16 6fuiv di iMucipioi ol IxjiOaKitol 
Mt. 7, 1 1 i irariip diiSiv 
Mt. 6, 2S Tg ^«xfi */""" 
Mt. 6, 25 r^ iT&iiaTi iit&v 

Lk. 6, 27 dXXd 4/iiv "Kir/u [Q] 
Lk. 7, 27 ATroo-riXXu [Q] 

Lk. 10, 3 WoO ivoarkWa [Q] 

Lk. II, 20 iKfidXhu [Q] 

Lk. II, 49 dTToo-TcXa [Q] 

Cf. Lk. 20, 37 "hir/a xiipiov rdv Stbv 

Lk. 22, 34 itrapv^a'jg 

Cf. Lk. 22, 60 obx olda 6 'Kiyas 

Lk. 6, 31 4/i«j (B syr. sin. al. omit) [Q] 
Lk. 6, 36 omits [Q] 
Lk. 12, 7 omits [Q] 

Lk. 22, II KariiKv/ia 

Lk. 10, 23 luuihpioi ol 6<t)8aSiu)l [Q] 

Lk. II, 13 6 irariip [Q] 

Lk. 12, 22 TD 'pvxv [Ql 

Lk. 12, 22 T$ fTilfiaTt [Q] 

Scholten, p. 48, notices an interesting difference between Lixke's use of genitive 
pronouns with the name of God and Matthew's. Whatever be the reason for the con- 
trast whether it be the Paulinism of Luke as Scholten thinks, or rather a stylistic pref- 
erence of Matthew, the expression " your Father " does not occur in Luke except in 
6, 36; 12, 30, 32. Compare the following parallels: 

' See pp. 149 S. 



I^t. 5, 45 viol roO irarpis inQy roO tv 

Mt. 7, 1 1 d trarilp iit&i> 6 b> Tois obpavois 
Mt. 10, 29 ToO Trarpis ip&v 
Mt. 10, 20 rd wtvita roO Trarpds i/iwi' 
Mt. 6, 26 A irariip iij&v 6 oip&x'ios 

Matt. 6, 9 vierep iipHv i b> roZs obpavoXi 


Mk. 14, IS irmitiuraTt iliuv 

Mk. I, 40 XfTUK o4tv 

Mk. 1, 41 tiiya atiTtf [KWi o/. omit] 

Mk. 5, 9 X47« "W 

Mk. Si 19 X^Ta o4t§ 

Mk. S, 41 ^*T« oirg 

Mk. 6, 37 X470u<ri;' air$ 

Mk. 8, 27 X47(i)i» airois 

Mk. 8, 29 \iyei air^ 

Mk. 9, 19 alrroU Xfeya 

Mk. 9, 38 ti/nt oir4) 

Mt. 24, 4S Tov Sovvai airots 

Mk. 10, 20 fe/nj afrr^ 

Mk. 12, 16 elTTox oiT§ 

Mk. 14, 48 elmv atnois 

Accusative (contrast addition of accusative, 
Mk. 3, 2 iraperiipovp aiirbv ei Bepaireba 

Mk. 5, 14 ol fiSaKOVTfs airrois 
Mk. 9, 39 m4 KuXiere airdi' 

Lk. 6, 3S uW b^Urrm [Q] 

Lk. II, 13 A TOT^p 4 4£ obpavov [Q] 
Lk. 12, 6 roO deoO [Q] 
Lk. 12, 12 rd &YUH' TfcO/io [QI 
Lk. 12, 24 6 066s [Q] 

Lk. II, 2 iriLTfp [Q] 

Lk. 22, 12 imiiiuran (of. 22, 8 kroinii- 

aart iliuv) 
Lk. 5, 12 X^djc 
Lk. 5, 13 elv(!»> 
Lk. 8, 30 6 Si ehai 
Lk. 8, 38 \iy<^ 
Lk. 8, 54 X^ui' 
Lk. 9, 13 olSi elrav 
Lk. 9, 18 \iywv 
Lk. 9, 20 flTev 
Lk. 9, 41 etn-fj' 
Lk. 9, 49 elxo' 
Lk. 12, 42 rod Sovfot [Q] 
Lk. 18, 21 elTTS' 
Lk. 20, 24 cTirov 
Lk. 22, SI tlirei' 

p. 151): 

Lk. 6, 7 irapenipovvTo A SepaveOa 

Lk. 8, 34 o2 P&aKovra 
Lk. 9, 50 p,ii KwXbere 

Examples of the apparent insertion of personal pronouns by Luke 
are the following: 

Lk. 5, 20 i^bavTal aoi al inaprlai <rao 
Lk. S, 23 i^tuvTal aoi al inapHai. aov 
Lk. 9, 50 eX-rfv Si xpAs airSp 
Lk. 10, 24 IStiv i fi/Mis ffXtvere [Q] 

Lk. 12, 29 Koi iiuis /lil fjJT6tT6 [Q] 

Lk. 20, 3 ipa)Hi<ru icAyi inas (= Matt. 

21, 24) 
Lk. 20, 41 elTfv Si Tp6s ain-ois 
Lk. 22, II Xiyet <roi 

Mk. 2, 5 aou al djuaprfiu 
Mk. 2, 9 iA^Umal aov al inaprlai 
Mk. 9, 39 elvev 
Mt. 13, 17 ISilv S ;8X4x£Te 
Mt. 6, 31 ptii oBv fiepifiviiirere 
Mk. II, 29 iirepwT^irw i^ios 

Mk. 12, 35 8X6761' 
Mk. 14, 14 Xi76t 

The first two additions are hard to explain (see Hamack, Luke the Physician, p. 91); 
in the third and fourth cases Luke has omitted a pronoun elsewhere in the sentence 
(see above, and p. 191), so that the inserted pronouns are here compensations (in Luke 9, 
SO possibly a mistake) for the omitted words. The next two cases add the pronoun 
for emphasis; the last two instances are due to a change of construction or context. 


The unclassical uses of els are frequently corrected by Luke: 

1. As an indefinite pronoun: ^ 

Mk. 6, IS «Ij tSk Tpo^TUP Lk. 9, 8 irpo(t)iiTtis ns 

Mk. 8, 28 els TOi' irpcK^ruv Lk. 9, 19 irpo^4n)s rts 

Mk. 10, 17 eU . . . tmip&Ta Lk. 18, 18 irnipirniiriv t« . . . ipxov 

Mk. 12, 28 tis Twi/ ypa/iiiaTiap Lk. 20, 39 riyfa tuv ypaii/iariuv, cf. 10, 

25 voiuKis ns 

Mk. 12, 42 tda xipa. Lk. 21, 2 Tivd X^POK 

Mk. 13, I Xiyet . . . eij tSv iiaBriTav Lk. 21, 5 rti'(!i;> XcyAitmi' 

Mk. 14, 66 Ilia tSiv iratSiaKiiv Lk. 22, 56 TaiSlaKii tk 

2. Meaning ' alone ' : 

Mk. 2, 7 tl m4 «Is 6 ee6s Lk. s, 21 «t i«4 juAkoi 6 0(6s 

But in Luke 18, 19 it is kept unchanged (but N*B* omit i) from Mark 10, 18. 

3. As a correlative: 

Lk. 17, 34 [4] cIs . . . 6 <S«pos [Q] 
Lk. 17, 3S it Ilia ... i brkpa [Q] 
Lk. 23, 33 Sv fiiv . . . Sv Sk 

Mt. 24, 40 fU . 

. . els 

Mt. 24, 41 ula . 

. . ula 

Mk. IS, 27 Iko , 

. . . ipa 


Mk. 4, 8 iv . . . 

. iv . . . 


Mk. 4, 20 iv . . 

. iv . . 

. iv 

Lk. 8, 8 iKaTOVTaT\a<rlova 
Lk. 8, IS iv iwoitov^ 

But some accented mss. and modem editors imderstand ev in Mark as a preposition, 
rather than (with the versions) as a numeral. And at Mark 4, 8 as is read for a> in 
some MSS. once (BL), in others thrice (KC (U.). 

4. In various other uses: 

Mk. S, 22 els Tuv ipxttrvvayiryuv Lk. 8, 41 ivijp . . . ipxoiv Tijs avvayiayris 

Mk. 9,17 tU he Tou 3xXo« Lk. 9,38 iviip iiri toB oxKou 

Mk. 9, 37 iv Tuv iratSloiv Tobriav Lk. 9, 48 toDto rd iraiSlov 

Mt. 6, 27 irijxvv iva Lk. 12, 2S irijxvv [Q] 

Mk. II, 29 iva "Kirfov Lk. 20, 3 XAyok 

Mk. 12, 6 iva . . . vUiv 6.yain)T6v Lk. 20, 13 vlbv . . . i-yavrirbv 

Mk. 14, 10 b its tS)v SiiSaca Lk. 22, 3 iK roO ipiSpov tQv SiiSfKa 

ain-Ss, intensive, is a favorite word with Luke, especially in the 
nominative in the expressions Kal airds, airbs hi,^ which are often 
used in recasting prefaces of sections from Mark, and elsewhere. 

Besides this, we find it used even for the personal pronouns of the 
first and second persons. 

Mt. 6, 12 iK Kal iiiifts i^Kaiuv Lk. II, 4 koJ 74p airoi 4^£o/io' [Q] 

Mt. 23, 4 airoi 5i . . . o4 ek\m<n. Lk. II, 46 md airrol . . . ob irpoaiiaben 



Mt. 23, 13 *At"s y&p <Ak d<ripxf(^t Lk. 11, $2 airol <Ak tiirfiXBan [Q] 

Cf. Luke 6, 42; 22, 71; Acts 22, 20; 24, 16 and elsewhere. 

• See J. H. Moulton, Grammar, I, 96 f . 

* See above, p. 15° *• and consult Moulton and Geden, Concordance, for complete 


More emphatic than the afrris intensive is oBtos resumptive, as in 4 4J irtroneiw as 
tA t4Xos, oBtos aweriaeTai (Mark 13, 13 = Matt. 10, 22; 24, 13; cf. Mark 3, 35). In 
rewriting this passage Luke does not retain the construction, but in other parallels he 
adds it. Compare with Mark's explanation of the parable of the sower (4, 13-20) 
both Matt. 13, 20, 22, 23 (6 5i . . . atraptU . . . oJtAs iari) and Luke 8, 14, 15 (xA Si 
. . . inabv, o5to£ elo'ii'); and the following: 
Luke 9, 24 as h' &v diroXiffD t^k \^x'i>' ■ • • o^ros (Mark 8, 35 = Matt. 16, 1$ omit) 

Luke 9, 26 8s yap &v iwataxwB^ ite . . ., tovtov (Mark 8, 38 /coi . . . ainbv) 6 uios 

Tov 6.vdp6ii70v kTraiffx^^V^^aif 
Luke 9, 48 6 yap luKp/mpos iv iraaiv iir&px'^'', oBris icrri-v /leyos (cf. Mark 9, 35; 

10, 43 f. = Matt. 20, 26 f. = Luke 22, 26; Matt. 23, 11). 

Compare also Acts 2, 23; 7, 35; 15, 38; 17, 6. 

With Luke's Kal ainds should be compared his <to£ ovtos. The two nominatives are 
easily confused (especially in the feminine forms) and are often exchanged in the mbs. 
Luke 7, 1 2 Kal avTTi [^v] X^PO 

Luke 8, 13 Kal oBrot (v.l.; Mark 4, 17 omits) ^ifoK oix ixov"-" 

Luke 8, 41 Kal ovtos (BD al.; airSs SA al.) &pxo>v t^s trwayorrrjs mfipxiv (cf. Mark 

S. 22) 

Luke 8, 42 Kal avTTi i.Tr^vTi(TKiv (cf. Mark 5, 23) 

There is a somewhat more classical tone in the use of erepos for 
aXXos, even though it be not always used according to classical 
idiom.i Hence we notice here: 

Mk. 4, 5, 7, 8 ftXXo . . . aXXo . . . Lk. 8, 6, 7, 8 irtpov . . . inpov . . . 

fiXXo {v.l. 4XXo) inpov 

Mk. 12, 4, S fiXXov . . . SlXSov Lk. 20, 11, 12 irtpov . . . rplrov 

Mk. 10, II = Matt. 19, 9 dWiiv . . . Lk. 16, 18 krkpav (perhaps from Q) 

In the question of John the Baptist, " Art thou he that should come or look we for 
another ? " the majority of mss. of Luke read fiXXov in both 7, 19 and 20. But all mss. 
of Matt. II, 3, KBLW in Luke 7, 19, and NDL with the group 1-118-131-209 in 
Luke ,7, 20, read trtpov. In this case the original reading of Q must be considered very 

Cf. Mk. IS, 41 Ka2 aXXu TToXXat Lk. 8, 3 koI iTtpanroWal 

The possessive use of iSioj is not common in the S3Tioptic Gospels 
(perhaps altogether absent from Mark), but it occurs a few times in 
Luke where it is not in the parallels: 

Mt. 7, 3 iv tQ aif i^SoXMV Lk. 6, 41 iv tv I6itf 6<l>ea\iuf [Q] 

Mt. 12, 33 k ToB KopjroO Lk. 6, 44 fe toB lS£ou KapjroC [Q] 

Mk. 10, 28 4/«is i<l>iiKaii{v irivra Lk. 18, 28 iiiitis ii^ivris ri Uia 

' See Blass, § 51, 6. Note irtpos in Luke 4, 43 for ixk/itvos in Mark 1, 37, and 
compare rg iripq. = rg ixonivj, {sc. iiiiipf) Acts 20, 15 (v.l.); 27, 3, and in the same 
sense, ' next,' (?) Luke 6, 6; 9, 56. 


Luke uses the classical reciprocal pronoun for less correct ex- 

Mk. I, 27 xpds iauTofcs (v.l. airois) Lk. 4, 36 wpis AXX^Xous 

Mt. II, 16 Tois tripois Lk. 7, 32 dXX^XoK [Q] 

Mk. 12, 7 irpAs iavToAs Lk. 20, 14 irpAs dXXiJXous 

Mk. 16, 3 wpis iavT&s Cf. Lk. 24, 14, 17, 32 irpds dXXiJXous 

Luke also omits the reflexive iavrov as follows: 

Mk. .i, 8 Jiri7i'ois . . . 8ti oStus 6iaXa- Lk. 5, 22 kinyvois tovs 6iaXo7i<rjuois 

■ytfoi'Tat Jf tavTOLs airuv 

Mk. 4, 17 oiic ixoxxTiv l>liav h> JoutoIs Lk. 8, 13 /SffoK 06/t ?x<"«''"' 

Mk. S, 30 4iri7TOis 4y iaurij riiv . . . Cf . Lk. 8, 46 irfii yap ir/vwv Siva/tiv ktX. 

diva/uv ktX. 

Mk. 6, 36 i.yop&(ruinv kavTols tI tfiityiiMnv Lk. 9, 12 sipoMnv iiruriTuriidv 

Mk. 9, 8 'iTjffoBc /kAvov /itfl' JauTSK Lk. 9, 36 'IijcroBs /niros 

Mt. 12, 45 irapaXaiiPivfi fifS' iavTov Lk. II, 26 TrapaKaiiPivu [Q] 

The reflejdve occurs in Luke and Acts with 7rp6s only in Luke 20, s (from Mark 11, 
31) ; 22, 23; with if only at Luke 3, 8 (from Q, = Matt. 3, 9, though here also there is 
weighty evidence from fathers and versions for omitting the phrase in Luke); 7, 39 and 
49, in the parables {12, 17; 16,3; 18, 4), and in Acts 10, 17; 12,11; never with m^tb. 

Use of Adjectives and of the Article 

In adjectives, as in other parts of speech, Luke has well-marked 
preferences. His favorite airas, "found only once certainly in Mark, 
three times in Matthew " (Scholten, p. 20, note 7), occurs certainly 
for iras in such passages as: 

Mt. 4, 9 TaCrd (roi iravTa Sixru Lk. 4, 6 <rol Simu t^k i^valav rabniv 

tfffaaav [Q] 
Mk. 2, 12 tlil<rra<r6ai Tri-pras Lk. S, 26 feffroffis iXaptv iiravras 

In the following cases axos is a well attested variant reading in Luke: 

Mk. I, 32 TrdcTas Tois KaKws txovras Lk. 4, 40 4iracr«s (BC al.) iam ilxov 

Mk. 6, 39 i.vaK\Xvanri.vTas Lk. 9, 15 KOTfeXtvayajrovTOS (ABCrAo/.) 

Mk. 12, 44 xdi/Tts . . . l/SoXoc Lk. 21, 4 avavra (ALQWr al.) . . . 

Mk. 12, 44 ttAvto 6<ra elx*", SXov' t6v Lk. 21, 4 iTavTa{ 
fiiov *" f^X^" 

* Cf. Mk. I, 28 SKriv riiv irtpixupov Lk. 4, 37 jrAcro rimov t^s vepixiipov 

Mk. 1, 39 fis 8Xi;y T^y roXtXoiav Lk. 4, 44 t^s TaXtXaias 

Mk. 14, 5 S ^^'"' ''* (TvviSpiov Cf. Lk. 22, 66 tA irper^vripiov rod XooO 

Mk. IS, I 8X01' tA avvtSpiov Lk. 23, l iirac rd ir\TJ6os airuv 


Note however: 
Mk. I, 27 Waiifiifiri<raD ivavrts (KBL) Lk. 4, 36 iyivero Btiiffm tvl rivrai 
Mt. 6, 32 xPif«« Tobruv iiri-tnuv Lk. 12, 30 xPDf*^* roirba' [Q] 

From parallels with Matthew, Hamack (Sayings, p. 80) infers 
that Luke has avoided for sound linguistic reasons the absolute use 
of afios. The passages are: 

Mt. 10, II iiCTiffore rk 4&6s feTTiK Lk. 9, s; 10, s no corresponding ex- 

pression [Q] 
Mt. 10, 13 kiLV iiiv i 4 olda d£(a Lk. 10, 6 Ua/ i ixei vUs Apfivrp [Q] 

Mt. 10, 13 khv Si M i 4^0 Lk. 10, 6 «t «i M*ye [Ql 

Mt. 22, 8 ol KfKKriiitvoi oin. TJaav £|uh Cf. Lk. 14, 24 [Q] 

Observe also how the phrase oix ianv nov £|ios occurring three times in Matt. 
10, 37 f . is replaced twice in Luke 14, 26 f. by the definite od Sivarai. elral ftov /uodijr^s. 

Luke's favorite Uavos appears in his rewriting of Mark 5, 11 
ayiKt] xoipuv fieyiiXr] as Luke 8,32 &yeKri xo'<-p<>>v lkovuv, and in the ex- 
pressions added in Luke 8, 27 (= Mark 5, 3), Luke 20, 9 (= Mark 
12, i), and Luke 23, 9 (cf. Mark 15, 4). But iroi^o-ai rh iKavbv 
(Mark 15, 15, said to be a Latinism, cf. Acts 17, 9) disappears in 
Luke 23, 24; and in Acts 13, 25 (and John i, 27), for the Baptist's 
confession of unworthiness, instead of ov ovk eifil Uavos k.t.\. (Mark 
1,7= Luke 3, 16 = Matt. 3, ri), we read o5 ovk dul ofioj ktX. 

Literary improvement may probably be recognized in the follow- 
ing cases: 

Mk. 2, 3 irapa\vTiK6v Lk. $, i8 TrajnaXeXv^os 

Mk. 2, 10 TapaXunxf' Lk. s, 24 ■irapa\e\viibxf (AB al., irapa- 

\vTiK<f HCD ai.) 

Mk. 4, 16 irpixrKaipol (late, Schmid, I. Lk. 8, 12 vpis KeupAv nvTebovaip 

373) eliTiv 

Mk. 9, 42 = Matt. 18, 6 ftiXmiviKSs^ Lk. 17, 2 XWos AivXwis [Q?] 

Mk. 10, 22 ixuv KrliiULTa iroXX& (see Lk. 18, 23 vKalmuK (T<l>6Spa (but cf. vs. 

Norden, Kunstprosa, 489) 24) 

Mk. 10, 47 'IijffoOi 6 Ha^aprji'ds Lk. 18, 37 'Iijo-oBs i Na^'upaios* 

' xapaXvrtKd: occurs again at Mt. 8, 6 and the equally incorrect /Jturanj'A/io'o: 
(see p. 59, n. 64), but neither is in the parallel of Luke 7, 2. 

2 Probably Mark's phrase would be condemned by Atticists because of their dis- 
tinction between iidKos and Svos. See Norden, p. 488, note 2. Besides, ivudn is a rare 
word, though it has been recently foimd in the papyri; see Expositor, 7th Series, X 
(1910), p. 92, where three cases are cited. 

» On the origin of the two forms, see Dalman, Grammatik des jUdisch-palSstinischen 
AramUisch,p. 141, note 7. The former is found always (4 times) in Mark, and Luke once 
takes it over (Luke 4, 34 = Mark i, 24); but the latter is probably the more regular 


Mk. 12, 42 jrTMx* Lk. 21, 2 irewxpil' (but cf . vs. 3) 

Mk. IS, 43 eiffx^/Moy, 'rich* (Lobeck, Cf. Lk. 23, 30 A7o#ii Koi iicoioj 
PAryw. 333) 

The following cases also involve differences between Luke and his 
parallels in the use of adjectives: 

Mk. 4, 8 T^K 7^1/ Hiv KoXiip Lk. 8, 8 ri/v y^i- ri/v iycuBiiv (ct. 8, 15) 

Mk. 4, 19 ixapirot ylverai Lk. 8, 14 oi reXecr^opaOo'ti' 

Mk. 9, 7 d7oiniT6s Lk. 9, 35 ixKeKeyiitvos (»./.) 

Here Luke has in mind Isa. 42, i; cf. UXeerSs Lk 22, 35 

Mk. 10, 22 Xxnroiiums Lk. 18, 23 irepIXinros 

Mt. 25, 24 aieXiipis Lk. 19, 21 (22) aiarripbs [Q] 

Mk. 12, 25 Aah> £a iyyiKoi Lk. 20, 36 lai.yytKal elaiv 

Mk. 15, 27 ii (iuvbuwv Lk. 23, 33 *{ ipiaTtpuv 

The Article 

Some miscellaneous differences between Luke and his parallels in 

the use of the article are discussed by Scholten, pp. 22, 37, 102 f. 

The omission of the article four times in the saying on the lamp in 

Luke 8, 16 (= Mark 4, 21) he thinks shows that Luke missed the 

fact that in a Jewish peasant home there was just one of each piece 

of furniture mentioned (cf. p. 130). But a full comparison with the- 

two other parallels makes this interpretation less probable. 

Mark 4, 21 Luke 8, 16 Luke ii, 33 Matt, s, iS 

6 yiixvos \bxvov \bxvov "Kbxvov 

rbv iiiStov axeba t6v lioSiov riv itSSiov 

rijv kMvtiv (tX£(Tjs 

Tijv XuxJ'to" Xuxo'ni (ND al. t^k Xuxyt'^v) riiv \vxvlav rijv 'Kvxi'la.v 

More interesting, and with greater confidence attributable to con- 
siderations of style, are the cases where Luke removes a repeated 

Mk. I, 27 Tois midiiiOAn rots ixaBi.pTOi.% Lk. 4, 36 toTi &cad&pTou wv^iiaau) 
Mk. 4, 20 feri riiv yfiv Tip/ KaKhv Lk. 8, 15 iv t% KoXg 7fi 

Mk. 8, 38 Tuai i.yyi'Kum tuv &ylu»> Lk. 9, 26 t&v iyiuiv i.yySuov 

Mk. 3, 29 Ti jtwSmo Td a7«»' _ I Lk. 12, 10 tA a7«>y ttcSaxo [Q?] 

Mt. 12, 32 ToO weiiiaTOS rod aylov J 

Mk. 13, II rd irviviia t6 47101' Lk. 12, 12 tA iyiov irvfvita [Q?] 

Mk. II, 2 riiv K&iaiv ri/v Karivavn Lk. 19, 30 riiv KorkuavTi *6>iX7iv 

Mk. 13, 25 aJ Swi^ieii oJ Iv toTs obpavoU Lk. 21, 3s = Matt. 24, 29 al Swi/uis 

Tuni obpaviiv 

form (Matt. 2, 23; 26, 71; John 18, s, 75 19. ip; Acts 2, 22; 3, 6; 4, 10; 6, 14; 22, 8; 
24 S; 26, 9). In Luke 24, 19 Greek and Latin mss. are pretty evenly divided between 
the two. 


In one reverse case: 
Mk. 1 2,, 6 vl6y iyaintTdv Lk. 20, 13 riv v16p juou t6v ir/airiiTbv 

the later evangelist, using the first person and thinldng of the application of the par- 
able to Christ, naturally assimilates to the form of the heavenly voice b uiM /tov i 
&yaTr]T6s found in Mark i, 11 = Luke 3, 22 = Matt. 3, 17; Mark 9, 7 = Luke 9, 35 
(NB al. 6 ul6s iwxi 6 iKKeXeyiiii/os) = Matt. 17, 5. In the parable of the beam and mote 
the repeated article t6 K&ptfxK rd kv rc^ d^aX;x$ k.t.X., riiv doxiiv t^v kv r$ ISUfi d^aXp^, 
.occurs four times in Luke 6, 41 f. but in Matt. 7, 3-5 only once, the adjunct being 
usually transferred to the verb. 

The differences between Luke and his parallels in the use of the 
article are otherwise few. In these cases he has added it: 

Mk. 6, 8 = Matt. 9, 10 eh Sd6v Lk. 9, 3 eis (cf. 10, 4 Kari.) t^k iS6i> 

Mk. 10, 13 Trpoat<i>fpov . . . iraiSla Lk. 18, 15 irpoaki^pov ... to ('their'?) 

Mk. 15, I vapiSwKay HaX&Tif Lk. 23, I ^oYoi' . . . 4iri rdv HaKarov^ 

In these parallels it is absent from Luke : 

Mk. I, II ix Twv obpav&v Lk. 3, 22 cf ohpavov 

Mk. 2, 23 5io tSiv (nroplpiasv Lk. 6, t Sti airopifuiiv 

Mt. 12, 34 tK yap ToG irtpiaaebiiaTm Lk. 6, 45 iK yi.p Tepiaati/taTOs KapSlas 

TTJs KapSlas [Q] 

Mk. 4, 36 kv Ttf irXoUf Lk. 8, 22 els irXotoy 

Mk. S, 18 els t6 irXotoK Lk. 8, 37 els irXoioc 

Mt. 7, II 6 kv TOis oipavdts Lk. 11, 13 6 if obpavou [Q] 

Mt. 23, 3S i-ith TOV at/iaros 'AfieK &)s Lk. 11, 51 &iri ai/iaros 'Afie\ ias atftartK 

ToO alitaros Zaxaptov Zaxaplov [Q] 

Mt. 6, 30 rdv xiprov TOV i.ypov Lk. 12, 28 tv iypif rdv xdpTOV [Q] 

Mk. 13, 16 dclsTdc47pA>'(cf. Mt. 24, 18) Lk. 17, 31 b bi kypQ 

Mk. II, 10 iiaavvi. iv toXs i^liTTOis Lk. 19, 38 S6|a kn xi^laroK (so 2, 14) 

Mk. 12, 2 T$ KaLp4> Lk. 20, 10 Koxpif 

Mk. 13, 24 b ^Xios ... 4 mX^yj) ... Lk. 21, 25 kv i}X((jJ Kal ffeXiJiT; Kal offTpots 
ol AoTkpes (cf. Acts 27, 20) 

Note the variation in the use of the article in Matt. 7, 26 = Luke 6, 49 ([riiv] olxlav); 
Matt. 10, 35, 37 = Luke 12, 53; 14, 26, and the following: 

Mk. 1, 30 4 Si vevBeph, 'Zliuavos Lk. 4, 38 irevBepd^ Si toO Sl/mvos 

Mt. II, 16 xatStois KaStiiJLkvois kv rats Lk. 7, 31 iraiSlois tois kv iyop^ xaSri- 
iyopats /tkvois [Q] 

The omission of the article in frequent prepositional phrases is 
found also in classical Greek and in qther languages. With the ex- 
amples given compare in the Synoptic Gospels: 

' Pilate has been mentioned before in Luke (3, i; 13, i; 20, 20) but not in Mark. 


Matt. 9, I al. els ■K\otov; Mark 2 z Iv oIkcjj; 7, 4 air' i.yopa.s; 10, 
21 (= Matt. 19, 21) h> ovpavQ; 11, 30 f. (= Matt. 21, 25 = Luke 
20, 4 f.) i^ ovpavov; 15, 21 (= Luke 23, 26) ott' d^poD; Luke 4, 13 
axpt KtttpoO; 12, 42 (= Matt. 24, 45) ev KaipQ; 11, 16 e^ oipavov; 15, 
25 ej/ &ypcf; 17, 29; 21, 11 dTr' oipavov; 19, 38 ^j* obpavC^. 

See further Robertson, Grammar of Greek N. T., pp. 791 fE. and note the reading 
of KB in Mark 3, i Ai awaytayitv (where other Mss. of Mark insert article with Mt. 
12, 9 = Lk. 6, 6) and of John 6, 59; 18, 20 iv avpayay^. 

Use op Adveebs 

Luke shows an aversion to several of the more frequent adverbs 
and adverbial phrases of Mark. eWvs so abundant in Mark (nearly 
fifty times) seems to occur only once in Luke, and that in a passage 
(6, 49) not dependent on Mark; it is found once in Acts also. Luke's 
commonest substitute is irapaxpvt^c-- 

irdXw', though frequent in Matthew and Mark, occurs in Luke 
but thrice, and in Acts five times. Luke rarely has any substitute, 
either lacking the repetition which it implies or avoiding any refer- 
ence to such repetition. The following are the only passages in Mark 
(or Q) to which Luke has any parallel: 

Mt. 4, 6, 7 yiypaiTTai . . iri.\i,i> Lk. 4, 10, 12 yiypairTai . . . ftpiiTai 



Mk. 2, I iriXtv Cf. Lk. S, 17 tv lii.^ Tuv iiiiepwv 

Mk. 2, 13 irdXu' Lk. S, 27 pttTi Tavra 

Mk. 3, I eio-^XStK xaXu/ Cf. Lk. 6, 6 tv irtptf aaffPirif daeSSttv 

Mk. S, 21 vaXtv avvfixOv Cf. Lk. 8, 40 iiridk^aTO 

Mk. 10, 32 Kal irapoKafiiiv -ir&Kiv Lk. 18, 31 iropaXojSiv Si 

Mk. II, 27 jrAXti' Cf. Lk. 20, ■ b> niq, Tuv ■iiiJiep&v 

Mk. 12, 4 TrdXH" iiriaTei.\fV fiXXoK Lk. 20, 1 1 trpoaiSero tTtpov riii'J'at 

Mk. 14, 69 ^pf OTo irdXii' X&yaj' Lk. 22, 58 ittTo. fipaxi e«pos . . . i^ 

Mk. 14, 70 6 Si iriXiv iipveiro Lk. 22, 58 6 Si XHrpos t^yq . . .,o6k fl/il 

Mk. 14, 70 neri luKpdv vaXtv 'Lk. 22, sg Siatrriurris iiad Sipat /uas SXXos 


Mk. IS, 12 6 St ntiXoTos iriXw dirmtpt- Lk. 23, 20 TriiKiv Si & neiXoTos vpoat^ii- 

eeU fKeycv "V"^" 

Mk. IS, 13 oi Si xdXti' bcpa^av Lk. 23, 21 ol Si in-at>i>mvv 

See also Mark 4, i; 10, 24; 14, 39, 4o, 61; iS, 4- 

Contrariwise, observe 
Mt. 7, 18 oiSi StvSpov aairpbv Lk. 6, 43 obSi irHKiv SivSpov aairpbv [Q] 

Mt. 13, 33 fiXXi/K TrapaffoMiy iXdXijtrei' Lk. 13, 20 Kal irdXti' tlwev [Q] 

The use of iroXXd as an adverb or as an adverbial or cognate ac- 
cusative is avoided by Luke (see above, p. 119): 


Mk. I, 45 M<^To Kiipiaaav teoXKi. Lk. S, iS i^^PXero noKXov 6 Uyos 

Mk. 3, 12 xoXXi hrtrlna Cf. Lk. 4, 41 fcrmiifii' 

Mk. 4, 2 tilSaiTKtv airois h jrapafioXaZi Lk. 8, 4 «Iire>' 5i4 irapafidKrjs 


Mk. Si 10 irop«4X« oiriK iroXXA Lk. 8, 31 xopwiXow oiriy 

Mk. s, 23 jTopc/tAXa (j)./.) o«t4i' jtoXXA Lk. 8, 41 iropociXct airto 

Mk. S, 38 KXotoKTOs Kot AXaXAfoKTOi Lk. 8, 52 feXoioi' Kal bcSirnvTO ainj" 


Mk. S, 43 iiarrelXaTO oirois iroXXi Lk. 8, 56 rapinfyfOiev oirois 

Mk.' 6, 34 Ijp^aTO SiSiurKav airoiis roWi, Lk. 9, II S\6.\a aiiroU vepl riji fituriXtlat 

roO Bern 
Mk. IS, 3 KOTi)76pow oJtoO . . . iroXXi Lk. 23, 2 fjpiavTo Karip/opfiv ainm X4- 

Yoyres, k.t.X. 

oi5Tw$ is a word that could scarcely have given offence to Luke, 
yet he seems to avoid it in some cases: 

Mk. ■/, 7 tI oItos oBtus XoX«; (lKiur(^itti Lk. Si 21 rij ferTix oCtos & XaXei jSXair^- 

Mk. 2, 8 iri oBtus StoXo^tfoi'Tat Lk. S, 22 to4s StaXo7t(r/iofe 

Mk. 2, 12 oGrcos iMkurort tlSafuv Lk. S, 26 ttiopa/ irapiio^a ailufpov 

Mt. S) 12 oBrus Lk. 6, 23 /tard to abri. [Q] 

Mt. 7, 12 oSrws Lk. 6, 31 djuoCus [Q] 

Mt. 24, 39 oBtois (cf. 24, 37 = Lk. 17, 26) Lk. 17, 30 xard rd afrrd [Q] 

Mk. IS, 39 fSri oBtus t^kimtvaev Lk. 23, 47 ri 7a'4/«j'oi' (cf . Matt. 27, 54) 

But oBtws is added to Mark by Luke and Matthew (once each), as follows: 
Mk. II, 3 €tiroT£ (Matt. 21, 3 ipiin Lk. 19, 31 oBrws fpeire 

Mk. 14, 37 KoSdiSas; obx taxvaas Mt. 26, 40 oCrtfs oBk tcrxBa-arc 

Twice in parallels with Matthew Luke has no equivalent for 

Mt. S, 47 ^A'' i<rvi.<rriaSe rois iSeKtpoiis Lk. 6, 33 tai> 6.yaSoirotfjn Tois hyaSo- 

pivor iroiovvras diiSx [Q] 

Mt. 8, 9 dXXd pSvov tlvi X674) Lk. 7, 7 dXXd tlrt X67C1) [Q] 

According to Hainack {Sayings of Jesus, pp. 62 f.), " the p6mv of St. Matthew [$, 47] 
is original: St. Luke avoids this use of the word (only once in the Gospel [8, so] — and 
that from St. Mark — while in St. Matthew it often occurs; it also occurs only once in 
the Acts." 

Yet it is just as likely, or more so, that here Matthew added pivov to the text of Q, 
as he three times inserts pdvov in passages taken from Mark: 

Mk. S> 28 ti,v A^oi/tat k&v t&vIiuitUiiv Mt. 9, 21 idv it6voi> iil/upai, k.t.X. 


Mk. 6, $6 lya k&v . . . iif/avrai Mt. 14, 36 tva p&vov iil/uvTiu 

Mk. II, 13 tl pii <t>b\\a Mt. 21, 19 el pii <^iXXa p6voi> 

Cf. also Mt. 10, 42 with Mk. 9, 41. In Acts pivov occurs seven or eight times. 



From a variety of other differences, occurring only once or twice 
each, we may with less confidence suggest certain preferences or 
aversions on the part of Luke: 

Mk. 1, 3S Kal vpal inrvxa Mo* 

Mk. 15, I Koi tiebs vputl 

Mk. 16, 2 X((u> irpul 

Mk. s, 6 drd MOJcpMcv 

Mk. 14, 54 Axd noKpbBtv 

Mk. I, 26 avaph^av 

Mk, 2, 4 x<>^u<n>' 

Mk. 4, 7 Ai T&s &K&v0a: 

Mk. 14 54 iieri. Tuv iiniperuiv 

Mk. 14, 54 els ripi aiXi^v 

Mk. 14, 66 fa" TO aiXg 

Mk. 15, 38 i<rxl<r8n ds Sio &ir6 ivuBev ias 

ir' dpn 

oiiKiri, 06 fiil 

oi fii) . , . 4x' tpTt 

no phiase of time 

dTT* dpri 


Lk, 4, 42 ytmiihiis Si ijiitpas 

Lk. 22, 66 Kai (i)S tylyero ilfttpa 

Lk. 24, I SpSpov PaStuK 

Lk. 8, 28 omits 

Lk. 22, 54 iiaKp66ev 

Lk. .4, 35 jit^av tls t6 piabv 

Lk. 5, 19 KoBiiKav . . . A% t6 piaop 

Lk. 8, 7 fa) ju^(|) Twi' ixai>0ui> 

Lk. 22, 55 piam abrdv 

Lk. 22, 55 li> /ui<r(|) T^s aAX^s 
Lk. 23, 45 brxlaOtl . . . pi<rm> 

Lk. 13, 35 omits [Q] 

Lk. 22, 18 06 p4 ■ • • &Ti roO vvv 

Lk, 22, 69 &76 ToD ia)i' 

Lk. 9, 3 &K(l (KBC veiss. om.) ito 

Lk. 9, 14 ivA, rnvriiKovTa 
Lk. 10, I hii. Sio (B al. ivi. Sio Sio) 
Lk. 19, 17 eCre (BD Or.; eS NAW o/.) 


The use of Tcpal and of combinations like dir6 paxpidtv perhaps seemed to him less 
elegant, though he uses both himself (Acts 28, 23; Luke 16, 23; 23, 49 ( = Mark 15, 
40). ptiros and adverbial expressions from it are favorites with Luke; his dird toO 
vSv is distinctly preferred by Atticists to ds-' ipn, which occurs in Matt. 26, 29, 64 
(though not in the parallels in Mark ') as well as in Matt. 23, 39, See Lobeck, Phryn., 
p, 21; cf. Moeris 68; Lucian, Soloec. i, dvd in the distributive sense is an Atticism 
(Schniid, Atticismus, IV, 626), «5t6 is a good classical word (ibid., TV, 173; Norden, 
Antike Kunstprosa, II, 487 — " Als Akklamation beliebter als el "). 

Mt, 23, 39 
Mk. 14, 25 
Mt, 26, 29 
Mk. 14, 62 
Mt. 26, 64 

Mk. 6, 9 = Mt. 10, 10 Sio X'Tuvas 

Mk. 6, 40 Kard iKarov xal xari ■atvHiKovra 
Mk. 6, 7 Sio Sio 
Matt. 25, 21, 23 eS 

Below is exhibited Ltike's treatment of double negatives in Mark. 
Matthew also frequently avoids them (Allen, Matthew, p, xxv). 

Mk, I, 44 piiS£i>l pifiiv ehriis Lk, 5, 14 priSail Airtiv 

Mk, S, 37 oiK iufntKev oiStva Lk, 8, 51 oiic /ufnJKai . . . nva 

Mk, 9, 8 oiKh-i oiStva fUoy Lk, 9, 36 omits 

Mk. II, 2 oiSfls . . . o6im KociBiKtv (v.l.) 

Mk, 1.2, H ai) lik^a <roi wepl oiSevdi 

Lk, 19, 30 oiStls TcineoTt 
Lk, 20, 21 omits 


1 Cf. Matt. 9, 18 ipTi ireKtiniaai with Mark 5, 23 iirxi-rm ixa; Matt. II, 12 
?ws ipn with Luke 16, 16 dird rdre. 


Mk. 1 2, 34 oiSds oixkri trSXita airrbv Lk. 20, 40 obKin irb\nuiv trepuTav abrbp 

kirtpuT^aai oidiv 

Mk. 14, 25 oiiKiTi ob iiil irlu Lk. 22, 18 oi /zi T^ i^* toC vOk 

Mk. IS, s; 14, 61 oiK iiracplvaTO otStv Cf. Lk. 23, 9 oMfo ivacplvaro 

For the apparent addition of double negatives by Luke see: 
Mt. 4, 2 iiriffTfinras Lk. 4, 2 ofe ^^oyei' o4Si» [Q] 

Mk. S, 26 jui)Sii' di^eXijScto-o Lk. 8, 43 ote faxuirej' iir' oiScyis Btpairev- 

Mk. IS, 46 fe liviinaTi (Matt. 27, 60 tr Lk. 23, S3 & fiviiiian . . . o5 o4ic ?» 06- 
r$ Kau'$ airoC livriiJifUf) StU oiwu {v.l. oiSkiro)) Keliievm 

Probably at 4, 2 Luke is not changing, but merely retaining, the original o6k tit>aya' 
oiSiv, while Matthew, with his objection to the double negative (see above) and his 
well known interest in ecclesiastical rites both Jewish and Christian, has substituted 
the technical wj<r«6(ros. For an opposite view, see Hamack, Sayings, p. 4s. 

Use of Prepositions 

In his use of prepositions Luke ^ generally agrees with his sources. 
He prefers srpos with the accusative to the simple dative with verbs 
of speaking, so that elirev vpbs is a distinct feature of his style in the 
parts of his work which are derived from Mark as well as elsewhere. 
He shows some preference for airo over ef (a preference evidently 
general in the Koin6 and causing the ultimate disappearance of k^ 
(see Blass, Grammar, § 40.2). As we should expect, he occasionally 
replaces iierb. by abv. He also perhaps avoids Kara with the genitive 
in the meaning ' against,' and invpoadev. 

Instances of airb for l!^: 

Mk. I, 2S «|eX9e IJ Lk. 4, 3S ik^KBt Air' 

Mk. I, 26 i^ySeii ii Lk. 4, 3s i&>3a> i.v' 

Mk. s, 8 IJeX9« iK Lk. 8, 29 '^t'SBiiv iv6 

Mk. s, 30 4| o4toO . . . tit\6m<Tav Cf. Lk. 8, 46 i|eXi)Xv0uTa>> iir' knov 

Mk. i, 29 iK rijs awayayiji Lk. 4, 38 iirA rfls mvayurtip 

Mk. 9, 9 iK (BD33 = Matt. 17, 9; AtA Lk. 9, 37 Aird toB Bpous 

NAC al.) ToO &pom 

Mk. 9, 17 iK Tov ixSm Lk. 9, 38 AttA toO SxXou 

Mk. 14, 2S iK ToS yevfiiMTOi Lk. 22, 18 AxA t-oO yeviiiuiros 

Mk. 16, 3 4k t^s Wpos Cf. Lk. 24, 9 Aird toD funiiulov 

Compare also in compound verbs: ' 

Mk. 2, 12 fJ^XfltK Lk. s, 25 i.Trrj\eev 

Mk. 6, II = Matt. 10, 14 bcTivi^an Lk. 9, s iworiviuTirere [Q?] 

Mt. 24, 26 «|4Xfl7;T« Lk. 17, 23 AjriXftjre [Q] 

Mk. 14, 16 4^X001' Koi ^Xdav Lk. 22, 13 AttcXSA^tcs 

Mk. IS, 20 ii6.yov<nv Lk. 23, 26 Air^^aToi' (cf. Mk. 15, 16) 

' Cf. Scholten, Das Patdinische Evangelium, pp. 21, 36, 101, 191. 
' On compound verbs see also p. 168. 



Luke uses irp6s with the accusative instead of a dative: 


1, 38 X47€i aiiTots 

2, 8 "Ki-ya aiirois 
2, 16 S\.eyov Tois /uoftjTals 

\kya oirois 
\iyov(riv atrrif 
elirev airois 
\kyeL aiiToXs 
Xfeyet airois 

2, 17 
2, 18 
2, 19 
2, 25 





Mt. II, 7 tiiyav Tols 8xXo« 

Mk. 4, 3S X47€t afrroTs 

Mk. 6, 8 vapriyyeiKev airois 

Mk. 6, 37 elTTtv airots 

Mk. 6, 39 47r4TaJcv airois 

Mk. 8, 34 cIt«i' oirroij 

Mk. 9, S Xi^a T$ 'Itjo-oO 

Mk. 9, 31 SKerytv oirots 

Mt. 8, 22 Xeyei a6T§ 

Mk. 10, 32 fjp^aTO airois \iyav 

Mk. II, S if^tyov airois 

Mt. 21, 16 etwav air^ 

Mk. II, 28 SXeyoy airif 

Mk. II, 29 «tx«» airois 

Mk. 12,1 ^pJoTO airois XaXeii' 

Mk. 12, 15 elTreK airoTs 

Mk. 12, 17 flira' airois (om. BD) 

Mk. 14, 48 elirev airois 

Mk. IS, 12, 14 iXeyef airois 
Mk. 16, 6 Tiiya airals 

Lk. 4 43 elircK n'pds airois 

Lk. 5, 22 flTiv irpis airois 

Lk. S, 30 i7677ufoi' jrpis rois iiaBifTi-s 

Lk. S, 31 elirei' irpAs airois 

^^- S> 33 etiroc irpAs oir4i» 

Lk. 5, 34 tlvai TrpAs oirois 

Lk. 6, 3 irpAs oirois ilttai 

Lk. 6, 9 iXrtev irpAs airois 

Lk. 7, 24 X47BI' irpAs rois BxXovs [Q] 

Lk. 8,22 tlxtv irpAs airois 

Lk. 9, 3 flieeo xpis oirois 

Lk. 9, 13 ilrtv irpis airois 

Lk. 9, 14 elTtv rtpbs rois naBitris 

Lk. 9, 23 JXey'" fP^s irivros 

Lk. 9, 33 cljrei' irpAs rdy 'IijaouK 

Lk. 9, 43 ilira> rrpbs rois /lafljjris 

Lk. 9, 59 tlTtfv irpis irepov [Q] 

Lk. 18, 31 tlvev irpis airois 

Lk. 19, 33 tlirav irpis oirois 

Lk. 19, 39 elirav irpis airbv [Q] 

Lk. 20, 2 eliroi' Xiyovres irpAs oOriv 

Lk. 20, 3 eiirti' Trpis oirois 

Lk. 20, 9 ijpjoro irpAs riv XoAv X^Y"" 

Lk. 20, 23 eiirec TrpAs oirois 

Lk. 20, 25 ctirei' jrpis oirois 

Cf. Lk. 22, 52 fXvev irpis robs rrapayt- 

Lk. 23, 22 elTtv irpis airois 
Lk. 24, 5 tlirav irpis airis 

Use of avv in Luke in place of juerd: ' 

Lk. 8, 38 tlvai rriiv airif 

Lk. 8, 51 fitrihJStlv abv airif 

Cf. Lk. 22, 14 ol &iri<rro\oi aim airi} 

Mk. 5, 18 iut' airov n 

Mk. 5, 37 Iter' airov awaiaiKovBiiaai 

Mk. 14,17 y^eri. rSiv diiSeKa 

Mk. 14, 67 ffi /Mrd ToB NofapijKoB ^ffflo 

For the reverse see: 
Mk. 2, 26 rots ffii' air§ olo'ti' 

Note the following pair of parallels: 
Mk. 9, 4 'HXeias <riv Motmel 
Mk. II, 27 ypap-nartls Kal ol irpeapirt- 


Kara with the genitive occurs in these passages of Matthew but 
not in the parallels in Luke : 

1 Cf. Blass, Grammar, § 41, 3. 

Lk. 22, 56 Kal oZros abv airif ri» (but 2 2, 
59 Kal oSros per' airm fjv) 

Lk. 6, 4 row tier' airov (so Matt. 12, 4) 

Lk. 9, 30 iiaSaijs xal "HXclos 
Lk. 20, I ypaniiartls abv rois irpea0vri- 



25 0aai\fla ittpiaBitaa koB' 

Lk. II, 17 PturCKtla diaiitptvOeitTa ^ 

iavTi)i> (so Mk. 3, 24) [Q ?] 
Lk. 12, 10 els riv vldv roO i,vOponiu„ 

(Is t6 iyiov vveSna (so Mk, 

3. 29)[Q?] 
Lk. 12, 53 tirl irarpl 
tirl iiTfrtpa 

kirl rip/ TttvBtpiv (cf. Mic. 7, 
6, LXX) [Q] 

Luke may have changed Q in all these passages, but the change in each case may be 
due to the other written form of the saying rather than to any lipguistic preference of 

Cases where Luke avoids HfiirpoaBev: 

Mt. 12, 


Mt. 12, 32 Kari Tov vioS rod ivSpinrov 
Kari, Tov irveinaTos rov 

Mt. 10, 34 Kara rou Trarpds 
Kara r^s /iijrpis 
Kard T^s wtvOep&s 

Mk. 2,12 iixvpooBtv (v.l. b>ivTu>v) iripTwv 

Mk. 9, 2 tix7epoada> atirtov 

Mt. 10, 32, 33 tnwpoirBcv tO>v ivSpinrav 
ifjtirpoffOev TOV irarp6s 
ip.TcpoffBev Ttav i.v9pimtav 
tinrpoaBo) toO irorpAs 

Lk. S, 25 biinruov airrSiv (but cf. verse 19) 

Lk. 9, 29 omits 

Lk. 12, 8, 9 ifnrpoa0€v t&v 6iV0pinr<in> 
ip,Trpoa8a> t&v ir/yk'Kuiv 
iviiTnov Ttov ia/Opdyiruv 
kfiijTriov Ttav 6,yyk\(av [Q] 

In a few cases Luke secures better prepositional constructions for 
various place relations, resisting the encroachments in the KoinS of 
eis on iv and iirl, and using more correctly the genitive of the place 

Mk. I, 10 els abrbv 

Mk. 1, 38 As TOVTO 

■M^t. 5, 39 As Tipi naybva 

Mk. 13, 16 & As t6v iypiv 

Mk. II, 8 As Tiiv 6561/ 

Mk. 4, 21 inrd TifV k\Iviiv 

Mk. 4, 21 hrlTiiv'hjxviav (= Lk. 11, 33) 

Mt. 19, 28 twl SdiSaca 8p6vovs 
Mk. 14, 49 ^/irjv irpis iiiSs 

Lk. 3, 22 'ml alnbv (= Matt. 3, 16) 

Lk. 4, 43 -ml TOVTO (NBLW) 

Lk. 6, 29 hrl {As NDW Clem. Or.) Tiiv 

aiaybva [Q] 
Lk. 17, 31 b'ev iypif (= Matt. 24, iS) 
Lk. 19, 36 ivTybdQ {= Matt. 21, 8) 
Lk. 8, 16 inroKbTta k\Ivtis 
Lk. 8, 16 hrl \vxvias (ND al. irl rliv 

Lk. 22, 30 iirlSpbvuv [Q] 
Lk. 22, 53 BvTos luni luB' ipSov 

Sometimes h appears to be avoided by Luke, as in certain awk- 
ward phrases: 

Mk. 1, 23 imtipaTi. iv ixaSbpTif 
Mk. 5, 2 TTveiiiaTi ii> ixaSbpTif 
Mk. 4, 2 iSliaaKtv b> irapaPoKats 
Mk. 12, I tv wapafio'Kais 'S.a'KtXv 
Mt. 3, II /Soirrifu iv iSaTi 

^^- 4, 33 i^XW TTvAipa, k.t.X. 
Lk. 8, 27 {x<>"' Saipbvia 
Lk. 8, 4 elTrev Sii Tapo/SoXqs 
Lk. 20, 9 'Xiytw Tilv irapaffoX'^v 
Lk. 3, 16 eSoTi /Soirrifw ' [Q ?] 

» In Mark i, 8, ADL, etc. read iv SJoti, NBA, etc. omit b>. The preposition is 
not found in Acts i, 5; 11, 16. 


7, 2 (so Mk. 4, 24) ill ^ ittrpif /le- Lk. 6, 38 ^ M^^'PV I'^fTpein 




Mk. 9, 38 ii> Ttf dvdnarl <rou 


Improvements are made by the 
cases alone or by the use of more 

Mk. I, 21 Tots aafiPaaiv fStSaaKtv 

Mk. I, 28 4 &Ko4 afrroC 

Mk. 2, 21 iiripXqiia ^ducovs 

Mk. 5, 2 2 ffiTTTCt xpd? roAs ir68as 

Mk. 5,25 ou<ra i;* /iiaa at/iaros S(i)f e/ca 2ti) 

Mk. s, 3S ifd ToG dpxKniKoYiTou 

Mk. 6, 7 ^v(r(ai> TW» irfcvju&TCOv tuk &Ka- 


Mk. 6, II iiapriipiov airroii 

Mk. 9, 38 4koXo{i06( 4/"^'' 

Mt. 6, 30 rbv xApToy ToO d7poC 

Mk. IS, 3 Karqybpow abrau 

Compare also: 
Mk. 14, 24 rd at/i& iiov t^s SiodijKi;: 
(so Matt. 26, 28) 

1 Cf. Luke 21, 13 i.ToPi\ireTai biiU «£s iiaprbpiov with Mark 13, 9 = Matt. 10, 18 
napriptop abrois. 

Lk. 9, 49 iirl (KBL iv) rip bvbitarl aov 

use of prepositions for the obKque 
appropriate prepositions: 

Lk. 4, 31 t/v ii&btrKijiKV . . . tvroiiabff- 


Lk. 4, 37 i}xos vepl abrov (cf. verse 14) 

Lk. 5, 36 kirip\fiiia i-irb 2fiarlou 

Lk. 8, 41 ireiT^v Trapd robs vbbai 

Lk. 8, 43 olffo b> l>baa atjuaros AttA ^wc 

Lk. 8, 49 iropA toO ipxiffwo^ciiTOU 
Lk. 9, I ifovo-iav 4irl iriKTO to 5a(/i6i'(a 

Lk. 9, S itapHipiov tw' abrois ' 
Lk. 9, 49 AKoXovdet /ucO' iipuiv 
Lk. 12, 28 fo d7p$ rbv xiP'TOV [Q] 
Cf. Lk. 23, 14 KOTTTYopeiTe [(tor'] airoS 

Lk. 22, 20 1} KOIK^ Jtofl^"') ^l" TV oIpOTt POW 

(similarly i Cor. 11, 25)