Skip to main content

Full text of "Matthew's sayings of Jesus : the non-Markan common source of Matthew and Luke"

See other formats







tcal Collection, 
of the 














Late Professor of Nc<w Testament Literature and Exegesis 
in the Pacific School of Religion 



All Rights Reserved 

Published April zgiS 

Composed and Printed By 

The University of Chicago Press 

Chicago, Illinois. U.S.A. 



The main argument of this monograph was 
read in an address before the Society of Biblical 
Literature and Exegesis, December, 1906, and 
during the following year was developed in more 
detail and presented as a Doctor s thesis. In 
offering it now for publication the writer has made 
only a few minor changes. This monograph pre 
supposes an acquaintance with the main features 
of the synoptic problem, and can hope to appeal 
only to those New Testament students who are 
interested in the Gospels as historical sources. The 
great difference of opinion existing among scholars 
regarding the non-Markan common material of 
Matthew and Luke is sufficient justification for 
further discussion of the subject. Any real con 
tribution toward the solution of this baffling prob 
lem is sure to be welcomed. The writer, therefore, 
in presenting the results of his study can only hope 
that scholars will find here something worthy of 
their consideration. Every page will show how 
dependent he has been on the many who have 

vi Preface 

labored in this field, but his especial gratitude is due 
to Professor Benjamin W. Bacon, Professor Charles 
F. Kent, and Professor Shirley J. Case for their 
encouragement and suggestions. 



It has been a great pleasure to have the privilege 
of seeing through the press the work of my friend 
and former classmate, Professor Castor, whose 
promising career was cut short by a tragic accident 
in the summer of 1912. At that time his manu 
script was in final shape for printing, and it is now 
published exactly as left by the author at the 
moment of his untimely death. Regrettable as is 
the delay in publication, the value of the book is 
not thereby appreciably impaired. In the mean 
time no treatise has appeared rendering Professor 
Castor s discussion superfluous, nor has the impor 
tance of his contribution to scholarly discussion of 
the synoptic problem diminished. Students of the 
subject will welcome this fresh and vigorous treat 
ment of a very perplexing theme. 


March 16, 1918 

















No more fascinating problem exists for the stu 
dent of the life of Christ than the reconstruction of 
that primitive document which modern criticism 
has proved to underlie our Gospels of Matthew 
and Luke; for such is the necessary source of 
the elements which these Gospels coincidently 
add to Mark. 

A century s tireless scrutiny of the interrelation 
of our three interdependent Gospels issues, we 
are now assured by many writers, in but one surely 
established result: Our Matthew and Luke have 
been framed upon our Mark, transcribing from it 
their main outline of the story of Jesus. So far as 
narrative of the ministry is concerned, scarcely 
any other document seems in their time to have 
come into serious consideration besides that which 
earliest tradition pronounced a record of the 
preaching of Peter. 

This is a result of immense and far-reaching im 
portance. But until supplemented by the assur 
ance that Matthew and Luke have done this work 

2 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

independently we have no guaranty that the non- 
Markan elements wherein they coincide are not 
drawn by one from the other, or by both from an 
indefinite number of sources, oral or written. This 
second step the mutual independence of Matthew 
and Luke has been made probable by many. 
Critics point among other things to the utter lack 
of relation displayed in the opening and closing 
chapters of Matthew and Luke, each toward the 
other, and the completely different disposal of 
their common non-Markan or " double- tradition " 
material, which it is now usual to designate "Q." 
To the present writer, however, the probability 
seems to be carried to the point of real demonstra 
tion first in Wernle s comparison in his Synoptische 
Frage of the treatment of Mark by Matthew and 
Luke, respectively. The fact established by 
Wernle that not one probable instance can be 
shown throughout the material thus employed 
(including as it does practically the entire Gospel 
of Mark) wherein either of the later evangelists 
seems to have been influenced in his modifications 
by the other, adds the capstone to the edifice of the 
so-called "two-document" theory. 

Introduction 3 

On the basis of this presumption that Matthew 
and Luke are mutually independent, and hence 
in their coincident supplements to Mark were 
drawing in the main from a common source, 
attempts have repeatedly been made to reconstruct 
it. Results have on the whole been disappointing. 
The process and the proof are in the main dictated 
by the conditions of the case. The Mark element 
must be subtracted on both sides, and the 
remainder, so far as common to Matthew* and 
Luke, must be scrutinized for evidences of organic 
unity. The non--Markan remainder is indeed in 
large part coincident, and this Q element does turn 
out to be almost wholly of the teaching or dis 
course type rather than narrative. This is sup 
posed to corroborate an alleged "tradition" of 
Papias of an apostolic compilation of "oracles." 
But Papias has no such "tradition." He merely 
states that the "oracles" which he proposed to 
"interpret" are to be found in Matthew in Greek 
translation. Moreover, the process of reconstruc 
tion is complicated by the possible elimination of 
the narrative elements of Q in the process of sub 
tracting Mark; for Mark also may have used the 

4 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

same Q source. Furthermore, none of the many 
reconstructions has in point of fact displayed those 
evidences of organic unity which would justify the 
critic in declaring : This is manifestly a single com 
position, constructed with a single consistent plan 
and purpose, and from definable premises and 
points of view. On the contrary, Wernle feels 
compelled to set off from Q the opening sections 
of the reconstructed work, which relate to the 
Baptist and his preaching and to the baptism and 
temptation of Jesus as a narrative introduction. 
He regards this and the story of the centurion s 
servant as later additions, because their more 
narrative character seems to differentiate them 
from the rest of Q. They seem, therefore, to 
Wernle to fall outside the limits of a compilation of 
the "oracles." Resch sees so little coherence in the 
results of his predecessor Wendt as to pronounce 
them "a heap of interesting ruins." Harnack s 
results are certainly not more coherent. 

Most disappointing of all, that correspondence 
of the results of criticism with (alleged) ancient 
tradition which began so promisingly with the dis 
course content of Q has failed to meet further expec 
tations. Matthew, which on this theory should 

Introduction 5 

give evidence in its fundamental structure of an 
underlying Logia source, is less inclined than 
Luke to prefer the non-Markan source. Hawkins 
indication of Matthew s fivefold division through 
the formula KCU iyevero ore ertKtvev 6 Irjvovs TOVS 
\6yovs TOVTOVS, interesting as evidence of the com 
piler s ideal, leads upon further scrutiny to the 
undeniable result that all five of the great dis 
courses save the first are constructed on the basis 
of Mark. Again, the language of Q was certainly 
neither Hebrew nor Aramaic. Like our own Gos 
pels, it has traces of a Semitic original for its ele 
ments; but the compilation itself as used by 
Matthew and Luke was Greek. Finally, there 
is nothing to indicate for it a connection with 
Matthew, or indeed with any apostle. The whole 
identification Q = Papias Logia thus breaks down 

Under these circumstances it was unavoidable 
that scholarly effort should be reconcentrated on 
the problem. Methods must be perfected, results 
more minutely scrutinized. Recently Harnack 
brings to bear upon it all his critical acumen, all 
his experience as a historian and expert in early 
Christian literature. The problem is destined to be 

6 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

solved, and by the method which more and more 
in our day is solving the great problems of 
common interest the independent co-operation of 
many workers. 

For the competence of Professor Castor to under 
take this intricate task, even though the results of 
his years of labor were set down too soon after the 
publication of Harnack s able and elaborate treat 
ment to permit employment of it, the work itself 
gives ample evidence. The reader will not need to 
be assured of Professor Castor s scholarly spirit, 
nor of his many years of schooling for his task in the 
best university training at home and abroad. So 
far as a former teacher s words can properly aim 
at more than an honorary function, they must 
express the sincere conviction that Professor Castor 
has something of value to say whereby the solu 
tion of this vital problem of criticism is really pro 
moted. By the co-operation of many thus minded 
have the triumphs of critical research been achieved 
in the past. By similar co-operation this para 
mount problem of gospel criticism is also destined 
to be solved. BENJAMIN W. BACON 




Proceeding on the principle that we ought to 
argue from the better to the less known, before 
taking up the question of a second source at all we 
should study the use which Matthew and Luke 
make of Mark. It is not often that we have such 
an opportunity to learn the methods of compilers 
whose work we would investigate. That Matthew 
and Luke both used Mark in some form not essen 
tially different from the present Gospel is one of the 
assured results of modern criticism. 1 

Considering Luke first, the following charac 
teristics of his use of Mark are significant for our 
purpose. His editorial work is not a use of mere 
scissors and paste; the text of Mark is freely 
revised, and even in the words of Jesus little care is 

1 The evidence for this has nowhere been more convincingly 
presented than by Ernest DeWitt Burton in Some Principles 
of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic 

8 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

exercised to preserve the language of Mark. 1 The 
changes Luke makes are not only linguistic he 
frequently adds his own comments and interpre 
tations but the purpose of such changes is prac 
tical and not dogmatic. Again, Mark is seldom 
combined with other sources, at least not before 
the Passion narratives. The account of the rejec 
tion at Nazareth and the call of the first disciples 
are the only clear cases, and there little more than a 
trace of Mark s influence is discernible. Surpris 
ingly few changes are made in the order of Mark. 2 
The few which are made only show that the author s 
adherence to Mark s order is not due to any special 
reverence for it, but rather to his general method 
of using sources. Material foreign to Mark is 
practically all gathered into two compact groups 
(6:20 8:3; 9:51 18:14). Without entering 
into the problem of Luke s one considerable 
omission from Mark s account, Mark 6:45 8:26, 

1 Cf. Luke 5:36-39 with Mark 2:21, 22 and Luke 8:11-15 
with Mark 4:14-20. In both cases the comparison shows, not 
two sources, but an interpretation of Mark by Luke. They 
illustrate how freely at times he changes Mark. 

a Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, p. 7, counts seven changes in 
order; 3:19 ff.; 4:i6ff.; 5: iff.; 6:12-16; 8:19-21; 22:15-20; 

Matthew s and Luke s Use of Mark g 

we notice that he is inclined to omit matters of 
merely Jewish interest, as the account of John the 
Baptist s death, 1 or what might trouble his readers, 
as Jesus reproof of Peter. Luke s omissions from 
Mark with the one exception are easily accounted 
for. In nine instances 2 Luke abandons Mark for a 
variant account, and two incidents of his great 
omission (Mark 8:11-13; 8:14-21) are paralleled 
in his other material. In seven of the total eleven 
instances the variant account is one which Matthew 
and Luke have in common. A comparison with 
Matthew shows that where there are two parallel 
accounts, one in Mark and the other in that ma 
terial which Luke has in common with Matthew 
alone, he seems to show a preference for the latter. 
Luke seeks to avoid duplicates, but has not always 
succeeded. We shall now be prepared to find that 
Luke changes freely the language of his other source 
common to Matthew, makes his own editorial 
additions and interpretations, but holds closely to 
the order which he finds. He will omit what would 

1 Possibly Luke s omission here is also due to better infor 

3 Mark 3:22-30; 4:30-23; 9:42; 9:50; 10:2-12; 10:35-45; 
11:12-14, 20-32; 12:28-34; 14:3-9. 

io Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

be uninteresting or displeasing to his readers, but, 
if anything, we shall expect him to be more faith 
ful in preserving this other source than in his use 
of Mark. 

Turning to Matthew, we notice that here there 
are more sayings of Jesus retained in the language 
of Mark, 1 and more similarity throughout in the 
vocabulary, but in the great majority of cases here, 
as in Luke, Mark s wording is freely changed. In 
thought also Matthew adheres more closely to 
Mark than Luke does, but, like the third evangelist, 
he adds his own reflections and makes his own 
adaptations. On the other hand, changes in the 
order are more frequent in Matthew, and these 
changes seem due to a desire for more systematic 
grouping. Again, where Luke would choose be 
tween sources Matthew usually combines them. 
Such combinations are frequent. Jesus defense 
against the Beelzebul charge is an excellent passage 
for studying Matthew s method in weaving variant 
accounts together. Matthew has twice 2 as many 

1 Wernle, pp. n, 130, counts nine instances in Matt., four in 
Luke; one is surprised that there are so few. 

2 Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 64-87, counts ten in Luke, 
twenty-two in Matt. 

Matthew s and Luke s Use of Mark n 

doublets as Luke. Where the third evangelist has 
a preference for their other common source, the 
first regularly prefers Mark. This tendency to 
combine, and closer adherence to Mark, is the most 
striking difference between the two Gospels, as far 
as we are concerned. His preference for Mark is 
probably one reason why Matthew omits so little 
from that source. The few omissions he does make 
show that he is influenced by the value of the 
material for teaching purposes. Judging, then, 
from Matthew s use of Mark, we shall expect him to 
be closer to his source in language than Luke, with 
fewer editorial changes or additions, but with more 
freedom in order. His tendency toward system 
atic arrangement and fondness for combination 
will naturally have a wider scope in groups of say 
ings than in narratives. He will not be likely to 
omit much that is significant as teaching. On the 
other hand, Matthew s constant preference for 
Mark to his other source is always to be kept in 
mind, qualifying what we have just said. In this 
connection the conclusion Sir John Hawkins 
reached in a purely linguistic investigation is 
valuable: "It follows therefore that in Matthew 

12 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

the characteristic expressions are used with con 
siderably more freedom and abundance in the 
presumably Logian portion than in the presumably 
Markan; while in Luke they are used a little less 
freely and abundantly in the presumably Logian 
than in the presumably Markan portions." 1 

Our examination of the editorial use which 
Matthew and Luke make of Mark is not altogether 
encouraging to the student who would reconstruct 
any other source used by these evangelists. "We 
see clearly enough," says F. C. Burkitt, 2 "that we 
could not have reconstructed the Gospel according 
to St. Mark out of the other two Synoptic Gospels, 
although between them nearly all Mark has been 
incorporated by Matthew and Luke. How futile, 
therefore, it is to attempt to reconstruct those 
other literary sources which seem to have been used 
by Matthew and Luke, but have not been inde 
pendently preserved!" Some of the most impor 
tant characteristics of Mark, both in literary 
quality and in subject-matter, have entirely dis- 

1 Horae Synopticae, p. 91. Sharman s The Teaching of Jesus 
about the Future, pp. 5, 9, gives independent support to these 
summaries of editorial principles. 

1 The Gospel History and Its Transmission, p. 17. 

Matthew s and Luke s Use of Mark 13 

appeared from Matthew and Luke. These evan 
gelists have put their own stamp upon their 
material. And yet the hope for the reconstruction 
of a second common source is not so desperate as 
might be thought. In the first place, we have the 
source, Mark, to use as a guide in eliminating the 
editorial work of the evangelists. Again, with 
Mark before us we can study the remaining com 
mon material by itself. It is at least possible that 
we shall find there a literary resemblance, a com 
mon sequence, a unity, and a completeness that 
will assure us of a single source which we may 
know in part even if we cannot restore it in detail. 
Bearing witness to the presence of such evidence 
is the work of prominent scholars like Wellhausen 
and Harnack, and they are only two among many. 
The general character of the non-Markan common 
material also offers hope; we shall find that it 
consists largely of sayings of Jesus rather than 
narrative, and we have a right to expect from the 
evangelists a closer adherence to their source in 
what they recognized as words of the Master. 

One must be impressed with the number of 
verses in the non-Markan common material where 

14 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

Matthew and Luke agree verbally. The following 
verses are practically identical in the two accounts; 
only slight changes in a word here and there can 
be found: 

Matt. 3:76-10, i2 = Luke 3:76-9, 17 

7:3-5 = 6:41,42 

8:8-10= 7:66-9 

11:36-11, 16-19= T-T.<)b, 22-28, 31-35 

8:19-22= 9:57-600 

9:37,38= 10:2 

10:160= 10:3 

10:15 (=11:24) 11:21-230= 10:12-15 

11:256-27= 10:21,22 

13:17= 10:24 

7:7-11= 11:9-11,13 

12:266-28, 30= 11:186, 19, 20, 23 

12:43-45= 11:24-26 

12:41,42= 11:32,31 

6:22= n:34o(?) 

10:266,280,30,31= 12:2,40,7 

6:21,25-33= 12:22-31,34 

24:43-51= 12:39,40,42-46 

13:33= 13:20,21 

23:37-39= 13:34,35 

6:24= 16:13 

24:386,390,28= 17:27,376 

This makes a total of seventy-five verses where 
the agreement is long enough to be measured by 
sentences. To this we should add the list of 

Matthew s and Luke s Use of Mark 15 

striking words and short phrases, common to both 
Gospels in this material, which is given by Hawkins, 
Horae Synopticae, pp. 43 ff. This verbal agree 
ment becomes very significant when we compare 
Matthew and Luke in the Markan material. No 
where there do we find such extended agreements 
as here. In all those portions dependent on Mark 
up to the entrance into Jerusalem, only in the 
following sixteen verses can the agreement be com 
pared with that of the other common material: 

Matt. 8:26, 3, 46= Luke 5:126,13,146 

9:5,6= 5:23,24 

9:12= 5:31 

9:156= 9:350 

12:4= 6:4 

12:8= 6:5 

9:206= 8:440 

13:36,4= 8:5 

14:196= 9:16 

16:216,24,25= 9:226,23,24 

19:14= 18:16 

There is almost five times as much of such resem 
blance in the non-Markan common material as in 
the first ten chapters of Mark ; and yet the sections 
in which that likeness is found do not bulk as 
large as these ten chapters. Allowing fully the 

1 6 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

importance of harmonizing tendencies and the 
possibilities of accurate oral transmission, we may 
still say that further language test is not needed; 
and any theory to fit the facts of the case must 
recognize that we have here a common written 
source or sources written in Greek. B. W. Bacon 
has well said that those who find an oral source 
here make their oral source the equivalent of a 
document, since its form is so stereotyped as to 
make the resemblance of Matthew to Luke closer 
in the portions not shared by Mark than in the 
parts taken by each from this admittedly written 
source. The only alternative is to suppose that 
Matthew used Luke, or Luke, Matthew. W. C. 
Allen s attempt in his commentary on Matthew 
to revive such a theory has hardly been a success. 
He has thereby raised more problems than he has 
solved, and is himself compelled to fall back upon 
the hypothesis of a common source. The com 
parison made with Mark ought, furthermore, to 
give us a practical certainty that this source or 
sources included more than the seventy-five verses 
where the verbal agreement is so complete. Even 
in the sayings of Jesus it is very common for the 

Matthew 1 s and Luke s Use of Mark 17 

first and third evangelists to change Mark s 
words and phrases, but oftentimes while doing 
this to retain his sentence structure and sequence 
of thought. We should expect to find the same 
true in their use of other sources. 

In order to free our discussion of any presup 
positions involved in the name employed, we will 
adopt the German designation Q(Quelle) for this 
other source or sources, whose character and limits 
we are trying to define. Wellhausen in his com 
mentaries and introduction has most convincingly 
shown that the material usually assigned to Q 
is a translation of an Aramaic original. Recent 
research in Hellenistic Greek modifies the force 
of some of his arguments, but his conclusions still 
hold. Semitic scholars also argue that some varia 
tions of Matthew and Luke are due to mistransla 
tions of the Aramaic. We should recognize that 
the Aramaic original must for some time have 
existed side by side with the more widely used 
Greek copies, and it is not unreasonable to suppose 
that changes here and there in Greek manuscripts 
were made by persons familiar with the Aramaic. 
But there is always a large subjective element 

i8 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

in such conjectural misreadings, and the contention 
is still questionable. Granting, then, the possi 
bility of some variations due to the Aramaic 
original, we must still hold to the fact of a common 
Greek source. This is recognized by Wellhausen, 
Einleitung, p. 68. 



The primary object of this detailed examination 
will be to decide just how much of the common 
material can with any assurance be attributed to a 
written source or sources. At the same time an 
effort will be made to eliminate editorial character 
istics, but with the understanding that such 
elimination does not restore all the special qualities 
of Q. Luke s order will be used tentatively, 
because he has proved to be more reliable in 
retaining the sequence of Mark. 

MATT. 3:7-12; LUKE 3:7-9, 15-18 

In Luke 3:76-9; Matt. 3:76-10, 12 we find 
the first instance of that close verbal resemblance 
which is extended enough to be conclusive evi 
dence that this section belongs to some common 
source. W. C. Allen in his commentary on 
Matthew denies this and urges three objections: 
"(a) the different descriptions of the audience, 


20 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

(b) the absence of Luke vss. 10-14 fr m Matthew, 

(c) the variations in language." Are these points 
well taken? Luke 3:10-14 readily distinguishes 
itself from the rest of this passage in the Third 
Gospel by differences both in language and in 
thought. While vss. 7-9, 15-18 are full of Semiti- 
cisms iroir]ffaT6 nap-rovs, ap&ffdt, the play on 
words, \iBwv .... T&K.VO. (abanim .... banim), 
ov . . . . avrov vss. 10-14 are singularly free 
from them. These verses reflect the characteristic 
Lukan emphasis on almsgiving, publicans, and 
sinners. Luke vss. 15, 18, which are wanting in 
Matthew, are clearly editorial additions. The con 
nection between Matt. 3:10 and 3:11, broken by 
Luke 3:10-14, is restored by Luke 3:15. The 
language of both verses is strongly Lukan. 

The introduction, which describes the audience, 
Luke 3:70; Matt. 3:70, does vary in the two 
Gospels; but it is noteworthy that it is just such 
settings in Mark which the first and third evan 
gelists most freely change. Matthew is fond of 
introducing references to the Pharisees and Sad- 
ducees, but Luke is equally fond of referring to the 
multitudes. Of the two, the wording of Luke 

Study of the Common Material 21 

seems preferable, but what stood in Q must remain 
doubtful, Harnack 1 has very plausibly suggested 
that the phrase Tracra 17 irepixupos TOV lopd&vov, 
Luke 3:3; Matt. 3:5, is a fragment of the Q 

Variations of language are few and easily ex 
plained. Luke 3:16; Matt. 3:11 are found also 
in Mark i : 7-8 and the influence of Mark accounts 
for the wider difference between Matthew and 
Luke just here. Luke especially has departed from 
Q and followed Mark instead. The ev irvevnaTi 
0,710) of this verse may have been taken by both 
evangelists from Mark. Only wvpl is required 
by the context, but it is quite possible that Holy 
Spirit and fire stood together in the source Q. The 
change of ap&vde, Luke 3:8, to do^re, Matt. 3:9, 
is a "deliberate improvement of an original pre 
served by Luke." 2 J. H. Moulton also maintains 
in the Expositor, May, 1909, p. 413, that owAai 
of tf a , Luke 3:17, is an original reading of which 
of X*B and (rwdet of Matthew are 

1 The Sayings of Jesus, p. 41. Quotations from Harnack, 
unless otherwise stated, are taken from this book. 

a J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Pro 
legomena, p. 15. 

22 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

alternate and independent corrections. Nowhere 
in Markan material is a common source so evident 
behind Matthew and Luke as it is here. 

LUKE 4:1-13; MATT. 4:1-1 1 

In this section we do not find any extended 
verbal agreement, and yet literary evidence of a 
common Greek source is not wanting. The only 
sayings of Jesus here are LXX quotations, and 
these are alike, except that Matthew has con 
tinued the quotation from Deut. 8:3 in vs. 4, and 
Luke that of Ps. 91:11 in vs. n. In the quota 
tion from Deut. 6:13 both have made the same 
change in the LXX, adapting it to the context. 
In Matt. 4:56, 6; Luke 4:96, 10 the verbal like 
ness is striking : KCH evTrjffev [avrbv] em rb irrepvyiov 
TOV iepov Kol [Xyet] aurc? El vi6s el TOV Qeov, /3d\ 
aeavrbv [&Tvdev] K&TOJ yeypairrai yap 6n . . . . 
This use of Trrepiryioj/ is found elsewhere only in 
Dan. 9:27. 

It is also significant that the variations can all 
be readily accounted for. In the introduction of 
Luke, vs. i has marked Lukan characteristics, and 

Study of the Common Material 23 

vs. 2a is influenced by Mark. Matt., vs. ia, may 
also be influenced by Mark. Tretpao-^^ai is sus 
picious because of Matthew s tendency to empha 
size the fulfilment of divine purpose. As usual, 
the introduction of the common source has been 
freely handled. But Matt., vs. 2, agrees with 
Luke, vs. 2&, against Mark and points at once to 
its presence. In vs. n Matthew has added the 
reference to the angels from Mark 1:13. The 
accounts of the temptations themselves differ 
principally in the order of the second and third 
temptations. Otherwise, sentence for sentence, 
clause for clause, the sequence of thought is the 
same. It is, perhaps, Luke who made the one 
change for the purpose of bringing the two tempta 
tions located in the wilderness together and the 
one in Jerusalem last. The third evangelist is 
especially concerned in such orderly sequence of 
tune and place. As Harnack (p. 44) says, no 
argument can be based on the viraye of 
Matt. 4: 10, for it may well be an insertion on the 
basis of Mark 8:33. 

What other differences there are reflect only the 
characteristics of the editorial work of Matthew 

24 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

and Luke; such as Matthew s addition of 7rpo<reX- 
6&i>, vs. 3, and his use of rrjv aylav TTO\LV for Jerusa 
lem, vs. 5. oiKovn&rjs , Luke, vs. 5, is a favorite 
word of that evangelist, as KOCTJUOU, Matt., vs. 8, is 
of the other. J. H. Moulton in the Expositor, 
May, 1909, p. 415, shows good reason for regard 
ing Luke s OVK tyayev ov8&, vs. 2, as more origi 
nal than Matthew s vrjarev^as. That Matthew 
changed the one stone into stones is made probable 
by his preference for plurals. 1 Luke 4:13, which 
Harnack rejects, strongly resembles Luke 7:1 = 
Matt. 7:28; 8:5, and may well belong to the 
source. owreXeo) is not characteristic of Luke, 
but axpt KcupoD, which also occurs in Acts 13:11, 
may be an addition of the evangelist. The omis 
sion of this sentence by Matthew is due to the 
influence of Mark. It ought, however, to be 
granted that sometimes the reading of one Gospel 
is as probable as that of the other, and certain 
features of Q must have disappeared from both 
accounts. The important point is the demonstra 
tion that Matthew and Luke are using a common 
source here whose tenor can be closely approxi- 

1 W. C. Allen, Matthew, p. 83. 

Study of the Common Material 25 

mated. If we compare this narrative with any 
Markan narrative we find that there is exactly the 
same sort and degree of resemblance in the 
Matthew and Luke accounts here which we find 
there. The theory of a common Greek source 
furnishes a satisfactory explanation of the resem 
blances and differences of the two Gospels in this 
section, if, indeed, it is not demanded by them. 


OF CONDUCT, LUKE 6:20-49; MATT. 5:1-12, 

38-48; 7:1-5,12,16-21,24-27 

That Matthew s Sermon on the Mount is an 
editorial composition is all but universally recog 
nized. Our investigation of Matthew s use of 
Mark has led us to anticipate such compilation 
and also indicates the principles which ought to 
guide us in an attempt to analyze it. The miracles, 
which Matthew has gathered together in the 
eighth and ninth chapters, Luke has retained, for 
the most part, in their Markan setting. In like 
manner, much of the Matthean Sermon on the 
Mount is found distributed in Luke. Luke there 
fore gives us the objective starting-point which is 

26 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

needed in analyzing Matthew here. Little can 
be said for the view that Luke has divided the 
longer discourse of Matthew. No example of such 
division and readjustment can be found anywhere 
in his Markan material. But, as has already 
been said, greater freedom in language, and omis 
sions and additions, especially of an explanatory, 
editorial character, are to be anticipated in Luke. 
With this justification of our point of approach let 
us now apply the test of Luke 6 : 20-49 to the com 
posite discourse of Matthew. 

Passing by the introductions, which are more or 
less editorial, we notice that the Beatitudes of Luke 
refer to conditions of life, while those peculiar to 
Matthew refer to spiritual virtues. Surely, mourn 
ing does not belong in the same category with mercy, 
and persecution, even for righteousness sake, is 
not to be desired in the same sense as purity of 
heart. There are two elements in these Matthean 
Beatitudes that gain in strength and clarity when 
they are separated. Matthew has done a great 
service in emphasizing the religious quality in such 
words as TTTCOXOI and irciv&vTes, but this does not 
make the greater originality of Luke s form less 

Study of the Common Material 27 

probable. That Matthew has here compiled is 
further indicated by the transition from the third 
to the second person in vss. n, 12. On the other 
hand, the three woes of Luke 6:24-26 may be 
editorial amplifications of Luke. Their omission 
by Matthew, their relation to Luke s special 
material, the weak on clauses, 1 and the way they 
break into the context, separating vs. 23 and vs. 27, 
support the view that they did not stand in any 
common source. 

Not only do both the Matthean and the Lukan 
forms of this discourse begin with the same Beati 
tudes, but they close with the same parable, 
Matt. 7 124-2 7= Luke 6:47-49. In this epilogue 
the sequence of thought is exactly the same, and 
the verbal likeness is far closer than at first sight 
appears : 

Matt. J ""5s ouv ocrris cucovei /xov rows Xdyovs rourovs. 
Luke : TTOS 6 .... O.KOVWV (Jiov Ttov Aoyouv. 

1 The last is especially clumsy. Who are the you and who the 
their fathers ? A distinction is made in vs. 23 between the dis 
ciples and those who persecute them, but these woes cannot be 
addressed to the disciples, but must be regarded as spoken to the 
multitudes, and the distinction between you and their fathers 
then becomes awkward. The false disciples of Jas. 5 : i ff . are 
in the mind of the editor who added these verses. But this only 
confirms their secondary character. 

28 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

Matt. : Kai TTOICI avrovs o/ioia>0^crTai dv8pl <f>povifjno. 
Luke: Kai TTOICOV avrovs .... O/AOIO S eoriv av6pa>ir<a. 

Matt.: ooris (aKo86fJLrj(rev avrov rrjv oiKiav CTTI T^V TTC- 


Luke: oiKoSo/iovvri oiKiav .... em rrjv irtrpav. 

Matt.: Kai ^A0av 01 TTora/Aoi Kai eVvetxrav 01 avcfioi Kai 
Luke: v\rjp.fjivprj<s 8 yevo/iej/7/s Trpotrep^^ev 6 Trora/xos 

Matt. : TrpotrcTTCO av ry otKi a tKeivy, Kal .... 
Luke: T]7 oiKt a eXei vj/, Kai .... 

Matt. : Kai Tras o axoiW /xou TOVS Aoyovs TOUTOVS Kai p.rj 

Luke: 6 8c aKOwras KOI /x,^ 7roii;<ras 

Matt.: aVTOUS, 6/lOlO)^(TCTai (IvSpl /XCOpaJ O(TTIS WKoSo- 

Luke: o/,otos eortv avdpVTTta 

Matt. : avTOt) T^fv oiKtav CTTI T^V a/x/nov, etc. 
Luke: OIKIUV CTTI T^V y^v .... etc. 

The common beginning and ending which we have 
found is a strong indication that some source, 
containing not mere fragmentary sayings but a 
real discourse, stood back of both the accounts, 
Matthew s and Luke s. This is confirmed by the 
relation of the whole discourse to the following 
narrative of the centurion s servant. The con 
nection is not easily accounted for in any other 

Study of the Common Material 29 

way. Luke 7 : i combines Matt. 7:28 and 8:5; 
and the cleansing of the leper, Matt. 8:1-1, is 
generally recognized as an insertion of Matthew 
from Mark. In this account of the centurion s 
servant, so closely connected in both Gospels with 
the preceding sermon, literary evidence again 
demonstrates the presence of a common source. It 
is hard to doubt that, wherever Matthew and Luke 
found this narrative of healing, they also found 
just before it a discourse of Jesus beginning with 
the Beatitudes and closing with the parable of the 
Two Builders. 

Another important consideration is that through 
out the common material the sequence is remark 
ably alike: 

Matt. 5 

: 3 = Luke 6 : 20 

(4 = 


7:1, 2 = 


6 = 


3 = 


n = 


4,5 = 


12 = 


(12 = 


39 = 




40 = 


19 = 


(44 = 

27, 28) 

22 = 


(45 = 


24 = 

47, 480 

4 6 = 


25 = 


47 = 


26,27 = 


48 = 


$o Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

Only four of the twenty-six verses of Matthew 
stand in a different order from the parallel verses 
of Luke. The first of these changes is merely 
the transposition of two sentences, readily explained 
by Matthew s additions to the Beatitudes. The 
other three are all related to one point in the dis 
course, and that point is just where Matthew 
returns to the Lukan material. Either the former 
has added or the latter has omitted; in either 
case the break in the common order is explained. 
Such a similarity through twenty-six verses cannot 
be accidental. The large amount of independent 
material scattered through Matt., chaps. 5, 6, 7, 
only makes it the more striking. We note also 
that there is here the same combination of close 
verbal resemblance with literary freedom which 
is usual in Markan material. Imbedded in the 
discourse as an integral part are 6:41, 42 of Luke 
and 7:3-5 of Matthew, where the identity of 
language demands a common source, written in 
Greek. 1 TO /cdp^os and 17 So/cos are found nowhere 
else in the New Testament; 5ta/3X&rw, only in 
Mark 8:25; Karavoeis occurs nowhere else in 
1 See Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 44, 50. 

Study of the Common Material 31 

Matthew; such an insertion of words between 
article and noun as rijv 5 Iv rq> a 6$0aXjuw 8oK6v 
occurs only here in Matthew, afas /c/3aXco is a 
Semiticism, peculiar to the common material of 
Matthew and Luke. This close verbal likeness is 
not, indeed, maintained throughout, nor should 
the student of Mark and its parallels be surprised 
at this, but rather that the evangelists hold so 
closely to the wording of their source as they do 
in this non-Markan common material. The evi 
dence becomes cumulative that Matthew and Luke 
preserve this other source far more carefully than 
they do Mark. 

What, now, shall we say about the large portions 
of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount which 
Luke omits? As we remarked at the beginning, 
those sections which are paralleled by Luke in other 
contexts can hardly be original here. That he 
broke the sermon into fragments is too improbable 
to be supposed. Luke 5:25, 26; 5:31,32; 6:9-14, 
6:19-34; 7:7-11 are to be regarded as insertions 
into this context by Matthew. In 7 : 2 1-23 he com 
bines the conception of Luke 6:46 ff., which refers 
to Jesus as a teacher, with Luke 13 : 23 ff., which is 

32 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

eschatological and here out of place. Matt. 7:13, 
14 seems to be related to the same Lukan passage. 1 
The probability is also strong that Matthew has 
modified Luke 6:43-45 to give these verses a prac 
tical application to the church problem set forth 
in 7:15. In 12:33-35 he gives the same passage 
a different application. This tendency to apply 
Jesus sayings to immediate needs is always to be 
reckoned with. 2 That 5:13-16 did not originally 
belong to the discourse has been sufficiently well 
shown by Wendt (Die Lehre Jesu, I), B. Weiss, 
and B. W. Bacon (The Sermon on the Mount). 
That 7:6 is an insertion is generally accepted. 

The comparison of the teaching of Jesus with the 
Old Testament law in 5:17-38, and with Phari 
saic practice in 6:1-8, 16-18, has by nearly all 
critics been regarded as an omission of Luke, on 
the ground that these sections were " inapplicable 
to the Gentiles for whom he wrote." 3 Such 
extended omissions are not without parallel in 
Luke s use of Mark; and his motives are frequently 

1 This passage is discussed more fully on pp. 96 ff. 

2 See further, pp. 61 f. 

3 Votaw, in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, V, 7. 

Study of the Common Material 33 

difficult to determine. This should be granted, 
but to maintain that these verses were inapplicable 
to the Gentiles is hardly a satisfactory explanation 
of their omission here. Only Matt. 5: 18, 19 could 
be so regarded, but their originality in this context 
is widely disputed, and 5:18 is in fact preserved 
by Luke in a different context. B. W. Bacon, 
while arguing for the omission, makes this acknowl 
edgment : x 

It was, indeed, from the standpoint of the historian of 
Jesus life and teaching, a disastrous, almost incredible, 
mutilation to leave out, as our third evangelist has done, 
all the negative side of the teaching and give nothing but the 
commandment of ministering love toward all. We can 
scarcely understand that the five great interpretative antith 
eses of the new law of conduct toward men versus the old, 
Matt. 5:21-48, and the three corresponding antitheses on 
duty toward God, Matt. 6:1-18, could have been dropped 
in one form even of the oral tradition. 

If this is so, ought not some more credible 
hypothesis be sought ? What no one form of the 
tradition would drop, a separate tradition might 
preserve. May it not be that Matthew has added 
from independent sources, rather than that Luke 

1 Sermon on the Mount, p. 104. The italics are mine. 

34 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

has omitted ? All the elements of Matthew s dis 
course are of prime historical importance, but the 
whole is manifestly a composite. These antitheses 
are among the great sayings of Jesus, but do they 
not belong by themselves ? They have their own 
introduction in 5:17 (18, 19), 20, quite distinct 
from the Beatitudes, and they are complete in 
themselves. Wellhausen 1 has called attention to 
the fact that just where Matthew takes up the 
material of the Lukan discourse, in 5:38, the 
formula of 5:21 ff. becomes improbable. The lex 
talionis, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, is 
given in the Old Testament as a rule for judges, not 
as a principle of general conduct; and so to use it 
is not exactly fair to Judaism. The viewpoint 
also seems to shift a little. In this case it is not a 
standard of inner motives set over against one of 
external acts, as in the previous antitheses. The 
same objections apply with even more force to 
5:43, against which modern Jews have long pro 
tested. No such principle is set forth in the Old 
Testament, nor anywhere else in Jewish literature. 
The Jews never taught such hatred except toward 

1 Kom. Matt., in loc. 

Study of the Common Material 35 

national and religious foes. There is, therefore, 
good reason to think that 5:38 and 5:43 are 
editorial additions by which the separate speeches 
are woven into one whole. Matt. 5:17 (18, 19), 
20-24, 27, 28 (29, 30), 33-37; 6: 1-8, 16-18 thus 
becomes a separate discourse, three antitheses of the 
old and the new law and three antitheses of prin 
ciples of conduct. 

Our conclusion, based on the strong linguistic 
evidence of a common source, the common se 
quence, the close organic relation to the material 
that follows, and the evidence of compilation on 
Matthew s part is that both evangelists are here 
using a common source, Q. The exact wording of 
Q can, of course, never be restored. Judging again 
from the analogy of Mark, we can only say that 
these versions give us approximately what stood in 
the source. Matthew, whom we expect to hold 
closer in details to his source, has so woven material 
together that more changes here are necessary. 
Then, too, there is a poetical parallelism, especially 
marked in the Lukan form, which, if we may not 
attribute it to Jesus himself, is certainly more 
likely to come from a Semitic source than from its 

36 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

Greek editor. It is, as we shall see, one of the 
characteristics of Q. 

Without, therefore, attempting to restore the 
original text we may still venture to suggest prob 
able changes made by the evangelists. If in the 
Beatitudes Matthew has converted conditions of 
life into virtues and added others (probably from 
independent tradition, though their close relation 
to the Old Testament makes this doubtful), Luke 
has at least accentuated his interpretation of the 
Beatitudes as a promise of a reversal in the king 
dom of present human conditions by the addition 
of vvv (bis} and ev ene ivy rrj fipepq.. 1 Whether the 
Son of Man or the personal pronoun is original in 
the Beatitudes cannot be determined. The term 
"Son of Man" is found throughout Q. 

In Matt. 5: 38-48 = Luke 6:27-36 the change in 
order is due to Matthew s combination of this sec 
tion with 5:13-37. Luke 6:29, 30 = Matt. 5:39-42 

1 Wellhausen s explanation of the difference between TOVS irpb 
vn&v and ot Traces aiirdtv as due to a reading of daqdamaihon 
for daqdamaikon is one of the most tempting of such suggestions 
that have been made. But there is good reason for thinking that 
robs irpii vfj.uv is simply an addition of Matthew. See Harnack, 
P- So. 

Study of the Common Material 37 

are separated from the rest to form a contrast 
with the Old Testament principle of Matt. 5:38; 
and Luke 5 1356 = Matt. 5:45 is inserted at the 
point of omission to make a suitable transition. 
The transference of the Golden Rule, Luke 6:31, to 
Matt. 7 : 1 2 is because Matthew regards it as a sum 
mary of the law, and the whole sermon is to him a 
discourse on the new law fulfilling the Old Testa 
ment law; he therefore places this summary just 
before the conclusion of the whole. "For this is 
the law and the prophets " is his addition and shows 
his standpoint. 

Luke seems to have generalized Matt. 5 : 45, con 
verting the concrete illustration "for he maketh his 
sun to rise on the evil and the good and sendeth rain 
on the just and the unjust" to the general state 
ment "for he is kind toward the unthankful and 
evil." Matt. 5:41 may be a further illustration 
which the first evangelist has added from popular 
tradition or it may have stood in Q and been 
omitted by Luke. 1 Luke s figure of a robbery in 
vs. 29 seems simpler and more original than 

1 Did. 1:3 ff., which in general is closer to Luke, includes this 

38 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

Matthew s form of a lawsuit in vs. 40. Luke s 
additions in vs. 276 are supported by the early 
Fathers, Did. 1:31!.; Just., Ap. 1:15; Didask. 
5:15, but, like the expansion in vss. 33 ff., are 
more likely to be Lukan interpretations, ot 
djLiaprojXot is a characteristic Lukan term; if either 
evangelist has preserved the word of Q, it is 
Matthew. But rAetos, Matt., vs. 48, reflects later 
doctrinal views, and okripjuwp, Luke, vs. 36, is 
probably from the original source. This word, 
not found elsewhere in Luke, fits the context much 
better than r^Xeios. The mercifulness of God is 
also a divine attribute frequently emphasized 
in the Old Testament, and oiKrlpnw is the LXX 
translation of rehum, a word applied regularly to 

In Matt. 7 : 1-5 = Luke 5 : 37-42 it is more likely 
that the text of Luke has been expanded. The 
two commonplace proverbs, vss. 39, 40, are found in 
Matthew in quite different contexts, 15:14, 10:25. 
It is doubtful whether there is any literary con 
nection in this case. 1 Vs. 38 also, as Wellhausen 
has suggested, seems overfull. Probable as it is 

1 These verses are discussed more fully on p. 107. 

Study of the Common Material 39 

that we have additions in these verses, it is doubt 
ful whether they were made by the third evangelist 
himself. They may have been added previously. 
In Matt. 7:16-20; Luke 6:43-45, however, it is 
Matthew who has changed and applied the saying 
to the false and true prophets of 7: is. 1 Between 
the two forms of the concluding parables one cannot 
decide, but Luke s text is more easily explained on 
the basis of Matthew s than vice versa. Both 
evangelists have probably made some changes. 
Matthew has expanded 7:28, 29 by adding the 
idea of Mark 1:22, which he omitted in its Markan 

Most difficult of all is the task of determining 
what introduction this discourse had in Q. 
Matthew places the discourse near the beginning 
of the ministry, but introduces the mountain and 
the multitudes of Mark 3 : 7-12. Jesus is described 
as being on the mountain with his disciples. They 
are addressed, but the people are down below 
within hearing. As has often been noticed, the 
parallel to Moses giving the law on Mount Sinai 
is striking. In Luke the discourse is directed to 

1 For the relation of Matt. 7:21 to Luke 6:46 see pp. 96 ff. 

4o Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

the disciples, 6 : 20, but the presence of the multi 
tude is affirmed in 6:17-19; 6:27 (?); 7:1. Jesus 
is not upon the mountain, but has just come down. 
It is probable that in Q the disciples were addressed, 
but it is evident that a much larger company than 
the Twelve was intended. Both Matthew and 
Luke sought to give the discourse as large an 
audience as possible and hence used Mark 3:7-12, 
but in their own individual ways. If some refer 
ence to mountain or hill country also stood in Q, it 
would still further explain this common use of 
Mark 3:7-12. 

FAITH, LUKE 7:1-10; MATT. 8:5-10, 13 

It has already been pointed out that Luke s 
introduction here, 7:1, combines Matthew s con 
clusion to the Sermon on the Mount with his intro 
duction to this incident, and that therefore the 
account of the centurion stood in this same con 
nection in Q. The verbal agreement of Matt. 
8: 8-10 = Luke 7:66-9 necessitates the assumption 
of a common Greek source here. This verbal 
agreement includes several striking phrases. The 

Study of the Common Material 41 

os Lva. of Matt. 8:8 = Luke 7:6 is mentioned by 
Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 50. ei-rre Xoyco, 
Matt. 8:8 = Luke 7:7, should also be noted. It 
occurs only here in the New Testament. Although 
the two accounts agree so closely in the conversa 
tion reported, the preceding narrative is given 
in very different forms. Matthew s form is more 
condensed and simpler, but not necessarily more 
original. That a gentile centurion should send 
Jewish elders to Jesus is most natural; nor is it 
strange that he should remain by the bedside 
instead of coming out himself. Nor again is it 
absurd that the friends should give his message 
in his own words; it would only be so if Jesus 
answered them as if addressing him, but this he 
does not. There is a respect here for Jewish 
prejudices which seems primitive. Nothing dis 
tinctively Lukan can be found in the standpoint 
of these additions, nor is there any indication that 
they were added to magnify the miracle. The 
theory of an assimilation of this narrative to 
Mark 5:21-43 does not commend itself. More 
over, Matthew s tendency to condense pure nar 
ration is established by his use of Mark. It is 

42 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

possible, therefore, that Luke is closer to Q despite 
the nearly unanimous verdict of the critics in 
favor of Matthew. On a priori grounds we should 
hardly expect the longer narrative to belong to 
that source, and it may be that Luke has 
supplemented Q with information from other 

Matt. 8: n, 12 is an insertion of that evangelist. 1 
Most of the linguistic differences seem due to 
Luke s literary changes. Luke 7:10 is a Lukan 
paraphrase for Matt. 7:280. Eweidr], eirhypaxrev 
pi7/iara, els rds O.KOO.S are all characteristic of Luke. 
Matthew is also truer to Q in retaining the term 
irais throughout, but Luke has probably given this 
word its true interpretation. The Hebrew equiva 
lent na c ar (Aram, talya) has the same ambiguity 
which TTCUS has. In Luke 7:26 fnj,e\\ev reXeurj>, 
5s fa avru VTI\MS are, perhaps, additions of Luke; 
so also 6xX^ in 7:9. Luke 7 : 3-60 contains several 
Lukan characteristics. These do not necessarily 
mean that the verses are a composition of Luke, 
but they show that he has not preserved his source 
without, at least, verbal changes. Matt. 8:13 

1 See pp. 96 ff. 

Study of the Common Material 43 

might seem to be more original than Luke 7:10 if 
we did not find that he changes the text of Mark 
7:19, 30 in the same way. 1 

LUKE 7:18-35; MATT. 11:2-19 

Matt. 11:36-11, 16-19 an d Luke 7:196, 22-28, 
31-35 are practically identical in language. Only 
the slightest changes have been made by the 
editors. More convincing evidence of a common 
Greek source cannot be asked for. Our only task 
is to point out such editorial changes as seem prob 
able. The introductions, Matt. 11:2, 3= Luke 
7:18-20, show the usual variations. But there 
must have stood in the source some reference to 
John s sending his disciples to Jesus. The ques 
tion they ask is John s question, not theirs, Matt. 
n:4 = Luke 7:22. Luke 7:21 is certainly an ad 
dition of Luke to prepare for the answer of Jesus, 
7:22. In Matt. n:4-io = Luke7:22-27 the differ 
ences are insignificant. Matthew is probably more 

1 This argument would naturally have no force for those who 
regard Matthew as more original in 15: 21-28. Harnack may be 
right in affirming that neither verse stood in Q. The interest to 
Q is not in the miracle, but in the saying of Jesus. See p. 210. 

44 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

original than Luke in iiiSb, but Luke gives the 
true position of I8elv in 7:25, 26. The Semitic 
original has not the double meaning of the Greek 
rl. It was, therefore, the Greek text of the 
source which Matthew has interpreted differently 
from Luke. In Luke 7 : 28 Trpo4>rjrrjs is either an 
insertion of Luke, softening the bold assertion, or 
a gloss. 1 Both evangelists have made additions 
after Matt. u:n=Luke 7:28. Matthew adds 
vss. 12-15 qualifying the previous statement that 
John does not belong to the kingdom. The inser 
tion by Matthew of vss. 12, 13 is thus explicable, 
but that Luke should have omitted this clause 
here to insert it in 16: 16 is hard to believe. Matt. 
11:14 might have been omitted by Luke for the 
same reason that he leaves out Mark 9 : 9-13. But 
if vss. 12, 13 are an insertion of Matthew, vs. 14 
probably is one also. Luke, likewise, has added 
vss. 29, 30 to form a better transition to the parable 
which follows. But the contrast in these verses 
between the publicans on the one hand and the 

"The position in which D places 7:280 is attractive, but has 
not sufficient textual support. irpo<j>JTr)s is omitted from B, a, 
and other manuscripts. 

Study of the Common Material 45 

Pharisees and the scribes on the other is not the 
point of the parable. In the parable itself the 
Semitic parallelism is better preserved in Luke 
than in Matthew. But Luke has probably changed 
Ko\f/affde to cK\avcra.Te ; and aprov, olvov, iramuv are 
either glosses or additions of Luke. It is Matthew, 
however, and not Luke, who has changed rlwuv 
to epyuv. In the section just after this Matthew 
puts the woes upon the cities which do not recog 
nize the "works" of Jesus, TO, cpya is likewise 
introduced by Matthew at the beginning of this 
section, 11:2. Lagarde s theory that this varia 
tion is due to a misreading of the Hebrew 
original, Wellhausen has shown to be impos 
sible. 1 

MATT. 8:iC)-22 

In this section the verbal likeness throughout 
is such that no one can question the presence of 
a common Greek source. Matthew has sought 
to define the ns of Luke 9:57 more closely as a 
scribe; 5i5d<7/caXe also is more likely to have been 

1 See Matthew, in loc. 

46 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

added than omitted. It is hard to decide which 
Gospel gives the saying in regard to the second 
follower in the primitive form. In Luke vss. 59, 60 
are a counterpart to vss. 57, 58, and the develop 
ment of thought is clearer. The change, if made by 
Matthew, can be accounted for by the situation in 
which Matthew puts these sayings. They are a 
test of those who would follow Jesus as he is about 
to cross the lake. In this connection Luke g:6ob 
is out of place and the adaptation of Matthew is 
understood. This emphasis on preaching the 
kingdom belongs to Q, not Luke; in the section 
which followed in Q it is twice referred to. 1 Even 
more difficult is the question whether or not Luke 
9:61,62 are added by Luke or omitted by Matthew. 
As has been said, the sayings of vss. 57, 58 and of 
vss. 59, 60 are counterparts, complete in them 
selves. The point of what is said to the third 
would-be follower is nearly the same as that of 
what is said to the second. But this is hardly 
sufficient ground for regarding it as an addition. 
Matthew s context favored condensation. &- 
deros is found elsewhere only in Luke 14:35, and 
1 See Luke 10:9, n; Matt. 10:7. 

Study of the Common Material 47 

is found in Luke 14:33,* another 
passage on the conditions of discipleship probably 
belonging to Q. 2 If this is an addition it is a very 
old one. 

LUKE IOH-I2; MATT. 9:35 !O:i6 

In this section, as in the Sermon on the Mount, 
problems are created by the conflation which 
Matthew has made, this time with the parallel 
account in Mark. Matt. 9:35 is a repetition of 
4 123 = Mark 1:39. Matt. 9 136 reflects Mark 6 134. 
With Matt. 9:37 the first evangelist takes up the Q 
account, and the fact that he puts 10: i = Mark 6:7 
after 9:37, 38 = Luke 10:2, where it is entirely 
out of place, is conclusive evidence that he is here 
combining his two sources. With 10:5,6 Matthew 
returns again to Q. This can be regarded as certain, 
even though these verses are omitted by Luke; 
the wonder is that even Matthew has retained 
this prohibition against going among the heathen 
or Samaritans. Matt. 10:70 * s from Luke 10:96. 
Matt. 10 : 8 is an editorial addition of Matthew on 

1 Elsewhere only in Mark 6:46; Acts 18:18, 21; II Cor. 2:13. 
3 See pp. i?4f. 

48 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

the basis of Jesus words to John the Baptist in 
ii .5- 1 Matt., 10:9, 10 combine features of both 
sources and show an adaptation to later church 
problems. Matt. 10:11 is from Mark 6:10, but 
"search out who in it is worthy" is added to meet 
a later church problem. Matt. 10:12, 13 is from 
Luke 10:5, 6; 10:14 from Mark 6: n; 10:15 from 
Luke 10:12; io:i6a from Luke 10:3. Matt. 10: 
1 6b is not found in Luke but it is very possible that 
Luke objected to this comparison of disciples to 
serpents and therefore omitted it. 

Turning now to Luke s account of the commis 
sion to the disciples, we would regard 10:1 as re- 
dactional, adapting this section to the situation of 
9:51 ff. The number " seventy probably replaces 
the usual "disciples" of Q. Luke may have 
found it already added to his source or adopted 
it from oral tradition. We have already referred 
to Luke s omission of the prohibition against work 
ing among heathen and Samaritans. Its form 
and position in Matthew would indicate that it 
followed Luke 10:2. Of the original position of 

1 J. Weiss in Die Schriften des N.T., in loc., has well presented 
the secondary character of Matthew throughout this section. 

Study of the Common Material 49 

Luke 10:3 we cannot be sure, for it may have been 
inserted where it is in place of the passage omitted 
by Luke. The verse is abrupt where it stands, but 
after Matt. 10 : 6 it would be impossible. No place 
for this verse would be more appropriate than at the 
end of the next section, Luke 10:16. Matthew 
would then have retained it in its original relative 
position as an introduction to the warnings which 
he adds here, but have omitted the intervening 
woes to be used elsewhere, 1 1 : 20 ff. However, 
we can only conjecture where this originally stood. 
Luke 10:86 reads like a later addition, having in 
mind the same church problem which Paul en 
counters, I Cor. 10:27. With these exceptions 
Luke no doubt gives us the thought, if not the 
exact language, of Q. 

Our analysis makes it clear that we are not deal 
ing merely with two or three stray verses which 
Matthew and Luke have in common, but with a 
connected discourse which both use, Matthew 
weaving all characteristic passages into Mark, 
Luke placing the whole side by side with Mark 
(9 : i ff . = Mark 10 : i ff . = Q) . Under these cir 
cumstances we should not be surprised if verbal 

5<D Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

resemblances were wanting, but they are not 
entirely. Matt. 9:37, 38 = Luke 10:2, where 
the verb ec/SdXXu for sending reapers into the 
harvest points to an awkward but accurate Greek 
translation of an Aramaic appeq; 1 and Matt. 10: 
i5=Luke 10:12. i^PP Kplcreus is a characteristic 
of Matthew. Matt. 10:160 is also identical with 
Luke 10:3, with the one change of ap^os to 7rp6/3ara 
(or vice versa?). The common use here of ev 
with the dative \uaq after a verb of motion is prob 
ably a Semiticism. Therefore, despite the changes 
which have been made in the editorial use of this 
material, we can with all confidence assign the 
section to the common Greek source, Q. 

RESPOND, LUKE 10:13-16; MATT. 11:20-24 

Even in Matthew, who has inserted other 
material between, it is evident that this section is 
a continuation of the last, for he has repeated 
the introductory sentence of Luke, Luke 10:12 = 
Matt. n:24. 2 The verbal resemblance here is a 
conclusive reason for thinking that this stood in Q. 

1 Wellhausen, in loc. * For further evidence see p. 125. 

Study of the Common Material 51 

Matt. u:2i-23a = Luke 10:13-15. If Luke gives 
this section in its original context, then 11:20 and 
1 1 : 236 were added by Matthew in suiting it to a 
different setting. Luke 10:16 closes the discourse 
to the disciples; and is original, for the same idea 
is used by Matthew in his concluding verses, 10: 
40 ff. But Matthew has preferred the form of this 
saying which he found in Mark 9:37 and which 
better suited his purpose. 

LUKE 10:17-20 

This section is not found in Matthew and must 
be considered with the independent material of 
Luke. See p. 166. 

DISCIPLES, LUKE IO:2I, 22; MATT. 11:25-27 

In this section it is only necessary to refer to the 
close verbal identity which proves that it belongs 
to Q. Whether the introductory clause of Luke 
io:2ia goes back to his source is questionable. 
The emphasis on the Holy Spirit sounds Lukan, 
and Luke is prone to add such clauses. The simple, 

52 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

colorless sentence of Matt. 11:250 may be all 
that stood in Q. Harnack, pp. 272 ff., following 
the suggestion of Wellhausen, argues at length 
to show that /cat T LS ianv 6 vios el jui) 6 iraTrjp was 
not in Q. It is possible that it is an insertion; 
but the evidence is not convincing. 



MATT. 13:16, 17 

The principal question in this short section con 
cerns its original position. 1 The verbal likeness 
here is close. Luke has added a characteristic 
introductory clause, but Matthew has changed 
ets to 6t/catot. 


OF DIVINE HELP, LUKE 11:1-13; MATT. 6:9-15; 


In Luke 11:1-4; Matt. 6:9-13 one is more 
impressed with the differences between the Gospels 
than with their likenesses. This could be explained 
on the ground that either one or both evangelists 
might naturally give this prayer in the form which 

1 See p. 126. 

Study of the Common Material 53 

was known and used in his community. But the 
stylistic changes of Luke show that he is using 
some source rather than a formal community 
prayer. 1 The use by both evangelists of the un 
intelligible word einovffiov can also be best explained 
as coming from a common source. Moreover, 
Matthew contains the same petitions as Luke 
in the same order; the principal difference is that 
Matthew s account is much fuller. English and 
American scholars have as a rule maintained 
the greater originality of the Matthean form. 
Votaw s article on "The Sermon on the Mount" 
in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. V, is 
representative. But, surely, the historical prob 
ability points the other way. "Thy will be done 
on earth as it is in heaven" is only a further defini 
tion of "Thy kingdom come." So also "Deliver 
us from evil" only states in a positive form what 
"Lead us not into temptation" expresses nega 
tively. These clauses amplify, but they add no 
new element of thought; nor do they contain 
anything distinctively Jewish which Gentiles would 
have any reason to omit. The very reverse is 

1 See Harnack, p. 64. 

54 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

nearer the truth. Both petitions are to be ex 
plained as interpretative additions due to liturgical 
use, and not as Lukan omissions. "Our Father 
who art in heaven," a characteristic term of later 
rabbinic literature, is found only in one passage of 
the New Testament outside of Matthew, and that 
passage is regarded by some as due to Mark s 
influence, Mark 11:25, 26.* The fact that the 
term is peculiar to Matthew throws doubt on its 
use by Jesus. The case is especially strong against 
its use here. Granting that Jesus might have em 
ployed either expression, the fact remains that in 
his own prayers he said only "Abba, Father." 
On this point the testimony of Matthew agrees 
with that of Mark, Luke, and John. Rom. 8:14, 
15; Gal. 4:6; I Pet. 1:17 indicate that he taught 
his disciples when they prayed to address God in 
the same simple way. 

On the other hand, the Lukan form of this prayer 
also shows indications of editorial change, rd 
Ka.6 rujttpav is found only in Luke 19:47; Acts 17:4 

1 Luke s use of irar^p 6 i o&pavov in u : 13 would seem to show 
that he was unfamiliar with the Matthean title rather than that 
he objected to it. Gentile influence cannot account for the dis 
appearance of this title outside of Matthew. 

Study of the Common Material 55 

and may be an interpretation of that evangelist. 
Luke 11:4 seems to have been changed by Luke for 
literary reasons. Matt. 6 : 1 2 is recognized by all as 
more primitive. The striking term o^eiX^aTa of 
vs. 12 is changed to TrapaTrrobjuara in vss. 14 and 15. 
In these verses Matthew is probably appending ma 
terial from another source. In Luke s introduction 
the first clause at least, "It came to pass while he 
was in a certain place praying, when he stopped," 
has all the earmarks of Lukan editorship, and in 
troductions we know were always the most subject 
to change. The request from the disciples, how 
ever, may well have been in the source, for it is 
there that we find such a strong interest in John 
the Baptist. 1 Harnack has connected the reference 
to the Baptist here with the Marcion reading of 
Luke 11:2, which he, as well as Wellhausen, 
regards as the original text of Luke. Such a con 
nection would indicate that the whole introduction 
is editorial, but the textual evidence for this read 
ing of Luke 11:2 is altogether insufficient. In the 
only three witnesses which we have, the position 
wavers. Marcion reads, "Let thy Holy Spirit 
1 Note Sees, i and 5. 

56 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

come upon us and purify us," instead of the first 
petition. Gregory of Nyssa and Cod. 700 evv. read 
it in place of the second. 1 Surely the simplest ex 
planation of this petition is that, like the Matthean 
prediction, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in 
heaven," it is another interpretation of the older, 
more Jewish, "Thy kingdom come." It is true 
that this interpretation is consistent with many 
other changes made by Luke. But this does not 
justify one in attributing every reference to the 
Holy Spirit to that evangelist without more trust 
worthy witnesses. There is of course no question 
about this reading having stood in Q. Q must have 
had "Thy kingdom come." 

Parables such as Luke 11:5-8, which are not 
testified to by Matthew, need to be considered 
in connection with the special material of Luke. 
See p. 167. 

In Matt. 7 17-11= Luke 11:9-13 we have again 
that close verbal relationship which we have learned 
to expect in a large portion of this material. It 
includes the word 7ri8coo-et, found nowhere else in 
Matthew, and Sojuara, which is a common word in 

1 See Ropes, Agrapha, p. 57. Gregory is followed by Maximus. 

Study of the Common Material 57 

the LXX but nowhere else in the Gospels or Acts. 
Our greatest difficulty is in the relation of Luke 
11:11, 12 to Matt. 7:9, 10. The textual evi 
dence gives a strong probability to the claim that 
in Luke 1 1 : 1 1 aprov . . . . r} Kat is a later harmon- 
istic insertion; and that, therefore, Luke contained 
originally only the reference to the fish and the egg, 
while Matthew had the bread and the fish. Either 
might have stood in Q, but the fact that stones have 
already been used in this same figurative way twice 
in Q 1 favors the Matthean form. Luke may have 
thought that to give a scorpion instead of an egg 
was much more forceful than stones for bread. 
In Luke 11:13 TV&IM ayiov has been substituted for 
ay off a. Harnack has argued that this supports the 
Marcion reading of 11:2, but, as Wellhausen 
suggests, intead of being a proof it may have been 
the occasion for the change in 11:2. 

LUKE 11:14-23; MATT 12:22-32 

In this section we have an excellent example 
of Matthew s method of compilation. No very 

Matt. 3:9; 4:3; this latter is a close parallel. 

58 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

critical examination is necessary to see that 
Matthew here combines Mark 3:226. with 
Luke n:i4ff. Passing over the introduction for 
the present, Matt. 12:256, 260, 29, 31 (32) are 
certainly from Mark. Verses 31, 32 are found in 
an entirely different connection in Luke. There 
can be no question that Luke 12:10 gives the 
original setting of this saying in Q. That Matthew 
should have placed it here is explained by its 
occurrence here in Mark; but why Luke should 
omit it here and put it in a different context, if it 
stood here in Q, is inexplicable. Matthew has 
been influenced by the form of this saying in Q, 
as a comparison readily shows. Matt. 12:21, 32 
combines Q and Mark. 

Matt. 12:246, 250, 256-28, 30 are taken from 
Luke s source. In Matt. 12:266-28, 30, the two 
accounts are almost word for word the same. 
Matthew has this time even accepted the term 
kingdom of God . That both employed the prep 
osition iv throughout for the instrument in accord 
ance with Semitic usage is noteworthy. 1 

1 See J. H. Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek, Pro 
legomena, p. 104. 

Study of the Common Material 59 

is found nowhere else in the Synoptics or Acts. 
The only difference between the two Gospels is in 
the substitution of Trveujuan by Matthew for Sa/cruXco. 
This substitution was probably caused by the intro 
duction from Mark of the sin against the Holy 

In both the introduction and the conclusion of 
this section in Matthew a phenomenon occurs 
which calls for further explanation. Matthew 
contains two passages referring to a dumb man 
and the charge, "By the prince of demons he 
casteth forth demons," 9:32-34; 12:22-24. The 
passage in chap. 9 is closer to the Lukan parallel 
of 12: 22-24 than is the reference in this immedi 
ate connection. In like manner Matthew s con 
clusion, 12:33-35, is parallel to Matt. 7:16-20 
of the Sermon on the Mount; and here, the 
second time, it is the passage that has a dif 
ferent context which is nearest to the Lukan 
form of the same saying. Attention ought to be 
called to the fact that this is no uncommon occur 
rence in Matthew. For instance, Mark 3:7-12 is 
used with great freedom in Matt. 12:15-21, but 
in Matt. 4:23-25 it is closely followed. Clearly 

60 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

in this case only the one source is used. Just so 
in the introduction to the sending out of the 
Twelve, Matthew has repeated what he had in 
4 123 = Mark 1:39; and anticipated Mark 6:34, 
which is given with greater freedom again in its 
Markan context, 14:14. Nor can we doubt that 
he has done the same thing in 10:40, anticipating 
Mark 9:37, which he there, i8:5=Mark 9:37, 
repeats. Matt. 5:29, 30 = 18:8, 9 = Mark 9:436". 
is a similar case. There is slight ground for assign 
ing 5 : 29, 30 to Q ; if Luke found this in both Mark 
and Q he would not have omitted it. Again, 
Mark 13:96-13 is anticipated in Matt. 10:17-22 
(23?) and repeated freely in 24:9-14, though here 
there is better ground for arguing that Matthew 
had access to some source of Mark. What, now, 
is the most natural explanation of such passages ? 
They point first of all to Matthew s great familiar 
ity with his sources. 1 He knows them thoroughly 
and uses them as a master. Again, they emphasize 
that Matthew s great concern is to make each of 

1 J. V. Bartlett in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, art. 
"Matthew," says: "Our Matthew was so familiar with the 
latter [Mark] as to combine his phrases in memory without a full 
sense of their actual position in Mark s narrative." 

Study of the Common Material 61 

his main sections as complete as possible; he is 
not at all afraid of duplication. Duplicates, there 
fore, in Matthew do not necessarily mean two 

In Matthew s section on miracles he needed the 
healing of a dumb man in anticipation of 1 1 : i ff. 
He remembers that which Q gives in connection 
with the Beelzebul incident, 1 and when he comes 
to relate the Beelzebul incident itself the same 
healing is repeated but with some features of 
the incident, with which he joined it in chap. 9, 
added. These are added for the purpose of con 
trasting the correct estimate of Jesus by the 
people to this judgment of the Pharisees. Mat 
thew is always interested in showing that Jesus 
condemnations are restricted to the scribes and 

Is not the same true of Matthew s conclusion, 
12:33-37? Surely we cannot say that Matthew 
has two sources, for it is 12 133-37 an d not 7 : 16 ff. 
which shows the closest literary relationship to 
Luke, and a comparison of the two Matthean 

* Not the healing of Mark 7:31-37, to which 9:32-34 has 
not the slightest resemblance. So also 9:27-31 is more closely 
related to Mark 10:46-52 than to Mark 8:22 ff. 

62 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

passages reveals an adaptation to different con 
texts rather than the use of two sources. Both 
Matthew and Luke include this parable in the 
Sermon on the Mount, while only Matthew gives 
it here. The natural conclusion must be that in 
common source it belonged to that sermon. 
Jiilicher 1 argues that only Luke 6 : 44 = Matt. 7:17 
stood in the Sermon on the Mount, and that both 
evangelists independently add to the source por 
tions of another anti-pharisaic speech, which 
Matthew gives a second time in chap. 12. A 
mere statement of this theory shows its improb 
ability. Jiilicher s reason for this view is that 
he does not find the close logical connection in the 
Sermon on the Mount between 6:45 and 6:46 ff., 
which he regards as necessary. But have we not 
as close a development of thought as can be 
asked for? In Matt. 7 11-5= Luke 6: 37-4 2 2 a 
warning is given, first, in regard to judging 
others; second, showing the need of examining 
one s own conduct. Then follows this parable 

1 Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, p. 127. 

* Here the shorter form of Matthew is preferable; see 
p. 38. 

Study of the Common Material 63 

of the Tree and Its Fruit, emphasizing how all 
conduct, which naturally includes speech, is an 
expression of the inner life of the man. In 6:45 
attention is especially called to speech as revealing 
the heart or inner life. This is succeeded by a 
warning to those who merely make professions 
without taking hold of Jesus teachings with all 
their hearts, 6:46!!. Moreover, even if we did 
not find a satisfactory succession of ideas here, this 
would not prove that the author of Q did not. 
Jiilicher acknowledges that Matt., chap. 12, offers 
only a doubtful connection, and he has not shown 
that the form of the parable in chap. 12 is at all 
superior to that of Luke. Luke 6:43 is certainly 
more original than Matt. 12:33. Julicher s objec 
tion to Luke 6 : 446 is hypercritical. In 6 : 45, how 
ever, the avrov at the end is an awkward addition 
which Matthew is correct in omitting. Matt. 
12:340, 36, 37 are editorial additions of that evan 
gelist. Our conclusion, therefore, is that here, as 
in the previous instances we have quoted, Mat 
thew has used the same material twice. 

Luke seems to have held very closely to his 
source in this section. Even vs. 16 can hardly have 

64 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

been added here by Luke. As Wendt argues, no 
later editor would have inserted it so long before 
the incident which it introduces. The Beelzebul 
charge and the demand for signs were already 
associated in Q, and to Q vs. 16 must be assigned. 
Matthew this time does not help us much in 
determining stylistic changes of Luke. It is 
possible that Matt. 9:336 preserves a clause 
omitted by Luke. 

LUKE 11:24-26; MATT 12:43-45 

The close verbal identity here from beginning to 
end leaves no question about this section except 
its position in Q, which will be discussed later. 
Whether (rxoXdfopra was added by Matthew or 
omitted by Luke cannot be decided. If, as good 
reason will be shown for believing, the position 
given to this section by Luke is original, then 
Matt., vs. 456, is an editorial addition. 1 Luke n : 
27, 28 will be considered with all such material 
peculiar to Luke. See pp. 167 f. 

1 See further Julicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, p. 237. 

Study of the Common Material 65 

HEAVEN, LUKE 11:29-36; MATT. 12:38-42 

In this section also we find the usual close 
verbal resemblance throughout, but here there 
are a few differences which attract our attention. 
Neither the introduction of Matthew nor that of 
Luke is to be regarded as original. Matthew, as 
usual, makes this a demand of the scribes and 
Pharisees. Luke introduces the crowds in his 
characteristic manner. Probably in Q this section 
followed immediately upon the preceding with no 
further introduction beyond what was given in 
Luke 11:16. Luke has omitted the /zoixaXis of 
Matt., vs. 39, as we should expect him to do. TOV 
Trpo^rjrov is more likely added by Matthew. It is 
generally agreed that vs. 40 is a later insertion of 
Matthew. Wellhausen, who stands almost alone 
among liberal critics in supporting it, seems in this 
case at least to be influenced by his prejudice 
against the source, Q. While the preaching of 
Jonah is not a sign in the sense meant by Jesus 
interrogators, it was a sign which the Ninevites 
heeded and one which exactly suited the occasion 
here. Mark and Q are in full harmony. Exactly 

66 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

the same truth is taught in Luke 12: 54-56^ On 
the other hand, Luke, who is concerned with a 
proper historical sequence, has placed Matt., vs. 42, 
before vs. 41. There is not sufficient textual evi 
dence for omitting vs. 32 from Luke s text. 

The appendix which Luke adds here, 11:33-36, 
is one of the most puzzling sections in all the 
Gospels; the worst difficulty is that we cannot 
know what the true text of Luke is. As it stands 
in Textus Receptus, vs. 36 is unintelligible. A 
comparison with other MSS tends to show that 
our perplexity is caused by a process of harmoni 
zation of this with the other similar passages, 
Mark 4:21, Matt. 5:15, and especially Matt. 6:22, 
23. The most thorough investigation of these 
passages has been made by Jiilicher (Die Gleichnis- 
reden Jesu, II, 98 if.). He concludes that Luke 
originally read vss. 33, 340, 36 (in the form of S 8 ) a 
succeeded probably by vs. 35. He thinks that 
vs. 346 was inserted here from Matt. 6:22, 23 and 

1 See pp. 90 ff. 

3 Mrs. Lewis translates S": "Therefore also thy body, when 
there is in it no lamp that shines, is dark; thus while thy lamp 
is shining it gives light to thee." This reading is also found in the 
old Latin MSS /, q. 

Study of the Common Material 67 

caused the present confusion of the text. But the 
same line of reasoning which he follows favors 
the probability that vs. 33 likewise has slipped 
from the margin into the text. Just as the inser 
tion of vs. 346 preceded all our MSS authorities, so 
may that of vs. 33. As a marginal note it is 
intelligible, as an integral part of the text it is 
most difficult. Omitting it, the connection between 
vss. 32 and 34 is evident. It is improbable that 
the verse stood in this connection originally in Q. 
But by whom was it added? The likeness of 
vs. 33 to Matt. 5:15 disappears when VTTO rbv fj,68iov 
is recognized as a harmonistic redaction. But its 
close relation to Luke 8:16 is too striking to be 
accidental, els upvirrriv for the concrete n\ivr)s 
of Luke 8:16 indicates that this is the secondary 
form. Luke 8:16, itself, is clearly dependent on 
Mark 4:21. The differences are explained by 
Mark s clumsy Greek. It is possible that the 
evangelist himself has introduced this saying in 
11:33, DU t such additions resting on mere verbal 
resemblances are quite foreign to his editorial 
work, and it therefore seems more likely that, like 
vs. 346, it has slipped from the margin into the text. 

68 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

However that may be, it ought not to be ascribed to 
Q. After its omission the connection of vss. 32 and 
34 appears; the people called for a sign; what 
they needed was an inner light with which to see. 1 
The change from the third to the second person is 
not surprising. These verses lead naturally to the 
theme of Luke 11:37 ff. That whole section sets 
forth the principle of vs. 35. And this is the more 
significant because Luke s insertion of 11:37, 38* 
would indicate that he failed to see the close rela 
tion and so made a new beginning. Surely it is 
possible that vss. 340, 36 (in the form of S s ), 35 did 
follow vs. 32 in Q, and that Matthew has omitted 
them because they failed to mean anything to him 
in this connection and he had already twice used the 
figure of the lamp. Where the text is so obscure 
we can do little more than suggest possibilities. 
If Jiilicher is correct in his textual restoration of 
Luke here, then little reason remains for finding 
any literary relation between Matt. 6:32, 23 and 
Luke 11:33-36. But if the Textus Receptus is 
retained and the unintelligible vs. 36 be omitted as 
hopelessly corrupt, then either Matthew or Luke 
1 Cf. Luke 12:54-56. 2 See below, pp. 75 f. 

Study of the Common Material 69 

has changed the original position of the saying. 1 
Whichever form is retained, the thought in this 
context is appropriate. 



LUKE 11:37-54; MATT., CHAP. 23 

This section belongs really in a class by itself. 
The confidence with which we have been able to 
assign all previous sections to Q here must give 
way to mere probability. The problems are 
similar to those in the Sermon on the Mount, but 
much more difficult of solution. What evidence 
have we that we are dealing here with a common 
source ? 

In the first place, all of Luke except the setting 
is paralleled in Matthew, but the divergence is 
more than usual and the order quite different. 
Matt. 23:4 closely resembles Luke 11:46 in 
thought, but the language of the two accounts is 
not at all alike. Much can be said for the view 
that we have here two different translations of the 
same original. They might even be independent 
of each other. The differences, however, may be 

1 See further, p. 86. 

70 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

explained as due to Luke s stylistic changes. His 
text is much smoother Greek, while one phrase of 
Matthew is very crude, deapevu <opria. It is con 
sistent with this that some of the vigor of Matthew 
is lost in Luke, as the force of the contrast between 
shoulder and finger. 

Matt. 23:6 not only resembles Luke 11:43 m 
thought but in language as well. This condemna 
tion is found in Mark 12:38, 39 also, but the fact 
that Matthew and Luke agree here against Mark 
suggests the possibility of another source. This 
coincident variation is the more important because, 
while Luke 20:46 agrees with Mark, Luke 11:43 
agrees with Matthew against Mark. Nor is it at 
all like Luke to insert this woe here from Mark 
and then repeat it in the Markan connection. The 
possibility at least suggests itself that Matthew 
and Luke are here dependent on a non-Markan 
common source and that Matthew has simply 
added T-TJV TrpuToidwriav iv rots dtlirvois from Mark. 

Matt. 23 : 13 and Luke 11:52 seem to go back to 
a common original, yvuaeus is certainly a later 
substitute for the pa<TL\ciav of Matthew. This is 
shown by eto^XflaTe which follows. The fact that 

Study of the Common Material 71 

the only other occurrence of jvuxns in the Gospels 
is in Luke i : 77 1 may indicate that the change was 
made by him. 

In Luke n:42=Matt. 23:23 the only clear 
indication of literary dependence is in the last 
clause, but this seems due to later harmonistic 
influence. D omits it in the text of Luke. The 
clause is probably an insertion of Matthew, show 
ing, as it does, the same standpoint as 23:3. 
Nestle 2 finds a variation here due to different read 
ings of an Aramaic original. Di\\ = shabetha, 
Rue = shabera. Here again, however, it is possible 
that the differences between the Gospels are entirely 
due to the editorial changes of Luke, as Harnack 
supposes. Further evidence of different trans 
lations has been found in Luke 11:39-41 and 
Matt. 23:25, 26. Besides minor indications Well- 
hausen calls especial attention to dore e\er]iJ.oawrjv 
of Luke, which he regards as caused by a misreading 
of zakki for dakki; but it may be, with more proba 
bility, a Lukan editorial change. 3 Matt. 23:25 

1 Cf . also 1 2 : 47, 48. * ZNW, 1906, p. 10. 

3 See Luke i2:33 = Matt. 6:19. Probably the whole verse, 
Luke 11:41, is a Lukan interpretation of the woe. 

72 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

and Luke 11:39 are surely closely related, but 
what relation, if any, Matt. 23 : 26 and Luke n 140, 
41 have to each other is hard to determine. 

Matt. 23:27 and Luke 11:44 both contain a 
comparison to tombs, but the conception of each 
is so different as to seem independent. Luke has 
not simply changed Matthew on the ground that 
whitened sepulchers would be unintelligible to his 
readers, for Luke 11:44 would be even more so 
to anyone but a Jew who was familiar with Num. 
19:15. Matthew s comparison is the more evi 
dent, and if any relationship can be assumed at 
all, this is the secondary form. The change may 
have been suggested by the preceding woe, to which 
this seems to have been conformed. Certainly 
the difference between the two accounts is deep- 
seated and we may have two variant traditions. 

Matt. 23:29-31 and Luke 11:47, 4^ contain the 
same conception, differently expressed. Luke s 
form is more epigrammatic and forceful ; by build 
ing monuments to the prophets, they only complete 
the works of their fathers and share in their guilt. 
The implication is that in this as in their religious 
observances all is mere outward show. The 

Study of the Common Material 73 

thought is not as clear as might be wished 
in either the Lukan or Matthean version. Matt. 
22:33 is an editorial insertion, but 23:32 may be 

Concluding from these woes that the two gospels 
have in common, only a possibility is open that they 
were in Q. Not until we come to Matthew s epi 
logue of this discourse do we find a resemblance 
between the two accounts, such as we have always 
found before, pointing decidedly to a common 
Greek source. In Matt. 23:34-36; Luke 11:49- 
51, while we have not an extended verbal likeness, 
if we place the two texts side by side we see that 
both are built upon the same words and sentence 

Matt.: 810. TOVTO i&ov eyo) dirocrreAAa) 

Luke: Sia TOVTO Kai 17 <7o<ia TOV Oeov CITTCV aTrooreAui 

Matt.: Trpos v/u,5s uyxx/^ras KCU (rotors KCU ypayu,ju,aTas 
Luke: cis avrous 7rpo^>7/Tas KCU aT 

Matt. : avTwv aTTOKTeveiTC KCU OTaupwcrTCTe, etc. 
Luke: *<at e^ aurwv a7roKTevo{!(7iv. 

Matt.: Kat Siti^ere, etc., OTTWS f^-Oy e^> v/ TTOV 
Luke: ai fKSi<t)^ov(rtv Tva 

74 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

Matt. : eu/u,a SIKCUOV ex^uwo/xevov TTI rrjs 7175 

Luke: TO attia TravTwv TWV Trpo^rjTtav TO ex^wvo/xevov 

Luke: OTTO KaTaj8oX7}s KOO-/AOV OTTO TJ}S ycveas TCIVTT/S 

Matt. : OTTO TOV eu/Lurros "A/3eX row SIKCUOV e<os TOV 

Luke : OTTO ai/iaros *A)8eX cws 

Matt.: at/AUTOS Za\apiov vlov Bapa^i ov ov IfyovtrxraTf. 

Luke: ai/iaTOS Za^aptov TOV a7roXo/u,vou 

Matt.: /ACTO^V Tot) raov /cat TOT) ^vcriao-r^pt ov, d/it^v 

Luke: /LUTO^V TOU BwuuTTfipLov KO.I rov ot/cov, val 

Matt. : Ae yo) v/iiv ^et raSra Travra ITTL TTJV yeveavTavrrjv. 
Luke: Xey<o fKfcrjTrjOya tTa.i CLTTO T^S ycveas 

That the same text here lies behind both accounts 
seems certain, and we may add that it was prob 
ably a Greek text, though this is more doubtful. 
Here alone in this discourse can one with some 
measure of confidence attempt to restore an original 
form. Matthew, regarding Christ as Wisdom, has 
put the whole quotation into the mouth of Jesus, 
and hence changed the third to the second person; 
and Luke has made his usual changes to improve 
the literary style. Matthew has also inserted 
Son of Barachiah and expanded the description 
of Jewish persecutions, and Luke has changed 
"wise men and scribes" to "apostles." 

Study of the Common Material 75 

Inasmuch as this paragraph is an integral part 
of the whole discourse in both accounts, the possi 
bility that behind the whole section lies some com 
mon source becomes a probability. It is in this 
section that the problem of the relation which the 
two accounts have to an Aramaic original forces 
itself to the front as nowhere else; but even here 
the evidence for two different translations of such 
a Semitic original is very slight. At most we need 
only leave open the possibility of changes made at 
some time or other from the Aramaic. 1 Most of 
the differences, if not all, can be more readily 
accounted for on other grounds. 

We shall find further support for the theory that 
the common source, Q, is the basis of this section 
in Matthew and Luke as we examine the whole 
discourse in the connection and sequence of topics 
in which the two evangelists give it. Luke has 
prefaced an introduction, which seems to have 
been suggested by Mark 7 : i ff . Only in the most 
superficial way does it suit the material which 
follows. Luke has likewise appended a historical 
note at the close, 1 1 : 53, 54. When these additions 

1 See above, pp. 17 f. 

76 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

are omitted, vs. 39 follows naturally enough after 
vs. 36. 1 A relationship appears here which is 
independent of Luke and only obscured by him; 
and this confirms us in thinking that this section 
stood here in Q. 

Matthew himself gives a much more elaborate 
introduction, combining the situation of Mark 
12:38, 39, two woes of Luke, chap, n, and some 
warnings of Jesus to the disciples, found only here. 
These warnings are so awkwardly inserted in 23: 
1-3, where the multitudes of Mark, chap. 12, are 
combined with the disciples, and form such an 
unsuitable introduction to the woes which follow, 
that they may safely be regarded as an addition. 
It might be argued that Luke has omitted Matt. 23 : 
2, 3 because of their strongly Jewish Christian 
standpoint, but their kinship to Matt. 5: 17-20, in 
its present composite form, adds to the probability 
that this is an insertion of the first evangelist. 
Matthew s introduction is therefore secondary, and 
there is no reason to doubt that he also found 
the common material, as we have suggested that 
Luke did. 

1 See above, p. 68. 

Study of the Common Material 77 

In the woes themselves we find that Luke gives 
six, three directed against the Pharisees, three 
against the scribes ("lawyers" for "scribes" is 
Lukan). Such a distinction cannot be attributed 
to the third evangelist himself. It certainly was 
in the source he used. The three woes directed 
against the Pharisees are appropriate, as also are 
the first and last of those against the scribes, 
but the second woe against the scribes seems 
too general in its application, and it is note 
worthy that the address to the scribes is this time 

Matthew on the other hand has seven woes, all 
but one of which are directed against "scribes 
and Pharisees, hypocrites"; and that woe, which 
Luke has placed between the two woes upon the 
scribes, Matthew has put at the end, and the wis 
dom quotation he has made the epilogue of the 
whole discourse, vss. 29-36. Matthew also gives 
two woes which are not found in Luke. One of 
these, vss. 16-22, has a different epithet from the 
rest of the woes, "blind guides," 1 and reads much 
more like a variant of Matt. 5 : 34 ff., which has been 

1 Matt. 15: 14 uses the same epithet. 

78 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

converted into a woe, than like the other condemna 
tions here addressed to the Pharisees. This has 
probably been added by Matthew to complete 
the number seven. The woe of Matt. 23 : 15, how 
ever, is entirely appropriate. Its omission by 
Luke can be readily accounted for. Jewish prose 
lyting ceased after the fall of Jerusalem and seems 
to have declined before then. 1 This woe would 
have no meaning to Luke s readers. The possi 
bility suggests itself that we have here the third 
woe against the scribes, and that Luke found 
further ground for omitting it because he failed 
to see that the woe of 1 1 : 47 was directed against 
the multitudes in general and no particular class, 
and therefore thought he had one too many for the 
symmetry of the whole. This misunderstanding 
would explain also why vs. 52 is placed at the 
end; it served to bind the three woes together, 
if all were thought of as directed against the 

This correction in the order of Luke on the basis 
of Matthew gives us a most tempting solution of 
the problems of the whole discourse. In Q, Luke 

1 See Bousset, Religion des Judentums, p. 85. 

Study of the Common Material 79 

11:39-41 served as the introduction. Three woes 
upon the Pharisees followed, then three upon the 
scribes, with a concluding woe upon this generation, 
which brings us back to the situation of the pre 
ceding section on the demand for a sign. "This 
generation is an evil (and adulterous) generation," 
Luke 11:29. Luke s only changes in this order 
we have just explained. 

Matthew has torn the whole section out of 
its context, fitting it into the situation of Mark, 
chap. 12. By removing two of the woes to use 
them in his introduction he has lost the original 
symmetry of the discourse but retained the plan 
of having seven woes. The order in which these 
were put was probably influenced by independent 
sources. In our discussion above of the woes which 
both Gospels give, we saw that the differences, in 
some cases at least, pointed to variant tradition 
rather than editorial changes. Matt. 23:27, 28 
reads more like a variant of Luke 11:44 and in 
23:26 the change in number and the use of e^ros, 
euros for e<ru8ev, eco0e? may indicate that in this 
woe also Matthew is influenced by other sources. 
The woe of vss. 15-22 is certainly an addition 

8o Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

here. The paradoxical vs. 24 reads like a genuine 
saying of Jesus, but the title "blind guides" shows 
that it is related to vss. 16-22 rather than to the 
material common to Luke. However, vs. 5 might 
well have been omitted by Luke as too Jewish in 
its interest, but it is as easily explained as an 
addition; it certainly makes the woe too full. The 
warnings, vss. 2, 3, 76-12, we have already given 
our reasons for regarding as an insertion. Matt. 
23: 15 is the only verse of this chapter, peculiar to 
Matthew, which we should be inclined to ascribe to 
Q. Whether the variations are all to be explained 
by Matthew s use of independent sources and 
Luke s editorial changes cannot be determined. 
At least no further explanation is necessary. 
Matthew s independent source (or sources) may 
itself have been related to Q, probably to the 
Aramaic original of Q. This would explain the 
possible variant translations. If it was only one 
source, it had both woes and warnings, and in 
like manner Luke 11:37 ff. i s followed by a series 
of warnings to the disciples, and in this sequence 
Luke is merely copying Q. 

Study of the Common Material 81 



LUKE I2:i-I2; MATT. 10:24-33; 12:32 

When we come to this section we tread upon 
firm ground again. In Matt. 10:266, 280, 30, 31 
and Luke 12:2, 40, 7 we have that close verbal 
likeness which is conclusive evidence of a common 
source. That this source includes practically 
the whole section is shown by the common sequence 

of ideas: 

Matt., vs. 26 = Luke, vs. 2 




vss. 4, 5 


vs. 6 


30,31 = 


vs. 32 = 


33 = 


That Matthew should omit Luke 12:10 is most 
natural, for he prefers to use this verse in its 
Markan connection, Matt .12:31. In Matt .12:31, 
32 the version of Mark and this of Q are placed 
side by side. The difficulty of determining the 
exact meaning of the verse in the Q context may 
have prompted Matthew to omit it there in the 
first place. That Luke transferred this sentence 
from its context in Mark to a position directly 

82 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

after 12:9 is impossible to believe. The omission 
of Luke 12:11, 12 is even more readily accounted 
for. These verses have just been given in their 
Markan form, Matt. 10:19, 20 = Mark 13:11. 
A repetition of the warning in this same discourse 
would be absurd. 1 There is no reason to question 
that Luke 12:2-12 stood in Q. But regarding 
i2:ib we cannot be so sure. The omission by 
Matthew may be due to the fact that this warning 
is developed more fully in Mark 8:14!?. It is 
also possible that Luke could have introduced 
it from there. In itself the former alternative 
seems the more likely. The objection has been 
raised that there is no logical connection between 
i2:ib and 12:2. No doubt the soundest exegesis 
of this whole section will consider it as a collection 
of more or less independent sayings, but all are 
on the general theme of warnings to the disciples. 
Thus viewed, 12:16 appears as an appropriate 
introduction connecting these warnings with the 
preceding woes. Luke 12:16 is as closely related 

1 This is a strong indication that Mark 10: 17-22 is not taken 
from Q, as Bernhard and Johannes Weiss have maintained. If 
Matthew is here using a source of Mark it is an independent 

Study of the Common Material 83 

to 12:2 as 12:3 is to 12:4. This value of 12:16 
as an introduction to 12:2 ff. favors the view that 
Luke found it here in his source if, as we shall try 
later to show, his sequence here is that of Q. 1 The 
evangelist himself has supplied a historical intro 
duction of his own, 12:10, and this shows no con 
nection whatever with Mark 8 : 14 ff. The people 
who are out of place in vss. 2-12 are probably 
mentioned to prepare for vs. 15. Matt. 10:24, 25 
are also doubtful verses. They may have stood 
here in Q and been omitted by Luke, but see 
further, p. 107. 

Remembering then that Luke 12:1 and Matt. 
10: 24, 25 are questionable, we may with confidence 
assign this whole section to Q. But as usual it 
is a hazardous task choosing an original text from 
the alternatives of Matthew and Luke. Jiilicher 2 
has very thoroughly discussed vss. 2 and 3. His 
discussion shows that Luke 1 2 : 2 is an independent 
variant of Mark 4:22, and that the text of Matthew 
in 10:27 i s n t necessarily more original than that 

1 A further argument from the context, if this is the sequence of 
Q, appears in the condemnation of the Pharisees for hypocrisy in 
the preceding woes, Luke 11:44 = Matt. 23:27. 

2 See Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, pp. 91-97. 

84 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

of Luke 12:3. The change in person may be due 
to an original first person plural or to an impersonal 
passive, which both editors interpreted differently. 
In vss. 4, 5 ( = Matt. 10: 28) the differences can, for 
the most part, be attributed to Lukan changes. 
The text of Matthew is more pointed and epi 
grammatic. In vss. 6, 7 ( = Matt. 10:29-31) also 
the priority belongs rather to Matthew, though 
the Lukan price of sparrows seems original and rou 
Trarpos vn&v is conceded by all to be secondary. 
"My Father who is in heaven" is a Matthean 
expression. Luke s phrase seems more original. 
It is found also in Luke 15: 10, which may belong 

The significance of vs. 10 in this connection is 
very obscure. It seems intended to define what 
is meant by "denying me in the presence of men," 
which we find in the preceding verse. Possibly 
it is intended merely to qualify that verse. Well- 
hausen is probably correct in his emendation of 
the text here on the basis of D and Marcion. 1 
Matt. 12:32 also supports the emendation. 

1 "Whoever says anything against the Son of Man it shall 
be forgiven him, but against the Holy Spirit it shall not be for 

Study of the Common Material 85 

12: (13-21) 22-24; MATT. 6:19-34 

The question whether or not Luke 12:13-21 
belongs to Q will have to be deferred. 1 The rela 
tion of Luke 12:22-24 to Matt. 6:19-34 is such 
as to leave no possible doubt in our minds that 
both evangelists are using a common source. 
Matt. 6:21, 25-33 shows the closest verbal resem 
blance to Luke 1 2 : 22-3 1 , 34. The most important 
difference is that Matthew has placed Luke 12:33, 
34 at the beginning instead of at the end of the 
discourse. At least as far as the change in order 
is concerned Matthew must be responsible for the 
difference. The reason is apparent. He has 
placed this section in the Sermon on the Mount 
just after that contrast between human and divine 
rewards which he gives in 6:1-18; vss. 19, 20 
therefore furnish the proper transition to the ma 
terial which he here introduces. On the other 
hand, after Luke 12:21 the Matthean sequence 
would, if anything, be more appropriate than the 
order Luke himself gives; and it is not evident that 

1 See p. 168. 

86 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

these verses form a better transition to what 
follows in Luke 12:35. It is interesting to note 
that Matthew has retained the 6id rouro of Luke 
12:22, although it is no longer so appropriate in 
the new context. 

Matt. 6:22, 23 is appropriate in the setting 
which Matthew has given it here, but, as we have 
seen, it is equally so in its Lukan context, 1 1 : 34-36 ; 
and the other changes of Matthew here make it 
safer to regard the position given to it by Luke 
as original, rather than this which it has in 
Matthew. The latter s setting is usually suitable. 
It is only when he fails to understand a saying that 
he places it in an awkward context. It is not 
certain, however, that he is here following the 
common source at all. The resemblance to Luke 
may be entirely due to harmonistic redaction. 1 
Matt. 6 : 24 fits beautifully into this context of the 
First Gospel, but for this very reason is the more 
likely to be an insertion of Matthew. That Luke 
should remove it to its isolated position in 16: 13 
then becomes inexplicable. Matt. 6:34 is possibly 
also an addition of the evangelist, though in this 

1 See above, p. 69. 

Study of the Common Material 87 

case it is more probable that Luke has omitted 
instead of Matthew s having added. Luke 12:32 
is the only verse of Luke which is not found in 
Matthew as well, and this certainly belonged to Q. 
In details Matthew is truer to the original than 
Luke. But "ravens" for "birds of the heaven," 
and "God" for "Heavenly Father," Luke 12:24, 
are to be preferred. Luke is also correct in reading 
"kingdom" without "righteousness" in 12:31. 
That Matthew is more original in 6: 19-21 is shown 
by Luke s retention of ovdk cn)s 3ta</>0tpei, despite 
the fact that he has limited the treasure to money. 
Luke has interpreted this passage to accord with 
the teaching of his special material in chap. 16, 
giving it this definite application. 



OF MAN, LUKE 12:35-48; MATT. 24:42-51 

Luke gives three parables here, two of which 
are found also in Matthew in practically the same 
words. Omitting for the present the problem 
whether that one which is peculiar to Luke was 
found in Q, we can positively affirm that the other 
two were found in that source. The verbal 

88 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

agreement between 24:43-51 and Luke 12:39, 4> 
42-46 is conclusive regarding this. In the first 
of these parables the differences are too insig 
nificant to concern us. In the second, however, 
Luke has applied an interpretation to the parable 
which has affected the form of its presentation. By 
the question of Peter which is inserted in 12 141 this 
last parable is given a definite application to the 
twelve. Special responsibilities rest upon them. 
It is in accordance with this that dov\os is replaced 
by oinov6fj.os in vs. 42 and crvv8ov\ovs is changed in 
vs. 45. The two verses which Luke has appended 
at the close are also placed here because of this 
interpretation of Luke. They may rest upon some 
good tradition, but they are an insertion here. 
Changes made by Matthew are insignificant; 
ffiropeTpiov is probably more original than rpo^rj 
in vs. 45. 

DISASTER, LUKE 12:49-53; MATT. 10:34-36 

In this short section we cannot be so sure of the 
presence of Q as we would wish. But Matt. 10:34 
and Luke 12:51 rest on the same source: 

Study of the Common Material 89 

Matt.: Mr) vop-iwrfrf. on rj\6ov /SaXeiv etpr/viyv 

Luke: AOKCITC on elprjvrjv irapf.yf.v6p.-qv Souvai 

Matt. : tTri rrjv yrjv OVK rjXOov (3a\eiv 
Luke: v T^ yf) ; ou^i Aeyu) v/uv 

Matt.: oAAa p.a.\aipa.v 

Luke: dAA ^ 8ta/u.ptor/x,ov 

Luke uses more elegant Greek, but Matthew 
preserves the Semitic parallelism and is probably 
original. Still, the interrogatory form of Luke, 
5oKLTe for /x?) w/uo-Tjre, seems to deserve priority (so 
Harnack). Matt. 10:35 an d Luke 12:53 certainly 
are derived from a common source, but since this 
verse is found in Mic. 7:6 it does not mean so 
much as it otherwise would. The form of the 
saying is much more simple and direct in Matthew 
than in Luke. One can hardly doubt that it is 
Luke who has expanded. Matthew may also 
have added vs. 36, the closing clause of Mic. 7:6. 
That Matthew omits the two verses with which 
this section begins in Luke can be explained by 
the context of chap. 10, where the personal note 
of these verses would be out of place. Matthew 
likewise omits the reference of Mark 10:38 to 

go Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

Christ s baptism of suffering. Has he some repug 
nance to this comparison ? 

MENT, LUKE 12:57-59; MATT. 5:25, 26 

In Luke 12:54-56 we have a passage which 
strangely enough has a parallel in many MSS 
of Matt. 16:1-4, which, moreover, is so different 
that it cannot be a mere scribal transference from 
Luke. This would simply be another example 
of Matthew s general method of inserting Q sayings 
in a Markan context, if only the MSS gave us 
sufficient reason for believing that it stood originally 
in the Gospel of Matthew. Matt. 16:26, 3 is 
omitted by N, B, V, X, 13, 24, 556, 157, Ss. Sc. Jer. 
(in most MSS), Cop. Orig. They are given by 
2, 3, C, D, e, a, b (K is wanting here), Jer. (in some 
MSS), Hil., Vulg., Si. 1 The MS authority cer 
tainly favors the omission; but where D and the 
Old Latin cannot be accused of harmonizing, their 
testimony has weight. Comparing the addition 
with Luke 12:54-56, the principal difference we 
1 Evidence taken from Zahn, Kom. Mat., in loc. 

Study of the Common Material 91 

observe is the change which is made in the weather 
signs. Those which Luke gives are suitable only 
to Palestine 1 and might readily be changed when 
the sayings of Jesus were given a wider circle of 
readers. They would be especially inappropriate 
in Rome, where many suppose the First Gospel 
was written. The conclusion in both gospels 
shows literary relationship: 

Matt.: TO fifv irpwriairov rov ovpavov 

Luke: TO Trp6ar<airov T^S y/s K<U TOT; ovpavov 

Matt. : yivwo-/cT Buaxpivfiv, TO. 8e (rrjfJicia. T>V KCUOWV 
Luke: oiSarc. SoKt/io^ciy, TOV naipov 8 TOVTOV 

Matt. : ov SwaaOc ; 
Luke: w^s OUK oiSare 

It is hard to believe that the same text does not 
underlie these variants, rrjs yrjs KCH Wellhausen 
has shown to be an addition in Luke, 2 and the 
other changes look like literary improvements of 
that evangelist. Such likeness with so much 
variation and the location which the passage has 
in Matthew are excellent circumstantial evidence 

1 See Plummer, Com. Luke, in loc. 
"See Kom. Luk., in loc. 

92 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

that Matthew himself wrote 16 : 26, 3. If he did not 
make this insertion in the saying taken here from 
Mark, someone so like him in method did that we 
cannot tell the difference. But apart from this 
doubtful testimony of Matthew the fact that it is 
combined by Luke with a passage which Matthew 
certainly gives, but not in its original setting, as we 
shall try to show, supports its claim to a place in 
Q. Moreover, the teaching of the passage repre 
sents exactly the same standpoint that we find 
in Q, Luke 11:295.; Matt. 12:38 ff. 

It is time now to consider the section which fol 
lows in Luke 12:57-59; Matt. 5:25, 26. Despite 
the very different interpretations which Matthew 
and Luke put upon this passage, it must be regarded 
as coming from their common source. Matt. 
5:26 and Luke 12:59 are almost word for word 
the same. Luke has merely substituted the more 
appropriate, better Greek word \6irrbv for KoSpavTijv. 
In Matt. 5:25 and Luke 12:58 the differences 
are greater, but the same sentence structure appears 
in both. While a common source seems required, 
its exact language cannot be restored. Trpd/crwp 
is no doubt to be preferred to the commonplace 

Study of the Common Material 93 

s ; KaTaavpy and cbrTjXXaxflcu of Luke are both 
more striking, vigorous terms, but not necessarily 
more original. The Latinism d6s epyaalav is very 
puzzling. If KodpavTrjv was changed to \TTTOV, it 
surely was not the same editor who inserted this 
phrase, though he might have allowed it to remain 
if he had it before him. 

Because of its bearing upon the problem raised 
by the preceding section, the question of the posi 
tion of this passage ought perhaps to be discussed 
in anticipation of what is to be said on this general 
theme later. The first difficulty is in trying to 
learn exactly what the saying means. Even 
JiilicherV discussion is not very illuminating. 
In its Matthean context he understands it to be a 
vivid concrete warning to live up to the fifth peti 
tion of the Lord s Prayer in its full force. But he 
recognizes that there is even in the Matthean form 
of this saying an eschatological tone which is incon 
sistent with such an interpretation. In its Lukan 
context he finds here "nur eine bildliche Darstel- 
lung des 5iKcuoi> das dem Urteil der Massen leider 
bisher fehlt." But obscure as vs. 57 certainly is, 

1 See Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, p. 240. 

94 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

something more of a connection with what pre 
cedes is surely meant. The multitudes are told 
in the preceding verses, 54-56, to interpret the signs 
of the times as truly as they interpret the weather 
signs. The best commentary on this saying is to 
be found in Luke n : 29 ff. (Q). What is going on 
in their midst, and especially the teaching of Jesus, 
ought to warn them of the need of repentance. 
Attention is directed to the judgment of God which 
threatens them. Verse 57 seems to say that if they 
examined their own conduct honestly they would 
learn the same lesson. In their own affairs they 
recognized the importance of making peace with an 
adversary before the case progressed so far that 
reconciliation was impossible. Taking, then, them 
selves as an example, they should use as much 
concern in avoiding God s judgment as they would 
in escaping the judgment of men. The obscurity 
of the passage is largely due to the form of the 
parable. It is given as a command, and the deeper 
meaning is only implied by the pregnant a^v Xeyco 
<roi. This is not necessarily against the original 
ity of the form here. All of Jesus parables cannot 
be conformed to the quiet, calm tone of the "wise" 

Study of the Common Material 95 

man. As it stands, it is not necessary to give an 
allegorical interpretation to every feature. It can 
still be a true parable though in this dramatic form. 
The objections, therefore, which Jiilicher has pre 
sented against this Lukan position of Sec. 22 seem 
exaggerated, and, as he himself acknowledges, 
the position in Matthew is out of the question. 
The eschatological tone demands a context differ 
ent from that of Matt. 5: 25 but like that of Luke, 
chap. 12. It is also a recognized fact that Matt., 
chaps. 5-7, is an editorial composition which raises 
a natural presumption in favor of the Lukan loca 
tion. Now if Sec. 22 belongs in the connection 
which Luke gives, then we may well believe that 
Sec. 21 also stood in Q whether or not it stood in 
Matthew also. 

MATT. 13:31-33 

These two parables were both found in Q by 
Matthew and Luke. Luke has retained them 
practically as they were in the source. Matthew 
agrees with Luke verbally in the second, but has 

1 For Sec. 23, which is found only in Luke, see p. 170. 

g6 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

combined Q and Mark in the first. In vs. 31, 
6fJ,oia iarlv .... KOKKU (nvciTrecos, ov Xa/Sdw av- 
Qpuiros . . . . ev Tc5 aypcjj (?) auroO, and in vs. 32, 
devdpov . . . . & rots KAdSois aurou show the in 
fluence of Q. 



MATT. 7:13, 14, 21-23; 8: II, 12 

What Luke gives in one section is reflected at 
least in these three different passages of Matthew. 
Matt. 7:13, 14 is somehow related to Luke 13:23, 
24. Matt. 7 : 21-23 shows a connection with Luke 
13:256, 26, 27, and Matt. 8:11, 12 must be closely 
related to Luke 11:28,29. In the last case literary 
evidence of a common source is conclusive. In 
Matt. 7:21-23 there is clearly a conflation of two 
conceptions. 1 The one is that of the Sermon on the 
Mount, which condemns those who make pro 
fessions and do not carry out the teachings in their 
lives; and the other is a condemnation of those 
who claim admittance to the kingdom because 
of privileges they have enjoyed or powers they 

1 See above, p. 29. 

Study of the Common Material 97 

have shown. This latter conception is that of 
Luke in the section before us. Kupie, which appar 
ently means only "teacher" in Luke 6:46, is escha- 
tological in Matt. 7:21, as it is in Luke 13:256. 
The relation between Luke 13:27 and Matt. 7:23 
is close throughout. In Matthew, however, those 
rejected base their claim upon the works they 
have done in the name of Christ; the evangelist 
still has the false prophets of 7:15 in mind. Luke, 
on the other hand, contrasts the Jews who have had 
the privilege of being with Jesus, and the Gentiles. 
The form of Matthew is certainly secondary 1 and 
Luke s connection with 13:28, 29 may well be ori 
ginal. Inasmuch as this passage is an insertion in 
Matthew, the probability that it was taken from 
the Lukan context is increased. It is also impor 
tant that a few verses before this, in Matt. 7:13, 
we have the ei<T\deiv 5td rrjs ffrevrjs TruXr/s (dvpas) 
of Luke 13:24. The rest of Matt. 7:13, 14 might 
be regarded as an adaptation of this saying to the 
practical precepts of the Sermon on the Mount by 
combining it with the common Jewish conception 
of the two ways, the way of life and the way of 

1 Note also what is said below, p. 125. 

98 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

death; but of this there will be more to say pres 
ently. That Matt. 7:13, 14, 21, 22 stood in some 
source independent of their present connection 
is certain, and, since they can be readily under 
stood on the basis that this evangelist had Luke 
I 3 :2 3~3 before him (allowing of course for 
changes on the part of Luke), this gives us our 
simplest and most natural hypothesis. The one 
saying of Luke here omitted, 13:28, 29, is inserted 
very aptly in connection with the incident imme 
diately following, Matt. 8:11, 12. This theory is 
also strengthened by the fact that we have in these 
scattered fragments of Matthew the order of Luke 
still preserved. 

But while we have good assurance that this 
section stood in Q, the exact form of Q can only be 
conjectured. The free use which Matthew has 
made of this material renders it difficult to eliminate 
the changes made by Luke. The problem is 
whether Luke has combined three sayings, only 
loosely connected in Q, into a closer unity or 
whether all the changes have been made by 
Matthew. In favor of the former it may be urged 
that such loose connection, where the theme 

Study of the Common Material 99 

remains the same, is not unknown in Q, 1 and the 
separation into three different contexts on the part 
of Matthew becomes more natural if this was the 
case. Again attention has been called to the rela 
tionship between Luke 13:25, the verse which 
forms a connecting link in Luke, and Matt. 25: n, 
12, the conclusion of the parable of the Ten Virgins. 
The situation is similar in both cases, the closed 
door, and some shut out who cry for admittance, 
almost in the same words, /cupie [/cupie] avoL&v rjfuv. 
In the reply at least one clause is common to both, 
owe oZ5a yjuas. But in Luke, chap. 13, it is a house 
holder and not a bridegroom, nor is there any 
reference to the feast 2 and the virgins. Luke s 
familiarity with Matthew s parable of the Ten 
Virgins can by no means be argued from this like 
ness, nor, on the other hand, are we justified in 
arguing, with Wellhausen, that Matthew s parable 
is only an amplification of this saying. The point 
of contact is too slight. Still, it remains possible 

1 See especially Luke 12: i ff. 

a j. Weiss regards tyepOrj as such a reference, but it only 
emphasizes the act of shutting the door according to good 
Semitic usage. 

ioo Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

that Luke has inserted this verse from the situation 
described in some recension of the parable of the 
Ten Virgins known to him, thinking that the same 
situation was implied here. Such editorial han 
dling of material is consistent with Luke s method, 
as shown elsewhere, and seems, on the whole, an 
easier explanation than to ascribe all the change to 
Matthew. The probability then arises that Matt. 
7:136, 14 is not to be explained on the basis of 
Luke 13:24, but rather that Luke for the sake of 
closer connection has changed TruXr; to dvpa and 
generalized 7:136, 14 into 13:246. According to 
this view, Matthew, in his characteristic manner, 
found in his discourses suitable settings for these 
more or less independent sayings. But Luke, 
under the influence of other tradition, gave the 
sayings a new setting, which bound them into a 
closer unity. 1 

In Matt. 8: n, 12 and Luke 13:28, 29 it is im 
material which gives the true order of the clauses; 
the sense is the same. The fact that "there shall 

1 Wellhausen in his commentary prefers the Lukan form 
throughout this section. Wendt, Die Lekre Jesu, I, 130, argues 
for that of Matthew. See also Harnack, p. 67, and Jiilicher, Die 
Gleichnisreden Jesu, II, 458. 

Study of the Common Material 101 

be weeping and gnashing of teeth" has been 
adopted by Matthew as a common concluding 
clause, and that, therefore, he would be more in 
clined to treat it in the same way here, is of more 
weight than all the evidence brought forth by 
Harnack (p. 56) for the priority of Matthew. 
Luke has the clause only here. More important 
is Harnack s suggestion that eK|3aXXo^eVous and 
eeXeuowTai are not necessarily different transla 
tions of appeq. Luke may have made the change 
with only the Greek QeXeixrovTai before him. 
Luke 13:30 is an addition of the evangelist. It is 
not likely that Matthew would have omitted it if 
it stood in Q. 1 

LUKE 13:34,35; MATT. 23:37-39 

For our present purpose we need only call atten 
tion to the close verbal resemblance which shows a 
common source, eprj/jios may be regarded as 
original in the text of Matthew but it does not 
belong to Q. 

1 See further Journal of Biblical Literature, 1906, Part II, 
pp. 97 ff., article by F. C. Porter. 

iO2 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

LUKE 14:25-27 (28-35); MATT. 10:37,38 

No striking verbal likeness is found here but a 
close similarity in thought and logical sequence, 
nor are the changes hard to understand. Re 
garded by itself alone it would be questionable 
whether it belonged to Q, but when its position in 
the two Gospels is considered the probability 
becomes overwhelming. 1 In Luke, vs. 25 may well 
be an editorial introduction, though it is very 
appropriate here and its omission by Matthew was 
necessary. Verse 26 seems to have been expanded 
for the sake of completeness. The Semitic paral 
lelism of Matthew supports its claim to priority. 
But Matthew has changed "is able to be my dis 
ciple" to "is worthy of me." atos is a favorite 
term of Matthew in this discourse, 10:10, n, 13. 
On the principle that we should accept the harder 
reading, /ucreZ of Luke is preferable to the ^iXco? 
.... inrlp Ipt of Matthew. 


This group of almost isolated sayings we find 
in Luke, chaps. 15, 16, 17, interspersed with inde- 
1 See p. 118. 

Study of the Common Material 103 

pendent material. In Matthew they are placed 
in different, usually appropriate, contexts. The 
degree of resemblance varies. 

The parable of the Sheep, Luke 15:4-7; Matt. 
18:12, 13, has apparently been adapted by Luke 
to the situation he has created under the influence 
of the parable of the Prodigal Son. Matthew, on 
the other hand, has applied it to the problems of 
church discipline. Of the two, certainly Luke 
deserves the priority, for as we have seen Q was 
deeply concerned in the importance of repentance. 
No theme occurs there more frequently. But the 
very fact that Matthew has interpreted it so differ 
ently would indicate that Luke 15:7, true to the 
parable as it is, did not stand in his source. 
Beneath these differences there is an even more 
striking likeness; the essential features are the 
same in both accounts and the ideas are presented 
in the same sequence. This parable may, there 
fore, have stood in Q, but if it did it was in the 
form which Luke gives rather than that of Matthew, 
though Luke also has probably made minor linguis 
tic changes, such as tpwu for 6prj, and r6 cbroXcoX6s 
for TO 

104 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

God and Mammon, Luke 16:13; Matt. 6:24, 
is another of this group of sayings; the unmistak 
able verbal likeness here shows that it belonged 
to Q. 

Storming the Kingdom, Luke 16:16; Matt, n: 
12, 13, is hardly a saying which would have been 
long preserved except as it stood in writing. More 
over, the very difficulty of understanding it would 
favor editorial change. Matthew has used it to 
show that John the Baptist, while not in the king 
dom, was still the Elias whose coming would intro 
duce it. In Luke no plausible connection with its 
context has as yet been proposed. The three say 
ings of 16:16, 17, 18 seem entirely out of place, 
though they have a sort of unity in themselves, 
each correcting a possible misinterpretation of the 
other. That 16: 16 does not mean that the law is 
no longer of value is shown by 16:17, and 16:18 
may be regarded as an illustration of the way in 
which the law is still valid. Harnack has well said 
that Luke and Matthew probably did not them 
selves understand what this saying meant. The 
form in which Matthew gives it is the more diffi 
cult and on this account deserves the preference. 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 105 

The similar passage in Edujoth viii, 7, quoted by 
B. W. Bacon in the Expositor, July, 1902, and by 
Allen in his commentary on Matthew, indicates 
how this obscure saying gives to the Baptist the 
functions of the coming Elias and favors the 
connection with Matt. 11:14. Luke may have 
omitted Matt. 11:14 because he failed to see any 
relation. It is also possible that he objected to the 
idea. We note that he has omitted Mark 8:9-13. 

Validity of the law, Luke 16:17; Matt. 5:18. 
This time it is Luke who gives the saying in its 
harder form. It may be that, as Harnack (p. 56) 
suggests, this is due to later Hellenistic exaltation of 
the Old Testament, but the literary evidence does 
not oppose but favors the priority of Luke. The 
two ws o.v clauses in Matthew cannot possibly be 
original. The simple, clear statement of Luke is 
not secondary. Still, such a detail as iura ev 77 may 
have been omitted by him. 

Adultery, Luke 16:18; Matt. 5:32, is also to be 
compared with Mark 10:11. Here if anywhere 
in Luke is a case of conflation. 1 Retaining the 
form of Matt. 5:32 as far as possible, he gives 

1 So Harnack, p. 57. 

io6 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

it the sense of Mark 10:11. Of course, Trapc/cros 
\6yov Tropveias is an insertion of Matthew. 

Giving Ofense, Luke 17:1, 2; Matt. 18:6, 7. 
Here we find the conflation on the part of Matthew, 
as is more usual. Matt. 18:6 follows Mark 9:42, 
though the expression <rv(j.(f>epeL aurcjj Iva, probably 
was taken from Q; for Luke s XwtreXei aurco d, 
which has essentially the same meaning, is shown 
to be an editorial change by the i? Iva, of the second 
member of the adversative clauses in Luke. 
Matt. 18:7 adds the thought of Q which was not 
given in Mark. The first clause is inserted because 
of the new position. 

Forgiveness, Luke 17:3, 4; Matt. 18:15, 2I > 22 > 
comes in both Gospels just after the foregoing 
passage on giving offense. Literary relationship 
here is wanting, but the likeness of thought is such 
that when both evangelists give the saying in the 
same position a probability arises that this too 
belonged in Q. Between vss. 15 and 21 Matthew 
has inserted characteristic material on the theme 
of Luke 17 130, which may account in part for the 
differences. A new introduction for Luke 17:4 
was thus made necessary. Luke is himself fond of 
interrogations from the disciples to emphasize 

Study of the Common Material 107 

a teaching of Jesus, and it is therefore less probable 
that he would have omitted the question of Peter, 
Matt. 18:21, if it stood in Q. Harnack, however, 
argues for the priority of Matthew because his text 
is more Semitic. In fact, either form might be 
original here, but Luke 17:3 is certainly to be 
preferred to Matt. 18:15. 

Faith, Luke 17:5, 6; Matt. 17:206, is inserted 
by Matthew into a Markan context. There is some 
literary likeness here: 

Luke: Eav ^X 7 ? 7 " 6 7ri " r " fa KOKKOV (TivaTretos eXeyere 
Matt. : Eav t\r)Tf. TTIOTIV o>s KOKKOV crivaVeaJS epeTre 

The Markan context of Matthew may be said 
to favor the change of "tree" to "mountain." 
The possibility that this stood in Q is to be allowed. 
If so, it forms an interesting parallel to Mark 1 1 : 23. 
Two other sayings may properly be considered 
here, because we have seen that they cannot be 
original in the position which Luke gives them, 
6:39, 40. The very fact that this is the only case 
where we have found reason for doubting the Lukan 
setting of a common saying is itself striking. 
These verses have their parallel in Matt. 15:14; 
10:25. Matt. 15:12-14 is generally recognized as 
an insertion into the Markan discourse of 7: 17-23. 

io8 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

If therefore neither evangelist has preserved the 
original context, the conjecture suggests itself 
that the parable stood originally in this miscella 
neous group of short sayings. Matthew and Luke 
would then each have given it a different setting. 
But if, as is probable, this was a current proverb, 
the verbal likeness between the Gospels can be 
accounted for without supposing any literary con 
nection. As for Luke 6:40; Matt. 10:25, more 
can be said for the Matthean position. The pas 
sage is there in every way appropriate, the con 
nection with what follows is satisfactory. Still, if 
Luke has here taken this saying out of the discourse 
in which it stood in Q and has transferred it to 
another, it is the only example of such transposition, 
not only in this common material but in Mark 
also. On the other hand, such changes are fre 
quent in Matthew and he shows the highest skill 
in making them. The Sermon on the Mount is a 
masterpiece of such combination. If any relation 
is here to be assumed, this saying must also be 
added to the miscellaneous group of this section. 
Luke might have inserted an isolated saying into 
6:40, but he would not have removed it from the 

Study of the Common Material 109 

situation of Matt. 10:25 to insert it elsewhere. 
The question arises again whether any literary 
connection at all is to be understood. 1 

Luke 22:28-30; Matt. 19:28 have also been 
compared and assigned to Q, but no common 
literary source is here likely, unless this whole 
passage of Luke be assigned to Q. Objections to 
that will be considered later. 2 


MATT. 24:26-28,37-41 

The presence of a common source is borne wit 
ness to by the following literary resemblance: 

Luke: xai epovcnv, iSov .... i8ov ..... fir] 

Matt.: Eav .... 7r<oo-tv v/u-tv, iSov .... 

Luke: wo-Trep yap rj aarpaTrr) .... CK .... cis 


Matt. : wtTTrep yap iy a&TpaTrr) .... d?ro .... 015 
.... OVTCOS tcrrai .... TOV viov TOV avOpwirov. 

1 It is interesting that another parallel to Matt. 10: 15 is found 
in John 13:16. 

2 See below, pp. 157 f. and 179. 

no Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

In Matt. 24 : 386, 390, 40, 28 ; Luke 1 7 : 27, 34, 35, 37 
the verbal likeness is self-evident. 

Matthew is probably more original in 24:26. 
The idea of the Messiah hidden in the desert or 
secret chambers would be intelligible to a Jew 
but meaningless to gentile readers. Moreover, the 
Lukan form is found just before this in 17:21 and 
in Mark 13:21 also. So also in 24:27 Matthew s 
form is more concrete, but whether 17 irapova-La is 
original is more doubtful. Matthew alone of the 
evangelists uses the word. It is found for the first 
time in his introduction to this discourse, 24:3. 
In 24:40 Matthew is again more true to the original 
in retaining dypco for /cXi^s, the men in the field 
are compared to the women at the mill. Luke has 
sacrificed the parallelism in order to introduce 
the night as well as the day and possibly also to 
emphasize the closeness of those who are separated. 

A more important question is whether we have 
sufficient grounds for including in the discourse 
anything which Luke alone gives. There is 
certainly an antecedent probability that Matthew, 
in combining this discourse with Mark, chap. 13, 
might omit some things which seemed to him imma- 

Study of the Common Material in 

terial. We should expect him to leave out the 
parallel reference to the days of Lot, which adds 
nothing to the thought but which is appropriate 
in Q, whose characteristic it is to present such 
parallel illustrations. On the other hand, 17:31, 
32 reads very much as if it were a further reflection 
on the reference to Lot, influenced possibly by 
Mark i3:i5fT. 1 Luke 17:33 certainly seems to 
be an addition here. Wendt argues that this is the 
misplaced Q parallel to Mark 8:35 and that it is 
found in its true position in Matt. 10:39; DUt th* 3 
rests upon the assumption that, because it occurs 
twice in Matthew and Luke, it must have stood 
both in Mark and Q. This is untenable. 2 Luke 
17 : 25, as Wellhausen has shown, 3 is very appropri 
ate in this context, and yeveas Tavrrjs reminds us 
strongly of the section on a demand for signs, and 
the conclusion to the woes on the Pharisees and 
scribes, Matt. 12:381!.; chap. 23 (cf. also 11:16). 
In regard to 17:20, 21 we can hope for nothing 

1 Wellhausen reverses, making 17:31-33 original and 17: 28-30 
an insertion. 

2 Other reasons for regarding this verse as secondary are given 
on p. 203. 

3 See Kom. Luk., in loc. 

ii2 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

conclusive. The saying is independent of what 
follows, apart from the difference of address, which 
may be merely editorial. However, it is not 
unusual for Q to put independent sayings side 
by side merely because they concern the same 
general theme. Nor is the omission by Matthew 
significant. The saying was not so important to 
him as it is to us today. There is no sufficient 
reason for denying that this stood in Q, but we can 
not positively affirm that it did. The thought of 
the saying is not unlike that of the parables of the 
Mustard Seed and the Leaven, Sec. 24. The pro 
verbial saying of Matt. 24:28; Luke 17:37 has its 
true position in Matthew, not Luke. The ques 
tion with which Luke introduces it is suspicious. 
The "Where, Lord," has been answered in 17 : 23, 24 
and is inserted here to bring the reader back to 
the same situation. To Matthew the saying meant 
either that, as certainly as the vultures gather about 
the dead body, the disciples will find the Messiah 
without signs or seeking; 1 or, better, that the place 
will reveal itself as the vultures betray where the 
corpse is when the time comes they will know. 2 

1 So Jiilicher. * So Wellhausen. 

Study of the Common Material 113 

Luke has removed the saying from its context 
and given it an emphatic position at the end. 
Can it be because he found some allegorical refer 
ence to the eagles in the Roman standard ? 



MATT. 25:14-30 

This parable has taken very different forms 
in the two Gospels, but the evidence for a common 
source is only made the more striking thereby, 
because common features in thought and language 
are retained where they are no longer appropriate. 
As Jiilicher has shown, 

Luke: "A. pare air avrov rrjv fJLvav KOL Sore TU> ras 8 oca 
Matt.: *Ap<rre ovv air avrov TO rdXavrov nal Sore TO> 

Luke: /u,vas x VTt 

Matt.: IXOVTI TO. SEKO. raXavra. 

is quite out of place after Luke 19:17, "Wie 
kindlich ware der Hinweis auf seinen Besitz von 
750 Mark wenn er Verwalter einer Provinz ge- 
worden war." 1 In like manner the mention of 
just three servants in Luke 19:15 ff. after ten are 

1 Jiilicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, p. 493. 

ii4 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

introduced in 19:13 reveals the influence of the 
common source. Any synopticon makes it clear 
that we have to do with material having a liter 
ary relationship in Matt. 25:24-29; Luke 19:21- 
24, 26. 

It is evident also that Matthew has adhered 
more closely to his source than has Luke. The 
only verse of Matthew which we can be sure is an 
editorial insertion is vs. 30; but vss. 16-18 are 
superfluous and may also have been added. The 
expression "enter thou into the joy of thy Lord" 
is most naturally interpreted as a reference to the 
future messianic hope, but, inasmuch as both 
evangelists recognize this element, there is no 
reason for denying that it stood in Q. However, 
as Julicher says, it was only incidental there. 1 

Luke has converted the householder into an 
aspirant for the throne. The experience of differ 
ent members of the Herodian family undoubtedly 
suggested this application. Luke intended thereby 
to set forth the future coming of Christ, emphasiz 
ing the delay which will intervene. Verses 1 1, 126, 
14, 15 (\af36vTa rr}p $\dav}, 17, 19 (the ten and 

*0p. cit., p. 481. 

Study of the Common Material 115 

the five cities), 27, 28 are therefore to be regarded 
as editorial. There is hardly sufficient reason for 
saying that Luke has here conflated two parables 
and for identifying the king here with the king in 
Matthew s parable of the Wedding Feast, Matt. 
22:11 ff. 1 As soon as any attempt was made to 
allegorize the parables of Jesus, nothing was more 
natural than to introduce king and kingdom. 
Luke s account is, however, to be preferred in its 
use of nva for raKavrov. Whether in the source the 
money was distributed equally, or, as Matthew 
says, "according to the ability of each, " can hardly 
be decided. Both Jiilicher and Harnack prefer the 
Matthean form for different reasons. Luke 19:25 
is one of those interrogations whose insertion is 
characteristic of Luke. It is surely secondary here. 


We have now completed the list of passages in 
which we have sufficient evidence of a written 
Greek source underlying both Matthew and Luke, 
allowing of course the probability that either 
evangelist may preserve some things omitted by 

1 So Harnack, p. 125. 

n6 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

the other. In regard to the parable of the Great 
Feast, Matt. 22:2-11; Luke 14:16-24, which 
critics used to assign to this source, the relation 
there between the two Gospels is not such as would 
indicate a common written source. All literary 
resemblance has disappeared. The similarity is 
just such as we should expect to arise from a com 
mon oral tradition. While of course it cannot be 
categorically denied that this incident stood in 
Q, we may still venture to assert that it probably 
did not. 

The following table will summarize the results 
of the preceding discussion: 


1. Preaching of John the Baptist 

Luke 3:7-9, 166-17 Matt. 3:7-12 

2. Temptation of Jesus 

Luke 4: 1-13 Matt. 4:1-110 

3. Discourse on Love, the Principle of Conduct 

Luke 6:20-23, 27-33, Matt. 5:3, 4, 6, n, 12, 

35-38, 41-49 39,4o; 5:44-48; 7:i-S, 

12, l8, 19, 22, 24-27 

4. Commendation of a Centurion s Faith 

Luke 7:1-10 Matt. 7:280; 8:5-10, 13 

5. Discourse on John the Baptist 

Luke 7: 18,19, 22-28, 31-35 Matt. 11:2-11, 16-19 

Study of the Common Material 117 


6. Following Jesus 

Luke 9: 57-60 (61, 62) Matt. 8:19-22 

7. Commission to the Disciples (Matthew has here com 

bined Mark and Q) 
Luke 10:1-12 Matt. 9:37, 38; 10:5-16 

8. Woes on the Cities Which Fail to Respond 

Luke 10:13-16 Matt, ii : 21-24 

(9. Return of the Disciples 
Luke 10: 17-20) 

10. Jesus Self-Revelation to His Disciples 

Luke 10:21-22 Matt. 11:25-27 

11. Prophets Desire for What the Disciples Have Seen 

Luke 10:23-24 Matt. 13:16, 17 

12. Prayer, Promise to the Disciples of Divine Help 

Luke 1 1 : 1-4 (5-9) , 9-13 Matt. 6 : 9-13 ; 7:7-11 

13. Calumny of the Pharisees (Matthew has here com 

bined Mark and Q) 
Luke 11:14-23 Matt. 9:33^; 12:22-30 

14. Seven Other Spirits 

Luke 1 1 : 24-26 Matt. 1 2 : 43-45 

15. Demand for a Sign from Heaven 

Luke 11:29-32, 340, Matt. 12:38, 39, 41, 42 


16. Woes on the Pharisees, the Scribes, and This Genera 

tion (Matthew has here combined Mark and Q) 
Luke 11:39-44, 46-54 Matt. 23:4, 6, 13, 15, 23, 


n8 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 


17. Warnings of Danger with Assurances of God s Care 

Luke I2:i&-i2 Matt. 101(24, 25) 26-33 

1 8. Instructions to Seek the Kingdom 

Luke 12:22-24 Matt. 6:19-21, 25-34 

19. Parables Teaching Need of Watchfulness 

Luke 12 : (35-38) 39-46 Matt. 24:42-51 

20. Warning of a Period of Strife and Disaster 

Luke 12: (49, 50) 51-53 Matt. 10:34-36 

21. Signs of the Times and the Need of Repentance 

Luke 12:54-56 Matt. (16:26, 3) 

22. The Approaching Judgment 

Luke 12:57-59 Matt. 5:25, 26 

(23. Call to Repentance 
Luke 13 : 1-9) 

24. Parables on the Kingdom 

Luke 13:18-21 Matt. 13:31-33 

25. Discourse on Those Who Are to Enter the Kingdom 

Luke 13:23-29 Matt. 7:13, 14, 21-23; 

8:11, 12 

26. Lament over Forsaken Jerusalem 

Luke 13:34, 35 Matt. 23:37-39 

27. Fearful Cost of Discipleship 

Luke 14:25-27 (28-35) Matt 10:37, 3 

28. Miscellaneous Sayings: 

Lost Sheep 

Luke 15:4-7 (8-10) Matt. 18:10-14 

God and Mammon 

Luke 16:13 Matt. 6:24 

Study of the Common Material 119 


Storming the Kingdom 
Lukei6:i6 Matt. 11:12, 13 

Validity of the Law 

Luke 16:17 Matt. 5:18 


Lukei6:i8 Matt. 5:32 

Giving Offense (Matthew has combined Mark and Q) 
Luke 17:1, 2 Matt. 18:6, 7 

Luke 17:3, 4 Matt. 18:15, 21 

Luke 17: 5, 6 Matt. 17:20 

(Luke 17:7-10 Matt. 5:14; 7:6; 13:44- 

46; 18:10) 

29. When and Where of the Son of Man s Coming 

Luke 17: (21, 20) 22-30, Matt. 24:26-28, 37-41 

30. Duty of the Disciples until the Son of Man Comes 

(Luke has here recast the narrative) 
Luke 19:11-27 Matt. 25:14, 15, 19-29 

The evidence seems sufficient to show that in 
each of these sections Matthew and Luke are 
using a common source or sources written in Greek. 
Some passages found only in one Gospel are here 
added in parentheses for the sake of completeness. 
They will be discussed later. 



Merely to have shown the evidence of a common 
source in these various sections, which are neces 
sarily separated on a somewhat arbitrary basis, is 
not sufficient. If the contention is really to be 
maintained that behind this material is a single 
common source, as behind the Markan material 
stands the source Mark, the disposal which, each 
evangelist has made of these sections must be 
satisfactorily explained. 

First, however, attention should be directed to 
the number of sections which stand in the same 
sequence in both Gospels: 


1. Preaching of John the Baptist 

Luke 3:7-17 Matt. 3:7-12 

2. Temptation of Jesus 

Luke 4:1-13 Matt. 4:1-11 

3. Discourse on Love 

Luke 6:20-49 Matt. 5, 7 (in part) 

4. Centurion s Act of Faith 

Luke 7:1-10 Matt. 8:5-13 

Sequence of Parallel Sections 121 


6. Following Jesus 

Luke 9:57-62 Matt. 8:19-22 

7. Commission to the Disciples 

Lukeio:i-i2 Matt. 9:37 10:16 

8. Woes on Galilean Cities 

Luke 10:13-16 Matt. 11:20-24 

10. Jesus Self-Revelation 

Luke 10:21, 22 Matt. 11:25-27 

13. Calumny of the Pharisees 

Luke 11:14-23 Matt. 12:22-32 

15. Demand for a Sign from Heaven 

Luke 11:20-36 Matt. 12:38-42 

1 6. Woes on Pharisees, etc. 

Luke 11:37-54 Matt. 23 (in part) 

26. Lament over Jerusalem 

Luke 13:34) 35 Matt. 23:37-39 

29. When and Where of Son of Man s Coming 

Luke 17:20-37 Matt. 24:26-28, 37:41 

30. Disciples Duty until Future Coming 

Luke 19:11-28 Matt. 25:14-30 

Two sections of the thirty, Sees. 9 and 23, are of 
course to be omitted from consideration, because 
they are found only in Luke. This means that 
in fourteen out of the twenty-eight sections, com 
mon to both Gospels, there is not only a likeness of 
thought and language, but the sections themselves 

122 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

stand in the same relative position. Again, a 
trace of the Lukan order sometimes remains in 
Matthew s composite discourses. A striking con 
firmation of our theory is found in Matt., chap. 10, 
for there, evidently, Matthew has gathered together 
instructions to the disciples which are scattered in 
Luke through various sections; but Matthew in 
combining them has retained all these sayings in 
their original sequence: 

Sec. 7 Matt. 9:37 10:16 = Luke 10:1-12 
17 10:26-33 = 12:2-9 

20 10:34-36 12:51-53 

27 10:37,38 = 14:25-27 

How significant this is of that evangelist s method 
of compilation! Sec. 25 is also instructive from 
this standpoint. Luke 13:23, 24 = Matt. 7:13; 
Luke 13:26, 27 = Matt. 7:226, 23; Luke 13: 
28, 29 = Matt. 8: n, 12. The same sequence ap 
pears in both Gospels. Such resemblances as 
these are not accidental; they are a strong con 
firmation of the whole theory of a common 
source Q. 

But there are differences for which we must 
account. If this material comes from Q either 

Sequence of Parallel Sections 123 

Matthew or Luke has transposed parts of it. If 
again we call to mind the results of our observation 
in Markan material, the strong presumption is 
created that such changes are for the most part due 
to Matthew. This is sufficient justification for 
using the sequence of Luke as the basis for further 

For differences of sequence within the various 
sections we need only refer to the detailed dis 
cussions which have preceded. But, reviewing to 
get the data all before us, we found that in Sec. 2 
Luke had changed the order of one temptation; 
in Sec. 3 slight changes were made by Matthew; 
in Sec. 7 the position of Luke 10:3 had been 
changed by Luke, but Matthew, compiling Mark 
and Q, had removed io:7=Luke 10:96 and 10: lob 
= Luke 10:76; in Sec. 15 Luke had inverted the 
order of 11:31 and 11:32; in Sec. 16 the original 
sequence could not be determined with any cer 
tainty. Inasmuch as Matthew evidently con 
flated here, most of the changes were attributed 
to him, but the probability has been suggested that 
Luke inverted the last two woes. In Sec. 18 
Matthew has changed the position of 6:19-21; 

124 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

in Sec. 25 he has inverted 8:11 and 8:12; but in 
Sec. 29 the Matthean position of 24:28 is to be 
preferred to that of Luke. Sec. 28 cannot be 
considered here, for it is not a unit. Reference 
ought, however, to be made to Luke 12 : 10 and 12 : 
n, 12. Matthew s position for these sayings is, as 
we have seen, determined by his preference for 
Mark. Changes within the various sections were 
made by both evangelists for editorial reasons, and 
when we consider the nature of the material they 
are surprisingly few. They total only twenty-one 
verses in material amounting to over two hundred 

Let us turn now to those differences which more 
immediately concern us here. Where Matthew 
and Luke do not put common material in the same 
general context can we depend upon the order of 
Luke, or must we here also allow for changes made 
by both evangelists ? Does Luke divide discourses 
into fragments or does Matthew combine short 
sayings and groups of sayings into longer dis 
courses ? We know that the latter is true, but it 
remains to be shown whether this is always the 

Sequence of Parallel Sections 125 

Wernle 1 refers to the saying of Luke 13 : 28, 29, 
which he says Luke has separated from its context 
in Sec. 4 and put later because he regarded the 
words as too sharp against Israel for this early 
period. Wernle must have forgotten the rejection 
at Nazareth, which Luke placed at the very begin 
ning of the Galilean ministry. On the other hand, 
the position which Matthew gave this saying is 
readily understood if he had Sec. 25 before him as 
it stood in Luke. 2 

Sec. 8, Woes on Galilean cities, seems to be 
differently placed in Matthew and Luke, but it is 
really in the same relative position in both Gospels; 
the only difference is that Matthew has omitted the 
return of the disciples which follows it in Luke 
and inserted Sec. 5, the Discourse on John the 
Baptist, before it. That Matthew himself read 
Sec. 8 immediately after Sec. 7 is confirmed by the 
repetition of the Lukan introductory sentence, 
Matt, ii : 24 = Luke 10: 12. Examining this differ 
ence from the standpoint of Sec. 5, we come to the 
same conclusion. Matthew felt constrained to 
give this section a later context, not only because 

1 Die synoptische Frage, p. 89. 2 See above, pp. 96 ff. 

126 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

it did not properly belong to his miracle chapters 8 
and 9, but because the reference to the wonderful 
works of Jesus demanded a later position in a 
Gospel which pretended to give a record of such 
works. This argument is supported by the fact 
that Luke felt the same difficulty, but, instead of 
changing the position of the section, he prefaced 
the raising of the widow s son and added a notice 
of Jesus other wonderful works editorially. It 
is true that this discourse might still have come 
before chap. 10 in Matthew as well as after it. 
The reason why Matthew put it just where he did 
may be because of the connection he found between 
11:19 and the woes on the Galilean cities. That 
wisdom is justified of her works will be revealed in 
the woes awaiting the cities in which these works 
were done. 

Sec. ii in Luke is an epilogue to Christ s self- 
revelation, 10:21, 22; in Matthew it is included in 
the chapter on parables. Luke s omission of it 
there is supported by Mark. It seems to take the 
place of Mark 4: 13, praising them instead of blam 
ing them. The context given this saying in Luke 
is surely as appropriate as the one in Matthew, 

Sequence of Parallel Sections 127 

and the probability arises that Matthew, because of 
his insertion of that beautiful saying of Jesus, 
"Take my yoke upon you," omitted the original 
conclusion here and added it at the next suitable 
place. One can hardly believe that Luke would 
have omitted Matt. 1 1 : 28-30 if he had read it 

Sec. 12, nearly all critics agree, was not originally 
a part of the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 
must have found it somewhere else and combined 
it with that discourse. No reasonable objection 
appears why he may not have found it in the posi 
tion which it has in Luke. Luke has retained it 
in its original context; Matthew has woven it into 
his Sermon on the Mount. 

Sec. 14 Matthew has placed after Sec. 15; 
Luke, before. Matthew has sought to justify his 
sequence by the editorial addition of 12:456. 
Jiilicher, 1 seeking for an interpretation of this 
parable, finds it in its connection with Luke n : 23. 
But even if his interpretation be not accepted, 
the position of the parable for which he argues is 
certainly original. He makes it clear that Matthew 

1 Op. dt., p. 238. 

128 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

is here secondary. Moreover, it is to be noticed 
that just where this parable appears in Luke, 
Matthew inserted the sayings from Mark about 
the sin against the Holy Spirit, and also the parable 
of the Tree and Its Fruit. This may in part, at 
least, account for his postponing this parable of the 
Seven Other Spirits. That he has not found a 
more appropriate place is only because he did not 
himself understand it. Our reasons for considering 
that Matt. 12:33-37 is not original here have 
already been given. 1 In Sec. 15 the two verses 
of Luke 11:34-36, which Matthew included in 
the Sermon on the Mount, have already been 
discussed. As we have seen, it is doubtful whether 
Matthew in 6 : 22, 23 is following Q at all. If he is, 
the Lukan context is still the more probable. 2 

Sees. 17, 20, 27 are combined by the first evan 
gelist with the other instructions to the disciples in 
chap. 10 ; and the discourse on the relation of the 
kingdom to the world, Sec. 18, belongs properly 
in the great discourse of chaps. 5-7, as Matthew 
has conceived it. In all of these sections 
Matthew s position can be explained on the basis 

1 See above, pp. 61 f. 2 See p. 66. 

Sequence of Parallel Sections 129 

of Luke s, but the context they have in Luke can 
not be understood on the basis of the Matthean 

Sees. 19 and 29 are combined by Matthew with 
the corresponding material of Mark. In Luke they 
are independent of Mark and in all probability 
preserved in their original sequence. Wernle 
argues that the separation of Sec. 19 and Sec. 29 
shows Luke s tendency to scatter sayings of Q. 
But there is no evidence in the context of Luke 17 : 
20 ff. to indicate that Luke has purposely separated 
this from 12:35 ff.; an d, as we sna ll tr y to show, 
there is a strong probability that in Q between 
these two sections there stood only material similar 
in tone. At any rate, Matthew, who is simply 
inserting this material into appropriate contexts 
of Mark, gives us no reason for believing that he 
found a differently arranged text in Q from that 
of Luke. 

Sees. 21, 22 have already been fully considered. 1 
There can be no choice between the positions given 
them by Matthew and Luke. If Sec. 21 stood 
in Matthew it was conflated with Mark. Sec. 22 

1 See pp. go ff . 

130 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

Matthew has woven into the Sermon on the 
Mount, where its eschatological tone is out of 
place. Sec. 24 Matthew has simply inserted into 
a Markan context from which it is kept independent 
by Luke. Sec. 25 has already been sufficiently 
explained. 1 No one who grants that Matthew 
and Luke found this section in Q will question the 
priority of its position in Luke. The insertion 
of portions of it into the Sermon on the Mount is 
surely secondary. 

Sec. 26 is made by Matthew a part of his con 
clusion of the woes upon the scribes and Pharisees. 
Everyone recognizes that it is thoroughly in the 
spirit of Jesus thus to close the denunciation, but 
the critic must also recognize that the appropriate 
ness of this depends upon the situation in which 
Matthew placed these woes. This situation, how 
ever, comes from Mark and not from Q. His 
torically also it is improbable that these woes 
should have been spoken in Jerusalem at the close 
of Jesus ministry when his foes were the priestly 
authorities more than the Pharisees. It is in the 
Galilean ministry that the Pharisees are empha- 

1 See pp. 96 ff. 

Sequence of Parallel Sections 131 

sized. The evidence that Matt. 23:34-36 is a 
widsom quotation and not a direct word of Jesus, 
and therefore this saying could not properly follow 
it, is, as Harnack shows (p. 169), inconclusive. 
Still, it adds to the improbability of the Matthean 
connection. Matthew is no doubt correct in 
putting this saying during Jesus sojourn in Jerusa 
lem. Luke s independent saying, 19:41, gives 
us something similar for that period and the saying 
is surely more appropriate in Jerusalem than else 
where. We have here the same phenomenon 
that has been shown before. Matthew has trans 
posed a saying to a suitable Markan context; 
Luke has left it where it was, but used independent 
material as an appropriate historical introduction. 
The author of Q thought only of the teaching and 
the topical connection between Sec. 25 and Sec. 26. r 
There remains only Sec. 28, that group of frag 
mentary sayings which we find almost isolated 
in Luke. This has always been one of the great 
puzzles of that Gospel, but surely the critic who 

1 Geographical references are not given by Q, but if, as we shall 
try to show, Sec. 23 belongs to that source, we have before this a 
saying where a Jerusalem background is implied. See further, 
p. 170. 

132 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

suggests that Luke removed these verses from 
the plausible contexts which they have in Mat 
thew only adds to the difficulty. We must try 
to explain them on the basis of Luke. Matthew s 
disposal of them is then readily understood. He 
has only done here what we find he had done 
everywhere else. 

What is the result of this examination ? Does 
it not fully confirm what we have learned of Luke s 
habits in investigating Markan material? He 
adheres closely to the order of topics in his source. 
In no case have we found evidence that the position 
he gave a section was secondary to that in Matthew 
unless the proverbial saying of 6:40 be such an 
exception. 1 If so, it ought to be regarded only as 
the exception which proves the rule. Proof that 
the order of Luke is throughout that of the source 
has not been given, but his priority to Matthew has 
been made clear, and this establishes a presumption 
in favor of the Lukan sequence. It has long been 
recognized that in the study of Matthew s Sermon 
on the Mount Luke should be made the basis. It 
is time to appreciate also that in the whole question 

1 See above, p. 107. 

Sequence of Parallel Sections 133 

of their second common source Luke and not 
Matthew is the key. 1 Matthew is of special value 
in determining the text and details, but of only 
secondary importance in our search for broader 
outlines. Even in details Luke has shown unusual 
care in this source, and Matthew s priority cannot 
be so frequently assumed as Harnack would make 
us believe. But Harnack, who in every case 
where he has any doubt gives the preference to the 
text of Matthew, himself says, "Tendenzen haben 
also bei Lukas nicht starker gewirkt als bei Mat- 
thaus, ja sogar etwas schwacher." 2 

That Luke in his two great interpolations, 
chaps. 6 ff. and 9:51 ff., has inserted Q practically 
in the order which he found it, has been shown 
to be a good working hypothesis. Historical sit 
uations are created usually by the insertion of 
foreign material, sometimes by simple editorial 
notes ; the greater part of the whole source is fitted 
into the scheme of a last journey to Jerusalem, 

1 H. von Soden, J. H. Moulton, and F. C. Burkitt are among 
those who have recognized this. I regret that I have not had 
access to the book of Dr. Armitage Robinson, quoted by F. C. 
Burkitt, The Gospel History and Transmission, p. 131. 

3 See p. 79. The English translation, p. 115, is obscure. 

134 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

9:51,53; 10:1; 13:226; 17:11, but the material 
itself refuses to conform to such an itinerary. The 
topical sequence of sayings is also broken by inci 
dents in Luke which are not found in Matthew. 
When we study the relation of Q to the independent 
material of Luke, we shall find these principles of 
method abundantly illustrated. The significant 
thing to us at present is that this method did not 
involve any serious changes in sequence, so that 
behind his historical notes the original plan of ar 
rangement can still be discerned. It is for this that 
the modern scholar should be profoundly grateful. 
From the standpoint of practical usefulness the 
method of Matthew is much to be preferred. 

How now has Matthew treated his source? 
Instead of trying to conjecture a context for a 
group of sayings without any introduction, he 
always did one of two things he either fitted them 
into some context supplied by Mark, Sees, i, 2, 
3, 6, 1 7, n, 13, 16, 19, 2i(?), 24, 28 (17:20; 18:6, 
7), 29; or grouped them into a larger discourse, 

1 That Sec. 6 should come before the sending out of the dis 
ciples is simply due to its position in Q, but that it should come 
just where it does in 8: 19 is probably because in Jesus crossing 
the sea to the other side Matthew found the appropriate situation 

Sequence of Parallel Sections 135 

Sees. 12, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28. The other 
sections, 4, 8, 10, 15, 30, have simply been left 
where they were in the source. Sees. 5 and 14 
have had their positions slightly changed, for 
reasons already given. It is also to be noticed that 
in carrying out this plan the original sequence was 
retained as much as possible. In combining with 
Mark, he very often preserved the order of Q, 
and we have already shown how he did this in the 
discourse of chap. 10. Considering the nature of 
this material, Matthew s method is more natural 
and appropriate than that of Luke, and to anyone 
but the modern historian more satisfactory. The 
plan is carried out with great skill. Wherever 
Matthew fully understood a passage, the context 
which he gave it was suitable. This is only to be 
expected, for the men who wrote the Gospels were 
all men of ability, not bunglers. We should also 
remember that this hypothesis, by which we would 
explain the variations of Matthew and Luke in 
Q, is in full accord with what we should expect these 

for the offer of the scribe to go with Jesus wherever he went. 
Luke, however, finds the appropriate situation in Jesus journey 
through Samaria to Jerusalem, 9:51. Both evangelists connect 
it with going upon heathen soil. 

136 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

evangelists to do after examining their treatment of 
Mark. The same principles apply in both cases, 
though the nature of the material justified Matthew 
in carrying the principle of regrouping much 
further in Q than he did in Mark. Indeed, he has 
made Mark the basis for rearranging Q. 

Only a few years ago Harnack s treatise 
appeared, and demands fuller consideration from 
us as the latest attempt by a great scholar to 
explain these variations on the basis of Matthew. 
Following Wernle, he begins with Matthew and 
attributes all variations to Luke which he possibly 
can. But even he feels compelled to qualify the 
statement of Wernle that "almost everywhere 
Matthew has preserved a better text than Luke," 
with the correction, "doch hatte er hinzufiigen 
miissen dass sich bei Matthaus einige sehr schwere 
Eingriffe in den Text finden wie sie sich Lukas nicht 
erlaubt hat." He accepts, however, the principle 
of Wernle that in Luke we have an " Umsetzung der 
Reden in Erzahlungen" and even in the sequence of 
the sayings makes Matthew his basis. The result is 
that Sec. 4 of his second chapter is the weakest 
section in the book. The need of making Luke our 

Sequence of Parallel Sections 137 

basis cannot be shown to better advantage than 
by examining this discussion. 

Harnack recognizes, as everyone must, that 
up to and including the centurion of Capernaum 
incident the order is the same. He also notices that 
the instructions to the disciples are given in the 
same sequence in both Gospels, though in Luke 
they are distributed, 1 and then he says: "It is at 
the same time shown that these sections, which are 
indeed closely allied in the subject-matter, were not 
at first brought together by Matthew, but that in 
Q they stood in the same order of succession as 
that of the First Gospel; for it is clear that Luke 
also found them in this order. It is noteworthy 
that this evangelist has distributed them through 
out chaps. 9, 10, 12, 14, 17 without altering their 
order of succession." 2 So noteworthy is it, in fact, 
as to seem impossible. No motive is apparent; 
it is done from pure arbitrariness. Luke never 
treated Mark in this way; why should it be 
assumed that he did so with Q, which he evidently 

1 The present writer had already mentioned this likeness in a 
paper before the Society of Biblical Literature in New York, 
December, 1906. 

a Seep. 175. 

138 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

regarded with even more reverence? On the 
other hand, how perfectly natural that Matthew 
should desire to group together all instructions to 
his disciples, just as he grouped together the 
miracles of Mark, and that in so doing he should 
simply add them one to the other in the sequence 
in which he found them. 

Then Harnack goes on to say that in Q the 
discourse on John the Baptist followed the send 
ing out of the disciples. Why? "Because it has 
been proved that Matthew and not Luke has 
reproduced the arrangement of the source in 
(Matt.) chaps. 8-10." The proof in question is 
that which we have quoted above. The evidence 
we previously presented for the Lukan position of 
this discourse in Q is independent of either theory 
regarding the common sequence of the instructions 
to the disciples in Matthew and Luke. 

Harnack points to the Lukan sequence of 
Sees. 1 13, 15, 16, 19, 26, 28 (17:3, 4), 29, 30 (only 
the last sentence, Luke 19:26, is assigned by him 
to Q) and maintains that every difference from 
Matthew in order is due to Luke s changes. Luke 

1 Harnack s sections are so similar to those used in this dis 
cussion that for the sake of convenience the same numbers are 
used here as elsewhere. His numbers are different. 

Sequence of Parallel Sections 139 

arbitrarily separated the Lament over Jerusalem 
from the Woes on the Pharisees. It is he who 
separated Sec. 19 from Sec. 29 and put the sec 
ond part first. No attempt is made to say why 
Luke 17:3, 4 is differently placed. In fact it is 
acknowledged that the position of the seventeen 
concluding sayings (according to his arrangement) 
cannot be explained at all. Besides this, he says 
of all of Matthew s Sermon on the Mount which 
Luke has not retained in 6 : 20 ff ., "this is hopeless." 
If he had closed with an explicit confession of fail 
ure in the whole attempt, it would certainly have 
been appropriate. 

While one can never hope to know just why 
Matthew made each combination with Mark and 
each regrouping of sayings just as he did, plausible 
reasons can always be suggested. It is never so 
hopeless an inquiry as have been all attempts 
to find grounds for the transference and division 
of material which the critics have attributed to 
Luke. Nor can we always know just why Luke 
in each case adopted the historical setting which 
he did; but at least we can show that his treatment 
of the material is reasonable and natural. 



Wendt s reconstruction of Q has been called "A 
heap of interesting ruins without beginning, with 
out ending." Almost as much might be said of 
the source which Harnack has found. The sem 
blance of order which he gives is reached only by 
omitting a large portion of the material. Has 
the Q which we have attempted to reconstruct any 
self-consistency? Can we imagine its having 
existed alone ? 

Examining once more these sections in the order 
which Luke gives them we find that Sees, i and 2 
form a natural introduction. The resemblance 
here to Mark at once impresses us. Mark also 
began with the Baptist and his preaching. The 
likeness to Mark becomes yet closer when we 
recognize that the account of the temptation cannot 
have stood alone. Some reference to the baptism 
and the voice from heaven must have preceded. 
But Matthew and Luke have here followed Mark, 


Unity of Common Material 141 

so that we can no longer know what account Q 
gave of the baptism. It is possible that the bap 
tismal words, "Thou art my son, this day have I 
begotten thee," which are found in the Old Latin 
MSS of Luke and in so many Church Fathers, are 
a trace of Q. One naturally asks whether this 
account of John the Baptist s preaching and of 
Jesus baptism and temptation gives an appropriate 
introduction to a writing which deals primarily with 
teachings ? While Q in no sense seeks to preserve 
a chronological order, we shall see that in broad 
outlines there is a recognition of the sequence the 
teachings had in Jesus life. A collection that 
closed with eschatological teachings might properly 
start with material attached to the beginning of 
Jesus ministry. The purpose which this intro 
duction serves is evident: it presents the divine 
commission and power of the Jesus whose sayings 
are to be given. Although Sec. i retains the char 
acteristics of John the Baptist, its primary interest 
is in his recognition of Jesus as the Messiah. This 
recognition is confirmed by the voice from heaven, 
an account of which must have followed, and also 
by his conquest of Satan in the temptation scene. 

142 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

The intent of the whole is to present Jesus as the 
Messiah, the divinely authorized teacher. His 
wonderful works can then be assumed. It is con 
sistent with this that he is called Son of Man 
from the beginning. 1 The term is not explained 
any more than it is in Mark, but, as is not so certain 
in Mark, in Q it always means the Messiah. 2 These 
sections also have a special interest to Q on their 
own account. Sec. i is related to Sec. 5, where a 
special concern in the Baptist is evident. The 
teaching of the need of repentance here was also 
something in which Q was deeply interested. In 
Sees. 8, 15, 21, 22, 23 it is repeatedly emphasized. 
Likewise the temptation, Sec. 2, showing Jesus 
conquest over Satan, prepares for the development 
of the same theme, which we find later in Sees. 9 
and i3. 3 

Nowhere in the whole writing is the sequence of 
thought harder to determine than in the next 
three sections. Sees. 3 and 4 were surely closely 
related in Q. Indeed in no place have both 

1 The title is doubtful in Luke 6: 22, but both evangelists give it 
in Sec. 5 (Luke 7 : 34; Matt. 11:19) and it is used freely after that. 
3 Luke 9:58 is hardly an exception. 
3 For the relation here of Q to Mark see further, p. 190. 

Unity of Common Material 143 

evangelists so carefully preserved the connecting 
link as here, and here is the only geographical 
setting in the whole source. One s first thought 
is that there is some historical reminiscence that 
has been retained. But we cannot think that any 
such historical connection would be sufficient 
explanation of its presence here if Q is at all 
what the rest of the common material would lead 
us to think it is. Moreover, in Sec. 4 the primary 
interest is not in the wonderful work of Jesus but 
in what Jesus says to the centurion. Harnack 
even thinks that in Q the account of the actual 
healing was not given. 1 That Jesus should thus 
commend a heathen for his faith was a word of 
the greatest significance to the early church; and 
it may well be that so full a narrative setting in this 
one case has been preserved just because of its 
unique importance. And at least a suggestion can 
be offered that may indicate some relation in 
thought to the preceding Sec. 3. 

In considering Sec. 3 we must first free our 
minds from the composite discourse of Matthew 
which is most familiar to us. The theme of the 

1 See above, p. 42. 

144 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

common material here is love, the great principle 
of conduct. Beatitudes are pronounced upon the 
humble disciples and they are taught to be kind and 
sympathetic even toward their enemies; thus 
they are to become sons of the Most High. Char 
ity of judgment is commanded in unqualified 
terms. Unless they bear such fruitage the true 
life is not in them. They must not only say 
Lord, Lord , they must " do " these things . Has 
it no significance that in immediate connection with 
this discourse on love and charity of judgment 
should come the narrative pointing to the high 
regard which Jesus showed toward the faithful 
Gentile? As we know, there was not another 
question so divisive in the early church as this of 
the Gentiles, none which so called for the exercise 
of the qualities commanded in the previous section. 
We are perhaps not justified in saying that that is 
the only reason Q had for putting this narrative 
just here, but at least we see that there is eminent 
appropriateness in this connection. It is also to be 
noticed that Sec. 5, which follows, takes up another 
problem of the early church, kindred to that of 
Sec. 4. 

Unity of Common Material 145 

Attention has just been called to the concern 
in the Baptist shown in Sec. i. He is there a dis 
tinct personality, but, as is clearly seen, one who 
humbly subordinates himself to the Christ. Sec. 5, 
likewise, while it dwells upon Jesus high regard for 
the Baptist, closes Jesus estimate of him with the 
words, "yet he that is but little in the Kingdom of 
God is greater than he"; and then attention is 
directed to the fact that the Jews treated John in 
the same way in which they did Jesus. One asks 
again, What is the meaning of this concern in John 
the Baptist, this careful definition of his true rela- 
relation to Jesus ? Do we see here how at a much 
earlier period than the Fourth Gospel the first 
disciples met the problem of their own relation 
to the disciples of the Baptist, and of the use which 
was made of his name by other Jews as well ? If so, 
there is great sympathy with the followers of 
the Baptist and a sense of kinship. 

Jesus words upon these special problems within 
the early church are succeeded by a group on 
the general theme of Jesus relation to disciples, 
Sees. 6-12. The disciples here are never limited 
to the Twelve; they comprise the larger circle of 

146 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

followers. Sec. 6 is really a call to service. Fol 
lowing Jesus is no easy matter. It means strenuous 
activity. 1 Home must be given up, natural duties 
to kindred must be left behind. To become a 
disciple one must put his hand to the plow and 
not look back. Sec. 7 contains Jesus commission 
to the disciples as they are sent out to be laborers 
in the harvest. Their work is identified with 
Jesus own work. In Sec. 8 woes are pronounced 
on the cities which have been the theater of Jesus 
work and that of his disciples because of their 
failure to repent. Although the reasons for includ 
ing Sec. 9 in Q have not as yet been presented, why 
Matthew should omit it is so evident and its close 
relation to the following section is so convincing 
that we have added it here for the sake of complete 
ness. It may, however, be left out without ma 
terially affecting the present discussion. The joy 
of Jesus in the success of his disciples is expressed 
his conquest of Satan is through them being com 
pleted. In Sees. 10 and 1 1 they are assured that, 

1 It is doubtful whether 9:58 can refer to Jesus poverty; the 
context implies that he is too busy, not too poor, to abide in a 
home. Foxes and birds are appropriate because they also lead 
a wandering life, but even they have a home. 

Unity of Common Material 147 

though they are only babes (in contrast to the 
scribes perhaps), they are learning that knowledge 
of God which Jesus would bring them. This is 
that for which the prophets and kings of the past 
have longed. Sec. 12 is not closely joined with 
what precedes, but it follows very naturally. A 
question about prayer is most appropriate after 
the preceding word of Jesus. Special emphasis 
is laid upon the power of prayer in the reply. 
They are assured of divine aid and protection ; they 
do not do their work single-handed. 

The next group of sections, Sees. 13-17, has 
to do with the opposition which Jesus met, espe 
cially from the Pharisees. This opposition vitally 
concerned the early Palestinian Christians, who 
themselves had to bear its brunt. It is interesting 
that the dominant note of all that is said is the 
prophetic call to repentance. It is this failure 
to repent which brings upon "this generation" 
and its leaders the woes of Jesus. A passionate 
earnestness is still evident in the words. Q 
itself must have shared in Paul s yearning for 
the repentance of Israel, and both only retain 
some measure of what was a supreme motive 

148 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

with Jesus. In Sec. 13 the charge that Jesus 
cast out demons by the power of the prince of 
demons is met by Jesus himself. Whether Sec. 14 
is to be considered as a true parable or has some 
literal significance is hard to determine. Jiilicher 1 
interprets it as a parable illustrating vs. 23. His 
explanation is tempting, and yet it seems more 
natural to think that Q regarded it as a contrast 
drawn between the healing of Jewish exorcists and 
that of Jesus; theirs was merely negative, his 
filled with the Holy Spirit. The demand for a 
sign, Sec. 15, is met by the assertion that no sign 
shall be given except the sign of Jonah. The 
Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah; 
the Queen of the South journeyed from the ends of 
the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon. This 
generation has for its guidance what is greater than 
the preaching of Jonah or the wisdom of Solomon 
Jesus and his message. What they need is not 
signs, but eyes to see. Then follows Jesus denun 
ciation of the Pharisees and their false piety, of 
the scribes and their selfish leadership, and of this 
hardened generation which has no ear for the 

1 Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, p. 238. 

Unity of Common Material 149 

message of the prophet in their midst. The 
judgment of God awaits them. 

After this, attention naturally turns again to 
the disciples, but this time it is words of warning 
and encouragement which are spoken. Sec. 17 
warns them of dangers that they must face but 
assures them of God s care over them. From this 
section on, attention focuses more and more upon 
the kingdom and the coming day of the Son of 
Man. In Sec. 18 the disciples are instructed to 
seek the kingdom and leave all else to God. "Fear 
not, little flock, for it is your Father s good pleasure 
to give you the Kingdom." Then come, Sec. 19, 
parables urgently emphasizing the need of watch 
fulness for the coming of the Son of Man. 

What does the coming of the Son of Man mean ? 
It means, Sec. 20, the kindling of a terrible fire. 
Jesus has a fearful baptism with which to be 
baptized. A period of strife is at hand. It means 
also, Sees. 21, 22, 23, r a judgment. It is urged 
that the interval is very short, and another earnest 
appeal is made to the people to repent. The 

1 Arguments for assigning Sees. 21 and 23 to Q are presented 
on pp. 169 ff. It is not necessary for present purposes to ascribe 
them to Q. 

150 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

judgment is at hand. What is the kingdom? is 
asked in Sec. 24, and the answer is that it is some 
thing hidden and secret now but it shall be 
revealed in great power and glory. Who shall share 
in the kingdom? is the question propounded in 
Sec. 25. Only those who are worthy, is the reply; 
and this means that those Israelites who depend 
upon their relationship to Abraham are to be 
rejected and to behold Gentiles in their places. 
Sec. 26 adds a lament over Jerusalem, the people 
forsaken of God. There is no reference here to the 
destruction of the city. It is the condemnation 
of God upon it which is presented. The tender 
note that can be felt in every word spoken in con 
demnation of Isarel ought to be noticed. It is in 
this connection that the full meaning of Sec. 27 
to the early Christians appears. To come out from 
Judaism and be followers of Jesus had literally 
meant the breaking of home ties, the abandonment, 
now of father or mother, now of son or daughter. 
But this they are told is the price Jesus expected 
them to pay. 

The question where and when the day of the Son 
of Man is to be is then asked, Sec. 29. But no 

Unity of Common Material 151 

answer is given to their questions. All searching 
for outward signs is condemned. They will know 
the place when the time comes to know. The 
whole world will know, for it will be as the lightning, 
visible from the one end of the heavens to the other. 
They are to be ready at all times, for it will be a 
day of judgment from which there can be no 
escape. With Sec. 30 the source Q most appro 
priately closes. Their Lord has given his disciples 
their commission. Let each man do his duty and 
he shall enter into the joy of his Lord, when he 
comes in his glory. 

There is left unaccounted for that group of mere 
fragments, Sec. 28, which Luke has unsuccessfully 
attempted to adjust to other material here intro 
duced. Is this an instance of that phenomenon 
with which the Old Testament has made us 
familiar a group of sayings, too precious to be 
lost, added at the end of the whole? No other 
explanation so well fits the facts of the case. What 
would be more natural than that sayings of Jesus 
deemed too precious to be lost should be appended 
at the close of a writing that assumed to give the 
Lord s teachings! The peculiar conflation we 

152 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

find in chaps. 16 and 1 7 of Luke is thus satisfactorily 
explained. In the source this section must then 
have followed Sec. 30; the position of these sayings 
in Luke is determined by the other material he has 
here inserted. 1 

Disregarding then this section, which may 
properly be looked upon as an appendix, surely we 
have in this common material of Matthew and 
Luke something more than a heap of ruins. It 
has a plan and an intelligible order; further study 
of the standpoint of Q may cause us to revise much 
here presented, but it is hard to see how anyone 
can question that there is a real consistency and 
completeness in this material. It must also be 
borne in mind that Q is only known to us in the 
versions of Matthew and Luke; and what is most 
characteristic of the source is just what has been 
obscured by the later editors. Every effort ought 
to be made to avoid any forced interpretations, 
but is there not a plan and sequence here in the 
material as it stands? There is no need of any 
scheme of our own contriving; room may freely 
be left for difference of interpretation. We need 

1 For the arrangement of this material in Luke see pp. 175 f. 

Unity of Common Material 153 

only accept the order of Luke as a reliable witness 
for the order of his source 1 and to omit only what 
Matthew has omitted. 2 Then, and not until then, 
does the general scheme which we have outlined 
appear. This shows also that it is not Luke s 
creation. Luke has tried to convert this topical 
into a chronological sequence. Some of his in 
sertions can be explained in no other way, and the 
introductory settings that he has supplied point 
to the same conclusion. 

Have we not now the keystone in place which 
gives binding force to all the arguments previously 
presented ? Proof has been given of close literary 
resemblance in most of the material and striking 
similarity of thought in all of it. When to this 
is added a plausible explanation of how the varia 
tions in the two versions have arisen and an 
exposition of the self-consistency and unity of the 
material, then surely the existence of the source Q 
can no longer be questioned, and there is good 

1 And it is necessary only to assume that this is substantially 

a Sees. 9 and 23 were added above only for the sake of com 
pleteness, because the evidence is so strong that they belong 
to Q. 

154 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

reason to believe that we are on the right way to its 

We have shown that one does not need to add 
anything to the common material to make it a unit. 
This is a strong presumption in itself against finding 
extensive omissions on the part of Matthew or 
Luke which ought to be added to the source Q. 
But before discussing the relation of Q to this 
independent material of Matthew and Luke in 
detail, there are certain other general considera 
tions, favoring the practical completeness of what 
these evangelists give in common, which should be 
mentioned. From the start it ought to be remem 
bered that in just so far as we expand the limits of 
this source we increase the difficulty of accounting 
for its becoming lost as an independent document. 
And again the great respect which both evangelists 
show for it is against any considerable omissions. 
The temptation to so many investigators in this 
field has been to include in Q more or less of the 
rich material peculiar to Luke, but it is just in this 
direction that one needs to be on one s guard. 
Matthew omits almost nothing from Mark. 
Would he make such extended omissions from 

Unity of Common Material 155 

that source which, it is possible at least, gave his 
Gospel its name ? It is true that while Luke seems 
to have shown a higher regard for Q than for 
Mark, the reverse seems to be the case in respect 
to Matthew. Nevertheless, the First Gospel has 
preserved Q very faithfully; this is assured by the 
close literary relationship between Matthew and 
Luke in all of this material much closer than 
in what they both give from Mark. Another im 
portant consideration is that the common material 
is, as we have tried to show, self-consistent and 
complete in itself. One needs to add nothing 
from either Gospel to make it a unit. 

The only serious argument against this which 
has been presented is that Q includes narratives, 
that it presupposes a knowledge of the works of 
Jesus, that it has a historical introduction. It 
must therefore have been a Gospel rather than a 
collection of sayings, it is held. All recognize that 
Q contains narratives, but in every case the narra 
tive is subordinated to the teaching. Jesus did 
not preach a series of sermons which needed only 
to be collected into a book. The narrative and 
circumstantial character that clings to some of this 

156 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

material is not an evidence of a dramatic historical 
purpose, but only of its primitive character. Some 
of the soil still clings to these sayings, showing 
whence they were dug. If the opposing argument 
is to have any force it ought to be shown that the 
narrative material is secondary to the sayings. 
But there is only one section in which this possi 
bility has been cogently suggested, and that is in 
Sec. 4; and yet if it could be proved in this one 
case, the great importance attached to the saying 
here might account for the exception. In truth, 
however, the grounds for regarding this narrative 
as a later addition are inconclusive; it furnishes 
strong indications of its primitive character. 1 
Nowhere else is there the slightest ground for 
regarding the narrative as secondary. 

It is also true that Q has a historical introduc 
tion in Sees, i and 2. A historical introduction 
might imply a historical conclusion. It is certainly 
the unexpected to find a primitive Christian writing 
with so little about the death and resurrection of 
Jesus. Here there is no mention of the resur 
rection and but slight reference to the Passion and 

1 See above, p. 40. 

Unity of Common Material 157 

death. It may be that the death was not even 
explicitly mentioned. Luke 14: 27 could refer to it 
only indirectly. Luke 12:49, 5 an d 17:25 are 
not in Matthew. But Luke 11:471!. and 13:34 
indicate that Jesus must share the fate of the 
prophets who have gone before. The shadow of the 
cross can be observed in all the later sections of Q, 
but this is only because it is inherent in the ma 
terial itself. The only way in which any account 
of Jesus death and resurrection can be ascribed 
to Q is to assign to that source material which 
Matthew has omitted, for it is evident that 
Matthew has no primitive source for the Passion 
and resurrection besides Mark, whom he follows 
closely. Luke on the other hand certainly has. 1 

F. C. Burkitt in his recent book, The Gospel His 
tory and Its Transmission, favors the view that this 
independent information was obtained from Q, 
and Harnack allows the possibility but does not 
approve of it. Both B. Weiss and J. Weiss have 
long supported this theory. The outstanding 
objection to it is the fact that not a trace of its 

1 An alternative possibility, improbable as it is, should be 
mentioned, i.e., that Mark s account came from Q. The relation 
of Q to Mark will be considered later. 

158 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

influence appears in Matthew. How strange that 
he should have felt the need of weaving the Q 
version of the calumny of the Pharisees and of the 
sending forth of the disciples into the corresponding 
narrative of Mark, but that when he came to the 
most important matter of all, the account of the 
Passion, he should ignore this source entirely! 
He takes pains to add the few late apocryphal bits 
of information which come to him but omits all 
reference to this rich material that Luke is sup 
posed to have found in Q. Even a superficial 
study of the First Gospel ought to make it clear 
that the only reliable source for the narrative of 
Jesus life which that evangelist possesses is Mark. 1 
These outstanding considerations far outweigh 
all subterranean threads of connection which may 
be found between this independent material of 
Luke and Q. In fact, however, no one supporting 
this view has as yet taken the trouble to point out 
such threads of connection if there are any. The 
only resemblance that is apparent is that in Luke 
22:35-39, where 22:35 seems to be a direct refer- 

1 The possibility that he had sources of Mark is to be left 
open; whether Q could be one of such sources will be considered 

Unity of Common Material 159 

ence to 10:4, but it must be remembered that, if in 
Luke s source terms different from what Luke had 
himself previously used had really stood, that evan 
gelist would have been constrained to conform them 
to 9 : 3 or 10 : 4. No theories can be built upon this 
likeness. Surely the general character of this in 
dependent Passion material of Luke is much more 
closely related to the narratives peculiar to Luke 
that have preceded than to the common material 
of Q. Such historical notes as 8:2, 3; 13:31-33 
seem closely akin. 

It is this lack of any positive foundation which 
outweighs any expectation one might have that 
such an account would follow in Q. The evidence 
of the Gospels themselves opposes it. When also 
we examine this expectation itself we see that it 
rests upon slight foundations. Q was not written 
for missionary purposes. Knowledge of the general 
outline of Jesus life was taken for granted. It was 
written for the benefit of the early Christian com 
munity, furnishing them a collection of the teach 
ings of Jesus with their special problems and 
difficulties in mind. While from this standpoint a 
historical introduction was not necessary, still it was 

160 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

not inappropriate. Such a collection of Jesus 
teachings could very properly begin with a pres 
entation of the divine authority and power of the 
teacher, and this is all we have a right to demand. 

If we may judge anything of the sequence of 
events in the life of Christ from Mark it is true 
that there is some recognition of the same sequence 
in Q also. Q begins with the Baptist, implies a 
successful ministry culminating in the joy of Jesus 
at the return of the disciples; then the gradual 
opposition which developed is set forth. The tone 
of the sayings grows more and more somber and the 
later sayings are dominantly eschatological. This 
is a general trend that we recognize in Mark also 
and probably rests on real historical remembrance. 
But again there is no reason why a collection of 
Jesus teachings should not preserve in broad 
outlines the sequence they had in the life of Jesus. 

Such a question as this cannot, however, be 
decided by general considerations. A closer exam 
ination must be made into the special material of 
Matthew and Luke and its relation to that which 
they have in common, and the relation of Q to 
Mark must also be considered. But in view of the 

Unity of Common Material 161 

general arguments which have been presented, 
we shall not approach these questions from the 
standpoint of Wendt, who assigned to Q whatever 
he could not find sufficient reason for putting 
elsewhere. Good grounds will be demanded for 
any section to be included in Q besides the com 
mon material. 



What did Luke retain from Q which Matthew 
omits? In discussing Sec. i we have already 
seen that 3:10-160 cannot belong to Q, and this 
may be taken as a typical insertion of Luke added 
in a characteristic manner. Luke 3:19, 20 may 
come from some special source of Luke, but it 
is only a summary of what Mark says in 6 : 1 7 ff. 
The genealogy which follows the account of Jesus 
baptism could not have stood in the same source 
that Matthew used. This same argument applies 
of course to the birth narratives of chaps, i and 2. 
Wellhausen has given plausible reasons for believ 
ing that Luke had a source originally written in 
Semitic for the material which he combines with 
Mark s account of the rejection at Nazareth, 
chap. 4. But there is no reason why this may not 
have been true of other sources of Luke besides 
Mark and Q. Some of the most striking Semiti- 
cisms of Luke are found in chaps, i and 2, which 


The Common Source and Luke 163 

Matthew cannot have known. There is not the 
slightest reason for assigning any part of 4:i6ff. 
to Q. In this passage there is an interest in the 
widow and the outcast, like that in 3 : 10-15, which 
we shall find characteristic of Luke. The miracu 
lous draught of fishes in chap. 5 has no point of 
contact with Q. In the Sermon on the Mount, 
Sec. 3, we have given reasons for regarding 6 : 24-26 
as an addition of Luke. Whether Luke has made 
any additions in Sec. 4 is doubtful. This was 
shown in our previous discussion. Luke 7:11-17 
would certainly not have been omitted by Matthew 
if he knew it. Its insertion by Luke, like that of 
7:21, is readily understood; it prepares the way 
for 7:22. That Matthew and Luke supply this 
deficiency in such different ways shows that they 
are not here following their common source. 

Besides the mere editorial insertions in Sec. 5 
we have the interesting addition of 7:29, 30. 
The context shows that they are not original here. 1 
But they might still be a misplaced saying of Q. 
That this is a genuine word of Jesus is made more 
probable by the fact that in Matt. 21 :32 we have 

1 See p. 44. 

164 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

the same thought; but the entirely different lan 
guage in which they express the saying indicates 
that they found it in no common written source, but 
rather in common tradition. Luke follows this 
section with the narrative of the sinful woman at 
the house of Simon the Pharisee. But it is only in 
Luke s addition, 7:29, 30, that the contrast is 
drawn between the outcasts and the Pharisees. 
It is not found in Q at all, and here again it is the 
characteristic Lukan type of material. Chapter 8 
begins with the valuable historical notice about the 
women who ministei to Jesus. But it is Luke and 
not Q who shows special knowledge of the women 
followers of Jesus. It is he and not Q who shows 
himself well informed regarding Herod. 1 

With 9:51 the second great interpolation of Luke 
begins. The whole is represented as taking place 
on a journey to Jerusalem, 9:51-53; 13:22, 33; 
17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28. Samaria has already 
been reached in 9:51; in 13:31 they are in the 
territory of Herod, but they are still passing 
through the midst of Samaria and Galilee in 17:11. 
The next geographical notice, 18:35, places 

1 Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod s steward, is mentioned. 

The Common Source and Luke 165 

Jesus and his disciples at Jericho, where Mark s 
itinerary is again resumed. The background for 
this period is vaguely thought to be the general 
region of southern Galilee and Samaria, and pos 
sibly Perea. 1 The journey toward Jerusalem 
seems to be merely an artificial scheme for giving 
a sort of unity to the whole. Luke found 9:51-56 
in some source or tradition and used it as an intro 
ductory setting for this Q material, which had no 
background. Here was a reference to messengers 
whom Jesus sent before him, 9:52. These were 
regarded as the disciples mentioned in Q s account 
of 10 : i ff . Disciples were everywhere mentioned 
in Q in a sense which implied more than the 
Twelve. Matt. 9:57-62, for which Matthew had 
found an appropriate setting when Jesus crossed 
over to the east shore of the Sea of Galilee, Luke 
regarded as a reference to this momentous journey 
toward Jerusalem. All that followed in Q was 
made to fit into this situation. Here and there 
narratives were added to give the whole section 
more of a historical tone. The question of the 
lawyer and the parable of the Good Samaritan, 

1 See below, p. 177. 

1 66 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

which really imply a Judean setting, were put here 
probably because of the reference to the Samaritan; 
and the visit at the house of Mary and Martha was 
no doubt put here as a companion piece of the 
answer to the lawyer. The hearing of the word was 
thus co-ordinated with works of charity. Neither 
of these additions, 10:25-42, stood in the Q 
which Matthew read. They are here only because 
of 9:51-56, which provides the Samaritan back 
ground. If Q s account of the sending forth of 
the disciples already had this entirely different 
setting from that of Mark, chap. 6, it is more 
probable that Matthew would have left them 

In 10 : 1 7-20 Luke gives an account of the re 
turn of the disciples, which there is every reason 
to believe stood in Q. Matthew has omitted it 
because he has added to Q here so much later 
material having to do with the disciples mission 
after the death of Jesus. The account of the 
return was no longer appropriate. The thought 
here is closely related to Luke 1 1 : 20 ff . The 
success of their mission means the overthrow of 
the kingdom of Satan. 

The Common Source and Luke 167 

The parable which Luke has given in the midst 
of the discourse on prayer also probably stood in Q. 
Why Matthew should omit it is evident. It has 
no proper place in the Sermon on the Mount. 
Wendt s Die Lehre Jesu, p. 99, has pointed out that 
the very verse of the following saying, which Luke 
has altered, in its Matthean form seems closely 
related to this parable. Matt. 7:9, rls ia-rw 1% 
v/j&v, 1 is the same form of question that we have 
in Luke 11:5, and bread, the first thing asked for 
in 7:9, completes the connection with the parable 
which in Luke precedes. The fact that Luke has 
here changed the form of the question adds to the 
significance of this similarity. Another linguistic 
relation to Q is in the word XPljfa) found only in 
Matt. 6:32; Luke 12:30, and twice in Paul. We 
may therefore with some probability assign this 
parable to Q and account for Lukan characteristics 
as due to his stylistic changes. 

Luke s addition of 11:27, 28 is more doubtful. 
Just as Mark had a passage dealing with Jesus 
family immediately after the calumny of the 

This phrase is found elsewhere, Luke 14:38; 15:4; 17:7; 
Matt. 12:11. Whether all these passages belong to Q is doubtful. 

i68 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

Pharisees, the same might be true of Q. But, on 
the other hand, not only is the language here 
strongly Lukan, but the truly feminine interest 
of the saying belongs to what is most characteristic 
of the Third Gospel. It is also to be remembered 
that Luke was familiar with Mark, and under the 
influence of that Gospel may have inserted this 
parallel to Mark 3:31-35 in the corresponding 
context. Mark 3:31-35 itself he had already 
quoted. However, the possibility may be left open 
that this saying was in Q and that Matthew in 
conflating this section with Mark omitted it. 

Additional material is again found in Luke 12: 
13-21. It consists of two distinct portions, the 
question in regard to an inheritance, vss. 13, 14, 
and the parable of the Rich Fool, vss. 16-20. Here 
again omission by Matthew could be readily under 
stood, for he has incorporated the sayings here 
into the Sermon on the Mount. But there can be 
no question that the connection between Luke 
12:12 and 12:22 is as good, if not better, without 
this long insertion. The application, vs. 15, 
which is given to the question about inheritances 
is strictly Lukan 1 in its interest, and the parable 

1 This does not necessarily mean that the application was not 
made by Jesus himself. 

The Common Source and Luke 169 

which follows belongs to the same group as those 
which are added in Luke, chap. 16. Furthermore, 
when the two versions of the sayings that follow 
are compared, it appears that there also the general 
principle of Matt. 6:19 is in Luke a concrete, 
definite rule, "Sell what you have and give alms." 
This danger of covetousness was to Luke a very 
threatening one, and he may well have desired to 
strengthen the force of Jesus words here by this 
special material, which undoubtedly rests upon 
reliable tradition. Surely it is the safer principle 
to leave sayings that show the characteristic Lukan 
standpoint to Luke, when the context favors the 
view that they are an insertion and they have not 
the support of Matthew. 

Luke 12:35-38 is a parable emphasizing the 
need of watching, which is not found in Matthew. 
It has, however, some features related to Matthew s 
parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins. 1 Verse 
376 here introduces an allegorizing feature which 
is a favorite of Luke. The messianic meal is 

1 Wellhausen and others have made much of this resemblance, 
but it does not include any of the essential features and is not 
linguistic. The resemblances which Jiilicher finds to Mark 13 : 33- 
37 are more interesting. Wellhausen finds in 12:35, dvaAtfw, 
a trace of a Semitic original. This would at least indicate that 
Luke had some written source here. 

170 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

certainly intended by it. But the fact that this 
allegorical feature is here so entirely out of place 
distinguishes the parable itself from Luke s char 
acteristic material. Matthew might omit it be 
cause of the other parables which he adds in this 
connection and which to him would be much more 

In 13 : 1-9 Luke has a call to repentance based on 
two Jerusalem disasters and a parable of a Fig 
Tree, teaching how short an interval for repentance 
is left. In the context from Q in which these 
stand they are most fitting. Luke 12:54-58 is 
likewise a call to repentance; the same earnest, 
almost passionate, tone is continued here. The 
passage is unusually free from Lukan literary 
changes. It is strikingly Semitic in language, and, 
what is more important, several of these Semiti- 
cisms relate it to Q. In 13:4,60 ovs . . . . avrovs, 
and in 13 : 9, 71-011707? Kapirbv, remind us strongly of the 
preaching of John the Baptist on this same theme 
of repentance. See Matt. 3:12. Compare also 
Luke 6:43. Even more striking, perhaps, is 60et- 
XeVat = hayyabh, a term which Luke has avoided in 
11:4, but which Matthew has retained in 6:gS. 

The Common Source and Luke 171 

This literary evidence in connection with the strik 
ing kinship in thought gives us sufficient justifica 
tion for regarding it as a part of Q. Possibly the 
similarity of this parable to Mark s account of the 
cursing of the fig tree may account for Matthew s 
omission here. Luke inserts this parable but 
omits Mark n:i2ff. Matthew may on similar 
grounds have chosen to retain Mark 11:12 ff. and 
to omit this passage. The omission remains, 
however, difficult to understand. 

Luke 13: 10-17 i s another passage found only in 
Luke. J. Weiss has argued that Luke could not 
have inserted it here. It is so entirely out of place, 
he says, that unless Luke found it already in this 
context he would certainly have placed it some 
where else. But someone did place it here, and it 
is surely easier to attribute the insertion to one who 
did not have the original author s sequence of 
thought in mind than to that author himself. No 
such inharmonious insertion is found anywhere 
in the material which both Matthew and Luke con 
tain. Narratives are found in Q but the emphasis 
is upon the teaching; in this narrative the teach 
ing is secondary and is not akin to anything we 

172 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

have in the common material. Luke, we have 
already seen, has broken up the topical sequence 
here and converted it into a chronological one. 
Who would be more likely to introduce such a 
narrative as this ? Moreover, the incident in this 
connection has its justification to Luke because 
of what Jesus replies to Herod in 13:32, another 
passage found only in Luke. 

Luke 13:31-33, to which attention has just been 
called, is probably also an addition of the evangelist. 
It converts the merely topical relation of 13:30 to 
13:34 into a historical one. This insertion is very 
helpful in showing the purpose and method of 
Luke s additions. We are also reminded that Luke 
is the evangelist who seems particularly interested 
in Herod and best informed concerning him. 1 

Throughout chaps. 14, 15, and 16 of Luke the 
condemnation of the Pharisees and exaltation of 
the publicans and sinners is the main theme. We 
would therefore expect to find more of his char 
acteristic material here than elsewhere. In 14:1- 
24 Luke gives a series of three parables preceded 

1 The saying of Jesus in this passage shows, however, that it is 
no composition of Luke, but comes from some source or tradition. 

The Common Source and Luke 173 

by a healing, all connected as a scene at the table 
in the house of a Pharisee. The last, the parable of 
a Great Feast, as has already been said, is so differ 
ent in language and development of thought from 
Matthew s parable on the same theme that a com 
mon literary source is improbable. 1 We have no 
other example of such freedom in treating the 
sayings of Q as one must assume to assign these 
two accounts to that source. What likeness there 
is, is far more readily accounted for by a common 
tradition; this there must have been if, as seems 
true, the parable had an authentic basis. Another 
resemblance to this insertion of Luke has been 
found in Matt. 12:11, i2 = Luke 14:5. But the 
fact that Luke has presented this conception in two 
different versions, 13:15 and 14:5, and that 
Matthew is as much like one as the other, would 
show that it was a widespread traditional saying. 
The probability remains that we have here not 
Q material but an insertion of Luke. There is 
also a parallel to Luke 14:8-11 appended to 
Matt. 20:28 in Codd. D, 0, Old Latin, Vulg., and 

1 The likenesses and differences are fully presented in Harnack, 
p. 119. 

174 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

Syr. Cur. The MSS evidence for this addition is 
about the same as that which we found for 16:26? 
3, but the passage is very clumsily appended and 
it is more doubtful whether it really belo ngs to 
Matthew. The resemblance here to Luke is like 
that which we have found in Matthew s parallels 
to the rest of this chapter. The language through 
out is entirely different. There can hardly be the 
same literary source behind this passage and 
Luke 14:8-11; so that whether or not this be 
regarded as belonging to Matthew, it only con 
firms our view that, in this material connected with 
a feast at the house of a Pharisee, Luke gives us a 
well-known tradition and is not using any docu 
ment known to Matthew. The First Gospel shows 
familiarity with some of this material but in a 
form different from that of Luke. 

The two parables of Luke 14: 28-33 are wanting 
in Matthew. Their connection with the preceding 
sayings is, as Jiilicher says, "ausgezeichnet." That 
Luke should have found these two parables of so 
little suggestiveness apart from their context and 
inserted them here shows far more aptness than he 
has elsewhere displayed in his combinations of 

The Common Source and Luke 175 

sayings. He has not Matthew s skill in such read 
justment. Nor is it surprising that they are 
omitted by Matthew. They are mere illustrations, 
adding nothing to the teaching of 10:37, 38, and 
they would be very unsuitable for Matthew s 
already lengthy discourse of chap. 10. And so, 
despite the fact that we have no literary resem 
blances to which to point, it is probable that these 
verses belong to Q. The section is concluded in 
Luke by the parable on Salt. Jiilicher 1 has given 
good reasons for regarding 14:34, 35 as the proper 
conclusion here, and vs. 33 as only an editorial 
addition. Matthew already has his version of this 
parable in 5:13, which is certainly secondary, 
whether or not it is linguistically dependent upon 
this passage. 

Luke, chap. 15, continues the condemnation of 
the Pharisees and emphasizes God s concern for the 
lost. That Matthew knew the parable of the 
Prodigal Son and omitted it is almost impossible 
to believe. But, as we have seen, the parable of the 
Sheep seems to have been appended to Q and so is 
found in Matthew also. The question then arises 

1 Op. tit., p. 70. 

176 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

whether the parable of the Lost Coin, its com 
panion piece, was not there. One recognizes that 
Matthew could not so readily adapt this to the 
application he has given the preceding parable. 
It may therefore have been in Q. There is little 
evidence upon which to decide either way. 

The two parables of Luke, chap. 16, are likewise 
directed against the Pharisees, and to Luke, at 
least, they attach a real moral value to poverty. 
Into this independent material of chaps. 15 and 16 
Luke has woven several sayings from that mis 
cellaneous group with which Q probably closed. 
It is interesting to compare and see how much more 
successful Matthew was in this respect. The rest 
of this group Luke simply adds at the beginning 
of chap. 17 without any attempt to correlate them. 
Is 17:7-10 to be included in this group? It is 
indeed possible. Such a parable Matthew might 
have passed over, as he certainly did others like it. 
Nor does it contain any of the characteristics that 
so readily differentiate special material of Luke. 

Luke 17:1 1-19 is another miracle giving us prac 
tically the same geographical setting which we 
had in 9 : 5 1 ff. These indications of a Samaritan 

The Common Source and Luke 177 

ministry belong to the peculiarities of Luke. He 
has very clumsily woven the Q material into the 
background it gives, and tried to adapt the whole 
to the framework of Mark. In 18:35 Jesus is in 
Jericho, which implies that he came south by way 
of the Jordan and Perea, Mark 10: i. Either Luke 
shows complete ignorance of the geography here or 
he understands all the possessions of Herod Antipas, 
including Perea, under the term "Galilee." In 
3:1 Herod is called Tetrarch of Galilee. This 
would explain why Galilee should be mentioned in 
17:11 after the repeated reference to the journey 

In 18:1-14 are two parables inserted by Luke. 
The purpose of their insertion here is to show 
the great need of prayer and faith to hasten the 
time of the Parousia. The second parable surely 
had no such significance originally, and neither 
did the first if we regard vss. 1-5 as giving its primi 
tive form. The emphasis in vss. 6-Sa upon the 
demand for vengeance cannot be attributed to 
Luke, who, in vs. i and the connection with the 
following parable, shows that he found its point 
in the persistent prayer. The eschatological 

178 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

application, therefore, must have been already 
added in the source where Luke found it. The 
fact that the preceding section from Q touched 
upon the theme of the final judgment might 
suggest that the connection had already been made 
in Q. But 17:22 ff. is concerned with the coming 
of Christ in judgment. This parable speaks of the 
judgment of God. Besides, the judgment is never 
presented in Q as a time of vengeance upon enemies ; 
it is always referred to in personal words of warning. 
If this parable stood in Q it was added by a later 
hand. What relations it originally had to 11:5-8 
can no longer be determined. The application of 
vss. 6-8a is very old, Jewish rather than Christian. 
Certainly there are few who would be willing to say 
with Wellhausen that this is the original of the 
earlier parable. Luke certainly did not find it in 
connection with 11:5-8. Either it was an early 
addition here in Q or Luke has inserted it from 
another source for the reason we gave in the begin 
ning. The second parable was probably added 
by Luke. With 18:15 Luke returns to Mark, whom 
he follows thenceforth, though he shows acquaint 
ance with independent sources. The only pas- 

The Common Source and Luke 179 

sage after this which can with any confidence be 
assigned to Q is the parable of the Pounds, 19 : 12 ff. 
Luke explains in 19:11 why he has reserved it for 
this place. Just as Jesus is about to enter Jerusa 
lem gives him the historical setting he desires. 

There is a slight resemblance to Matthew in 
Luke 22 1306 = Matt. 19:286 and a reference to Q 
(Luke 10:4) in 22:35. These are, however, of 
very little weight; the first resemblance can be 
readily understood without the assumption of a 
common written source, and Luke would have con 
formed 22:35 to 10:4 or 9:3 if it had been different 
in his source. For the reasons already given we 
would not assign any of Luke s Passion material 

In conclusion, we now have found good reason 
for assigning 10:17-20; 11:5-8; 13:1-9; 14:28-35 
to Q. To this list three other passages might be 
added as possibly belonging to Q, 12:35-38; 15:8- 
10; 17:7-10. Minor additions of Luke con 
sidered in the detailed discussions of pp. 19-119 
are as follows: a few additions in Luke 6:275.; 
7:2ff. (?); 9:61,62; 12:16,32,49,50; i3:25(?); 
17: 20, 21, 25, 28-30. It was left doubtful whether 

180 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

ii 134-36, 12:54-56 are to be regarded as having a 
parallel in Matthew. The evidence is not equally 
strong for them all, but they may with some confi 
dence be assigned to Q. 

Many insertions have evidently been made into 
the Q material by Luke. J. Weiss has long 
championed the view that these had already been 
added to Q before Luke used it. We have seen 
that in a few cases such a pre-Lukan addition 
seemed possible. But if there is anything which 
may be regarded as characteristic of the third 
evangelist himself, it is to be found in the manner 
of insertion and standpoint of this additional 
material. This is also the conclusion of Wernle, 
Die synoptische Frage, pp. 83-88. Whether Luke 
had one or more independent sources is beyond 
the scope of this discussion. Some of this Lukan 
material was indirectly known to Matthew. Evi 
dently in the time of Luke and Matthew there 
existed a body of narratives and sayings connected 
with Jesus which had not been incorporated in 
Mark or Q. We have seen how there was a 
tendency to append such additional sayings to Q. 
The fact, however, that the most careful examina- 

The Common Source and Luke 181 

tion of all later Christian literature has failed to 
disclose more than a few fragmentary doubtful 
passages indicates that Matthew and Luke have 
given us practically all of this extra material then 
accessible. From this point of view, also, it is 
improbable that either evangelist made such con 
siderable omissions from his sources as many have 



In our previous study of Matthew and his 
methods we saw that he has either woven all of 
his non-Markan material into the narrative of 
Mark or attached it to one of his great discourses. 
His method necessitated the frequent transference 
of sayings from their original sequence. This has 
made the problem of sources in Matthew much 
more difficult. When we have not the parallel 
material of Luke to guide us we have nothing by 
which to judge except the content of the saying or 
narrative in question. However, the nature of 
some of Matthew s independent material is such 
that we can confidently say that it never stood in 
Q. The narratives peculiar to Matthew at once 
differentiate themselves as somewhat legendary, 
and it is there that the linguistic characteristics 
of Matthew are most manifest. What Hawkins 1 
says of chaps, i and 2 applies to all of these narra- 

1 Hor. Syn., pp. 8, 9. 


The Common Source and Matthew 183 

lives. It is very probable that Matthew had no 
written sources at all for most of them: chaps. 1,2; 
3:14, 15; 14:28-31; 17:24-27; 21:14-16; 27:3- 
10, 19, 516-53, 62-66; 28:2, 3, 9-20. Surely 
none of these narratives came from Q. 

Some of the additional material of Matthew is 
merely editorial; this is certainly true of the Old 
Testament quotations, 4: 13-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 
13 : 14, 15. Among the editorial additions may also 
be included those passages in non-Markan contexts 
in which Matthew has anticipated or repeated 
sayings and narratives from Mark. 1 Matt. 4:23- 
25 = Mark 3: 176.; Matt. 5:29, 3o = Mark 9:43 ff.; 
Matt. 6:14, i5 = Mark 11:25; Matt. 9:27-31 = 
Mark 10:46-52; Matt. 9:35, 36 = Mark 1:39; 
Matt. 6:34; io:39-42 = Mark 8:35; 9:37, 41; 
Matt. n:i4 = Mark 9:nff. Probably 10:17-22 
(23 ?) is also to be included in this list, though 
more can be said in this case for the view that 
Matthew is here using some source of Mark. 
Matt. 10:39-42 is interesting because it is surely 
an editorial addition, and not only illustrates 
Matthew s readiness to use Markan material 

1 This has been fully discussed, pp. 58 ff. 

184 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

twice but gives us something of the editor s own 
standpoint. Matthew s strong interest in the later 
church, its discipline, and organization is here 
apparent. It is only natural to expect that since 
Matthew has used passages from Mark in this way, 
he has used some from Q in like manner. Matt. 
9:32-34; 12:33-37 have been considered as such 
Q passages used by Matthew a second time edi 
torially. The additions which Matthew has made 
to the Beatitudes, 5:4, 7-9, may also be merely 
editorial, but their close relation to the Old Testa 
ment and rabbinic teaching is not inconsistent with 
their being genuine words of Jesus. Moreover, 
they are not the sort of passages Matthew was 
accustomed to quote from the Old Testament. It 
is therefore more likely that they had some basis 
in tradition. 

Passages showing marked interest in the organi 
zation and discipline of the church may also with 
much probability be assigned to the editor. It does 
not follow that he composed them; more probably 
they rest upon good tradition or special sources. 
Among these must be included 7:15; 13:24-30, 
36-43, 51, 52; 16:17-20; 18:17-20; 19:10-12. 

The Common Source and Matthew 185 

The parable of the Dragnet, 13 : 47-50, seems to be 
a companion piece to the parable of the Tares, 
and belongs to the same source. 

There is another group of passages in Matthew 
which give the First Gospel its characteristic 
quality. Their dominant interest is in practical 
Christian morality and forms of worship. This 
higher Christian righteousness is contrasted with 
that of the Pharisees: 5: 17 (18, 19), 20-24, 27, 28, 
33-37 1 ; 6:1-8,16-18; 12:5-7,11,12; 23:2,3,76- 
12. There can be no doubt that these rest upon 
genuine words of Jesus, but they are presented from 
a characteristically Matthean standpoint. It can 
be argued that these passages were omitted from 
Q by Luke because his gentile readers would not 
be interested in them. But they are much more 
closely related to the preceding group with its 
strong church interest than to Q. One needs only 
to separate 5:17 ff. from the material common to 
Luke 6 : 20 ff . to see how far different in interest 
this material is from Q. The woes of chap. 23 
which are peculiar to Matt. 23:15-22, 24 and 
15: 12-14 seem to be related to this same group. 

1 Additions from Q and Mark are evident in 5: 18, 25, 26, 29-32. 

i86 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

All of these passages can with some assurance be 
denied a place in Q and with them may be included 
most of the parables peculiar to Matthew. The 
very fact that Luke gives the parable of 22 : 1-14 in 
an independent form shows that it did not belong to 
Q. It is also very hard to believe that Luke would 
have omitted 21:28-31 had he known it. He has 
given 21:32 (Luke 7:29, 30) in a different form. 
As 25:31-46 stands in Matthew it can hardly have 
belonged to Q. It is much more closely related to 
Matthew s characteristic material. Matt. 25 : 1-13 
seems also to be a parable from independent sources 
which Matthew has added to the group of Sec. 19. 
It may be that Luke was familiar with it in some 
variant form. 1 The possibility that 18:23-35; 
20:1-16 came from Q cannot be denied, and yet 
there is very little reason for assigning them to Q 
if once it is agreed that Matthew had access to 
some valuable parables which were not given by 
Mark nor Q. 

More can be said for the parables of the Pearl 
and the Hidden Treasure, 13:44-46, which have 
even impressed a critical scholar like Wernle as 

1 See p. 98. 

The Common Source and Matthew 187 

belonging to the common material of Matthew and 
Luke. Why the latter should omit it cannot be 
said; but then we cannot expect to know every 
motive which prompted him. Such sayings as 
5:41; 6:34; 18: 10 might easily have been dropped 
by Luke; 7:6 (-?); 10:5, 6, 1 6b would naturally 
have been omitted by him. Even the Matthean 
Beatitudes, 5:4, 7, 8-10, might possibly have stood 
in some other connection in Q, but this is improb 
able. Matt. 5:13-16 is an editorial compilation; 
5 : 13 is a secondary form of Luke 14:34, 35 (Q), and 
5:15 of Mark 4:21. Matt. 5:14, which is found 
only here, Matthew certainly found in some source, 
and, as Harnack suggests, it may have been Q. 
11:28-30 is a very puzzling addition of Matthew. 
It shows none of the special characteristics of that 
evangelist. The only reasons for denying that it 
stood in Q are the position which it has, displacing 
a saying that must have belonged in Q, and the 
difficulty of imagining why Luke should leave it out. 
In conclusion, the following sayings may be 
given a place in Q with more or less probability: 
5:14,41; 6:34; 7:6(?); 10:5,6,166; 13:44-46; 
18 : 10. Whether 6 : 22, 23 ; 10 : 24, 25 have parallels 

i88 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

in Luke was left doubtful, so that may also be 
included here. Some of the other parables and 
such sayings as 5:4, 7, 8-10; 11:28-30 could pos 
sibly have stood in Q, but it remains improbable. 
We ought also to notice how relatively small is 
the amount of valuable information which Matthew 
possessed outside of Mark and Q. These are his 
two great sources. Although the First Gospel 
contains other important material, it is the Third 
Gospel which contains the richest body of inde 
pendent narrative and teachings. 

The total number of verses from the independent 
material of Matthew and Luke, which can with 
any confidence be assigned to Q, does not amount 
to more than fifty. The omissions of Matthew 
bulk much larger than those of Luke, but they are 
mostly illustrative in character and add but little 
to the teaching. There is a possibility that other 
sayings and parables also belonged to Q, but in 
view of the considerations suggested at the begin 
ning we do not consider that they were many. 


One other relationship demands consideration. 
Bernhard Weiss, followed by his son, Johannes 
Weiss, and by B. W. Bacon in a somewhat different 
form, argues that Mark was familiar with Q and 
dependent upon it. Thus these scholars would 
account for coincident variations of Matthew and 
Luke in Markan material. On the other hand, 
Wellhausen has argued for the dependence of Q 
upon Mark, and Jiilicher has agreed with him in so 
far as to say that in the form which Matthew and 
Luke knew Q it had been influenced by Mark. Har- 
nack in his treatise on this subject has cogently 
argued against the position of Wellhausen and 
allows only the possibility of an "indirect" 1 rela 
tionship between Mark and Q. It is with the first 
of these positions that we are immediately con 
cerned, for these scholars maintain not only that 
Mark knew Q but that much of the narrative mate 
rial of Mark was taken originally from Q. The 

1 See p. 226. 


190 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

reconstruction of Q which has here been presented 
leaves no place for such an expansion into an Ure- 
vangelium. Fortunately there are some passages 
that are found in both Mark and Q. Let us 
examine these points of contact to see what sort of 
a relationship they presuppose. 

Both Mark and Q began with John the Baptist 
and his preaching. Part of the account which Q 
gave was paralleled in Mark, Mark 1:7, 8 = Matt. 
3:n=Luke 3:16. The context in Q makes it 
certain that Matthew and Luke have not simply 
added this verse from Mark. It stood in some form 
in Q also. One sentence of Luke is practically the 
same as that of Mark, but Matthew remains more 
independent of Mark. Since we know that both 
Matthew and Luke had access to Mark, they have 
in all probability been influenced by him, for it is 
just in this verse that their verbal agreement 
throughout this section is broken. Hence at this 
point it is unnecessary to postulate a literary rela 
tionship between Mark and Q. The tendency to 
harmonization is likewise to be reckoned with. 
This very verse of Mark is conformed more com 
pletely to Matthew and Luke in the D, a, ff. texts. 

The Common Source and Mark 191 

There must have been a close similarity in thought, 
but we must remember that this is the one message 
of the Baptist which would deeply concern all 
Christians from the beginning. If, as seems 
probable, "by the Holy Spirit and by fire" in 
Matthew and Luke is a conflation of Mark and Q, 
then there was this one considerable difference 
in thought. Those who make Mark dependent 
on Q regard it as an editorial change of Mark, but 
Mark need not have taken it from Q at all. No 
immediate relation between Mark and Q can be 
based on this passage. 

Both Mark and Q also contained an account of 
the baptism and temptation of Jesus. What Q 
gave about the baptism can no longer be deter 
mined, so that nothing more about the resemblance 
here can be said except that both must have con 
tained some mention of the baptism and baptismal 
vision. The account of the temptation in Mark 
implies a knowledge of more than is told. Does it 
imply a knowledge of Q ? This is affirmed by B . W. 
Bacon, 1 who says that the beasts of Mark 1:13 
are taken from Ps. 91 : 13, the same psalm which is 

1 Beginnings of the Gospel Story, p. 7. 

192 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

quoted in Matt. 4 : 6. But when we remember that 
this particular verse of the psalm was not given by 
Q and it is nowhere even implied in the Q account 
that Jesus was with wild beasts nor comforted by 
angels, 1 it is hard to see how this can be used as evi 
dence of dependence on Q. In fact nowhere is the 
radical difference of the two accounts more mani 
fest than just here. The ministering of angels is a 
temptation in Q (Matt. 4:6; Luke 4: 10, n) which 
Jesus repels; in Mark it is apparently the indica 
tion of his conquest. Surely Q s account did not 
lie before Mark, but, as we have said, some other 
detailed version probably did, and we may con 
jecture that Psalm 91 had a larger place in it. 
It is to be granted that Q s account of this, like his 
account of the preaching of John the Baptist, 
is more primitive and historical 2 than that of 

A more forceful argument for some relationship 
between Mark and Q can be found in the fact 
that both take up these same topics in the same 

1 Matt. 4: lob is a conflation. 

The writer sees no reason to deny that the Q account of the 
temptation rests on a genuine word of Jesus. 

The Common Source and Mark 193 

sequence in their introductions. But, as Harnack 
has suggested, there is a strong probability that this 
starting-point was fixed in early catechetical tradi 
tion, Acts 1:22 and Luke 1:4. If this likeness in 
order continued it would be significant, but, being 
found only at the beginning in material which is 
really a unit, such great weight cannot be given it. 
That both Matthew and Luke insert the Q material 
in the same place in Mark gives no additional value 
to the argument. They would naturally do so under 
the circumstances, independently of each other. 
In the setting Matthew and Luke give Sec. 3 there 
is also some similarity. Both use Mark 3:75. 
but in such different ways as to show that it is not 
due to their having the Sermon on the Mount 
already combined with narrative material of Mark 
nor to dependence on each other. 1 Such an 
explanation would create more difficulties than it 
could solve. In Q the discourse was directed to 
the disciples and possibly its introduction had 
some reference to the hill country. Matthew used 
Mark 3:75. merely to bring before the reader 
the multitudes who then listened to Jesus, and he 
1 This judgment is confirmed by Allen, Com., p. 70. 

194 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

placed the discourse at the beginning of the 
Galilean ministry as the setting forth of the new 
law. Luke on the other hand takes the whole 
situation of Mark 3:7 ff. and introduces the dis 
course at that point. In no case after this do 
Matthew and Luke connect Q material with the 
same Markan context, a very significant fact. 

In the content of the Sermon on the Mount 
the following parallel to Mark occurs, Matt. 7 : 26 = 
Mark 4: 24, but surely a similarity in such a short, 
proverbial saying as this has little, if any, impor 
tance. There can be no question of any depend 
ence of Mark upon Q in this whole discourse, nor, 
on the other hand, can the authenticity of the say 
ings here attributed to Jesus be reasonably ques 
tioned. Mark s summary of Jesus teaching, 1:15, 
seems to be merely editorial. B. W. Bacon has 
also argued that the description of John the Baptist 
in Sec. 5 underlies the account of Mark i : i ff. 
Mark certainly implies that he knows more about 
the Baptist than he tells, and what he knows is 
consistent with what Q gives in Sec. 5, but this is 
all that can be said. Mark 1:2 B. W. Bacon 
understands to be added here from Luke 7:27, and 

The Common Source and Mark 195 

he would explain the coincident omission of 
Matthew and Luke here as due to their use of Q, 
Mark s source. But the common explanation of 
this, as a scribal addition, is a very natural one. 
Of coincident variations in general we shall have 
more to say later. 

Nowhere is the relation between Mark and Q 
closer than in the sending forth of the disciples, 
Mark 6:66-11; Luke 10:1-12, Sec. 7. The 
directions given to the disciples in the two accounts 
are in practical agreement. The Q account is 
fuller, but including all that is found in Mark. 
Mark s version seems condensed; here also he 
probably knew more than he told. The exception 
made of the staff in Mark 6:8 appears to be 
secondary, and Harnack 1 has completely refuted 
Wellhausen s argument that Q is dependent on 
Mark in this section. The priority belongs to Q 
throughout. But this does not establish Mark s 
use of Q. We have no right to deny that Jesus 
sent forth his disciples, as both of these sources 
maintain. The character of the instructions shows 
their primitiveness, and we must allow some place 

1 See pp. 212 ff. 

196 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

for the period of oral tradition. A basis in fact 
and common oral tradition is the natural, simple, 
and amply sufficient explanation of the two 
accounts here. 

In Sec. 8 there is one verse which might be 
regarded as having a parallel in Mark, Luke 10: 16 
= Mark 9:37. Here again the CTTI no ovofj-arl juou 
of Mark 9:37 favors the priority of Q, but depend 
ence of Mark upon Q is very improbable. It is 
hard to see how two accounts of a common tradition 
could be more different, if indeed we have here a 
common tradition. 

The petition of the Lord s Prayer, "Forgive us 
our debts as we forgive our debtors," Matt. 6:12, 
Sec. 12, is reflected in Mark 11:25, but, whatever 
Mark s relation to Q may have been there, there is 
every probability that he was familiar with this 
prayer. 1 The distinctive characteristic of this 
petition in Q is the use of o^etX^ara and 60ct- 
Xe rat; these, however, do not appear in Mark. 

The only other extended likeness between Mark 
and Q besides the one of Sec. 7 is that which we 

1 Wellhausen s arguments for denying that this prayer is a 
genuine word of Jesus are arbitrary. 

The Common Source and Mark 197 

find in Sec. 13. But here any dependence of the 
one account on the other is impossible; the differ 
ences are too fundamental. The charge itself is 
not the same in both accounts. In Mark, Jesus is 
accused of being a demoniac, possessed with Beelze- 
bul ; in Q it is only said that he drives out demons 
by the power of Beelzebul. The first argument of 
Jesus in reply is substantially the same in both, but 
the method of presentation is very different. The 
second argument of Q is not found in Mark. The 
third argument is much changed in Mark. Q s pres 
entation makes iexvportpos avrov, God. The King 
dom of God is contrasted with that of Beelzebul. 
In Mark, as we should expect from the form of the 
charge in 3:22, it is Christ who is opposed to 
Beelzebul. Q here, as usual, deserves the priority, 
but is it not more probable that the difference arose 
in the early tradition than that Mark used the 
account of Q and changed it? 1 Q concluded its 
account here with the parable of the Seven Other 
Spirits; Mark with the saying about the unforgiv 
able sin. This Markan saying, 3:28-30, has its 

1 Harnack is correct in saying that Luke n : 23 and Mark 9:40 
have no relation to each other. See p. 221. 

198 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

parallel in Luke 12 : 10, Q. The difference between 
the two accounts here (Mark has "sons of men" 
and Q has the "Son of Man") is easier to under 
stand on the basis of a common Aramaic text or 
tradition. There is no possible reason for thinking 
that Mark is dependent on the Greek Q. Further 
more, there can be little question that where the 
difference is so great as it is here, the use of a com 
mon tradition is more probable than any mere 
translation change. If now this section as a whole 
is considered, the impression that Mark and Q 
are two independent embodiments of early apos 
tolic tradition grows into a conviction. 

The demand for a sign, Sec. 15, which was surely 
made more than once in the life of Jesus, is also 
mentioned in Mark 8:11-13. The accounts are 
entirely independent; each preserves authentic 
features omitted by the other. 1 

In Sec. 16, Luke 11:43 ^ s a close parallel to 
Mark 12:386, 390. If, as most scholars hold, this 
is merely borrowed from Mark by both Matthew 
and Luke, then it would not belong to Q at all. 

1 There is little reason to believe that Luke 11:33 stood in Q 
at all. See p. 66. 

The Common Source and Mark 199 

But the coincident variation, occurring in the way 
it does, makes it more probable that the verse 
stood in Q also. This is not surprising; we 
should expect some point of contact in two inde 
pendent accounts of Jesus condemnation of the 

In Sec. 17, Luke 12:16 resembles Mark 8:15. 
Whether this verse stood in Q is very doubtful, 1 
but there is a possibility that it did, and it should 
be included in the list of points of contact. There is 
also an interesting likeness between Luke 12:3 = 
Matt. 10:27 an d Mark 4:22, but here the differ 
ence in form is marked. Another point of contact 
here is found in Luke 12:8, 9 = Mark 8:380, and 
yet how different they are! The likeness between 
Luke 12:11, 12 and Mark 13:11 is closer. 

Julicher 2 has called attention to the relation of 
Luke 12:35-38, Sec. 19, to Mark 13:33-37. He 
wishes especially to emphasize the fact that Luke 
here is not dependent upon Mark, but he also says 
of Mark, "dass er gerade unsern Matthaus und 
unsern Lukas benutzt hatte ist nicht erweislich." 
Q does deserve the priority here, as we have seen 

1 See above, p. 81. 2 Op. cit., pp. 169 f. 

2oo Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

to be regularly the case, but no literary relation 
ship can be maintained. 

The cursing of the fig tree, Mark n: 12-14, has 
often been considered as a later development of the 
parable of the Fig Tree, Luke 13:6-9, Sec. 23. 
This is very possible, but are we to suppose that 
Mark with this parable before him deliberately 
changed it into the miracle of 1 1 : 1 2 ff. ? Surely 
no such theory can command any wide acceptance 
today. The trustworthiness of the evangelists has 
been too firmly established. Anyone who will 
agree with us that this section belongs to Q must 
grant that here, at least, they are independent of 
each other. Whatever relation there may be 
between the parable of Luke and the miracle of 
Mark belongs to the period of oral tradition. 

The parable of the Mustard Seed is given by 
both Q, Sec. 24, and Mark 4 : 30-3 2. Mark empha 
sizes its being the smallest of seeds. Q speaks of 
its becoming a tree and of the birds resting on its 
branches. The expression TO. irereiva. TOV ovpavov 
is only found here in Mark. This is the only 
parable where the likeness between the two sources 
is noticeable, and here we find nothing convincing. 

The Common Source and Mark 201 

It is probable that if Mark had known Q he would 
have retained the reference to the tree just as 
Matthew did. On the other hand, Q would cer 
tainly have mentioned the small size of the mustard 
seed if he had had Mark before him. 

In Sec. 27, if we accept the parables here of Luke 
as belonging to Q, Luke 14:34, 35 is the same 
saying which we find in Mark 9:49, 50. The 
application of the saying in Q is more appropriate 
and more likely to be original than that of Mark, 
but this is all that can be said. Another saying 
here which both give is Luke 14 127 = Mark 8:34. 
The likeness in this case is close. 

The saying about marriage in Sec. 28 is given 
a suitable setting in Mark but is isolated in Q. 
In our discussion of this saying we followed the 
suggestion of Harnack and accepted the form of 
Matthew, omitting the clause, "saving for the 
cause of fornication," as that which originally 
stood in Q. Harnack 1 has argued that this form 
is preferable to that of Mark. He considers that 
the connection between Mark 10: 1-9 and 10: 10-12 
is only literary. Mark 10: 10 does indeed seem to 

1 See p. 199. 

202 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

be a very mechanical connecting link, but between 
the two forms of the saying it is hard to decide; 
either might be original. The thought is prac 
tically the same. Both Q and Mark 9 : 42 also have 
a saying of Jesus on giving offense; the thought 
is again the same but the expression so different 
that Matthew can place the two side by side, 
Matt. 18:6, 7. There is another similarity in 
idea between Luke 17:5, 6 and Mark 11:23, but 
here the differences far outweigh any likeness. 

The eschatological passage of Q, Sec. 29, forms 
a striking contrast to that of Mark; the whole 
standpoint is entirely different. An answer to the 
question, when the Son of Man is to come, is 
refused in Q, but in Mark it is answered in full 
apocalyptic detail. J. Weiss 1 has argued that 
Mark 13: 14-20 is dependent upon Luke 17:31-32. 
His principal reason is that the whole tenor of Mark, 
chap. 13, implies a world-catastrophe indeed; in 
13 : 24 ff. it is necessary so to regard it. However, 
it is a commonplace of all apocalyptic literature to 
confuse the national with the cosmological stand 
point, and that is the true explanation of Mark 

1 Das alteste Evangelium, in loc. 

The Common Source and Mark 203 

here. His sources cannot be determined by such 
discrepancies. This saying is an integral part of 
Mark s apocalyptic description and that descrip 
tion is not based on Q. Besides, these very verses 
of Luke may not have stood in Q; we have con 
sidered them as a later addition. 1 So 17:33 also 
we are inclined to regard as a later insertion. The 
connection in which Matt. 10:39 gives this same 
verse inclines one strongly to think he simply 
borrows it from Mark. Matt. 10:38 stood in 
both Q and Mark. In its Markan context it is 
followed by the verse in question. Its introduc 
tion by Matthew at this point is thus readily 
explained. This is confirmed by the fact that in 
the following verses Matthew is certainly following 
Mark; 10:40 is based on Mark 9:37, and 10:41,42 
is a practical application of Mark 9:41. We can 
not be so sure that Luke is simply quoting Mark, 
but the probability is strong. However, one 
might grant that this stood in Q and include it 
among the common sayings. 

There is one more of these short sayings which is 
found in both sources, Matt. 25:29, Sec. 30, and 

* See pp. 109 ff. 

204 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

Mark 4:25. It is very appropriate where it stands 
in Q but is in a miscellaneous collection in Mark. 
This, however, does not show that he found it in Q. 
Of the twenty-six points of contact between Q 
and Mark, nineteen are short proverbial sayings, 
practically independent in themselves; material 
upon which it is most difficult to base any argu 
ment for a common source. Besides, of these one 
is generally regarded as a gloss, Mark 1:2; two 
others probably did not stand in Q, Mark 4:21 and 
8:35. The differences in seven cases are very 
marked:9:37; 3:28-30; 4:22; 8:38(1; 9:42; io:n, 
12; 11:23. This leaves only nine instances in which 
there is a likeness of form as well as any similarity 
of thought. But to these nine ought to be added 
the parable of the Mustard Seed. We found also 
that in three cases where there is a connection in 
thought, a comparison of the two accounts shows 
that Mark must be using another source, 1:12, 13; 
3:225.; 11:12-14. We also noticed how radically 
different are the two sources in Mark, chap. 13, 
and Luke, chap. 17. If Mark knew these four 
sections of Q in an independent form, it is probable 
that he did other portions of Q also. And one 

The Common Source and Mark 205 

cannot help wondering how Mark ever came to 
omit the miraculous healing of the centurion s 
servant if he was familiar with Q. We can readily 
see why he should omit teachings, but not why he 
should leave out such a miracle. Surely no argu 
ment for a dependence of Mark upon Q can be 
based upon any resemblances, which may be 
traced, of Mark to the other common material of 
Matthew and Luke. It has been a common prac 
tice to assign to Q passages in Matthew which 
are duplicates of Markan sayings, such as Matt. 5 : 
29, 30, but, as we have seen, duplicates in Matthew 
do not necessarily mean that he has access to two 
sources, and certainly no argument for a depend 
ence of Mark on Q can be based upon them. 

However, those who have maintained such 
dependence have not argued from the standpoint 
of Q but from that of Mark. The theory has its 
main support in the problems connected with the 
use which Matthew and Luke make of Mark, 
and especially their coincident agreements against 
Mark. In fact only this last consideration can 
possibly concern us, for Q is a source common to 
Matthew and Luke, and only evidence which may 

206 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

point to such a common source has weight. Both 
Hawkins and Wernle, two most careful investi 
gators, have explained these variations on other 
grounds. Allen in his recent commentary on 
Matthew sums up the probable explanations as 
being: (i) independent revision by Matthew and 
Luke along the same lines, causing many agree 
ments against Mark; (2) textual correction of 
Mark; (3) harmonistic revision of Matthew and 
Luke; (4) Luke s use of Matthew. This last 
explanation hardly deserves any answer after the 
comprehensive reply of Wernle. 1 Allen would do 
far better to expand his second line of argument and 
recognize that the textual corrections of Mark in 
the first century would be very different from those 
which we can trace through the existing manu 
scripts. They probably included the omission or 
correction of some Semiticisms, and may well 
explain the apparent priority of Matthew in such 
passages as the account of the Syrophoenician 
woman. Later change in Mark, combined with 
the other lines of argument, seems to us in every 
way the most satisfactory explanation of the 
phenomena that confront us in the use which 

Op. dt., pp. 45-61. 

The Common Source and Mark 207 

Matthew and Luke make of Mark. It is more 
in accord with the incidental character of the 
common variations which are so well distributed 
over the whole Gospel. We therefore hold that 
Mark did not use Q, though such an "indirect" 
relation as that of which Harnack speaks is possible. 
But there is not need of assuming even such a 
relation as that, if one grants that there really was 
a reliable oral tradition in the apostolic church 
from which both sources drew. This will account 
for all the phenomena of their relationship. When 
once the position is accepted that Mark was not 
dependent on Q, then the main support for any 
attempt to assign to Q portions of the Markan 
material is gone. It is true that, as we have sup 
posed in the case of the account of the baptismal 
vision, both Matthew and Luke might in other 
cases prefer the form of Mark to that of Q, and so 
omit Q. But, as Wernle points out, so different 
is the character of the two sources that there is 
little, if anything, which with any probability 
could be assigned to Q, and for want of more posi 
tive evidence it is surely safer to hold to the Q, 
about which we know. 



Can the source Q have come from one of the 
twelve disciples ? Is there anything in this pres 
entation of the person of Jesus or of his teaching 
which makes it historically impossible to assign it 
to such an author? As we have reconstructed 
this source, in content it is not essentially different 
from that which is presented by Harnack, and with 
the estimate 1 that he has placed upon this material 
we find ourselves in practical agreement. 

Q is a collection of sayings, written originally 
in Aramaic. These sayings are adapted to the 
needs of the early Palestinian church. The source 
Q was written before, but probably not long before, 
Mark. As Harnack has said, the independence of 
Mark from Q is against such a supposition. The 
accommodation in Q of Jesus teaching to the 
needs of the early church is primarily a matter 
of arrangement and selection. No "tendencies" 

1 See pp. 246 ff. 


Apostolic Origin of Common Source 209 

can be observed. The author is very conserva 
tive in his treatment of this body of tradition. 

The conception of the person of Jesus here is the 
same which we find in the speech of Peter, Acts 2 : 
14-36. The great questions which we associate 
with Paul are not raised. Jesus is the Messiah. 
The author prefaces a historical introduction to 
make this clear. Jesus is more than a prophet; 
John was the last of the prophets. As the Messiah, 
the Son, Jesus has brought the disciples a new 
revelation of God. Jesus is presented as the Mes 
siah already in his earthly life, but his Kingship in 
its power and glory is to be revealed hereafter. 
Just so the kingdom is a hidden force now, to be 
seen in its glory later. 1 

Nothing is more striking in this source than the 
way in which the kingdom and future coming are 
stripped of their apocalyptical features and made 
ethical in their bearing. The future coming is 
primarily a call to repentance. All interrogations 2 

1 See Luke 7: 28; 11:20; 13:18-21; 13:29. 

2 This generation and its leaders are condemned in forceful 
terms, but not as enemies; behind these condemnations is the 
earnest, sympathetic note, calling upon them to repent while 
there is time. 

2io Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

as to the when and where are repelled. The 
kingdom itself is a "Gabe" rather than an "Auf- 
gabe," but the two cannot be separated. The 
task which is laid upon the disciples has likeness 
to the Father as its aim this is the solid rock 
upon which to build. Jesus gives them the knowl 
edge of the Father that makes this possible. But 
what is the kingdom ? It is the heavenly treasure, 1 
it is the entrance into the joy of their Lord. 2 As 
Kaftan has said, denning "kingdom" in the 
teaching of Jesus, " Gerichtigkeit ist ein Ubung in 
Gott, und das Segen, das Reich, ist in dem Leben in 
Gott." There is an inner relationship here which 
is fundamental. In regard to the ethical standards 
here presented, we can do no better than to quote 
the words of Harnack: " Taken as a whole, we 
have here our Lord s own rule of life and all his 
promises a summary of genuine ordinances trans 
forming the life such as is not to be found elsewhere 
in the Gospel." 

The Gentiles are recognized in Q. Great im 
portance is given to Jesus approval of the cen 
turion s faith. But the standpoint of Q is readily 

1 See Matt. 6: 19-21. 2 See Matt. 25: 21, 23. 

Apostolic Origin of Common Source 211 

observed when, after the words "From the East 
and the West they shall come and sit at the 
table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the 
Kingdom of God," it puts the lament over Jerusa 
lem, forsaken of God. It was to the "lost sheep of 
the house of Israel" that Jesus came. Yet here 
again there is every reason to believe that this was 
also the position of Jesus himself. The kingdom 
is open to all, but the human interest is in the 

Great stress is laid in Q upon the severe demands 
Jesus makes of his disciples. They are to be perse 
cuted and tried; they are warned not to be afraid 
of those who can only kill the body. Home ties are 
to be broken; they must bear the cross of Christ. 
Everyone must count the cost. Over against these 
things it is not an earthly but a heavenly hope 
which is offered. Possibly the emphasis here may 
be due to conditions in the time of the author, 
but the supporting testimony of Mark shows 
that these teachings had a large place in the life 
of Jesus. 

If this is a fair presentation of the position taken 
by the source Q, does it not support the claim of a 

212 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

primitive, apostolic origin for this source ? Har- 
nack is very careful in his statement; he says: 

There is a strong balance of probability that Q is a work 
of St. Matthew; but more cannot be said. It is useless to 
discuss the historical and psychological question whether 
one of the Twelve could have composed such a compilation as 
Q; convincing reasons for or against cannot be discovered. 
From the so-called charge to the Apostles we can only con 
clude that behind the written record there stands the mem 
ory of an apostolic listener. 

This much, at least, must be granted. 1 Harnack 
has shown that the estimate of Wellhausen is 
untenable. 2 

Furthermore, this conclusion finds confirmation 
in the external evidence. Thus far in our discus 
sion the attempt has been made to let the Gospels 
speak for themselves. No presuppositions have 
been introduced, not consciously at least, from 
without. Relying solely upon this internal evi 
dence, we have sought to reconstruct the source 
demanded by the phenomena observed in the 
non-Markan material common to Matthew and 
Luke. We may now properly ask what relation 
this source bears to Papias statement regarding 

1 See p. 249. See pp. 136 ff. 

Apostolic Origin of Common Source 213 

the logia of Matthew, which Eusebius quoted, 
Hist., Ill, 39. 

B. W. Bacon has carefully discussed this passage 
in the article " Logia" in Hastings Dictionary of the 
Gospels. He presents the view, now commonly 
held, that in this quotation Papias himself referred 
to the canonical Matthew, and he has also made 
it clear that rd \6yia could not have been the title 
of a first-century collection of Jesus sayings. This 
term, Bacon goes on to argue, was substituted by 
Papias for an earlier \6yoi. Kbyot, was the term 
employed by Papias authority. This is possible. 
But we must remember that the emphasis here is 
not upon TO. \6yia. What Papias has been told 
is not that Matthew wrote the logia, but that he 
wrote in Hebrew, and everyone interpreted as he 
was able. One must therefore be careful in basing 
broad conclusions on this term. Moreover, if it 
could be shown that the title of the writing intended 
by Papias authority included the term \6yia or 
Xoyoi, it would still be a question what sort of a 
writing was thereby implied. At any rate, it 
would be entirely appropriate to the source which 
we have attempted to reconstruct. But this 

214 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

leads only into the region of conjecture. Papias, 
himself, knew nothing about the content of this 
Hebrew, or more probably Aramaic, writing of 
which he speaks. He has supposed the canonical 
Matthew to be one of its translations. But he 
did have good authority for believing that there 
had been some Semitic writing associated with the 
Apostle Matthew, and that this writing was some 
how connected with the First Gospel. 

This testimony, which is confirmed by the 
unanimous tradition of the early church, has its 
strongest basis in the very title of the Gospel. 
It can be no mere arbitrary choice which has asso 
ciated this Gospel with the obscure disciple 
Matthew. In view of such evidence, there is a 
strong probability that some part at least of the 
Gospel rests upon the authority of Matthew. 
Now if from the Gospel we subtract the source 
Mark and the source Q, there is nothing left which 
could have such a large place in the early tradition. 
There are, indeed, several valuable parables and 
some important teachings, but no fundamental, 
primitive source of any length can be constructed 

Apostolic Origin of Common Source 215 

out of them. The First Gospel is a combination of 
the source Q with Mark, to which the editor has 
added what other scattered material he has been 
able to find. It is also to be noticed that this is 
true of Matthew in a sense in which it cannot be 
said of Luke. There also Mark and Q are funda 
mental sources, but Luke has other sources which 
he, at times at least, even prefers to Mark. This 
is certainly the case in the Passion narratives. 
Again, while Luke has practically retained the 
sequence of Q, he has as far as possible trans 
formed it from a collection of sayings to a narra 
tive; Matthew, on the other hand, despite the 
complete readjustment of the material into new 
groups, has still retained the dominant interest and 
form of Q. If now the tradition of the church r 
whose primitiveness is guaranteed, not only by the 
testimony of Papias, but by the title of the Gospel, 
associates the First Gospel with a Hebrew writing 
by the disciple Matthew, and this tradition cannot 
have its justification in that Gospel as we have it, 
we naturally look to the source Q for the writing of 
the disciple. Furthermore, this conclusion, to 

216 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

which the external evidence points, only confirms 
the impression that the source itself makes upon us. 
This mutual support of external and internal 
evidence is our justification for entitling the non- 
Markan common source of Matthew and Luke, 
"Matthew s Sayings of Jesus." 



In any such reconstruction of a source as has 
been attempted in this thesis, much must be left 
doubtful. We can never hope to restore the exact 
wording of Matthew s Sayings of Jesus. Certain 
passages of Matthew and Luke may or may not 
have belonged to this source. Detailed results are 
here presented merely as a basis for future discus 
sion. By having the material before him as a 
unit the reader will be better able to judge the 
cogency of many of the arguments which have 
been urged. 


Matt. 3:7-10; Luke 3:7-9. (John said to the 
multitudes who came out to be baptized of him), 
You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee 
from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore 
fruit worthy of repentance, and do not attempt 1 
to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for 

1 Greek, HpfrffOe. 


2i8 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

our father, for I say to you that God can of these 
stones raise up children to Abraham. Even now 
the axe is laid at the root of the trees; every tree, 
therefore, which does not bear fruit is hewn down 
and cast into the fire. 

Matt. 3:11, 12; Luke 3:166, 17. I baptize 
you with water, but he who comes after me is 
mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to 
bear. He shall baptize you (with the Holy Spirit 
and) with fire; his winnowing shovel is in his hand 
to thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor, and to 
gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he 
will burn up with unquenchable fire. 1 


Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13. (Jesus was led 
up into the wilderness by the spirit to be tempted 
by the devil); and he ate nothing forty days and 
forty nights, and when they were completed he 
hungered. The devil said to him, If thou art the 
Son of God, command that this stone become 
bread. He answered and said, It is written, 

1 It is necessary to assume that some account of the baptism of 
Jesus directly followed this, introducing Jesus himself to the 
reader. See p. 140. 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 219 

Man shall not live by bread alone. Then the 
devil took him to Jerusalem, and set him on the 
pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, If thou 
art the Son of God, cast thyself down; for it is 
written, He shall give his angels charge concerning 
thee, and, on their hands they shall bear thee up 
lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus 
answered and said to him, It is also written, Thou 
shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again the devil 
took him to a very high mountain, and showed 
him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 
and said to him, All these things will I give thee, 
if thou wilt worship before me. Jesus answered 
and said to him, It is written, Thou shalt worship 
the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve. 
And when the devil had completed every tempta 
tion, he departed from him. 


Matt. 5: iff.; Luke 6:20-23. (And he lifted 
up his eyes on his disciples and said:) 1 Blessed are 

1 The introduction to this discourse which stood in Q cannot 
be restored. Luke, however, certainly stands closer to the com 
mon source. "Disciples" here as elsewhere in Q means the 
larger circle of followers, not the Twelve exclusively. 

22o Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

ye poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God. Blessed 
are ye hungry, for ye shall be filled. Blessed are 
ye who weep, for ye shall laugh. Blessed are 
ye when they shall reproach you and persecute you 
and say all manner of evil against you for my sake. 
Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your 
reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the 
prophets who were before you. 

Matt. 5:391!.; Luke 6:27-36. I say to you 
who hear, Love your enemies, 1 and pray for those 
who despitefully use you. Whoever smites you 
on one cheek turn to him the other also. And if 
anyone would take away thy cloak, let him have 
thy coat also. 2 Give to him who asks of thee; 
and from him who would borrow of thee turn not 
thou away. And as ye would that men should do 
to you do ye also to them likewise. And if ye 
love those who love you, what reward have ye? 
Do not even the publicans the same ? And if ye 
salute your brethen only what do ye more than 

Luke s addition here may have stood in Q: "Do good to 
those who hate you, bless those who curse you." 

3 Matthew here adds another illustration, "And whoever shall 
compel thee to go one mile, go with him two." 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 221 

others ? do not even the Gentiles the same ? x But 
love your enemies, and your reward shall be 
great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High; 2 
for he causeth his sun to shine on the evil and 
the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the 
unjust. Be ye therefore merciful as your Father 
is merciful. 

Matt. 7: iff.; Luke 6:37-49. And judge not 
and ye shall not be judged; for with what judgment 
ye judge ye shall be judged, and with what measure 
ye mete it shall be measured to you. Wherefore 
beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother s 
eye but regardest not the beam that is in thine own 
eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let 
me cast the mote out of thine eye; and behold, 
the beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, 
first cast the beam out of thine own eye and then 
shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy 
brother s eye. For there is no good tree that 

1 Luke seems here to have expanded his source, interpreting 
it very appropriately. 

3 Harnack thinks that rov irarpbs V/JLWV stood in Q, but without 
Matthew s addition, rov tv ovpavois, which hardly suits the 

222 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

beareth corrupt fruit, nor again a corrupt tree 
that beareth good fruit. For each tree is known by 
its own fruit. For of thorns they do not gather 
figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. 
The good man out of the good treasure of his heart 
bringeth forth that which is good, and the evil man 
out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is 
evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the 
mouth speaketh. 

Why do ye call me, Lord, Lord, and do not the 
things which I say? Everyone who heareth my 
words and doeth them, I will show you whom he is 
like. He is like a man who built his house upon 
the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods 
came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house; 
and it fell not, for it had been founded upon the 
rock. And everyone who heareth these my words 
and doeth them not is like a man who built his 
house upon the sand. And the rain descended, 
and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat 
upon that house; and it fell, and great was the 
fall thereof. 

And it came to pass, when he finished his words, 
he went to Capernaum. 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 223 


Matt. 8:5-10, 13; Luke 7:1-10. A certain 
centurion s servant was sick. 1 (When he heard 
concerning Jesus, he sent to him elders of the 
Jews, asking him to come and save his servant. 
They came to Jesus and 2 besought him, saying, He 
is worthy that thou shouldest do this for him; 
for he loves our nation and he built the synagogue 
for us. And Jesus went with them. And then, 
when he was not far from the house, the centurion 
sent friends,) saying, Lord, 3 I am not worthy that 
thou shouldest come under my roof; 4 but only 
say the word and my servant shall be healed. For 
I myself am a man under authority with soldiers 
under me; and I say to this one, Go, and he goes; 

1 Matthew defines the disease as irapa\vriK6s } but this term 
seems to be very loosely employed in the First Gospel, and with 
out the support of Luke cannot be credited to Q. 

2 ffirovtialws is not a characteristic Lukan term: it occurs only 
here in Luke or Acts, but it may well have been added by the 
evangelist for dramatic effect. 

3 Luke adds, "Trouble not thyself." But Matthew seems to 
have preserved this speech of the centurion very carefully. 

4 Luke adds, "Wherefore neither deemed I myself worthy to 
come to thee." This attributes to faith what was more probably 
due to respect for Jewish prejudices. 

224 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

and to another, Come and he comes; and to my 
servant, Do this, and he does it. When Jesus 
heard, he marvelled, and said to those who followed, 
Verily, 1 I say to you, I have not found so great 
faith, no, not in Israel. And they who were sent, 
returning to the house, found the servant whole. 2 


Matt. 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35. John 3 sum 
moned two of his disciples and sent them to the 
Lord, saying, Art thou he that cometh or look we 
for another ? And he answered and said to them, 
Go and tell John the things which ye hear and see : 
the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, 
the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the 
dead are raised, and the poor have good tidings 
preached to them. And blessed is he, who shall 
find no occasion of stumbling in me. 

1 &n"f)v seems to have been avoided by Luke. He frequently 
omits it from Mark. 

2 This last verse may not have been in Q. 

J Harnack accepts Matthew s introduction in 11:2. But 
the reference to John s being in prison preparing for the narrative 
of Mark 6:17-29, and the phrase TO. <tpya rov xpwTov are cer 
tainly editorial, ntpios of Luke preserves the characteristic Q 
designation of Jesus. 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 225 

As these went their way, he began to say to the 
multitudes concerning John, What went ye out 
into the wilderness to behold? a reed shaken by 
the wind ? But what went ye out to see ? a 
man clothed in soft raiment? Behold they who 
wear soft raiment are in king s houses. But what 
went ye out to see ? a prophet ? Yea, I say to you, 
and much more than a prophet. This is he of 
whom it is written, Behold I send my messenger 
before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before 
thee. Verily, I say to you, Among those who are 
born of women t^iere hath not arisen a greater than 
John; yet he that is least in the Kingdom of God 
is greater than he. 

To what shall I liken this generation ? and what 
is it like ? It is like children sitting in the market 
places, who call to their fellows and say, We piped 
to you and ye did not dance; we wailed and ye did 
not mourn. For John came neither eating nor 
drinking, and ye say, He hath a demon. The Son 
of Man came eating and drinking, and ye say, 
Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a 
friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is 
justified of her children. 

226 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 


Matt. 8:19-22; Luke 9:57-62. One came and 
said to him: I will follow thee wherever thou goest. 
And Jesus said to him, The foxes have holes, and 
the birds of the heaven have nests, but the Son 
of Man hath not where to lay his head. And he 
said to another, Follow me. But he said, Permit 
me first to go and bury my father. He said to him, 
Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but go 
thou and proclaim 1 the Kingdom of God. (An 
other also said, 2 I will follow thee, Lord: but first 
permit me to bid farewell to those who are at my 
house. Jesus said to him. No man, having put his 
hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the 
Kingdom of God.) 


Matt. 9:35 10:15; Luke 10:2-12. (Jesus) 
said to his disciples, The harvest is plenteous, but 
the laborers are few. Pray ye, therefore, the 
Lord of the harvest that he send forth laborers 

1 Siayyt\\w is probably a Lukan substitute for the more com 

* This third saying is not given by Matthew, and may not have 
stood in Q; but see p. 46. 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 227 

into his harvest. And Jesus sent (them) 1 forth 
and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of 
the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the 
Samaritans; but go rather to the lost sheep of the 
house of Israel. Carry no purse, no wallet, no 
shoes, and salute no one by the way. As ye enter 
a house, first say, Peace be to this house. And if 
a son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon 
him, but if not, it shall return to you. Remain in 
that house, eating and drinking what things they 
give you; for the laborer is worthy of his hire. 
Go not from house to house. And into whatever 
city ye enter and they receive you, heal the sick 
therein and say to them, The Kingdom of God is 
come nigh you. But into whatever city ye enter, 
and they receive you not, go out into its streets and 
say, Even the dust from your city which cleaves 
to our feet we wipe off against you; nevertheless, 
know this, that the Kingdom of God is nigh. I 
say to you, It shall be more tolerable in that day 
for Sodom, 2 than for that city. 

Matthew here has substituted "these twelve," denning the 
more general "disciples" of Q in accordance with Mark, chap. 6. 

"Sodom" alone makes the comparison more pointed, but 
Matthew, as we might expect, has given the full Old Testament 
reference, "the land of Sodom and Gomorrah." 

228 Matthew 1 s Sayings of Jesus 


Matt. 11:21-23; 10:16; Luke 10:13-16, 3. 
Woe to thee, Chorazin! Woe to thee, Bethsaida! 
for if in Tyre and Sidon the mighty works had been 
done, which were done in you, they would have 
repented long ago in sack-cloth and ashes. But 
it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the 
judgment than for you. And thou, Capernaum, 
shalt thou be exalted to heaven? to Hades shalt 
thou be cast down. He who heareth you heareth 
me, and he who rejecteth you rejecteth me, and 
he who rejecteth me rejecteth him who sent me. 1 
Go your way! Behold I send you as sheep in the 
midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents 
and harmless as doves. 


Luke 10:17-20. And 2 the (disciples) returned 
with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject 
to us in thy name. He said to them, I beheld 
Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. Behold I 

1 See pp. 50 f . for the insertion of this verse here. 

3 It is to be remembered that in this section we have no parallel 
in Matthew by which we might eliminate minor variations of 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 229 

have given you authority to tread on serpents and 
scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and 
nothing shall in any wise hurt you. But in this 
rejoice not, that the spirits are subject to you; but 
rejoice rather that your names are written in 


Matt. 11:25-27; Luke 10:21-22. At that 
time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, 
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst 
conceal these things from the wise and prudent, 
and reveal them to babes. Yea, Father, for so it 
was well-pleasing before thee. All things were 
delivered to me by my Father, and no one knoweth 
the Son except the Father, neither knoweth anyone 
the Father except the Son and he to whom the 
Son willeth to reveal him. 


Matt. 13:16, 17; Luke 10:23, 24. (And he 
said) Blessed are the eyes which see what ye see. 
Verily I say to you that many prophets and kings 
desired to see what ye see and saw not, and to hear 
what ye hear and heard not. 

230 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 


Matt. 6:9-12; Luke 11:1-4. O ne of his dis 
ciples said to him, Lord, teach us to pray, as 
John also taught his disciples. And he said to 
them, When ye pray, say, Father, hallowed be thy 
name; thy Kingdom come; give us this day our 
daily bread; and forgive us our debts, as we also 
have forgiven our debtors; and lead us not into 

Luke ii : 5-8. And he said to them, Who of you 
shall have a friend and shall go to him at midnight 
and say to him, Friend, lend me three loaves, for a 
friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and 
I have nothing to set before him. And he from 
within shall answer and say, Trouble me not; 
the door is now shut, and my children are with 
me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee? (Verily) 
I say to you, Though he will not rise and give 
him because he is his friend, yet because of his 
importunity he will arise and give him as many 
as he needeth. 

Matt. 7:7-11; Luke 11:9-13. And I say to 
you, Ask and it shall be given you; seek and ye 
shall find; knock and it shall be opened to you. 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 231 

For every one who asketh receiveth, and he who 
seeketh findeth, and to him who knocketh it shall 
be opened. Or what man is there of you, who, if 
his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a 
stone ? Or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him 
a serpent ? If therefore ye who are evil know how 
to give good gifts to your children, how much more 
shall your heavenly Father give good things to those 
who ask him. 


Matt. 12:22-30; Luke 11:14-23. And he 
was casting out a demon, which was dumb. 1 And 
it came to pass that, when the demon went out, the 
dumb man spoke. (And the multitudes were 
amazed and said, It was never so seen in Israel. 2 ) 
But some of them said, By Beelzebul, the prince 
of demons, he casts out demons. Others, trying 
him, asked of him a sign from heaven. He, know 
ing their thoughts, said to them, Every kingdom 
divided against itself is brought to desolation, and 

1 The Semitic idiom in this introduction of Luke, /col ai5r6, 
shows that he here preserves Q. 

This sentence is added from Matt. 9:33 and may belong 
to Q. 

232 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

house falleth upon house. If Satan also is divided 
against himself, how shall his kingdom stand ? for 
ye say that by Beelzebul I cast out demons. If I 
cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your 
sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be 
your judges. But if I by the finger of God cast 
out demons, then is the Kingdom of God come 
upon you. When the strong man fully armed 
guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace; 
but when one stronger than he comes and conquers 
him, he takes his armor wherein he trusted, and 
distributes his spoils. He who is not with me is 
against me, and he who gathereth not with me 



Matt. 12:43-45; Luke 11:24-26. When the 
unclean spirit has come out from the man, he 
passeth through waterless places seeking rest and 
findeth it not. And he saith, I will return to my 
house whence I came out. He cometh and findeth 
it swept and garnished. Then he goeth and taketh 
with him seven spirits more evil than himself; 
and they enter in and dwell there; and the last 
state of the man become th worse than the first. 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 233 


Matt. 12:39-42; Luke 11:29-36. (And he 
said), An evil and adulterous generation seeketh 
a sign, and no sign shall be given to it but the sign 
of Jonah. For even as Jonah became a sign to the 
Ninevites, so shall also the Son of Man be to this 
generation. The men of Nineveh shall stand up 
in the judgment with this generation and condemn 
it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; 
and behold what is greater than Jonah is here. 
The queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment 
with this generation and condemn it; for she 
came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom 
of Solomon; and behold what is greater than 
Solomon is here. 

The lamp of the body is thine eye. 1 As therefore 
thy body, when it hath not a bright lamp, is dark, 
so when the lamp shineth, it giveth thee light. 
Look therefore whether the light that is in thee be 

not darkness. 


Matt. 23:46.; Luke 11:39-52. And the Lord 
said, Now ye Pharisees cleanse the outside of the 
1 The emended text of Jiilicher is here used. 

234 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

cup and the platter, but your inward part is full of 
extortion and wickedness. Ye foolish ones, did not 
he who made the outside make the inside also? 1 
But woe to you Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and 
anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier 
matters of the law justice, and mercy, and faith. 
Woe to you Pharisees! for ye love the chief seats 
in the synagogues and the greetings in the market 
places. Woe to you (Pharisees)! for ye are as 
sepulchres which appear not, and the men who 
walk over them know it not. 

And he said, Woe to you scribes also! For ye 
bind heavy burdens and lay them on men s 
shoulders; but you yourselves will not move them 
with your finger. Woe to you scribes! 2 for ye 
compass the sea and the dry land to make one 
proselyte; and when he becomes so, ye make him 
twofold more a son of Gehenna than yourselves. 
Woe to you scribes! for ye shut the Kingdom 
of God against men. You yourselves do not 

1 Luke 11:41 has been omitted in the text. What, if anything, 
stood here in Q can no longer be determined. Matt. 23 : 26 
seems to follow some other source, and Luke 11:41 in its present 
form cannot be original. 

3 Luke ii 145 may have stood in Q. 

Matthew" 1 s Sayings of Jesus 235 

enter, neither do ye permit those who come to 

(And he said), Woe to you, for ye build the 
sepulchres of the prophets and your fathers killed 
them. So ye are witnesses and sharers in the 
works of your fathers. For they killed them and 
ye build their sepulchres. Therefore, also, the 
Wisdom of God said, I will send them prophets 
and wise men and scribes, and some of them they 
shall kill and persecute; that the blood of all the 
prophets which has been shed upon the earth may 
come upon this generation, from the blood of Abel 
to the blood of Zachariah, who was slain between 
the altar and the sanctuary. Verily I say to you, 
it shall be required of this generation. 


Matt. 10:24-33; 12:32; Luke 12:1-12. 
And he said to his disciples, Beware 1 of the leaven 

1 It may be that Matthew instead of Luke preserves here what 
originally stood in Q. "A disciple is not above his teacher, 
neither a servant above his master. It is sufficient for the dis 
ciple that he become as his teacher, and the servant as his lord. 
If they called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more 
those of his household!" 

236 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy. 1 There is 
nothing covered which shall not be revealed, and 
hidden which shall not be known. What was said 
in the darkness shall be heard in the light, and 
what was heard in the ear shall be proclaimed upon 
the housetops. And fear not those who kill the 
body but cannot kill the soul. Fear rather him 
who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. 
Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies ? and not 
one of them shall fall to the ground without God. 
But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 
Fear not therefore; ye are of more value than 
many sparrows. Every one who shall confess me 
before men, him shall also the Son of Man 1 confess 
before the angels of God. He who denieth me 
before men shall be denied before the angels of 
God. And whoever saith anything against the 
Son of Man, it shall be fogriven him; but against 
the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven. And when 
they bring you before the synagogues, and the 
rulers, and the authorities, be not anxious how or 
what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say; for 

Matthew here has "I" for "Son of Man." This may be 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 237 

the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that hour what 

ye ought to say. 


Matt. 6:19-21, 25-34; Luke 12:22-34. He 
said to his disciples, Therefore I say to you, Be 
not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat; nor 
for your body, what ye shall wear. Is not the life 
more than the food and the body than the raiment ? 
Behold the ravens, that they sow not, neither do 
they reap nor gather into barns; and God feedeth 
them. Are not ye of much more value than they ? 
Who of you by being anxious can add one cubit to 
the measure of his life ? And why are ye anxious 
about raiment? Consider the lilies, how they 
grow; they toil not, neither do they spin. But I 
say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory 
was arrayed like one of these. If God doth thus 
clothe the grass, which is in the field to-day and 
to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much 
more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Be not 
therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, 
What shall we drink ? or, Wherewithal shall we be 
clothed? For all these things the Gentiles seek; 
for your Father knoweth that ye need these things. 

238 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

But seek his kingdom and these things shall be 
added to you. 1 Fear not, little flock, for it is your 
Father s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. 
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, 
where moth and rust consume, and where thieves 
break through and steal. But lay up for your 
selves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do 
not consume, and where thieves do not break 
through and steal. For where your treasure is, 
there your heart will be also. 


Matt. 24:42-51; Luke 12:35-46. Let your 
loins be girded and your lamps be burning; and 
be ye yourselves like men waiting for their lord, 
when he shall return from the marriage feast; 
that, when he cometh and knocketh, they may 
immediately open to him. Blessed are those 
servants, whom their lord when he cometh shall 
find watching. And if he shall come in the second 
watch, and if in the third watch, and shall find 
them so, blessed are they. 

1 Matthew adds, "Therefore be not anxious for the morrow, for 
the morrow will be anxious for itself; sufficient for the day is the 
evil thereof." This probably stood in Q, but it is hard to think 
that it was there in exactly the same context. 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 239 

Know this, that if the master of the house had 
known in what watch the thief was coming, he 
would have watched and he would not have per 
mitted his house to be broken through. Therefore 
be ye also ready, for in an hour when ye think not 
the Son of Man cometh. 

Who then is the faithful and prudent servant, 
whom his lord hath placed over his household to 
give them their portion of food in due season? 
Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he 
cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say to you, 
that he will place him over all his possessions. But 
if that servant saith in his heart, My lord delayeth, 
and shall begin to beat his fellow-servants, and shall 
eat and drink with the drunken; the lord of that 
servant shall come on a day when he expecteth him 
not, and at an hour when he knoweth not, and 
shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion 
with the unfaithful. 


Matt. 10:34-36; Luke 12:51-53. I came to 
send fire upon the earth, and how I wish that it 
were already kindled! I have a baptism to be 
baptized with, and how I am straitened until it be 

240 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

accomplished ! Think ye that I came to send peace 
upon the earth ? I came not to send peace but a 
sword. For I came to set a man against his father, 
and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter- 
in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man s 
foes shall be those of his own household. 1 


Matt. 16:2, 3; 5:25, 26; Luke 12:54-59. 
And he said to the multitudes, When ye see a cloud 
rising in the west, straightway ye say, A shower 
is coming, and so it cometh to pass. And when ye 
see a south wind blowing, ye say, There will be 
a scorching heat, and it cometh to pass. Ye 
hypocrites, ye know how to judge the face of the 
heaven, but can ye not judge the signs of the times ? 
And why even of yourselves judge ye not what is 
right ? Agree with thine adversary quickly, while 
thou art with him in the way, lest haply the 
adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge 
deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee 
into prison. Verily I say to thee, Thou shalt not 
come out thence, till thou payest the last farthing. 

1 This last clause may be a Matthean addition from Mic. 7:6. 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 241 


Luke 13 : 1-9. Certain ones 1 told him of the 
Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with 
their sacrifices. And he answered and said to them, 
Think ye that these Galileans were sinners above 
all the Galileans, because they have suffered these 
things? I tell you, Nay; but except ye repent, 
ye all shall likewise perish. Or those eighteen 
upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed, 
think ye that they were offenders above all the 
men who dwell in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay; 
but except ye repent, ye all shall likewise perish. 
And he spoke this parable. A certain man had a 
fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking 
fruit thereon and he found none. He said to the 
vine dresser, Behold these three years I come seek 
ing fruit on this fig tree, and find none; cut it 
down; why doth it also cumber the ground ? But 
he answered and said to him, Lord, let it alone this 
year also, till I shall dig about it and dung it ; and 
if it bear fruit henceforth, well; but if not, thou 
shalt cut it down. 

1 The introductory sentence of Q can only be conjectured. 

242 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 


Matt. 13:31-33; Luke 13:18-21. And he said, 
What is the Kingdom of God like, and to what 
shall I compare it ? It is like a grain of mustard 
seed, which a man took and cast into his field; 
and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the 
heaven lodged in the branches thereof. And 
again he said, To what shall I liken the Kingdom 
of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took 
and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all 



Matt. 7:13, 14; Luke 13:23, 24. (And one said 
to him. Lord, are they few that are saved ?) He 
said to them, Enter in by the narrow gate: for 
broad and wide is the way which leadeth to destruc 
tion, and many are they who enter thereby; for 
narrow is the gate and straitened the way which 
leadeth to life, and few are they who find it. 

Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 13:25-27. Many shall 
say to me in that day, Lord, did we not eat before 
thee, and drink, and didst thou not teach in our 
streets ? Then shall I confess to them, I tell you, 

1 This introductory question may not have stood in Q. 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 243 

I know not whence you are, depart from me, all ye 
who work iniquity. 

Matt. 8: n, 12; Luke 13:28, 29. There shall 
be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see 
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets 
in the Kingdom of God, and yourselves cast out. 
And they shall come from the east and west and 
shall sit in the Kingdom of God. 


Matt. 23:37-39; Luke 13:34, 35. O Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem, who slayeth the prophets and stoneth 
those who are sent to her ! how often would I have 
gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth 
her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 
Behold your house is forsaken. For I say to you, 
ye shall not see me henceforth until ye shall say, 
Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord. 


Matt. 10:37-39; Luke 14:25-35. He said to 
the multitudes, 1 Whoever doth not hate 2 his 

1 Luke has probably expanded here to suit his context. 

* Matthew has "love more than me," which, though probably 
not original, is a correct interpretation of the stronger term of 

244 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

father and mother cannot be my disciple, and who 
ever doth not hate 1 his son and daughter cannot be 
my disciple, and whoever doth not take his cross 
and follow after me, cannot be my disciple. Who 
of you, wishing to build a tower, doth not first 
sit down and count the cost, whether he have where 
with to complete it? Lest when he hath laid a 
foundation and is unable to finish, all who behold 
begin to mock him, saying, This man began to 
build and could not finish. Or what king, going 
to engage in war with another king, will not first 
sit down and take counsel whether he is able with 
ten thousand to meet one who cometh against him 
with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other 
is yet far off, he sendeth an embassy and asketh 
conditions of peace. Salt is good, but if even the 
salt hath lost its savor, wherewith shall it be 
seasoned. It is fit neither for the land nor for 
the dunghill; men cast it out. 


Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-10. And he told 
them this parable, saying, What man of you, if he 
have a hundred sheep and one of them go astray, 

1 See footnote 2, page 243. 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 245 

will not leave the ninety and nine on the hills, and 
go and seek the one which hath strayed ? And if 
he happen to find it he layeth it on his shoulders 
rejoicing. And when he cometh home, calleth his 
friends and neighbors, saying to them, Rejoice 
with me, for I have found my sheep which went 

Or what woman, if she have ten pieces of silver, 
if she lose one piece, doth not light a lamp, and 
sweep the house, and seek diligently until she find 
it? And when she findeth it, she calleth her 
friends and neighbors, saying, Rejoice with me, 
for I have found the piece which I lost. 

Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13. No one can serve 
two masters: for either he will hate the one and 
love the other; or he will hold to the one and 
despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and 

Matt, ii : 12, 13; Luke 16: 16. All the prophets 
and the law prophesied until John; from that time 
until now the Kingdom of God suffereth violence, 
and men of violence take it by force. And if you 
are willing to receive it, he is Elias who is about to 

246 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:17. It is easier for 
heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or 
tittle of the law to fall. 

Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18. Everyone who 
putteth away his wife maketh her an adulteress, 
and whoever shall marry her who is put away com- 
mitteth adultery. 

Matt. 18:6, 7; Luke 17:1, 2. It is impossible 
but that occasions of stumbling should come, but 
woe to him through whom they come. It were 
profitable for him that a millstone should be hanged 
about his neck, and he should be thrown into the 
sea, rather than that he should cause one of these 
little ones to stumble. 

Matt. 18:15, 2I > 22 > Luke 17:3, 4. Take heed 
to yourselves; if your brother sin rebuke him, 
and if he repent forgive him. And if he sin 
against thee seven times a day and seven times 
turn again to thee saying, I repent; thou shalt 
forgive him. 

Matt. 17:20; Luke 17:5, 6. If ye had faith 
as a grain of mustard seed, ye would say to this 
sycamore, Be thou rooted up, and be thou planted 
in the sea; and it would obey you. 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 247 

(Luke 17 : 7-10 possibly belongs among these mis 
cellaneous sayings. Matt. 5:14; 7:6; 13:44-46; 
18:10 may be taken from Q, but their original 
position cannot be recovered.) 


Matt. 24:26-28; Luke 17:20-25. (They asked 
him, 1 saying, When cometh the Kingdom of God ? 
He answered them and said, The Kingdom of God 
cometh not with observation; neither shall they 
say, Behold here or there, for behold the Kingdom 
of God is in your midst. 2 ) And he said to his 
disciples, The days will come when ye shall desire 
to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and ye 
shall see it not. And they will say to you, Behold 
he is in the wilderness; go not forth. Behold he 
is in the inner chambers; believe it not. For as 
the lightning cometh out from the east and is seen 
even to the west, so shall the Son of Man be in his 
day. Wherever the carcase is, there will the 
vultures be gathered together. But first it is 

Luke reads here, "Being asked by the Pharisees." But it 
is doubtful whether this was the introduction which stood in Q. 

3 Or, "within you." 

248 Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 

necessary that he suffer many things and be re 
jected of this generation. 

Matt. 24:37-41; Luke 17:26-37. And just as 
it came to pass in the days of Noah, so shall it be 
also in the days of the Son of Man. For as in the 
days before the flood they were eating and drink 
ing, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day 
Noah entered the ark, and they knew not until 
the flood came and took them all ; so shall it be on 
the day when the Son of Man appeareth. Like 
wise 1 even as in the days of Lot, they bought 
and sold, they planted and builded until that day 
when Lot went out of Sodom, and they knew not 
until it rained fire and brimstone from heaven 
and destroyed them all, so shall it be in the day 
when the Son of Man appeareth. There shall be 
two men in the field ; the one is taken and the one 
is left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; 
one is taken and one is left. 


Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-28. (And he 
said), It is as when a man going into a far country 

1 A conjectural restoration of the Q text has here been 
attempted, on the basis of the Matthean parallel for the first 

Matthew s Sayings of Jesus 249 

called his own servants, and delivered to them his 
goods. And to one he gave five pounds, to another 
two, to another one, to each according to his ability. 
After a long time the lord of those servants cometh 
and maketh a reckoning with them. And he who 
received the five pounds came and brought five 
other pounds, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst to me 
five pounds; behold I have gained five other 
pounds. His lord said to him, Well done, good 
servant, thou hast been faithful over a few things, 
I will set thee over many things; enter thou into 
the joy of thy lord. And he also who received the 
two pounds came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst 
to me two pounds, behold, I have gained two 
other pounds. His lord said to him, Well done, 
good servant, thou hast been faithful over a few 
things, I will set thee over many things; enter thou 
into the joy of thy lord. But he who had received 
the one pound came and said, Lord, I knew thee, 
that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou didst 
not sow, gathering where thou didst not scatter; 
and I was afraid and went away and hid thy 
talent in the earth. Behold thou hast thine own. 
And his lord answered and said to him, Thou 
wicked servant, thou knewest that I reap where 

250 Matthew* s Sayings of Jesus 

I did not sow, that I gather where I did not scatter; 
thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to 
the bankers, and I at my coming should have 
required it with interest. Take ye away therefore 
from him the pound, and give it to him who hath 
ten pounds. For to everyone who hath shall be 
given, but from him who hath not, even that 
which he hath shall be taken away.