LIBRARY
(Kiludiff*
TORONTO
SHELF No.
REGISTER No.
19
tcal Collection,
of the'
MATTHEW'S SAYINGS OF JESUS
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PKESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY
MEW TOBK
THE J. K. GILL COMPANY
PORTLAND! OREGON
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
THE MAKUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
THE MISSION BOOK COMPANY
SHANGHAI
MATTHEW'S SAYINGS
OF JESUS
THE NON-MARKAN COMMON SOURCE OF
MATTHEW AND LUKE
By
GEORGE DEWITT CASTOR
Late Professor of Nc<w Testament Literature and Exegesis
in the Pacific School of Religion
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
COPYRIGHT 1918 Bv
THE UNIVERSITY or CHICAGO
All Rights Reserved
Published April zgiS
Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois. U.S.A.
U-C
PREFACE
The main argument of this monograph was
read in an address before the Society of Biblical
Literature and Exegesis, December, 1906, and
during the following year was developed in more
detail and presented as a Doctor's thesis. In
offering it now for publication the writer has made
only a few minor changes. This monograph pre
supposes an acquaintance with the main features
of the synoptic problem, and can hope to appeal
only to those New Testament students who are
interested in the Gospels as historical sources. The
great difference of opinion existing among scholars
regarding the non-Markan common material of
Matthew and Luke is sufficient justification for
further discussion of the subject. Any real con
tribution toward the solution of this baffling prob
lem is sure to be welcomed. The writer, therefore,
in presenting the results of his study can only hope
that scholars will find here something worthy of
their consideration. Every page will show how
dependent he has been on the many who have
vi Preface
labored in this field, but his especial gratitude is due
to Professor Benjamin W. Bacon, Professor Charles
F. Kent, and Professor Shirley J. Case for their
encouragement and suggestions.
GEORGE D. CASTOR
BERKELEY, CAL.
POSTSCRIPT
It has been a great pleasure to have the privilege
of seeing through the press the work of my friend
and former classmate, Professor Castor, whose
promising career was cut short by a tragic accident
in the summer of 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.
SHIRLEY JACKSON CASE
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
March 16, 1918
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION BY PROFESSOR BENJAMIN W. BACON i
CHAPTER
I. INFERENCES FROM MATTHEW'S AND LUKE'S
USE OF THE SOURCE, MARK 7
II. LITERARY STUDY OF ALL THE COMMON
MATERIAL IN SECTIONS 19
III. THE SEQUENCE OF PARALLEL SECTIONS IN
MATTHEW AND LUKE . 120
IV. UNITY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE COMMON
MATERIAL IN MATTHEW AND LUKE . . . 140
V. RELATION OF THE COMMON SOURCE TO THE
INDEPENDENT MATERIAL OF LUKE . . . 162
VI. RELATION OF THE COMMON SOURCE TO THE
INDEPENDENT MATERIAL OF MATTHEW . . 182
VII. RELATION OF THE COMMON SOURCE TO MARK 189
VIII. THE APOSTOLIC ORIGIN OF THE COMMON
SOURCE 208
IX. MATTHEW'S SAYINGS OF JESUS AS RECON
STRUCTED 217
INTRODUCTION
No more fascinating problem exists for the stu
dent of the life of Christ than the reconstruction of
that primitive document which modern criticism
has proved to 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
entirely.
Under these circumstances it was unavoidable
that scholarly effort should be reconcentrated on
the problem. Methods must be perfected, results
more minutely scrutinized. Recently Harnack
brings to bear upon it all his critical acumen, all
his experience as a historian and expert in early
Christian literature. The problem is destined to be
6 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
solved, and by the method which more and more
in our day is solving the great problems of
common interest — the independent co-operation of
many workers.
For the competence of Professor Castor to under
take this intricate task, even though the results of
his years of labor were set down too soon after the
publication of Harnack's able and elaborate treat
ment to permit employment of it, the work itself
gives ample evidence. The reader will not need to
be assured of Professor Castor's scholarly spirit,
nor of his many years of schooling for his task in the
best university training at home and abroad. So
far as a former teacher's words can properly aim
at more than an honorary function, they must
express the sincere conviction that Professor Castor
has something of value to say whereby the solu
tion of this vital problem of criticism is really pro
moted. By the co-operation of many thus minded
have the triumphs of critical research been achieved
in the past. By similar co-operation this para
mount problem of gospel criticism is also destined
to be solved. BENJAMIN W. BACON
YALE UNIVEESITY
CHAPTER I
INFERENCES FROM MATTHEW'S AND LUKE'S
USE OF THE SOURCE, MARK
Proceeding on the principle that we ought to
argue from the better to the less known, before
taking up the question of a second source at all we
should study the use which Matthew and Luke
make of Mark. It is not often that we have such
an opportunity to learn the methods of compilers
whose work we would investigate. That Matthew
and Luke both used Mark in some form not essen
tially different from the present Gospel is one of the
assured results of modern criticism.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
Problem.
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;
22:66-71.
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 instances2 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
mation.
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 twice2 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
Matthew1 s and Luke's Use of Mark 17
first and third evangelists to change Mark's
words and phrases, but oftentimes while doing
this to retain his sentence structure and sequence
of thought. We should expect to find the same
true in their use of other sources.
In order to free our discussion of any presup
positions involved in the name employed, we will
adopt the German designation Q(Quelle) for this
other source or sources, whose character and limits
we are trying to define. Wellhausen in his com
mentaries and introduction has most convincingly
shown that the material usually assigned to Q
is a translation of an Aramaic original. Recent
research in Hellenistic Greek modifies the force
of some of his arguments, but his conclusions still
hold. Semitic scholars also argue that some varia
tions of Matthew and Luke are due to mistransla
tions of the Aramaic. We should recognize that
the Aramaic original must for some time have
existed side by side with the more widely used
Greek copies, and it is not unreasonable to suppose
that changes here and there in Greek manuscripts
were made by persons familiar with the Aramaic.
But there is always a large subjective element
i8 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
in such conjectural misreadings, and the contention
is still questionable. Granting, then, the possi
bility of some variations due to the Aramaic
original, we must still hold to the fact of a common
Greek source. This is recognized by Wellhausen,
Einleitung, p. 68.
CHAPTER II
LITERARY STUDY OF ALL THE COMMON
MATERIAL IN SECTIONS
The primary object of this detailed examination
will be to decide just how much of the common
material can with any assurance be attributed to a
written source or sources. At the same time an
effort will be made to eliminate editorial character
istics, but with the understanding that such
elimination does not restore all the special qualities
of Q. Luke's order will be used tentatively,
because he has proved to be more reliable in
retaining the sequence of Mark.
SECTION I. THE PREACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST,
MATT. 3:7-12; LUKE 3:7-9, 15-18
In Luke 3:76-9; 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,
19
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, Harnack1 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
introduction.
Variations of language are few and easily ex
plained. Luke 3:16; Matt. 3:11 are found also
in Mark i : 7-8 and the influence of Mark accounts
for the wider difference between Matthew and
Luke just here. Luke especially has departed from
Q and followed Mark instead. The ev 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 owA£ai
of tfa, Luke 3:17, is an original reading of which
of X*B and (rwd£et 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.
SECTION 2. THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS,
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 [X£yet] aurc? El vi6s el TOV Qeov, /3d\€
aeavrbv [&T€vdev] 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 ao.Ta.va. 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.
SECTION 3. DISCOURSE ON LOVE, THE PRINCIPLE
OF CONDUCT, LUKE 6:20-49; MATT. 5:1-12,
38-48; 7:1-5,12,16-21,24-27
That Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is an
editorial composition is all but universally recog
nized. Our investigation of Matthew's use of
Mark has led us to anticipate such compilation
and also indicates the principles which ought to
guide us in an attempt to analyze it. The miracles,
which Matthew has gathered together in the
eighth and ninth chapters, Luke has retained, for
the most part, in their Markan setting. In 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^cr£Tai 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-
rpav
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
TTOICOV •
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 =
216)
7:1, 2 =
37,38
6 =
210
3 =
41
n =
22
4,5 =
42
12 =
23
(12 =
31)
39 =
290
18=
43
40 =
30
19 =
44
(44 =
27, 28)
22 =
46
(45 =
35*)
24 =
47, 480
46 =
32
25 =
486
47 =
33
26,27 =
49
48 =
36
$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. Wellhausen1 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
saying.
38 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
Matthew's form of a lawsuit in vs. 40. Luke's
additions in vs. 276 are supported by the early
Fathers, Did. 1:31!.; 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
God.
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
connection.
Most difficult of all is the task of determining
what introduction this discourse had in Q.
Matthew places the discourse near the beginning
of the ministry, but introduces the mountain and
the multitudes of Mark 3 : 7-12. Jesus is described
as being on the mountain with his disciples. They
are addressed, but the people are down below
within hearing. As has often been noticed, the
parallel to Moses' giving the law on Mount Sinai
is striking. In Luke the discourse is directed to
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.
SECTION 4. COMMENDATION OF A CENTURION'S
FAITH, LUKE 7:1-10; MATT. 8:5-10, 13
It has already been pointed out that Luke's
introduction here, 7:1, combines Matthew's con
clusion to the Sermon on the Mount with his intro
duction to this incident, and that therefore the
account of the centurion stood in this same con
nection in Q. The verbal agreement of Matt.
8: 8-10 = Luke 7:66-9 necessitates the assumption
of a common Greek source here. This verbal
agreement includes several striking phrases. The
Study of the Common Material 41
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
sources.
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 nacar (Aram, talya) has the same ambiguity
which TTCUS has. In Luke 7:26 fnj,e\\ev reXeur£j>,
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
SECTION 5. DISCOURSE ON JOHN THE BAPTIST,
LUKE 7:18-35; MATT. 11:2-19
Matt. 11:36-11, 16-19 and 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
SECTION 6. FOLLOWING JESUS, LUKE 9:57-62;
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.
SECTION 7. COMMISSION TO THE DISCIPLES,
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.
SECTION 8. WOES ON THE CITIES WHICH FAIL TO
RESPOND, LUKE 10:13-16; MATT. 11:20-24
Even in Matthew, who has inserted other
material between, it is evident that this section is
a continuation of the last, for he has repeated
the introductory sentence of Luke, Luke 10:12 =
Matt. 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.
SECTION 9. RETURN OF THE DISCIPLES,
LUKE 10:17-20
This section is not found in Matthew and must
be considered with the independent material of
Luke. See p. 166.
SECTION 10. JESUS' SELF-REVELATION TO HIS
DISCIPLES, LUKE IO:2I, 22; MATT. 11:25-27
In this section it is only necessary to refer to the
close verbal identity which proves that it belongs
to Q. Whether the introductory clause of Luke
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.
SECTION II. THE PROPHETS' DESIRE FOR WHAT
THE DISCIPLES HAVE SEEN, LUKE 10:23-24;
MATT. 13:16, 17
The principal question in this short section con
cerns its original position.1 The verbal likeness
here is close. Luke has added a characteristic
introductory clause, but Matthew has changed
ets to 6t/catot.
SECTION 12. PRAYER, PROMISE TO THE DISCIPLES
OF DIVINE HELP, LUKE 11:1-13; MATT. 6:9-15;
7:7-11
In Luke 11:1-4; Matt. 6:9-13 one is more
impressed with the differences between the Gospels
than with their likenesses. This could be explained
on the ground that either one or both evangelists
might naturally give this prayer in the form which
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 Q1 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.
SECTION 13. CALUMNY OF THE PHARISEES,
LUKE 11:14-23; MATT 12:22-32
In this section we have an excellent example
of Matthew's method of compilation. No very
'Matt. 3:9; 4:3; this latter is a close parallel.
58 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
critical examination is necessary to see that
Matthew here combines Mark 3:226°. 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
Spirit.
In both the introduction and the conclusion of
this section in Matthew a phenomenon occurs
which calls for further explanation. Matthew
contains two passages referring to a dumb man
and the charge, "By the prince of demons he
casteth forth demons," 9:32-34; 12:22-24. The
passage in chap. 9 is closer to the Lukan parallel
of 12: 22-24 than is the reference in this immedi
ate connection. In like manner Matthew's con
clusion, 12:33-35, is parallel to Matt. 7:16-20
of the Sermon on the Mount; and here, the
second time, it is the passage that has a dif
ferent context which is nearest to the Lukan
form of the same saying. Attention ought to be
called to the fact that this is no uncommon occur
rence in Matthew. For instance, Mark 3:7-12 is
used with great freedom in Matt. 12:15-21, but
in Matt. 4:23-25 it is closely followed. Clearly
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
sources.
In Matthew's section on miracles he needed the
healing of a dumb man in anticipation of 1 1 : i ff.
He remembers that which Q gives in connection
with the Beelzebul incident,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
Pharisees.
Is not the same true of Matthew's conclusion,
12:33-37? Surely we cannot say that Matthew
has two sources, for it is 12 133-37 and 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.
Jiilicher1 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 22 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.
SECTION 14. THE SEVEN OTHER SPIRITS,
LUKE 11:24-26; MATT 12:43-45
The close verbal identity here from beginning to
end leaves no question about this section except
its position in Q, which will be discussed later.
Whether (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
SECTION 15. THE DEMAND FOR A SIGN FROM
HEAVEN, LUKE 11:29-36; MATT. 12:38-42
In this section also we find the usual close
verbal resemblance throughout, but here there
are a few differences which attract our attention.
Neither the introduction of Matthew nor that of
Luke is to be regarded as original. Matthew, as
usual, makes this a demand of the scribes and
Pharisees. Luke introduces the crowds in his
characteristic manner. Probably in Q this section
followed immediately upon the preceding with no
further introduction beyond 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 S8)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, DUt 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 Ss), 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.
SECTION 16. WOES ON THE PHARISEES, THE
SCRIBES, AND THIS ADULTEROUS GENERATION,
LUKE 11:37-54; MATT., CHAP. 23
This section belongs really in a class by itself.
The confidence with which we have been able to
assign all previous sections to Q here must give
way to mere probability. The problems are
similar to those in the Sermon on the Mount, but
much more difficult of solution. What evidence
have we that we are dealing here with a common
source ?
In the first place, all of Luke except the setting
is paralleled in Matthew, but the divergence is
more than usual and the order quite different.
Matt. 23:4 closely resembles Luke 11:46 in
thought, but the language of the two accounts is
not at all 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 : 771 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.
Nestle2 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
original.
Concluding from these woes that the two gospels
have in common, only a possibility is open that they
were in Q. Not until we come to Matthew's epi
logue of this discourse do we find a resemblance
between the two accounts, such as we have always
found before, pointing decidedly to a common
Greek source. In Matt. 23:34-36; Luke 11:49-
51, while we have not an extended verbal likeness,
if we place the two texts side by side we see that
both are built upon the same words and sentence
structure.
Matt.: 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/u.as 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 vp.lv 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
omitted.
Matthew on the other hand has seven woes, all
but one of which are directed against "scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites"; and that woe, which
Luke has placed between the two woes upon the
scribes, Matthew has put at the end, and the wis
dom quotation he has made the epilogue of the
whole discourse, vss. 29-36. Matthew also gives
two woes which are not found in Luke. One of
these, vss. 16-22, has a different epithet from the
rest of the woes, "blind guides,"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
scribes.
This correction in the order of Luke on the basis
of Matthew gives us a most tempting solution of
the problems of the whole discourse. In Q, Luke
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, e£co0e?' 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. is followed by a series
of warnings to the disciples, and in this sequence
Luke is merely copying Q.
Study of the Common Material 81
SECTION 17. WARNING OF DANGERS BEFORE THE
DISCIPLES WITH ASSURANCES OF GOD'S CARE,
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
27=
3
28=
vss. 4, 5
29=
vs. 6
vss.
30,31 =
7
vs. 32 =
8
33 =
9
That Matthew should omit Luke 12:10 is most
natural, for he prefers to use this verse in its
Markan connection, Matt .12:31. In Matt .12:31,
32 the version of Mark and this of Q are placed
side by side. The difficulty of determining the
exact meaning of the verse in the Q context may
have prompted Matthew to omit it there in the
first place. That Luke transferred this sentence
from its context in Mark to a position directly
82 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
after 12:9 is impossible to believe. The omission
of Luke 12:11, 12 is even more readily accounted
for. These verses have just been given in their
Markan form, Matt. 10:19, 20 = Mark 13:11.
A repetition of the warning in this same discourse
would be absurd.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
one.
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. Jiilicher2
has very thoroughly discussed vss. 2 and 3. His
discussion shows that Luke 1 2 : 2 is an independent
variant of Mark 4:22, and that the text of Matthew
in 10:27 is 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
toQ.
The significance of vs. 10 in this connection is
very obscure. It seems intended to define what
is meant by "denying me in the presence of men,"
which we find in the preceding verse. Possibly
it is intended merely to qualify that verse. Well-
hausen is probably correct in his emendation of
the text here on the basis of D and Marcion.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
given."
Study of the Common Material 85
SECTION 1 8. INSTRUCTIONS TO SEEK THE KING
DOM AND LEAVE ALL ELSE TO GOD, LUKE
12: (13-21) 22-24; MATT. 6:19-34
The question whether or not Luke 12:13-21
belongs to Q will have to be deferred.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</>0€tpei, despite
the fact that he has limited the treasure to money.
Luke has interpreted this passage to accord with
the teaching of his special material in chap. 16,
giving it this definite application.
SECTION 19. PARABLES TEACHING THE NEED OF
WATCHFULNESS FOR THE COMING OF THE SON
OF MAN, LUKE 12:35-48; MATT. 24:42-51
Luke gives three parables here, two of which
are found also in Matthew in practically the same
words. Omitting for the present the problem
whether that one which is peculiar to Luke was
found in Q, we can positively affirm that the other
two were found in that source. The verbal
88 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
agreement between 24:43-51 and Luke 12:39, 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.
SECTION 20. WARNING OF A PERIOD OF STRIFE AND
DISASTER, LUKE 12:49-53; MATT. 10:34-36
In this short section we cannot be so sure of the
presence of Q as we would wish. But Matt. 10:34
and Luke 12:51 rest on the same source:
Study of the Common Material 89
Matt.: 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,
5oK€LTe for /x?) w/uo-Tjre, seems to deserve priority (so
Harnack). Matt. 10:35 and 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 ?
SECTIONS 21 AND 22. SIGNS OF THE TIMES AND
THE NEED OF REPENTANCE, LUKE 12:54-56
(MATT. 16:26, 3); THE APPROACHING JUDG
MENT, LUKE 12:57-59; MATT. 5:25, 26
In Luke 12:54-56 we have a passage which
strangely enough has a parallel in many MSS
of Matt. 16:1-4, which, moreover, is so different
that it cannot be a mere scribal transference from
Luke. This would simply be another example
of Matthew's general method of inserting Q sayings
in a Markan context, if only the MSS gave us
sufficient reason for believing that it stood originally
in the Gospel of Matthew. Matt. 16:26, 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 Palestine1 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-/c«T€ 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.
SECTION 24. 1 PARABLES SHOWING THE HIDDEN
POWER OF THE KINGDOM, LUKE 13:18-21;
MATT. 13:31-33
These two parables were both found in Q by
Matthew and Luke. Luke has retained them
practically as they were in the source. Matthew
agrees with Luke verbally in the second, but has
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.
SECTION 25. DISCOURSE ON THOSE WHO ARE TO
ENTER THE KINGDOM, LUKE 13:23-30;
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 secondary1 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
I3:23~3° 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 feast2 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.
aj. 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
e£eXeuowTai 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
SECTION 26. LAMENT OVER FORSAKEN JERUSALEM,
LUKE 13:34,35; MATT. 23:37-39
For our present purpose we need only call atten
tion to the close verbal resemblance which shows a
common source, 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
SECTION 27. FEARFUL COST OF DISCIPLESHIP,
LUKE 14:25-27 (28-35); MATT. 10:37,38
No striking verbal likeness is found here but a
close similarity in thought and logical sequence,
nor are the changes hard to understand. Re
garded by itself alone it would be questionable
whether it belonged to Q, but when its position in
the two Gospels is considered the probability
becomes overwhelming.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." a£tos 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.
SECTION 28. MISCELLANEOUS SAYINGS
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 ^X7?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
SECTION 29. THE WHEN AND THE WHERE OF THE
SON OF MAN'S COMING, LUKE 17:20-37;
MATT. 24:26-28,37-41
The presence of a common source is borne wit
ness to by the following literary resemblance:
Luke: xai epovcnv vp.lv, iSov .... i8ov ..... fir]
Matt.: 'Eav .... «7r<oo-tv v/u-tv, iSov ....
Luke: wo-Trep yap rj aarpaTrr) .... CK .... cis
.... OVTOJ? tCTTLV O WOS TOV OvOpWTTOV.
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 ?
SECTION 30. THE DUTY OF THE DISCIPLES UNTIL
THE SON OF MAN COMES, LUKE 19:11-28;
MATT. 25:14-30
This parable has taken very different forms
in the two Gospels, but the evidence for a common
source is only made the more striking thereby,
because common features in thought and language
are retained where they are no longer appropriate.
As 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 $a.ai\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.
SUMMARY
We have now completed the list of passages in
which we have sufficient evidence of a written
Greek source underlying both Matthew and Luke,
allowing of course the probability that either
evangelist may preserve some things omitted by
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:
Section
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
Section
6. Following Jesus
Luke 9: 57-60 (61, 62) Matt. 8:19-22
7. Commission to the Disciples (Matthew has here com
bined Mark and Q)
Luke 10:1-12 Matt. 9:37, 38; 10:5-16
8. Woes on the Cities Which Fail to Respond
Luke 10:13-16 Matt, 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
35,36
16. Woes on the Pharisees, the Scribes, and This Genera
tion (Matthew has here combined Mark and Q)
Luke 11:39-44, 46-54 Matt. 23:4, 6, 13, 15, 23,
25,27-32,34-36
n8 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
Section
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
Section
Storming the Kingdom
Lukei6:i6 Matt. 11:12, 13
Validity of the Law
Luke 16:17 Matt. 5:18
Adultery
Lukei6:i8 Matt. 5:32
Giving Offense (Matthew has combined Mark and Q)
Luke 17:1, 2 Matt. 18:6, 7
Forgiveness
Luke 17:3, 4 Matt. 18:15, 21
Faith
Luke 17: 5, 6 Matt. 17:20
(Luke 17:7-10 Matt. 5:14; 7:6; 13:44-
46; 18:10)
29. When and Where of the Son of Man's Coming
Luke 17: (21, 20) 22-30, Matt. 24:26-28, 37-41
34-37
30. Duty of the Disciples until the Son of Man Comes
(Luke has here recast the narrative)
Luke 19:11-27 Matt. 25:14, 15, 19-29
The evidence seems sufficient to show that in
each of these sections Matthew and Luke are
using a common source or sources written in Greek.
Some passages found only in one Gospel are here
added in parentheses for the sake of completeness.
They will be discussed later.
CHAPTER III
THE SEQUENCE OF PARALLEL SECTIONS IN
MATTHEW AND LUKE
Merely to have shown the evidence of a common
source in these various sections, which are neces
sarily separated on a somewhat arbitrary basis, is
not sufficient. If the contention is really to be
maintained that behind this material is a single
common source, as behind the Markan material
stands the source Mark, the disposal which, each
evangelist has made of these sections must be
satisfactorily explained.
First, however, attention should be directed to
the number of sections which stand in the same
sequence in both Gospels:
Section
1. Preaching of John the Baptist
Luke 3:7-17 Matt. 3:7-12
2. Temptation of Jesus
Luke 4:1-13 Matt. 4:1-11
3. Discourse on Love
Luke 6:20-49 Matt. 5, 7 (in part)
4. Centurion's Act of Faith
Luke 7:1-10 Matt. 8:5-13
Sequence of Parallel Sections 121
Section
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
study.
For differences of sequence within the various
sections we need only refer to the detailed dis
cussions which have preceded. But, reviewing to
get the data all before us, we found that in Sec. 2
Luke had changed the order of one temptation;
in Sec. 3 slight changes were made by Matthew;
in Sec. 7 the position of Luke 10:3 had been
changed by Luke, but Matthew, compiling Mark
and Q, had removed 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
verses.
Let us turn now to those differences which more
immediately concern us here. Where Matthew
and Luke do not put common material in the same
general context can we depend upon the order of
Luke, or must we here also allow for changes made
by both 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
case.
Sequence of Parallel Sections 125
Wernle1 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
here.
Sec. 12, nearly all critics agree, was not originally
a part of the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew
must have found it somewhere else and combined
it with that discourse. No reasonable objection
appears why he may not have found it in the posi
tion which it has in Luke. Luke has retained it
in its original context; Matthew has woven it into
his Sermon on the Mount.
Sec. 14 Matthew has placed after Sec. 15;
Luke, before. Matthew has sought to justify his
sequence by the editorial addition of 12:456.
Jiilicher,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
context.
Sees. 19 and 29 are combined by Matthew with
the corresponding material of Mark. In Luke they
are independent of Mark and in all probability
preserved in their original sequence. Wernle
argues that the separation of Sec. 19 and Sec. 29
shows Luke's tendency to scatter sayings of Q.
But there is no evidence in the context of Luke 17 :
20 ff. to indicate that Luke has purposely separated
this from 12:35 ff.; and, as we snall try to show,
there is a strong probability that in Q between
these two sections there stood only material similar
in tone. At any rate, Matthew, who is simply
inserting this material into appropriate contexts
of Mark, gives us no reason for believing that he
found a differently arranged text in Q from that
of Luke.
Sees. 21, 22 have already been fully considered.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.
aSeep. 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.
CHAPTER IV
UNITY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE COMMON
MATERIAL IN MATTHEW AND LUKE
Wendt's reconstruction of Q has been called "A
heap of interesting ruins without beginning, with
out ending." Almost as much might be said of
the source which Harnack has found. The sem
blance of order which he gives is reached only by
omitting a large portion of the material. Has
the Q which we have attempted to reconstruct any
self-consistency? Can we imagine its having
existed alone ?
Examining once more these sections in the order
which Luke gives them we find that Sees, i and 2
form a natural introduction. The resemblance
here to Mark at once impresses us. Mark also
began with the Baptist and his preaching. The
likeness to Mark becomes yet closer when we
recognize that the account of the temptation cannot
have stood alone. Some reference to the baptism
and the voice from heaven must have preceded.
But Matthew and Luke have here followed Mark,
140
Unity of Common Material 141
so that we can no longer know what account Q
gave of the baptism. It is possible that the bap
tismal words, "Thou art my son, this day have I
begotten thee," which are found in the Old Latin
MSS of Luke and in so many Church Fathers, are
a trace of Q. One naturally asks whether this
account of John the Baptist's preaching and of
Jesus' baptism and temptation gives an appropriate
introduction to a writing which deals primarily with
teachings ? While Q in no sense seeks to preserve
a chronological order, we shall see that in broad
outlines there is a recognition of the sequence the
teachings had in Jesus' life. A collection that
closed with eschatological teachings might properly
start with material attached to the beginning of
Jesus' ministry. The purpose which this intro
duction serves is evident: it presents the divine
commission and power of the Jesus whose sayings
are to be given. Although Sec. i retains the char
acteristics of John the Baptist, its primary interest
is in his recognition of Jesus as the Messiah. This
recognition is confirmed by the voice from heaven,
an account of which must have followed, and also
by his conquest of Satan in the temptation scene.
142 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
The intent of the whole is to present Jesus as the
Messiah, the divinely authorized teacher. His
wonderful works can then be assumed. It is con
sistent with this that he is called Son of Man
from the beginning.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. Jiilicher1
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 source1 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
correct.
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
reconstruction.
We have shown that one does not need to add
anything to the common material to make it a unit.
This is a strong presumption in itself against finding
extensive omissions on the part of Matthew or
Luke which ought to be added to the source Q.
But before discussing the relation of Q to this
independent material of Matthew and Luke in
detail, there are certain other general considera
tions, favoring the practical completeness of what
these evangelists give in common, which should be
mentioned. From the start it ought to be remem
bered that in just so far as we expand the limits of
this source we increase the difficulty of accounting
for its becoming lost as an independent document.
And again the great respect which both evangelists
show for it is against any considerable omissions.
The temptation to so many investigators in this
field has been to include in Q more or less of the
rich material peculiar to Luke, but it is just in this
direction that one needs to be on one's guard.
Matthew omits almost nothing from Mark.
Would he make such extended omissions from
Unity of Common Material 155
that source which, it is possible at least, gave his
Gospel its name ? It is true that while Luke seems
to have shown a higher regard for Q than for
Mark, the reverse seems to be the case in respect
to Matthew. Nevertheless, the First Gospel has
preserved Q very faithfully; this is assured by the
close literary relationship between Matthew and
Luke in all of this material — much closer than
in what they both give from Mark. Another im
portant consideration is that the common material
is, as we have tried to show, self-consistent and
complete in itself. One needs to add nothing
from either Gospel to make it a unit.
The only serious argument against this which
has been presented is that Q includes narratives,
that it presupposes a knowledge of the works of
Jesus, that it has a historical introduction. It
must therefore have been a Gospel rather than a
collection of sayings, it is held. All recognize that
Q contains narratives, but in every case the narra
tive is subordinated to the teaching. Jesus did
not preach a series of sermons which needed only
to be collected into a book. The narrative and
circumstantial character that clings to some of this
156 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
material is not an evidence of a dramatic historical
purpose, but only of its primitive character. Some
of the soil still clings to these sayings, showing
whence they were dug. If the opposing argument
is to have any force it ought to be shown that the
narrative material is secondary to the sayings.
But there is only one section in which this possi
bility has been cogently suggested, and that is in
Sec. 4; and yet if it could be proved in this one
case, the great importance attached to the saying
here might account for the exception. In truth,
however, the grounds for regarding this narrative
as a later addition are inconclusive; it furnishes
strong indications of its primitive character.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° and 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
later.
Unity of Common Material 159
ence to 10:4, but it must be remembered that, if in
Luke's source terms different from what Luke had
himself previously used had really stood, that evan
gelist would have been constrained to conform them
to 9 : 3 or 10 : 4. No theories can be built upon this
likeness. Surely the general character of this in
dependent Passion material of Luke is much more
closely related to the narratives peculiar to Luke
that have preceded than to the common material
of Q. Such historical notes as 8:2, 3; 13:31-33
seem closely akin.
It is this lack of any positive foundation which
outweighs any expectation one might have that
such an account would follow in Q. The evidence
of the Gospels themselves opposes it. When also
we examine this expectation itself we see that it
rests upon slight foundations. Q was not written
for missionary purposes. Knowledge of the general
outline of Jesus' life was taken for granted. It was
written for the benefit of the early Christian com
munity, furnishing them a collection of the teach
ings of Jesus with their special problems and
difficulties in mind. While from this standpoint a
historical introduction was not necessary, still it was
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.
CHAPTER V
RELATION OF THE COMMON SOURCE TO THE
INDEPENDENT MATERIAL OF LUKE
What did Luke retain from Q which Matthew
omits? In discussing Sec. i we have already
seen that 3:10-160 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
162
The Common Source and Luke 163
Matthew cannot have known. There is not the
slightest reason for assigning any part of 4:i6ff.
to Q. In this passage there is an interest in the
widow and the outcast, 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
separate.
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 Lukan1 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
significant.
In 13 : 1-9 Luke has a call to repentance based on
two Jerusalem disasters and a parable of a Fig
Tree, teaching how short an interval for repentance
is left. In the context from Q in which these
stand they are most fitting. Luke 12:54-58 is
likewise a call to repentance; the same earnest,
almost passionate, tone is continued here. The
passage is unusually free from Lukan literary
changes. It is strikingly Semitic in language, and,
what is more important, several of these Semiti-
cisms relate it to Q. 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 is another passage found only in
Luke. J. Weiss has argued that Luke could not
have inserted it here. It is so entirely out of place,
he says, that unless Luke found it already in this
context he would certainly have placed it some
where else. But someone did place it here, and it
is surely easier to attribute the insertion to one who
did not have the original author's sequence of
thought in mind than to that author himself. No
such inharmonious insertion is found anywhere
in the material which both Matthew and Luke con
tain. Narratives are found in Q but the emphasis
is upon the teaching; in this narrative the teach
ing is secondary and is not akin to anything we
172 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
have in the common material. Luke, we have
already seen, has broken up the topical sequence
here and converted it into a chronological one.
Who would be more likely to introduce such a
narrative as this ? Moreover, the incident in this
connection has its justification to Luke because
of what Jesus replies to Herod in 13:32, another
passage found only in Luke.
Luke 13:31-33, to which attention has just been
called, is probably also an addition of the evangelist.
It converts the merely topical relation of 13:30 to
13:34 into a historical one. This insertion is very
helpful in showing the purpose and method of
Luke's additions. We are also reminded that Luke
is the evangelist who seems particularly interested
in Herod and best informed concerning him.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. Jiilicher1 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
southward.
In 18:1-14 are two parables inserted by Luke.
The purpose of their insertion here is to show
the great need of prayer and faith to hasten the
time of the Parousia. The second parable surely
had no such significance originally, and neither
did the first if we regard vss. 1-5 as giving its primi
tive form. The emphasis in vss. 6-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
toQ.
In conclusion, we now have found good reason
for assigning 10:17-20; 11:5-8; 13:1-9; 14:28-35
to Q. To this list three other passages might be
added as possibly belonging to Q, 12:35-38; 15:8-
10; 17:7-10. Minor additions of Luke con
sidered in the detailed discussions of pp. 19-119
are as follows: a few additions in Luke 6:275.;
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
supposed.
CHAPTER VI
RELATION OF THE COMMON SOURCE TO THE
INDEPENDENT MATERIAL OF MATTHEW
In our previous study of Matthew and his
methods we saw that he has either woven all of
his non-Markan material into the narrative of
Mark or attached it to one of his great discourses.
His method necessitated the frequent transference
of sayings from their original sequence. This has
made the problem of sources in Matthew much
more difficult. When we have not the 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 Hawkins1
says of chaps, i and 2 applies to all of these narra-
1 Hor. Syn., pp. 8, 9.
182
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,
33-371; 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.
CHAPTER VII
RELATION OF THE COMMON SOURCE TO MARK
One other relationship demands consideration.
Bernhard Weiss, followed by his son, Johannes
Weiss, and by B. W. Bacon in a somewhat different
form, argues that Mark was familiar with Q and
dependent upon it. Thus these scholars would
account for coincident variations of Matthew and
Luke in Markan material. On the other hand,
Wellhausen has argued for the dependence of Q
upon Mark, and 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.
189
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 historical2 than that of
Mark.
A more forceful argument for some relationship
between Mark and Q can be found in the fact
that both take up these same topics in the same
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 Harnack1 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
Pharisees.
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 and Mark 4:22, but here the differ
ence in form is marked. Another point of contact
here is found in Luke 12:8, 9 = Mark 8:380, and
yet how different they are! The likeness between
Luke 12:11, 12 and Mark 13:11 is closer.
Julicher2 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. Harnack1 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. Weiss1 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.
CHAPTER VIII
THE APOSTOLIC ORIGIN OF THE COMMON
SOURCE
Can the source Q have come from one of the
twelve disciples ? Is there anything in this pres
entation of the person of Jesus or of his teaching
which makes it historically impossible to assign it
to such an author? As we have reconstructed
this source, in content it is not essentially different
from that which is presented by Harnack, and with
the estimate1 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.
208
Apostolic Origin of Common Source 209
can be observed. The author is very conserva
tive in his treatment of this body of tradition.
The conception of the person of Jesus here is the
same which we find in the speech of Peter, Acts 2 :
14-36. The great questions which we associate
with Paul are not raised. Jesus is the Messiah.
The author prefaces a historical introduction to
make this clear. Jesus is more than a prophet;
John was the last of the prophets. As the Messiah,
the Son, Jesus has brought the disciples a new
revelation of God. Jesus is presented as the Mes
siah already in his earthly life, but his Kingship in
its power and glory is to be revealed hereafter.
Just so the kingdom is a hidden force now, to be
seen in its glory later.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 interrogations2
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
Israelite.
Great stress is laid in Q upon the severe demands
Jesus makes of his disciples. They are to be perse
cuted and tried; they are warned not to be afraid
of those who can only kill the body. Home ties are
to be broken; they must bear the cross of Christ.
Everyone must count the cost. Over against these
things it is not an earthly but a heavenly hope
which is offered. Possibly the emphasis here may
be due to conditions in the time of the author,
but the supporting testimony of Mark shows
that these teachings had a large place in the life
of Jesus.
If this is a fair presentation of the position taken
by the source Q, does it not support the claim of a
212 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
primitive, apostolic origin for this source ? Har-
nack is very careful in his statement; he says:
There is a strong balance of probability that Q is a work
of St. Matthew; but more cannot be said. It is useless to
discuss the historical and psychological question whether
one of the Twelve could have composed such a compilation as
Q; convincing reasons for or against cannot be discovered.
From the so-called charge to the Apostles we can only con
clude that behind the written record there stands the mem
ory of an apostolic listener.
This much, at least, must be granted.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 churchr
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."
CHAPTER IX
MATTHEW'S SAYINGS OF JESUS AS
RECONSTRUCTED
In any such reconstruction of a source as has
been attempted in this thesis, much must be left
doubtful. We can never hope to restore the exact
wording of Matthew's Sayings of Jesus. Certain
passages of Matthew and Luke may or may not
have belonged to this source. Detailed results are
here presented merely as a basis for future discus
sion. By having the material before him as a
unit the reader will be better able to judge the
cogency of many of the arguments which have
been urged.
SECTION I
Matt. 3:7-10; Luke 3:7-9. — (John said to the
multitudes who came out to be baptized of him),
You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee
from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore
fruit worthy of repentance, and do not attempt1
to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for
1 Greek, HpfrffOe.
217
2i8 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
our father, for I say to you that God can of these
stones raise up children to Abraham. Even now
the axe is laid at the root of the trees; every tree,
therefore, which does not bear fruit is hewn down
and cast into the fire.
Matt. 3:11, 12; Luke 3:166, 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
SECTION 2
Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13. — (Jesus was led
up into the wilderness by the spirit to be tempted
by the devil); and he ate nothing forty days and
forty nights, and when they were completed he
hungered. The devil said to him, If thou art the
Son of God, command that this stone become
bread. He answered and said, It is written,
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.
SECTION 3
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
context.
222 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
beareth corrupt fruit, nor again a corrupt tree
that beareth good fruit. For each tree is known by
its own fruit. For of thorns they do not gather
figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
The good man out of the good treasure of his heart
bringeth forth that which is good, and the evil man
out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is
evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the
mouth speaketh.
Why do ye call me, Lord, Lord, and do not the
things which I say? Everyone who heareth my
words and doeth them, I will show you whom he is
like. He is like a man who built his house upon
the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods
came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house;
and it fell not, for it had been founded upon the
rock. And everyone who heareth these my words
and doeth them not is like a man who built his
house upon the sand. And the rain descended,
and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat
upon that house; and it fell, and great was the
fall thereof.
And it came to pass, when he finished his words,
he went to Capernaum.
Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 223
SECTION 4
Matt. 8:5-10, 13; Luke 7:1-10. — A certain
centurion's servant was sick.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 and2 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
SECTION 5
Matt. 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35. — John3 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.
JHarnack 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
SECTION 6
Matt. 8:19-22; Luke 9:57-62. — One came and
said to him: I will follow thee wherever thou goest.
And Jesus said to him, The foxes have holes, and
the birds of the heaven have nests, but the Son
of Man hath not where to lay his head. And he
said to another, Follow me. But he said, Permit
me first to go and bury my father. He said to him,
Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but go
thou and proclaim1 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.)
SECTION 7
Matt. 9:35 — 10:15; Luke 10:2-12. — (Jesus)
said to his disciples, The harvest is plenteous, but
the laborers are few. Pray ye, therefore, the
Lord of the harvest that he send forth laborers
1 Siayyt\\w is probably a Lukan substitute for the more com
mon
* 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 Matthew1 s Sayings of Jesus
SECTION 8
Matt. 11:21-23; 10:16; Luke 10:13-16, 3.—
Woe to thee, Chorazin! Woe to thee, Bethsaida!
for if in Tyre and Sidon the mighty works had been
done, which were done in you, they would have
repented long ago in sack-cloth and ashes. But
it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the
judgment than for you. And thou, Capernaum,
shalt thou be exalted to heaven? to Hades shalt
thou be cast down. He who heareth you heareth
me, and he who rejecteth you rejecteth me, and
he who rejecteth me rejecteth him who sent me.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.
SECTION 9
Luke 10:17-20. — And2 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
Luke.
Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 229
have given you authority to tread on serpents and
scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and
nothing shall in any wise hurt you. But in this
rejoice not, that the spirits are subject to you; but
rejoice rather that your names are written in
heaven.
SECTION 10
Matt. 11:25-27; Luke 10:21-22. — At that
time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, 0
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst
conceal these things from the wise and prudent,
and reveal them to babes. Yea, Father, for so it
was well-pleasing before thee. All things were
delivered to me by my Father, and no one knoweth
the Son except the Father, neither knoweth anyone
the Father except the Son and he to whom the
Son willeth to reveal him.
SECTION II
Matt. 13:16, 17; Luke 10:23, 24. — (And he
said) Blessed are the eyes which see what ye see.
Verily I say to you that many prophets and kings
desired to see what ye see and saw not, and to hear
what ye hear and heard not.
230 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
SECTION 12
Matt. 6:9-12; Luke 11:1-4. — One of his dis
ciples said to him, Lord, teach us to pray, as
John also taught his disciples. And he said to
them, When ye pray, say, Father, hallowed be thy
name; thy Kingdom come; give us this day our
daily bread; and forgive us our debts, as we also
have forgiven our debtors; and lead us not into
temptation.
Luke ii : 5-8. — And he said to them, Who of you
shall have a friend and shall go to him at midnight
and say to him, Friend, lend me three loaves, for a
friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and
I have nothing to set before him. And he from
within shall answer and say, Trouble me not;
the door is now shut, and my children are with
me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee? (Verily)
I say to you, Though he will not rise and give
him because he is his friend, yet because of his
importunity he will arise and give him as many
as he needeth.
Matt. 7:7-11; Luke 11:9-13. — And I say to
you, Ask and it shall be given you; seek and ye
shall find; knock and it shall be opened to you.
Matthew 's Sayings of Jesus 231
For every one who asketh receiveth, and he who
seeketh findeth, and to him who knocketh it shall
be opened. Or what man is there of you, who, if
his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a
stone ? Or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him
a serpent ? If therefore ye who are evil know how
to give good gifts to your children, how much more
shall your heavenly Father give good things to those
who ask him.
SECTION 13
Matt. 12:22-30; Luke 11:14-23. — And he
was casting out a demon, which was dumb.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
scattereth.
SECTION 14
Matt. 12:43-45; Luke 11:24-26. — When the
unclean spirit has come out from the man, he
passeth through waterless places seeking rest and
findeth it not. And he saith, I will return to my
house whence I came out. He cometh and findeth
it swept and garnished. Then he goeth and taketh
with him seven spirits more evil than himself;
and they enter in and dwell there; and the last
state of the man become th worse than the first.
Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 233
SECTION 15
Matt. 12:39-42; Luke 11:29-36. — (And he
said), An evil and adulterous generation seeketh
a sign, and no sign shall be given to it but the sign
of Jonah. For even as Jonah became a sign to the
Ninevites, so shall also the Son of Man be to this
generation. The men of Nineveh shall stand up
in the judgment with this generation and condemn
it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah;
and behold what is greater than Jonah is here.
The queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment
with this generation and condemn it; for she
came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom
of Solomon; and behold what is greater than
Solomon is here.
The lamp of the body is thine eye.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.
SECTION 16
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
enter.
(And he said), Woe to you, for ye build the
sepulchres of the prophets and your fathers killed
them. So ye are witnesses and sharers in the
works of your fathers. For they killed them and
ye' build their sepulchres. Therefore, also, the
Wisdom of God said, I will send them prophets
and wise men and scribes, and some of them they
shall kill and persecute; that the blood of all the
prophets which has been shed upon the earth may
come upon this generation, from the blood of Abel
to the blood of Zachariah, who was slain between
the altar and the sanctuary. Verily I say to you,
it shall be required of this generation.
SECTION 17
Matt. 10:24-33; 12:32; Luke 12:1-12. —
And he said to his disciples, Beware1 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 Man1 confess
before the angels of God. He who denieth me
before men shall be denied before the angels of
God. And whoever saith anything against the
Son of Man, it shall be fogriven him; but against
the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven. And when
they bring you before the synagogues, and the
rulers, and the authorities, be not anxious how or
what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say; for
'Matthew here has "I" for "Son of Man." This may be
original.
Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 237
the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that hour what
ye ought to say.
SECTION 1 8
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.
SECTION 19
Matt. 24:42-51; Luke 12:35-46. — Let your
loins be girded and your lamps be burning; and
be ye yourselves like men waiting for their lord,
when he shall return from the marriage feast;
that, when he cometh and knocketh, they may
immediately open to him. Blessed are those
servants, whom their lord when he cometh shall
find watching. And if he shall come in the second
watch, and if in the third watch, and shall find
them so, blessed are they.
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.
SECTION 20
Matt. 10:34-36; Luke 12:51-53. — I came to
send fire upon the earth, and how I wish that it
were already kindled! I have a baptism to be
baptized with, and how I am straitened until it be
240 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
accomplished ! Think ye that I came to send peace
upon the earth ? I came not to send peace but a
sword. For I came to set a man against his father,
and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-
in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's
foes shall be those of his own household.1
SECTIONS 21 AND 22
Matt. 16:2, 3; 5:25, 26; Luke 12:54-59.—
And he said to the multitudes, When ye see a cloud
rising in the west, straightway ye say, A shower
is coming, and so it cometh to pass. And when ye
see a south wind blowing, ye say, There will be
a scorching heat, and it cometh to pass. Ye
hypocrites, ye 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
SECTION 23
Luke 13 : 1-9. — Certain ones1 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
SECTION 24
Matt. 13:31-33; Luke 13:18-21. — And he said,
What is the Kingdom of God like, and to what
shall I compare it ? It is like a grain of mustard
seed, which a man took and cast into his field;
and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the
heaven lodged in the branches thereof. And
again he said, To what shall I liken the Kingdom
of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took
and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all
leavened.
SECTION 25
Matt. 7:13, 14; Luke 13:23, 24. (And one said
to him. Lord, are they few that are saved ?)' He
said to them, Enter in by the narrow gate: for
broad and wide is the way which leadeth to destruc
tion, and many are they who enter thereby; for
narrow is the gate and straitened the way 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.
SECTION 26
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.
SECTION 27
Matt. 10:37-39; Luke 14:25-35. — He said to
the multitudes,1 Whoever doth not hate2 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
Luke.
244 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
father and mother cannot be my disciple, and who
ever doth not hate1 his son and daughter cannot be
my disciple, and whoever doth not take his cross
and follow after me, cannot be my disciple. Who
of you, wishing to build a tower, doth not first
sit down and count the cost, whether he have where
with to complete it? Lest when he hath laid a
foundation and is unable to finish, all who behold
begin to mock him, saying, This man began to
build and could not finish. Or what king, going
to engage in war with another king, will not first
sit down and take counsel whether he is able with
ten thousand to meet one who cometh against him
with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other
is yet far off, he sendeth an embassy and asketh
conditions of peace. Salt is good, but if even the
salt hath lost its savor, wherewith shall it be
seasoned. It is fit neither for the land nor for
the dunghill; men cast it out.
SECTION 28
Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-10. — And he told
them this parable, saying, What man of you, if he
have a hundred sheep and one of them go astray,
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
astray.
Or what woman, if she have ten pieces of silver,
if she lose one piece, doth not light a lamp, and
sweep the house, and seek diligently until she find
it? And when she findeth it, she calleth her
friends and neighbors, saying, Rejoice with me,
for I have found the piece which I lost.
Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13. — No one can serve
two masters: for either he will hate the one and
love the other; or he will hold to the one and
despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and
Mammon.
Matt, 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
come.
246 Matthew's Sayings of Jesus
Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:17. — It is easier for
heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or
tittle of the law to fall.
Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18. — Everyone who
putteth away his wife maketh her an adulteress,
and whoever shall marry her who is put away com-
mitteth adultery.
Matt. 18:6, 7; Luke 17:1, 2. — It is impossible
but that occasions of stumbling should come, but
woe to him through whom they come. It were
profitable for him that a millstone should be hanged
about his neck, and he should be thrown into the
sea, rather than that he should cause one of these
little ones to stumble.
Matt. 18:15, 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.)
SECTION 29
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
wise1 even as in the days of Lot, they bought
and sold, they planted and builded until that day
when Lot went out of Sodom, and they knew not
until it rained fire and brimstone from heaven
and destroyed them all, so shall it be in the day
when the Son of Man appeareth. There shall be
two men in the field ; the one is taken and the one
is left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill;
one is taken and one is left.
SECTION 30
Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-28. — (And he
said), It is as when a man going into a far country
1 A conjectural restoration of the Q text has here been
attempted, on the basis of the Matthean parallel for the first
comparison.
Matthew's Sayings of Jesus 249
called his own servants, and delivered to them his
goods. And to one he gave five pounds, to another
two, to another one, to each according to his ability.
After a long time the lord of those servants cometh
and maketh a reckoning with them. And he who
received the five pounds came and brought five
other pounds, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst to me
five pounds; behold I have gained five other
pounds. His lord said to him, Well done, good
servant, thou hast been faithful over a few things,
I will set thee over many things; enter thou into
the joy of thy lord. And he also who received the
two pounds came and said, Lord, thou 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.
DATE DUE
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11