OTHER POSSIBLE SOURCES FOR MATERIAL PECULIAR TO LUKE
Suggestion has been made in connection with a few of the passages considered on pp. 193-206 as to a possible Jerusalem source. Nothing can perhaps be said in support of such a hypothesis, except what is suggested in theanalysis on those pages and lies upon the surface of the passages. Another possible clew to the determination of one of Luke’s sources lies in the material that has to do particularly with women. Compare the raising of the widow’s son and the speech of Jesus referring to the Old Testament widow; the ministering women, Mary and Martha, and the speech of the woman about the mother of Jesus. The writer does not consider this (or the preceding) to be anything more than a suggestion.
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING Q MATERIAL IN THE SINGLE TRADITIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE
The preceding investigations represent the recension of Q used by Matthew as containing about two hundred and sixty-seven verses, or parts of verses. Of these ninety-eight are so closely parallel to Luke as to be marked simply Q. Eighty-nine, paralleled in Luke, but with divergences such as to indicate a different wording in the source that lay before Matthew and Luke and eighty without any parallels in Luke, are assigned to QMt. The recension of Q used by Luke, according to our analysis, contained about two hundred and thirty-eight verses or parts of verses. Of these, ninety-four are closely enough paralleled in Matthew to be assigned simply to Q; eighty-one are paralleled in Matthew, but with such differences as to suggest different wording in the source; and sixty-three are peculiar to Luke.
It is not to be assumed that all of Q is reproduced in either Matthew or Luke. But from the treatment accorded to Mark by Matthew and Luke, respectively, it is to be expected that Matthew would omit less of the Q material that lay before him than would Luke; and this presumption is confirmed by the results obtained.The examination of Luke’s material indicates his command of a larger number of sources aside from Mark and Q than are apparent in Matthew, and this again agrees with Luke’s statement in his preface. Luke’s Gospel is longer than Matthew’s, and approaches the limit apparently convenient in ancient documents.[126]This fact, together with the greater amount of material he wished to incorporate from other sources, would further account for Luke’s greater omissions from his Q. Yet there is nothing to prove that Luke’s Q, as it was certainly different in some of its contents, was not also briefer than Matthew’s.
It is possible to limit Q strictly to the sections of Matthew and Luke in which the correspondences are extremely close, to leave the remainder of their double tradition to unidentified sources, and to make no claims for Q (QMt and QLk) in the single traditions of Matthew and Luke. This indeed is the procedure of most scholars. But it has the disadvantages of ignoring much material in the single traditions which is extremely similar to the Q material and often stands, in one or both Gospels, in closest connection with it, and of leaving without explanation the material which is nearly enough alike to require some common basis but not near enough alike to indicate the use of the same recension of the same document. The assumption of QMt and QLk, going back to two different translations, from different copies of the Aramaic original, and undergoing the process of alteration and accretion in different surroundings before falling into the hands of Matthew and Luke, best accounts for the agreements, the divergences, and the peculiar but strongly similar material.
Thus far we may claim that the facts of two hundred and sixty-seven verses in one source against two hundred and thirty-eight in the other, ninety-eight in one extremely close in wording (with many verses absolutely identical) to ninety-four in the other, and eighty verses in one against sixty-three in the other, unduplicated, but strongly suggesting by form and content their relationship with the rest, do not throw any discredit upon the assumption of two recensions (translations) of one document, but are what would be expected. If the date for the original Q is to be set as early as the year 60, or even earlier, and its use by Matthew and Luke be put as late as 85 to 95, the divergences between Matthew’s and Luke’s recensions will be further justified.
REVIEW OF Q MATERIAL IN MATTHEW, LUKE, AND MARK
The accompanying tables of contents of Q material in Matthew, Luke, and Mark are prepared to facilitate comparison between the evangelists as to the amount and character of their Q material. They will help to determine whetherQMtandQLkhave enough in common, and of such a sort, as to entitle them still to be regarded as recensions of the same original. They will also help us toward a determination of the original order of Q. The division into sections is a somewhat arbitrary one, but has been made as nearly equal in Matthew and Luke as possible. Title and number are given to each section in each Gospel, to make the comparative study of contents and order more easy. Some slight differences may occasionally be detected between the assignments as they are made here, and as they were made in the examinations of the double and single traditions. These will be chiefly due to the necessity of taking the material here in sections instead of in detached verses and will not affect the results heretofore obtained.
CONSIDERATIONS FAVORING ANALYSIS OF Q INTOQMtANDQLk
In the subjoined tables of Q material in Matthew and in Luke the duplicated material is starred. The sections which are identical (or in a few cases not absolutely but practically so), or in which the deviations are so slight as easily to be ascribed to the editorial work of Matthewor Luke, are marked Q. The sections unduplicated, or duplicated but with deviations too great to be assigned to Matthew or Luke working upon a similarly worded text, are marked QMt or QLk.
TABLE IVContents of Q Material in Matthew
* The asterisk indicates Q material in Matthew duplicated in Luke.
TABLE VContents of Q Material in Luke
* The asterisk indicates Q material in Luke duplicated in Matthew.
As to the generally homogeneous character of the sections marked Q, there will be no dispute. Since theseare restricted to the passages showing the very closest parallelism, there can be no question about the propriety of assigning them to Q. The only question will be as to the assignment of any unduplicated material to any form of Q, and the assignment of the duplicated but not closely paralleled sections to QMt and QLk instead of simply to Q. Reasons have been given[127]for such assignments in each case. But a few sections may be taken as again illustrating the advantages of the QMt-QLk hypothesis.
PASSAGES CLOSELY SIMILAR, YET WITH DIVERGENCES TOO GREAT TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR UPON THE HYPOTHESIS OF AN UNDIFFERENTIATED Q
Sections 42 in Matthew and 16 in Luke contain the saying about the house on the rock and the sand (with and without foundations). These sections are universally ascribed to Q, both from their general similarity and from their position in each Gospel as the conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount (Plain). But the wording is very dissimilar. Only those words are alike which must necessarily be so if two men were using the same subject as an illustration; and this is true, not only of the wording, but of the thought. Those who assign the passage simply to Q are compelled to suppose that, Matthew representing the original text, Luke has observed that the correct antithesis is not between a house built on a rock and a house built on the sand, but between one built with a foundation and one built without one. So he says nothing about the soil, whether rock or sand, but says that in one case the man built upon the surface, and that in the other he digged deep and laid a good foundation. The amount of re-working, reinterpreting, andre-writing thus required of Luke is wholly unjustified by any treatment he has accorded to any of the sayings of Jesus in Mark. It is presumable that he exercised his editorial function on his recension of Q as he did upon the sayings-material in Mark. But it is much more natural to suppose that the story that lay before him in his source lay before him in a form considerably different from that which it had in Matthew’s source. The assumption of the two recensions therefore has the advantage of preserving the section for Q, without the disadvantage of ascribing to Luke a wholly unwarrantable amount of re-working.
Sections 4-11 in Matthew and 4-6 in Luke contain their different versions of the beatitudes. Those who assign indiscriminately to Q all the verses contained in these sections have to assume that Luke omitted five of the beatitudes. No reason can be assigned for his doing so, and it is wholly improbable that he would have deliberately mutilated a passage so liturgically complete and impressive. The five omitted beatitudes are additions to the teachings of Jesus, manufactured on the basis of Old Testament exemplars. But if anything stood in Q, these five beatitudes stood there, only not in Luke’s recension, but in Matthew’s.
WITH MATTHEW’S Q BEFORE HIM, LUKE WOULD NOT HAVE OMITTED SO MUCH OF IT
Those who argue for Luke’s omission of so much Q material which (according to their assumption) stood before him, allege as a precedent his omission of so much Marcan material, especially of the continuous section Mk vi, 45-viii, 21. It is held by many students that the copy of Mark used by Luke did not contain thissection.[128]The writer does not see the necessity for this assumption as there are obvious reasons for Luke’s omission of the section if it stood in his copy of Mark. It contains the doublet of the feeding of the four thousand. Luke avoids doublets as far as possible. It contains the story of the walking on the sea, a story similar in many respects to that of the storm at sea which Luke had already taken from Mark. The dispute about hand-washing and the things that defile would have no interest for Luke or his gentile readers. The story of the Canaanitish woman and her difficulties in securing help from Jesus, and the methods of healing the dumb man, would offend Luke’s non-Jewish sympathies and his artistic sense. The discussion about leaven he would omit because he had a partial parallel from another source. In this whole section which Luke omits from Mark there are very few sayings of Jesus, and those of a character not to please or interest Luke. The omission of such a section, or of anything else that Luke omits from Mark, offers no precedent for the omissions he is alleged to have made from Q.
In the preceding table of contents for Q material in Matthew (pp. 222-23), there are twenty-nine sections for which Luke has no parallel. Five of these, the omitted beatitudes, have already been discussed. Of the remaining twenty-four there are a few which, it may be admitted, Luke might not have cared to include, even if they were in his Q. Such are the sections on oaths, on fasting, on the blamelessness of the priests, and on the Pharisee instructed in the kingdom of God—all of a strongly Jewish character. To these may be addedfour other brief sections, all from Matthew’s discourse against the Pharisees; especially, the reference to phylacteries, which would have no meaning for Luke’s readers, and the injunction not to be called “Rabbi.” The saying, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs [heathen] nor cast your pearls before swine [unbelievers],” he would hardly have taken if it had stood in his source. But there are other sections which would particularly have delighted him, and which it is almost inconceivable that he should have read and omitted. Such are the sections on alms-giving (a favorite subject with Luke; see Lk xi, 41; xii, 33); on prayer (a subject which he mentions eighteen times against Matthew’s ten, outside of this passage); the three little parables of the Treasure Hid in the Field, the Pearls, and the Fish-Net, and the beautiful saying, so fitted to Luke’s universalistic purpose, “Come unto me.”
Much less can any reason be assigned for Matthew’s omission of the sixteen unduplicated sayings ascribed to QLk.[129]Matthew almost invariably shortens Mark’s narratives, and sometimes omits a narrative section, but practically never omits a saying of Jesus given in Mark. The case of the third would-be follower of Jesus, with the particularly fine saying, “No man having put his hand to the plow”; the little parables of the Man Building a Tower and the King Going to War; the sayings, “I came to cast fire upon the earth,” “I have a baptism to be baptized with,” “Fear not, little flock,” would attract Matthew as much as they did Luke, and with Matthew’s almost slavish adherence to Mark in all Mark’s sayings-material, no reason can be given for his omission of them.
If it be asked why these unduplicated sections, which have been assigned to QMt and QLk, are not assigned simply to special and undetermined sources, the answer is that all these sections stand more or less closely connected with Q material, they are strongly similar to the other Q matter in form and idea, and equally different in form and feeling from the passages assigned to special sources. They consist, in both Matthew and Luke, of short parables of the undoubted Q type (cf. the Treasure Hid in the Field, the Pearls, the Fish-Net, the Unjust Judge) and of short sayings; whereas the special source or sources (whether of Matthew or Luke) consist of narratives (the opening chapters of both Gospels, the Peter-sections in Matthew, the death of Judas in Matthew, Jesus before Herod in Luke, the watch at the grave in Matthew, the Emmaus incident in Luke, and the peculiar matter of both Matthew and Luke in their accounts of the days in Jerusalem) and of story-parables like the Prodigal Son, the Lost Coin, the Good Samaritan, the Entrusted Money. These similarities in the material assigned to a special source or sources are not enough to prove the unity of that source for either Matthew or Luke, and are not so intended; but they are enough to distinguish the material so assigned from that assigned to QMt and QLk, and to establish the comparative homogeneity of this latter material in each case.
THE “SECONDARY TRAITS” ARE IN QMt AND QLk, NOT IN Q
The distinction between Q and QMt and QLk is further justified by the consideration of secondary traits. QMt and QLk represent deviations from, or additions to, an original Q. Since these deviations and additions would go back to a very early time, and even when comparativelylate might embody an early tradition, the presence of primary traits in QMt and QLk need not surprise us.[130]Since Q cannot be proved to be earlier than 60-65, it may also easily contain secondary traits. But since QMt and QLk are in general later than Q, and presumably represent a later tradition, we should naturally expect to find in them a larger number of secondary characteristics.
In the material assigned to Q in Tables IV and V[131]the writer believes that not many unmistakably secondary traits appear. The messianic announcement of the Baptist is certainly primary as compared with Mark predicting Jesus as the fire-judge, contrary to the facts of his life. The temptation in Q is also primary as compared with Mark, with the exception of the conversation between Jesus and John in Matthew, which is obviously secondary and belongs to QMt. Of the sayings, only a few have a secondary sound. Such are especially those connected with the instructions to the twelve, which seem to embody some of the experiences, or bespeak some of the needs, of the early Christian itinerant preachers: “The laborer is worthy of his hire [or his keep]”; “I send you forth as sheep among wolves”; “The disciple is not above his master”; “The law and the prophets prophesied until John”; perhaps also Matthew’s long beatitude, “Blessed are ye when men persecute you,” etc.
But by far the most of the secondary traits, and the most unmistakable of them, are found in the additions to and deviations from the Q traditionin QMt and QLk. Such are the additional beatitudes supplied by Matthew’s Q and made up of Old Testament quotations; the insertioninto the temptation story, in QMt, of the protest of John the Baptist and the answer of Jesus; the warning against false prophets in Matthew; the speech about those who say “Lord, Lord”; the prediction of division among relatives (seemingly answering the condition in which the early church found itself); the many coming from the east and the west (written in the days of the expanding church); the sign of Jonah interpreted (in Matthew) as referring to the resurrection; the parable of the Fish-Net with its eschatological interpretation; the saying about the twelve apostles on twelve thrones; and the various sections interpolated, apparently from QMt and QLk, into Mark’s apocalypse.
Closer analysis of particular sections tends to corroborate this impression of secondary traits as coming not from Q but from the recensions. For example, the sayings about the light and the bushel and about the salt that had lost its savor appear to have stood in Q. But from his own recension of Q, Matthew prefixed to the saying what Luke did not find in his recension, “Ye are the light of the world,” “Ye are the salt of the earth,” two sayings which seem to reflect the exalted estimate of the apostles in the sub-apostolic age. The Lord’s Prayer probably stood in the original Q much as it is in Luke; Matthew’s amplifications, found in his source, have the liturgical and ecclesiastical coloring that betray the later time.
So, further, Luke’s parable of the Unjust Judge, with its generally Q sound, but with its pathetic question appended (from Luke’s recension), “Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find the faith on the earth?” bespeaks the times of persecution when the survival of the new faith looked problematical. Matthew’s “Cast not your pearls before swine,” “The Pharisee instructedin the kingdom of heaven,” “The scribes and Pharisees in Moses’ seat,” all from QMt, and Luke’s “Rejoice that your names are written in heaven,” his saying about discerning the signs of the time (of the parousia), his “kingdom cometh not with observation,” and his twice repeated injunction to watchfulness, all from QLk, certainly have a secondary sound. The presence of so many secondary traits in QMt and QLk does not prove that the passages so assigned might not be assigned to S or some other special or undefined source; but many if not all of them being passages ordinarily assigned simply to Q, the large number of secondary traits in them does tend to substantiate, in an unlooked-for manner, the assumption of the two recensions.
DID MARK ALSO USE Q?
In the introduction to hisBeginnings of Gospel History, Bacon remarks that the “dependence of Mark upon Q can be demonstrated.” Wellhausen says that “independence [between Mark and Q] is not to be thot of.” Streeter, inOxford Studies, has made the most recent and thoro study of the relation of Mark and Q, and some of his results have already been utilized and acknowledged. Even Dr. Sanday, in the introduction toOxford Studies, confesses himself an unwilling convert to the theory that Mark was acquainted with, and made some use of, Q. Wellhausen alone, so far as I know, maintains the apparently untenable position that Q is later than Mark, and that where the two overlap, Q has used Mark instead of Mark using Q. His acceptance of this position is partially explained by the fact that he makes no distinction between the original Q and the recensions of it in the hands of Matthew and Luke; he also allows to Q much material (e.g., the conversation between John and Jesus at the baptism) which other scholars, without the hypothesis of QMt and QLk, ascribe to the hand of Matthew or Luke. Harnack and Wernle maintain the priority of Q to Mark. Wernle concedes some small use of Q by Mark, and Harnack thinks Mark was at least “acquainted with” Q.
The discrimination between QMt and QLk and the original Q makes unnecessary a good deal of the work that has heretofore been done toward determining the primary and secondary traits in Mark and Q respectively.Assuming that Mark used either the original Q, or as near to the original of that document as we can yet get, the recensions used by Matthew and Luke would be perhaps thirty, certainly twenty, years later than that used by Mark. In the fifty or more verses of Mark that appear to have stood also in Q, there is nothing that can be shown to be later than the year 70 (the date generally assigned to Mark). There is nothing to suggest that the author had witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, or the events immediately leading up to it. The presence of the same material in Mark and Q is demonstrated by the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, or by the deviations of the one or the other of them from the Marcan form of a saying, in such way as not to admit of explanation except by the assumption of two sources (Mark and Q) in the hands of Matthew and Luke. In other words, if Mark did use Q, but if he used the same text of it as was used by Matthew and Luke, and if the three followed Q with equal faithfulness, in all such instances Q would fail to appear, since both Matthew and Luke would appear to be following only Mark. It is therefore where there are deviations of either Matthew or Luke from Mark in sections where the other follows Mark closely, or where there are agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in sayings-material, that the presence of Q behind Mark can be detected.
Upon the hypothesis of Q without QMt or QLk, the argument by which the use of Q by Mark, as against the use of Mark by Q, was proven, consisted of picking out the primary and secondary traits in Mark and Q respectively, and of showing that the primary traits were in Q and the secondary in Mark. But this was very difficult to do, so long as, e.g., the Peter incidents peculiar to Matthew, orthe conversation during the baptism, were attributed to Q. For these were indisputably secondary. If the priority of Mark was to be maintained, all such traits had to be removed from Q and assigned to the evangelist or to some special source.
Upon the theory now advocated by the writer, these secondary traits are practically all assigned, not to the original Q, but to QMt or QLk.[132]But if Mark used any form of Q, it was not QMt or QLk, but some much simpler, more primary, and doubtless less extended, form. The presence of secondary traits in QMt and QLk therefore does nothing toward proving the secondary character of Q in its original form, or in such an early form as would have been used by Mark. Since nothing can be found in Q which is either demonstrably or probably later than the date of Mark, the assumption that Mark used Q may be permitted to stand; and with the removal of the secondary traits to the recensions, it does not require the minute analysis which earlier hypotheses made necessary, since there are no longer any indications militating against Mark’s use of Q. What now remains therefore is to determine as nearly as possible what material stood in Mark and Q.
WHAT MATERIAL DID MARK TAKE FROM Q?
In the attempt to determine what material Mark has taken from Q, an effort will also be made to decide whether Matthew and Luke took the same material directly from Q, or indirectly from Q thru Mark. The verses which one or both of them appear to have taken directly from Q (tho these verses stand also in Mark) will be added to the number of verses already attributed to Q (or QMt and QLk). We shall thus have before usthe largest possible sum-total of Q material. The tables of contents already made out for the Q material, as it now stands in Matthew and Luke respectively,[133]will throw further light upon the propriety or impropriety of regarding QMt and QLk as recensions of one original document. The same tables will serve to indicate the probable order of Q, and the investigation now following will then be used to determine what acquaintance, if any, Mark had with Q, and what use, if any, he made of that document.
THE MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE BAPTIST
(Mk i, 7-8)
Matthew and Luke are close to Mark in their wording here, but agree against him in putting his verses in reverse order and in the addition of καὶ πυρὶ. They then each add a verse (Mt iii, 12; Lk iii, 17) which has already been assigned to Q. In each Gospel this verse develops the idea introduced by the καὶ πυρὶ. The order of Matthew and Luke is here necessarily, and apparently originally, different from that of Mark, since the relative clause which begins the additional matter of Matthew and Luke depends upon the order of sentences in these two Gospels and will not fit Mark’s arrangement. In spite therefore of the close agreement of Matthew’s vs. 11 and Luke’s vs. 16 with Mark, these verses must be assigned to Q. In other words, it is probable that here Matthew and Luke are depending directly upon Q, and not merely indirectly upon him thru Mark.
THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
(Mk i, 9-11)
This section is added to Q by many critics, on the ground of its position between the preaching of the Baptist and the temptation of Jesus, both related in Q.The agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark are not, however, frequent or important enough by themselves to suggest this assignment. On the other hand, the addition in Matthew of the conversation between Jesus and John points to a source in that respect different from that of either Mark or Luke. Matthew also represents the voice from heaven as directed to the crowd, and not to Jesus alone, as do Mark and Luke. In both these deviations Matthew has an apparently later tradition, and has preferred to follow his recension of Q. Either Luke’s recension here agreed substantially with Mark’s, or else Luke has followed Mark more closely than Q.
THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS
(Mk i, 12-13)
The very brief account in Mark is followed in Matthew and Luke by nine and eleven verses respectively, which have been already assigned to Q. The question here is whether Matthew and Luke followed Mark in the first two verses of their narratives, and after that forsook him for Q, or whether they followed Q thruout. Matthew and Luke agree in substituting διάβολος for Mark’s σατανᾶς, in the omission of the clause “and was with the wild beasts,” and in placing the temptation in the period of hunger following the forty days’ fast. They apparently followed Q rather than Mark, but each introduced some changes out of deference to the latter. Mark’s account is similar enough to that of Matthew and Luke to be a brief extract from Q.
THE BEELZEBUL CONTROVERSY
(Mk iii, 20-29)
This Marcan section is duplicated in Mt xii, 24-32, and Lk xi, 15-23; xii, 10. Of these Matthean and Lucanaccounts, Mt xii, 26-28, and Lk xi, 18-20, are practically identical, but not paralleled in Mark. In xii, 29, Matthew follows Mk iii, 27, almost word for word. At the same place Luke forsakes Mark and deviates widely, tho agreeing closely with Matthew in the three preceding verses. Matthew’s xii, 30, and Luke’s xi, 23, are again unparalleled in Mark, and are evidently from Q. Matthew’s vs. 31 again goes back to Mark’s vs. 28, but is influenced by his own Q material in the following verses. The derivation of Mark from Q in this passage is rendered doubly sure by the facts that the verses seriously interrupt the connection in Mark, and that the passage here consecutive in Matthew and Mark is separated in Luke. Matthew is a conflation of Mark and Q. Luke is apparently Q thruout. Matthew’s Marcan and Q material being mixed, it is impossible to tell whether Matthew’s Q was here identical with Luke’s or not. Out of this section there should be added to Q the passages Mt xii, 25, and Lk xi, 17, 21.
FIVE DETACHED SAYINGS
(Mk iv, 21-25)
Such detached sayings, unconnected with Mark’s narrative, create at once a presumption of their having been taken from Q. Luke has the first saying (about the lamp) in two places (viii, 16; xi, 33), indicating that he found it both in Mark and Q. He also has a duplicate for the second saying, while the fifth is repeated twice in both Matthew and Luke. Mk iv, 23, is the proverbial saying used twice in both Mark and Luke and three times in Matthew. There is thus only one of Mark’s sayings (iv, 24) which is not given twice by Matthew or Luke or both. An additional indication of the occurrence of these verses in Q, and Mark’s derivation of themfrom that source, is the fact that they are part of a section in Mark which seriously interrupts his narrative, interposing a private conversation of Jesus with his disciples between the teaching in the boat and the storm on the lake. The verses are also given by Matthew in four different chapters, and by Luke in two, and by both in different order from each other and from Mark. All five of these Marcan verses, therefore, and their parallels in Matthew and Luke, should be assigned to Q.
THE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED
(Mk iv, 30-32)
This parable has a strong resemblance to those already assigned to Q. Matthew’s connection is the same as Mark’s; Luke’s is different. Luke agrees with Mark in beginning with a question, tho he omits the second half of the double question in Mark. Matthew follows Mark, or is strongly influenced by him in Mt xiii, 32. Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in the words ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος. According to a suggestion of Wellhausen’s, ἔβαλεν εἰς κῆπον and ἔσπειρεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ may be translation variants. In the conclusion Matthew and Luke agree much more closely with each other than with Mark. Except for the influence of Mark at the beginning, Luke seems to be following Q, while Matthew’s parable is a conflation of Q and Mark. If Mark here rests upon Q, then Matthew is conflating a parable which Mark drew from Q with the same parable as he (Matthew) found it in his recension of Q. Complicated as this may seem, Mark’s parable is too closely similar to Luke’s to have had any but a Q origin. To Q in Luke should be added Lk xiii, 18-19; and to Q in Matthew, Mt xiii, 31-32.
THE SENDING OUT OF THE TWELVE
(Mk vi, 7-11)
This passage is to be compared with Mt x, 1, 7-8, 9-16, and Lk ix, 1-5; x, 1, 3, 4-7, 9-12 (with considerable rearrangement of order in the verses). The Marcan material, as it reappears in both Matthew and Luke, is mixed with much other material from Q. Luke’s addition of a mission of seventy and his division of this Marcan material between that mission and the mission of the twelve add to the confusion. Matthew (x, 14) and Luke (ix, 5) agree in six words against Mark. In the verb ἐκτινάξετε, Matthew (x, 14) follows Mark against Luke. Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in saying μήτε ῥάβδον instead of εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον. In those parts of Matthew’s and Luke’s narratives that are not paralleled in Mark there is probably an oral tradition mingled with the Q material. Mark’s version might be considered an excerpt, rather than a copy, of Q. To Q in Matthew may be added Mt x, 1, 9, 10ab, 14; and to Q in Luke, Lk ix, 1, 3, 5; x, 4, 10.
A SIGN REFUSED
(Mk viii, 12)
On the ground of Matthew’s having doublets for this saying (Mt xii, 39; xvi, 4) and Luke a parallel to it (Lk xi, 29), it may without further consideration be assigned to Q. The agreement of Matthew and Luke, and the agreement of Matthew’s doublets, in adding “Except the sign of Jonah,” may be taken to indicate the difference here between Mark’s Q and the later recensions.
“WHOSOEVER WILL FOLLOW ME”
(Mk viii, 34-35)
Matthew has doublets for this saying in x, 38-39; xvi, 24-25; Luke in ix, 23-24; xiv, 27; xvii, 33. Matthewand Luke copy the Marcan version with unusual fidelity thru about forty words. They agree against him in saying εἴ τις for Mark’s ὅστις, in the substitution of a form (tho not the same form) of the verb ἔρχομαι for ἀκολουθεῖν, and in the employment of a subjunctive in place of an indicative of the verb ἀπόλλυμι. Luke adds the phrase “day by day.” Considering the remarkably close verbal agreement as well as the agreement in order, there can be no doubt that Matthew in xvi, 24-25, and Luke in ix, 23-24, are following Mark; their agreements against him may be explained partly by a desire to correct his style, and partly by assimilation. The resemblances between the other member of the doublet in each case, and the saying as here reported in Mark (i.e., between Mt x, 38-39; Lk xiv, 27; xvii, 33, and Mk viii, 34-35), are sufficiently close to suggest, if not to prove, that Mark’s saying was derived by him from Q. Since these verses have already been assigned to Q in the examination of the double tradition, they yield no new Q material here.
“WHOEVER IS ASHAMED OF ME”
(Mk viii, 38)
Matthew has a parallel of this saying, and Luke has doublets for it (Mt x, 33; Lk ix, 26; xii, 9). The verse may be assigned to Q.
ABOUT OFFENSES
(Mk ix, 42-48)
Matthew here follows Mark rather closely, except that he adds “Woe to the world because of offenses,” and conflates Mark’s two sayings about the hand and the foot into one. Matthew has doublets for Mk ix, 43, 45-47, in Mt v, 29-30, and xviii, 8-9. Luke has avoidedthe doublet, but has a parallel to Mark’s verses in Lk xvii, 1-2. The section may be assigned to Mark and Q.
ABOUT SALT
(Mk ix, 49-50)
The little saying in vs. 49 is unduplicated in either of the other Gospels. If any source be suggested for it, nothing more likely than Q could be suggested. If the saying be assigned to Q, it will be the only Q saying in Mark not taken over by either Matthew or Luke. Luke agrees in xiv, 34, with Mark as against Matthew (v, 13), and with Matthew against Mark in μωρανθῇ, but shows the influence of Mark again in ἀρτυθήσεται. Either Mark follows Q very loosely, perhaps from memory, or Matthew and Luke have a different recension.
ABOUT DIVORCE
(Mk x, 11-12)
Matthew has doublets for this saying (Mt v, 32; xix, 9). In the latter occurrence of the saying in Matthew, the connection is the same as that of Mark’s. It is omitted in that instance by Luke, presumably because it is part of a controversy with the Pharisees. But doubt is thrown upon the presence of the saying in Q by the fact that it occurs twice in Mark also, and may have been taken from him by Matthew in both instances.
THE FIRST WHO SHALL BE LAST
(Mk x, 31)
This saying is paralleled in Luke (xiii, 30) and has doublets in Matthew (xix, 30; xx, 16). It apparently stood in both Mark and Q.
TRUE GREATNESS
(Mk x, 43-44)
There are doublets for this saying in Mt xx, 26-27, and xxiii, 11, and in Lk xxii, 26; ix, 48. It probably stood in both Mark and Q, but this again cannot be proved, since Mark also has the saying twice (ix, 35).
ABOUT FAITH
(Mk xi, 23)
There is a parallel for this saying in Lk xvii, 6, and there are doublets for it in Mt xvii, 20, and xxi, 21. It stood in Mark and Q.
AGAINST THE PHARISEES
(Mk xii, 38-40)
This section is listed by Mr. Streeter as from Q, because it “looks like a reminiscence from a long denunciation in Q.” This is probably correct, but the doublets to establish it are lacking.
THE HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKING IN THE DISCIPLES
(Mk xiii, 11)
This saying is paralleled in Mt x, 19, and has doublets in Lk xii, 11-12, and xxi, 14-15.
OTHER MARCAN PASSAGES CONSIDERED, BUT REJECTED
In addition to the passages assigned to Q in the preceding investigation, several are suggested by Streeter and Wernle. Streeter suggests Mk xiii, 15-16; but the doublets in Luke are apparently taken in both instances from Mark. Streeter thinks that xiii, 28-32, “has agenuine sound”; but there is nothing more specific to prove its presence in Q. Streeter’s suggestion that Mk i, 2-3, is from Q seems unjustifiable. Vs. 3 is an Old Testament quotation which Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have in common. If it stood originally in Mark and is not to be regarded as a later addition, there is no occasion for the assumption of Q. Vs. 2 could hardly have stood in its present place when Matthew and Luke used Mark. It occurs in another connection in Matthew and Luke (Mt xi, 10; Lk vii, 27), and was probably copied from there into its present place by a later hand.
Wernle’s additions to the above Q material in Mark do not seem to be justified. Some of them, e.g., Mk xi, 14, rest upon making doublets (in this case Mt xxi, 19, and vii, 7-8) where the wording is not close enough to warrant them. Others rest upon the general character of the sayings. The latter is a tempting criterion, and in Matthew and Luke, who demonstrably make such extensive use of Q, it is more justifiable and has been used to some extent in the preceding analyses. But in Mark, where Q is so sparingly and loosely used, it cannot be safely employed aside from other indications, especially the occurrence of doublets.
The writer believes that the matter listed in the above tabulation is about all that can at present safely be assigned to Q in Mark. It yields us, as new Q material in Matthew, sixteen verses, and as new Q material in Luke, seventeen. This would bring the totals for Q material in Matthew and Luke up to two hundred and eighty-three in Matthew and to two hundred and fifty-five in Luke.[134]The number of verses in Mark which can be traced to Q are about fifty. All but sixteen of theseverses in Matthew and all but seventeen in Luke had already been assigned to Q. Only one stands in Mark alone.
TABLE VIContents for Q Material in Mark