stitute for Luke 12:47-48, and perhaps omitted the latter because it seemed to him an anticlimax here and he found no other good place to insert it.

That Matthew might have purposely omitted Luke 12:50 is seen to be probable in the light of his omission of the references to baptism in taking over Mark's report as Matt. 20:22-23.1

As the partial parallel to Luke 12:54-56 in Matt. 16:2-3 is absent from the best manuscripts and other important textual witnesses, it can give us no assurance that this passage was known to the author of that gospel. But its omission had he known it is not difficult to account for, for it would not have been useful to him in the connection in which he has used the material either before or after it, and he might likely have found no other occasion to use it, especially as it is somewhat obscure and its helpfulness to Christians in Matthew's time would seemingly not be very apparent (principle 5).

Luke 12:57 could likewise easily have fallen out in Matthew's transfer of the material that follows to a different context, its shortness and a quality of difficulty (principle 4) perhaps aiding in the result.

Luke 13:10-17 might perhaps have been omitted by Matthew because he already had from Mark as many incidents of this kind as he wished to include, in the two Sabbath incidents from Mark 2:23-3:6 (Matt. 12:1-14) and the healing of the woman twelve years with an issue of blood, Matt. 9:20-22 from Mark 5:25-34.

Matthew might easily have omitted Luke 13:22, as he had its substance from Mark (Matt. 9:35 from Mark 6:6, and Matt. 20:17 from Mark 10:32) and was not using the material to which it is an introduction.

Matthew's possession of the parallel sayings that he uses in 7:13-14 and 22-232 and of the more complete parable of the Ten Virgins, all probably from another source, may well have led him to omit Luke 13: 23-27.

The incident of Luke 13:31-33 hardly lends itself to the upbuilding process of Matthew, besides being opposed to his tendency to accentuate the hostility3 between the Pharisees and Jesus. The saying is rugged and obscure (principles 4 and 5).

Matthew might omit Luke 14:1-6 for the same reason as Luke 13: 10-17. Moreover, as in the incident just noticed the friendly relation

1 Cf. Sharman, op. cit., pp. 44 and 203.

2 See p. 3.

3 See Sharman, op. cit., pp. 9 f.

with a Pharisee indicated in the first verse would hardly attract him. The partial parallels with Matt. 12:10-11 and 22:46a are incidental, and do not demand an immediate common source.

Matthew might have considered that Luke 14:7-10 would not be especially helpful to his readers. For as a rebuke to certain particular people it might have been very effective, but one would have to consider it ironical to get a high spiritual teaching from it, for on the face of it, it is an appeal to prudence for the attaining of worldly glory, the aim which in fact it is rebuking (principle 4). Matthew might well have been satisfied to take the concluding saying (vs. 11) and leave out the rest, especially as he probably found no very fitting place for it.

Matthew might have omitted Luke 14:12-14 as a hard saying, likely, if taken too literally, to cause difficulty (principle 4). A similar motive may be surmised for the omission of the second clause of Luke 6:30 from Matt 5:42, and for the changes from Luke 14:26-27 in Matt. 10:37-38.

In Matthew's embodying of the following material in a long discourse the introduction in Luke 14:25 would drop out if it were in his source, but it may perhaps be questioned whether Matthew would have placed in the charge to the twelve apostles material presented in his source as addressed to "many crowds."

For Luke 14:28-33 Matthew might easily have found no appropriate place, especially as the sayings are hard and for the most part as parables are not susceptible of the softening process apparent in Matthew's form of the verses preceding (principle 4).

Luke 16:1-8 gives a parable in which a shrewd man's dishonest acts are held up as an example for emulation in some way. Its difficulty could thus easily have led Matthew to omit it, it would seem. Vs. 8 especially seems to have been liable to misunderstanding which would make it say that Jesus commended the unrighteous steward (principle 4). Vss. 9-12 seem to be sayings added as interpretative of the parable in various ways. They might have been omitted by Matthew as going with the parable and not especially valuable apart from it, and yet not sufficient to make the parable suitable for his purposes.

On the supposition that Matthew had Luke 16:27-31, he might have omitted it as not readily to be fitted with the rest of the Lazarus parable into his gospel (dealing as it does with a very different subject) and as not well adapted to use apart from it.

Luke 17:5-6a might readily have dropped out through Matthew's separate use of the material before and after it if it were in his source.

It would seem that Matthew might readily have omitted Luke 17: 7-10 according to principle 4 or possibly principle 3. It seems to teach that the disciples, however faithful, can claim no reward and are to look for none. Moreover, the expression Soûλo ȧxpeîo, which the apostles (cf. vs. 5) are here told to apply to themselves, meaning goodfor-nothing slaves, seems harsh and hard for them. In the only other use of the latter word in the New Testament Matthew gives the command to cast out the ȧxpeîov dovλov "into the outer darkness," where, he says, "shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth" (25:30). Moreover, there are a number of other passages in Matthew that promise reward to the faithful and punishment to others,' which taken with the one just cited seem to indicate an attitude of mind among a part of the early church to which Matthew belonged, which might easily make this section a source of considerable difficulty as seeming to call on the apostles and the most faithful to assert themselves worthy, not of reward, but of exclusion from the kingdom and of punishment in the age to come.

Luke 17:20-21 would seem to be opposed to Matthew's idea of Jesus' eschatological views, and so might easily have been omitted by him. The same is true of vs. 22, the contradiction here being to the idea of the speedy coming of the Son of man, reflected in Matt. 10:23; 24:34, 42, 44; 25:13, and elsewhere.

Luke 17:37a, b, would easily drop out in any rearrangement of the material, and would be out of place with either of the adjacent sayings as Matthew has placed them.

Matthew had from Mark a closer chronological datum than Luke 17:25 for the events of this section, which he apparently substituted for it in 24:29-36, making this superfluous. The forecast itself of the suffering and rejection of the Son of man Matthew had from Mark 8:31, and in strikingly similar language (Matt. 16:21) (principle 1).

Luke 17:28-29 may have been omitted by Matthew on principle 1, as adding nothing material to vss. 26-27. Vs. 32 might easily have dropped out in Matthew's separation of the material, as he omitted the preceding reference to Sodom, took the parallel to vs. 31 from Mark and continued to follow him for some space after, and put vs. 33 into another discourse, where vs. 32 would not have fitted with it.

On principles 5 and 4 it would seem that Matthew might easily have omitted the parable part of Luke 18: 1-8, which presents a bad man, "fearing not God and regarding not man," and his unjust action as indicating what God may be expected to do. Then the form of the part 13:40-43, 49-50.

I Note Matt. 24:45-51; 22:11-14; 8:11-12;

after the parable is largely dependent on the parable, and would render the sayings unintelligible apart from it. Thus the whole might rather easily have been omitted by Matthew.

Possibly Matthew might have omitted Luke 19:1-10, thinking that difficulty might be caused by Jesus' declaring that salvation had come to this house without any express declaration of faith in him on the part of Zacchaeus. If he had wished to include it, it would seem that he could well have done so between 20:28 and 29, making a geographical connection as Luke has done and according to his principle1 of rearranging incidents from Mark, or between 20:16 and 17, with both logical and geographical connection. The reasons discoverable for Matthew's omission of it do not seem as cogent as with most of the portions from the Perean section that he has omitted.

4. So far as their relation to Matthew's use is concerned there would be little difficulty in considering that all the passages so far noted might have stood in a document used by Matthew. But there remains a fourth group, of portions concerning which it seems on the whole probable that, if Matthew had had them, he would have used them.

The first of these is Luke 10:30-37, the parable of the Good Samaritan. That Matthew was jealous of the reputation of the priest and Levite seems improbable in view of his peculiarly strong presentation of the part of the high priests in the plot against Jesus (26:3, 57 ff., and chap. 27, especially vss. 3-10). If Matthew had for any reason disliked the giving of honor to a Samaritan, that word could simply have been omitted, with little impairment of the strong teaching of the parable. But just as it stands the parable is in line with Matthew's teaching of the rejection of the Jewish leaders and nation (cf. Matt. 21:28-45). And the teaching of this parable seems such as would have fitted well into Matthew's work, e.g., in the Sermon on the Mount, in connection with 5:43-48, and its relation to Matt. 6:1-4 on alms is surely as close as that of Matt. 6:7-15 is to 6:5-6 on prayer. It might also have been included in his series of passages from Luke's Perean section in the latter part of the sermon, 6:19 ff., to the spirit and thought of which it is by no means unakin. Matthew's "Golden Rule," 7:12, finds a striking illustration in it. It is true that no long parables are there included, but there are a number of shorter ones, and Matthew may have had no others that seemed to fit there particularly well. It could, moreover,

I Sharman, op. cit., p. 9: "Within those narrative portions of his documents where chronological or geographical data were absent or were vague, to group those events that were related through having a common geographical center."

MATTHEW'S USE OF PORTIONS IN LUKE'S PEREAN SECTION II

very appropriately have stood after 22:40, where Matthew has omitted Mark 12:32-34a. Its germaneness to Matthew's thought is further confirmed by the use in two places by Matthew alone of the sentence, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," which well expresses the teaching of the parable. On the whole then it seems distinctly improbable that Matthew would have omitted it entirely from his gospel if it had stood in one of his principal or other sources. The fact that Matthew included so many parables (eight at least are found in Matthew alone) would further support this view.

Luke 12:15-21, the parable of the Foolish Rich Man, forcefully emphasizes a truth otherwise presented in material that Matthew used in 6:19-21, 25-33, and that appears in Luke in the immediate context of this parable. It would seem that Matthew as well as Luke might have used it in that connection had it been present in his source, or he might have placed it between Matt. 19:22 and 23. If his document had the order of the material in Luke, this would be the first of the material on this subject to which he would come; and it seems rather probable that he would have used it had he found it there.

While one might argue that the national outlook and anti-Zealot tone discoverable in Luke 12:54-13:9 shows that they must have stood together before the document came into Matthew's hands, and Matthew pretty clearly had 12:58-59, yet on that supposition it is hard to find a good reason for Matthew's omission of 13:1-5. For the strong call to repentance is characteristic of Jesus as well as of John the Baptist according to Matthew (cf 4:17; 3:2, 7-8; 21:41; 22:7; 23:36). The parable of the Barren Fig Tree also, Luke 13:6-9, if it were applied especially to the Jewish nation, would be found in line with the parables used by Matthew in 21:28-22:13, though the indication of another chance being given would perhaps require for it a location earlier in the gospel, which might have been found after 12:38-45. If not so applied, it would teach the need of productiveness in Christians, which is brought out by Matthew in 3:8, 10b, and 7:16-20 under a somewhat similar figure though not in such circumstantial parabolic form. The slight similarity to the incident of the fig tree, 21:18-22, would hardly cause Matthew to omit it.

That Matthew should have interpreted the parables in Luke 15: 8-10 and 11-32, if he had them, as referring to the church and those outside seems improbable if the introduction in vss. 1-3 were then with them as the parable in vss. 4-7 doubtless must have been. Moreover, So Wernle, Synoptische Frage, S. 95.

I